Phil Anderson has written an interesting comment on my earlier post on this subject. His comment might be read in conjunction with two earlier posts that are revelant.
Glueing together a theory is relevant to his comment about whether the pairing interaction is instantaneous.
Overdoped cuprates are an anisotropic marginal Fermi liquid is relevant to his comment about the Anderson-Casey theory of non-Fermi liquid effects.
I welcome further comments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A very effective Hamiltonian in nuclear physics
Atomic nuclei are complex quantum many-body systems. Effective theories have helped provide a better understanding of them. The best-known a...
-
Is it something to do with breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation? In molecular spectroscopy you occasionally hear this term thro... -
If you look on the arXiv and in Nature journals there is a continuing stream of people claiming to observe superconductivity in some new mat...
-
I welcome discussion on this point. I don't think it is as sensitive or as important a topic as the author order on papers. With rega...
I agree with Philip Anderson the NFL is a strong coupling phenomenon which in principle cannot be captured by the perturbation theory. However personally I also prefer your idea about the pairing mechanism that the RPA gives bosonic glue :)
ReplyDeleteSure, I'll comment. Read THIS.
ReplyDeleteIt pretty much says it all. You need to come to grips with this somehow. I feel for you guys.
I really do.
kT, for readers who aren't students of superconductivity, can you provide some context for your comment? What are you saying - here is yet more data, that your models must account for? Or are you saying that these measurements are problematic for a particular theory?
ReplyDeleteThe authors appear to be saying that the superconducting glue in high temperature superconductors IS the charge transfer (gap) excitation of the parent insulating compound.
ReplyDeleteWhether this specific fundamental result is problematic for your particular pet theory of high temperature superconductivity is your problem, not mine, and I'm not commenting other than to extend to you any sympathies that may be in order when your pet theory is suddenly seen in an unambiguous and unglamorous new light.
This experiment is brilliantly finessed (on the order of the original atomic BEC demonstration), and this result has been out for two full weeks now, and so basically I'm astonished that nobody has gotten around to commenting on it by now.
You can get an idea what happens at these energy scales here and here.
See also 'Mottness'.