1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: \documentstyle[aps]{revtex}
3: %----------------------------------------------------------------
4: \begin{document}
5: \draft
6: \title{
7: Superconductor-Metal-Insulator Crossover
8: in Disordered Thin Films
9: \footnote{This paper has been submitted to
10: the Short Note section of J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.}
11: }
12: \author{
13: O. Narikiyo
14: }
15: \address{
16: Department of Physics,
17: Kyushu University,
18: Fukuoka 810-8560,
19: Japan
20: }
21:
22: \vskip 10pt
23:
24: \date{
25: Oct. 4, 2005
26: }
27:
28: \vskip 10pt
29:
30: \maketitle
31: %----------------------------------------------------------------
32: \begin{abstract}
33: Superconductor-Metal-Insulator crossover
34: in disordered thin films
35: is discussed on the basis of a random
36: junction-network model.
37: \vskip 10pt
38: \noindent
39: Key Words: {\bf superconductor-metal-insulator crossover,
40: disordered thin films, random resister network,
41: Josephson junction network}
42: \end{abstract}
43: %----------------------------------------------------------------
44: \vskip 30pt
45:
46:
47: The superconductor-insulator (S-I) transition in thin films
48: is one of the typical phenomena of quantum phase transition.~\cite{RMP}
49: Recently a metallic phase
50: intervening between superconducting and insulating phases
51: has been drawing attention.~\cite{PD}
52: Although several theories~\cite{PD}
53: modifying the idealized theory~\cite{RMP} for the S-I transition
54: have been proposed,
55: present understanding of the metallic phase
56: is far from conclusive.
57: In this Short Note we also propose a simple phenomenological model
58: and try to understand the temperature dependence of the resistance
59: from which we judge the phase at zero temperature,
60: superconductor (S) or metal (M) or insulator (I).
61:
62: Our phenomenological model is a combination of two models.
63: One is the random Josephson-junction-network model~\cite{Dynes}
64: for disordered superconductors
65: and the other is the random resister-network model~\cite{Meir}
66: for disordered metals or insulators.
67: We consider a network
68: consisting of superconducting islands
69: linked by two types of junctions, J (Josephson) and N (normal).
70: At the type-J junction
71: the current is carried by Cooper pairs,
72: while at the type-N junction
73: by normal electrons.
74: The type-N junction in our model is expected
75: for the case where the distance between islands is so large
76: that the Cooper pairs are broken in the junction.
77: In real materials
78: the type-N junction is also expected
79: for the case where the size of the island is so small
80: that the Cooper pairs are not formed there.
81: In our model
82: only the resistance caused by the junctions
83: is taken into account
84: and the resistance drop
85: at around the superconducting transition temperature $T_{\rm c}$
86: of the islands is neglected.
87: In the following we set $\hbar = k_{\rm B} = 1$.
88:
89: At a type-J junction~\cite{Dynes}
90: the resistance $R(T)$ as a function of the temperature $T$
91: is assumed to be given by the Ambegaokar-Halperin formula
92: \begin{equation}
93: R(T) = R_{\rm N} / [ I_0(E_{\rm J}(T)/T) ]^2,
94: \end{equation}
95: where $I_0(x)$ is the modified Bessel function of order $0$.
96: The Josephson-coupling energy $E_{\rm J}(T)$
97: is given by the Ambegaokar-Baratoff form
98: \begin{equation}
99: E_{\rm J}(T) = {1 \over 4} {R_0 \over R_{\rm N}}
100: \Delta(T) \tanh{\Delta(T) \over 2T},
101: \end{equation}
102: where $R_0$ is the quantum unit of the resistance,
103: $R_0 = \pi / e^2$,
104: and $\Delta(T)$ is the BCS gap function.
105: This model is appropriate for relatively thick films
106: where contacts among islands are relatively strong.
107: Since the normal resistance $R_{\rm N}$ between islands
108: saturates at low temperatures
109: and exhibits only weak temperature dependence
110: for such a strong contact,
111: we neglect the temperature dependence of $R_{\rm N}$
112: in accordance with the former study.~\cite{Dynes}
113: In contrast to this good metallic behavior
114: a poor metallic junction disscussed below
115: exhibits some temperature dependence.
116:
117: At a type-N junction~\cite{Meir}
118: the resistance is assumed to be given by the Landauer formula
119: for quantum point contact as
120: \begin{equation}
121: R(T) = R_0 \cdot [ 1 + \exp(E_{\rm c}/T) ],
122: \end{equation}
123: where $E_{\rm c}$ is the threshold energy for the electron transmission
124: measured from the chemical potential.
125: The junction is insulating for $E_{\rm c} > 0$
126: and metallic for $E_{\rm c} <0$.
127: This model is appropriate for relatively thin films
128: where contacts among islands are relatively weak.
129: For such a weak contact
130: the resistance exhibits poor metallic or insulating temperature dependence.
131: In Fig. 1 the temperature dependence of the resistance
132: of a type-N junction is shown for a poor metallic case.
133: While the resistance saturates at low temperatures,
134: it exhibits almost exponential temperature dependence
135: in some temperature range.
136:
137: In the following we consider the circuit
138: consisting of 3 conductors connected in parallel.
139: Each conductor consists of 10 composites
140: of resistors connected in series.
141: Each composite consists of 3 resistors
142: connected in parallel.
143: Each resistor is modeled by
144: either type-J or type-N junction.
145: Although circuits in general cannot be reduced
146: to series-parallel combinations of resistors,
147: we adopt this model, 3-10-3 circuit, for simplicity
148: to discuss qualitative aspects of the resistance of a random network.
149:
150: In Fig. 2
151: the temperature dependence of the resistance
152: for 3-10-3 circuit is shown in the case
153: where every resistor in the circuit is type-J junction.
154: The values of $R_{\rm N}$ for junctions are randomly chosen.
155: The resistance vanishes faster than single exponential function of $T$
156: as $T$ is decreased.
157: This temperature dependence
158: is similar to that obtained in the former study.~\cite{Dynes}
159:
160: In Fig. 3
161: the temperature dependence of the resistance
162: for 3-10-3 circuit is shown in the case
163: where every resistor in the circuit is type-N junction.
164: The values of $E_{\rm c}$ are randomly chosen.
165: A crossover from metallic to insulating behavior is seen
166: as $E_{\rm c}$ is increased.
167: This crossover
168: is similar to that obtained in the former study.~\cite{Meir}
169:
170: In Fig. 4
171: the temperature dependence of the resistance
172: for 3-10-3 circuit is shown in the case
173: where a resistor is either superconducting or metallic.
174: Almost exponential temperature dependence is seen
175: reflecting the behavior of metallic junctions.
176: This behavior is consistent with experiments,
177: while it was unexplained in the former study~\cite{Dynes}
178: where only superconducting junctions were taken into accounts.
179:
180: In experiments
181: a S-M-I crossover~\cite{crossover} is observed
182: when the film thickness is tuned.
183: Such a crossover is also seen in Figs. 2-4.
184: In our phenomenological analysis
185: it is reduced to the nature of each junction
186: and has nothing to do with a macroscopic phase transition.
187: It should be also noted that the present metallic state is
188: irrelevant to the recent issue~\cite{MIT}
189: of the presence of a metallic state
190: in two-dimensional disorderd systems.
191: The issue corresponds to the presence of a coherence
192: at macroscopic scale in uniform system after averaging.
193: On the other hand,
194: a metallic state is possible at mesoscopic scale.
195: Our system is a mesoscopic one in terms of junctions,
196: while superconducting islands are macroscopic objects.
197: The system is highly heterogeneous
198: where the coherence is maintained within the islands
199: and the loss of the coherence occurs only at the junctions.
200:
201: The author is grateful to
202: T. Kawaguti, B. Shinozaki and K. Makise
203: at Kyushu University Ropponmatsu
204: for valuable discussions.
205:
206: \vskip 30pt
207:
208: %----------------------------------------------------------------
209: \begin{references}
210: \bibitem{RMP}
211: S. L. Sondhi, S. M. Girvin, J. P. Carini and D. Shahar:
212: Rev. Mod. Phys. \textbf{69} (1997) 315 for a review.
213: \bibitem{PD}
214: P. Phillips and D. Dalidovich:
215: Science \textbf{302} (2003) 243 for a review.
216: \bibitem{Dynes}
217: A. Frydman, O. Naaman and R. C. Dynes:
218: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{66} (2002) 052509.
219: \bibitem{Meir}
220: Y. Meir:
221: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{83} (1999) 3506.
222: \bibitem{crossover}
223: C. Christiansen, L. M. Hernandez and A. M. Goldman:
224: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{88} (2002) 037004 for an example.
225: \bibitem{MIT}
226: E. Abrahams, S. V. Kravchenko and M. P. Sarachik:
227: Rev. Mod. Phys. \textbf{73} (2001) 251 for a review.
228: \end{references}
229: %----------------------------------------------------------------
230: \vskip 15pt
231: %----------------------------------------------------------------
232: \begin{figure}
233: \caption{
234: Temperature dependence of the resistance
235: for a single normal junction.
236: The threshold energy is chosen as $E_{\rm c}/T_{\rm c}= -1.5$.
237: }
238: \label{fig1}
239: \end{figure}
240:
241: \vskip -15pt
242:
243: \begin{figure}
244: \caption{
245: Temperature dependence of the resistance
246: for a network of superconducting junctions.
247: The normal resistances are randomly distributed in the range,
248: $0.1 < R_{\rm N}/R_0 < 0.6$, for the bottom case.
249: The range for the middle case is $0.2 < R_{\rm N}/R_0 < 0.7$ and
250: $0.3 < R_{\rm N}/R_0 < 0.8$ for the top case.
251: }
252: \label{fig2}
253: \end{figure}
254:
255: \vskip -15pt
256:
257: \begin{figure}
258: \caption{
259: Temperature dependence of the resistance
260: for a network of normal junctions.
261: The threshold energies are randomly distributed in the range,
262: $-0.4 < E_{\rm c}/T_{\rm c} < 0.6$, for the top case.
263: The range for the other cases is shifted as
264: $-0.5 < E_{\rm c}/T_{\rm c} < 0.5$,
265: $-0.6 < E_{\rm c}/T_{\rm c} < 0.4$,
266: $-0.7 < E_{\rm c}/T_{\rm c} < 0.3$ and
267: $-0.8 < E_{\rm c}/T_{\rm c} < 0.2$ in order (form top to bottom).
268: }
269: \label{fig3}
270: \end{figure}
271:
272: \vskip -15pt
273:
274: \begin{figure}
275: \caption{
276: Temperature dependence of the resistance
277: for a network of the random mixture of superconducting and normal junctions.
278: The normal resistances for superconducting junctions
279: are randomly distributed in the range
280: $0.1 < R_{\rm N}/R_0 < 0.6$.
281: The threshold energies for normal junctions
282: are randomly distributed in the range
283: $-1.5 < E_{\rm c}/T_{\rm c} < -1.0$.
284: For the top case 3\% of the junctions are superconducting
285: and 97\% are normal.
286: For the middle case 5\% are superconducting.
287: For the bottom case 7\% are superconducting.
288: }
289: \label{fig4}
290: \end{figure}
291: %----------------------------------------------------------------
292: \end{document}
293: %----------------------------------------------------------------
294: \bye
295: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
296: