Macroscopic quantum effects in superconductors and superfluids

Quantisation of magnetic flux in a superconductor

Magnets and electrical currents produce magnetic fields, regions of space where other magnets and electrical wires experience a mechanical force. For a circle of wire in the presence of a magnetic field the magnetic flux is defined as the strength of the magnetic field passing through the circle multiplied by the area of the circle. A law of electromagnetism states that if the field varies with time, then a voltage is produced in the wire with a magnitude that is proportional to the rate at which the magnetic flux through the circle changes. This is the physics behind all electrical motors and electrical generators. In the everyday world magnetic flux can have any value and can be varied continuously by changing the strength of magnetic field. In the quantum world that is not the case. Magnetic flux is quantised.

In 1961, two experimental groups independently reported the first observation of a macroscopic quantum effect, the quantisation of the magnetic flux passing through a superconducting cylinder (Figure 30). One team was Bascom Deaver and William Fairbank and the other Robert Doll and Martin Nabauer. A tall thin cylinder made of tin was placed in a magnetic field and cooled down to a low enough temperature that it entered the superconducting state. The magnetic flux passing through the cylinder was then measured as the magnetic field was varied. The resulting graph has four noteworthy features. First, there are clear steps, showing that the magnetic flux has discrete values. In contrast, in the normal metallic state the graph was a straight line. Secondly, the magnitude of the steps was the same, to within about one per cent, suggesting quantisation of a single unit of magnetic flux. Thirdly, the value of this quantum of magnetic flux was equal to the value of h/2e. Thus, it was completely determined by the two fundamental constants, h and e, Planck’s constant and the charge on an electron, respectively. And fourthly, graphs with the same three features noted above were later observed in other superconducting materials and cylinders. This showed that flux quantisation is independent of details such as the chemical composition and dimensions of the cylinder. This flux quantisation is a macroscopic quantum effect. It is macroscopic because the system is macroscopic, and the magnetic flux is a macroscopic property. It is quantum as and the magnitude of the quantisation is determined by Planck’s constant.

                                                                       (b)

Figure 30. Quantisation of magnetic flux in a superconducting cylinder. (a) A tall thin cylinder of tin was placed in a magnetic field. (b) The graph shows the value of the magnetic flux passing through the cylinder as the magnetic field was varied. Note the step like structure, showing quantisation of the flux.

The quantum of magnetic flux is denoted Φ0 (= h/2e) and has the value 2.067833848...×10−15   tesla (metre)2. This number also determines the scale of quantum interference effects between two superconductors, as we will see shortly. The flux quantum is also relevant to vortices that form when some superconductors are placed in a magnetic field (Figure 20). A persistent electrical current flows around the vortex and the magnetic field penetrates the core of the vortex. It can also be shown, both theoretically and experimentally, that the magnetic flux associated with each vortex is exactly equal to one quantum of flux. Something similar happens in superfluids.

Macroscopic quantum effects in superfluids

When a cylinder containing a fluid is rotated about an axis passing down the centre of the cylinder the fluid will also rotate. The faster the cylinder is rotated the faster the fluid rotates. A physical quantity known as the circulation is proportional to the speed of rotation and the diameter of the cylinder. With a variable speed motor, the rotation speed can be continuously varied and in normal fluids the circulation has continuous values. But not in a superfluid, as shown in a beautiful experiment done by W.F. Vinen in 1961 using liquid 4He. He observed that when the liquid was cooled below the superfluid transition temperature that the circulation could only take on discrete values. Furthermore, these discrete values are multiples of h/M where h is Planck’s constant and M is the mass of one atom of helium. This value was predicted by Lars Onsager in 1949 who identified h/M with the circulation of a single vortex in the superfluid. This is another macroscopic quantum effect.

The quantisation of magnetic flux in superconductors and of circulation in superfluids showed that both superconductors and superfluids can be classified as quantum states of matter. The close similarity of these quantum phenomena, even though superconductivity occurs in solids and superfluidity in liquids. This indicates a deep underlying unity, demonstrated through the study of condensed matter physics. 

This is an extract from Chapter 7, Quantum Matter, in Condensed Matter Physics: A Very Short Introduction.

The disappointing story of superconductivity in Strontium Ruthenate

In 1994 superconductivity was discovered in strontium ruthenate (Sr2RuO4). This attracted considerable interest because it had a perovskite crystal structure, just like the cuprates. Furthermore, it was a stoichiometric compound and so not plagued by impurities like the cuprates.

In 1998, things got more interesting when NMR Knight shift measurements were interpreted as evidence for triplet superconductivity.

Analogues were made with triplet Cooper pairing in superfluid 3He mediated by ferromagnetic spin fluctuations.

Triplet pairing is associated with odd-parity (spatial) and time-reversal symmetry breaking. Evidence for the latter was claimed from muon spin relaxation (muSR) and the polar Kerr effect.

There are subtle questions about whether a bulk sample of a triplet superconductor exhibits spontaneous magnetisation. Leggett discussed this in an Appendix of his textbook. It turns out the magnetisation probably only exists on the edges.

Aside. The metallic phase is of interest because (unlike the cuprates) it is a Fermi liquid. More recently, it has been argued to be a Hund's metal.

Fueled by hype about topological quantum computing, the past two decades have seen even greater interest in the material due to proposals that it may be a topological superconductor. See for example, this paper.

Now we come to the disappointment. It turns out that the original Knight shift measurements were flawed, probably due to a problem with thermometry.

Recent, careful Knight shift measurements suggest spin-singlet pairing. They were described in a Physics Today article by Alex Lopatka in 2021, An unconventional superconductor isn’t so odd after all. The article describes all the intricacies and challenges of these measurements. Stuart Brown is to be commended for persisting with this problem.

What about the Kerr effect and muSR measurements suggesting time-reversal symmetry breaking?

The polar Kerr effect involves rotation of the plane of polarisation of the electromagnetic radiation by an angle of 65 nanoradians! There is only one group in the world (at Stanford) that can detect these ultra-minute rotations.

muSR may also be problematic. It is not really known where the implanted muon sits in the crystal or what effect it has on the surrounding crystal structure. In particular, these perturbations may produce a small local magnetic field which is nothing to do with the claimed global field due to the magnetism associated with the triplet superconductivity. A recent preprint by Warren Pickett considers some of the challenges associated with interpreting these experiments as evidence for time-reversal symmetry breaking.

What is disappointing about this?

Obviously, it would be nice to have a triplet superconductor and even more a topological one.

However, for me, the big disappointment is that it took almost thirty years for the original NMR measurements to be checked and shown to be wrong. This may reflect several sociological problems.

Kauzmann's maxim: people will tend to believe what they want to believe rather than what the evidence before them might suggest.

The condensed matter community tends to be infatuated with exotica.

There is not enough application of Occam's razor. Luxury journals don't want simple explanations or authors to raise doubts or ambiguities.

As far as I am aware, the 1998 Nature paper on the NMR Knight shift has still not been retracted.

This post was stimulated by a helpful colloquium at UQ given recently by James Annett. He has worked on strontium ruthenate for many years and is a co-author of a relevant review article.

Update. 23 April. James Annett pointed out to me that the authors for the 1998 NMR published a paper in 2020 which acknowledges that their original paper was incorrect.

Reduction of the 17O Knight Shift in the Superconducting State and the Heat-up Effect by NMR Pulses on Sr2RuO4

Tony Leggett (1938-2026): condensed matter theorist

Tony Leggett died last week. The New York Times has a nice obituary. One measure of his influence on me is that more than 20 posts on this blog feature his work. He received the Nobel Prize in 2003 for developing the theory of superfluid 3He.

In 1972, a graduate student at Cornell, Doug Osheroff, discovered a phase transition around a temperature of 2 mK in liquid 3He. In the 1960s liquid 3He was established to be a Fermi liquid that was beautifully described by Landau's theory. Osheroff and his advisors, David Lee and Robert Richardson, incorrectly identified the phase transition as arising from antiferromagnetic order in the solid phase of 3He.

However, Leggett argued that it was actually due to superfluidity that there were two distinct superfluid phases, A and B, with different order parameters. 

Lee, Osheroff, and Richardson shared the Nobel Prize in 1996 for their discovery.

Leggett was primed to make rapid progress, as in 1965 and 1966 he had written three papers about superfluidity in liquid 3He, albeit assuming s-wave pairing. Indeed, by 1975 he wrote a comprehensive review article on the two superfluid phases.

For many reasons superfluid 3He was significant for the broader field of condensed matter. BCS showed that in elemental metals, superconductivity resulted from Cooper pairing of electrons due to an attractive electron-phonon interaction.  The order parameter (Cooper pair wave function) had s-wave spin singlet symmetry.

In contrast, superfluid 3He showed that Cooper pairing could also occur in a neutral Fermi liquid, and have non-trivial symmetry, i.e., p-wave symmetry and spin triplet. The order parameter has 18 components, compared to only 2 for elemental superconductors. There is spontaneous symmetry breaking of the local gauge symmetry, and spin or orbital rotational symmetries. 

The Cooper pairing in superfluid 3He is not due to a fermion-phonon interaction but due to spin fluctuations.

The fact that Cooper pairing was possible for different symmetries and mechanisms than for elemental superconductors was significant in that it meant it was reasonable to consider this possibility for superfluidity in neutron stars, and superconductivity in cuprates, strontium ruthenate, heavy fermions, and organic charge transfer salts.

There is rich physics associated with the symmetry breaking: 18 collective modes of the order parameter, textures such as boojums, and exotic vortex cores. For vortices, there is also some (controversial) connection to cosmic strings, including experiments that test the Kibble-Zurek mechanism and the electro-weak phase transition in the early universe.

Aside: My Ph.D. thesis was on the theory of the non-linear interaction of zero sound with the order parameter collective modes in the B-phase.

Leggett's development of the theory of superfluid 3He was amazing and certainly worthy of a Nobel. However, I think he made an even greater contribution to physics through his work on the theory of macroscopic quantum effects in Josephson junctions. This work was the basis for the experimental work that was honoured with the Nobel Prize last year.

With his student Amir Caldeira, Leggett performed concrete calculations of the effects of decoherence on quantum tunnelling in Josephson junctions.

[The NY Times obituary mistakenly says this work began after Leggett moved to Urbana. It was done while he was still at Sussex].

The formalism they developed involving the spectral density is the basis for most theoretical treatments of decoherence in superconducting qubits. A relevant toy model is the spin-boson model, and in 1987 Leggett published a seminal (but rather dense) review on the subject.

Leggett aided our understanding of cuprate superconductors. He contributed to the theoretical ideas that were the basis of the phase-sensitive measurements that established the d-wave nature of the order parameter. He also showed that experiments with inconsistent with  Anderson's interlayer tunneling theory.

I recommend reading Leggett's own scientific autobiography, Matchmaking Between Condensed Matter and Quantum Foundations, and Other Stories: My Six Decades in Physics and his book, The Problems of Physics

The legacy of 40 years of cuprate superconductivity

In February 1986, Bednorz and Müller made a stunning discovery: superconductivity at a temperature of 35 K in a doped copper oxide (cuprate). Arguably, this discovery changed condensed matter physics. In April 1986, they submitted their results to Z. Phys. B. Only nineteen months later, they were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics, the shortest time ever between a discovery and the award. A nice and short review of the history is here.

One measure of my estimate of the influence of this discovery is that it received about 5 pages of coverage in my Condensed Matter Physics: A Very Short Introduction. (See Chapter 5, Adventures in Flatland).

How things have developed over the past forty years, for better and worse, may be representative of how science advances: discovery by serendipity, hype about applications, unexpected secondary benefits, foundational questions, new concepts, unification, and incremental advances.

Hype about technological applications

On March 20, 1987, The New York Times had a front-page article, DISCOVERIES BRING A 'WOODSTOCK' FOR PHYSICS, by James Gleick. This followed the 1987 APS March meeting. It began 

"Physicists from three continents converged on the New York Hilton for a hastily scheduled special conference on a string of discoveries that seem certain to produce a rapid cascade of commercial applications in electricity, magnetism and electronics.There are many things we know and understand that we did not when they were first discovered."

This has largely been unfulfilled. There are a few niche applications, but cuprates are not used in electricity distribution or even in the superconducting magnets in hospital MRI machines, which are probably the main commercial application of superconductors. One of the significant obstacles is that it is hard to make wires from these materials, as they are ceramics. This is an example of the common gap between research laboratory science and commercially viable technology.

After 40 years, do we have a successful theory?

It depends on who you ask. But I would say there is a lot we do understand.

We have a phenomenological theory for all the macroscopic phenomena associated with the superconducting state: Ginzburg-Landau theory!

Properties of the superconducting state are well-described by a BCS wavefunction with a d-wave order parameter and the associated Bogoliubov quasiparticles. [This is somewhat puzzling, as in the metallic state quasi-particles are not well defined].

Although not everyone agrees, I think it is fair to say that the essential physics is in a one-band Hubbard model, and the key physics is:

strong electronic correlations,

a doped antiferromagnetic Mott insulator,

d-wave pairing that is "mediated"/caused from some mixture/variant of antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations or RVB spin singlets,.....

We certainly don't understand the cuprates at the same level as elemental superconductors. But we do understand the essential physics.

What is harder to describe and understand are the states adjacent to the superconducting state in the phase diagram: the pseudogap state and the strange metal.

Strongly correlated electron materials became a large, vibrant and unified field

Before 1986, there were small, disconnected communities intermittently interested in transition metal oxides, rare earths, Kondo impurities, Mott metal-insulator transitions, organic superconductors, heavy fermions, and quantum antiferromagnets.

The discovery of the cuprates brought together these communities as they found common interests, challenges, questions, concepts, and techniques.

The discovery of superconductivity in strontium ruthenate, alkali fullerides, iron pnictides and chalcogenides, twisted bilayer graphene and more cuprates, organic charge-transfer salts, and heavy fermions has shown how rich these systems are. The challenge is to understand the similarities and differences between these chemically and structurally diverse systems. In many of them, superconductivity is proximate to a Mott insulating state.

The unity and excitement were probably stimulated and enhanced by the activities and ideas of high-profile theorists such as Anderson, Schrieffer, Scalapino, Pines, Rice, and Varma. On the other hand, their acrimonious disagreements probably did not help.

Secondary theoretical benefits

The things I list below were not new ideas when the cuprate discovery happened. However, interest in the cuprates led them to become major research themes and ideas.

Importance of phase diagrams, including as a function of interaction parameters in toy models

Highlighting the limitations of electronic structure methods based on Density Functional Theory with approximate Exchange-Correlation functionals (i.e., anything computational). In the presence of strong correlations, DFT methods have spectacular failures. For example, predicting a metallic state instead of the Mott insulator.

Low dimensionality leads to qualitatively different behaviour, including the possibility of new types of order and quasiparticles. This is most dramatic in one dimension, where one has Luttinger liquids and spin-charge separation.

Spin liquids. Landau was wrong. Spontaneous symmetry breaking does not always occur in antiferromagnets.

Non-Fermi liquids. Landau was wrong. Not all metals are Fermi liquids.

Quantum criticality. Although this is a robust concept for certain toy models, whether it is relevant to the cuprates remains contentious.

Systematic improvements in approximation schemes and numerical techniques - exact diagonalisation, DMRG, DMFT, quantum Monte Carlo,...

Emergence. Chemical complexity and strong interactions can lead to new states of matter.

Secondary experimental benefits

Better probes. The desire to characterise the cuprates helped drive significant improvements in the resolution of ARPES (Angle-Resolved PhotoEmission Spectroscopy), STM (Scanning Tunnelling Microscopy), and inelastic neutron scattering. These advances have born fruit in the study of a wide range of other materials, beyond the cuprates.

Growth of single crystals. The early days of the cuprates produced a lot of junk experimental results because of the poor quality of the samples produced by "shake and bake". However, the involvement of solid-state chemists has improved things. The techniques have also led to the production of single crystals for a wide range of strongly correlated materials.

Why is there so little research on cuprates today?

Today, there is little research directly on cuprates, both theoretically and experimentally. It is hard to get funding to work on them, even though there is a lot we don't understand really well.

This is because of the problem of fashion in science. The low-lying fruit has been picked. There is a continuous new stream of materials being discovered with exotic properties, the latest being twisted bilayer van der Waals compounds.

Overdoped cuprates are not Fermi liquids

They are anisotropic marginal Fermi liquids.

A commenter on my recent AI blog post mentioned the following preprint, with a very different point of view.

Superconductivity in overdoped cuprates can be understood from a BCS perspective!

B.J. Ramshaw, Steven A. Kivelson

The authors claim:

" a theoretical understanding of the "essential physics" is achievable in terms of a conventional Fermi-liquid treatment of the normal state...

...observed features of the overdoped materials that are inconsistent with this perspective can be attributed to the expected effects of the intrinsic disorder associated with most of the materials being solid state solutions"

On the latter point, they mention two papers that found the resistivity versus temperature can have a linear component. But there is much more.

The authors appear unaware of the experimental data and detailed theoretical analysis showing that the overdoped cuprates are anisotropic marginal Fermi liquids. 

Angle-dependent magnetoresistance measurements by Nigel Hussey's group, reported in 2006, were consistent with a Fermi surface anisotropy in the scattering rate.

Papers in 2011 and 2012 pushed the analysis further.

Consistent Description of the Metallic Phase of Overdoped Cuprate Superconductors as an Anisotropic Marginal Fermi Liquid, J. Kokalj and Ross H. McKenzie

Transport properties of the metallic state of overdoped cuprate superconductors from an anisotropic marginal Fermi liquid model, J. Kokalj, N. E. Hussey, and Ross H. McKenzie 

The self-energy is the sum of two terms with characteristic dependencies on temperature, frequency, location on the Fermi surface, and doping. The first term is isotropic over the Fermi surface, independent of doping, and has the frequency and temperature dependence characteristic of a Fermi liquid. 

The second term is anisotropic over the Fermi surface (vanishing at the same points as the superconducting energy gap), strongly varies with doping (scaling roughly with 𝑇𝑐, the superconducting transition temperature), and has the frequency and temperature dependence characteristic of a marginal Fermi liquid. 

The first paper showed that this self-energy can describe a range of experimental data including angle-dependent magnetoresistance and quasiparticle renormalizations determined from specific heat, quantum oscillations, and angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy. 

The second paper, showed, without introducing new parameters and neglecting vertex corrections, that this model self-energy can give a quantitative description of the temperature and doping dependence of a range of reported transport properties of Tl2Ba2CuO6+𝛿 samples. These include the intralayer resistivity, the frequency-dependent optical conductivity, the intralayer magnetoresistance, and the Hall coefficient. The temperature dependence of the latter two are particularly sensitive to the anisotropy of the scattering rate and to the shape of the Fermi surface.

For a summary of all of this, see slides from a talk I gave at Stanford back in 2013.

I am curious whether the authors can explain the anisotropic part of the self-energy in terms of disorder in samples.

2025 Nobel Prize in Physics: Macroscopic quantum effects

John Clarke, Michel H. Devoret, and John M. Martinis received the prize  “for the discovery of macroscopic quantum mechanical tunnelling and energy quantisation in an electric circuit.”

The work was published in three papers in PRL in 1984 and 1985. The New York Times has a nice discussion of the award, including comments from Clarke, Martinis, Tony Leggett, and Steve Girvin.

There is some rich, subtle, and beautiful physics here. As a theorist, I comment on the conceptual and theoretical side, but don't want to minimise that doing the experiments was a technical breakthrough.

The experiments were directly stimulated by Tony Leggett, who, beginning in the late 70s, championed the idea that Josephson junctions and SQIDs could be used to test whether quantum mechanics was valid at the macroscopic level. Many in the quantum foundations community were sceptical. Leggett and Amir Caldeira, performed some beautiful, concrete, realistic calculations of the effect of decoherence and dissipation on quantum tunneling in SQUIDs. The results suggested that macroscopic tunneling should be observable.

Aside: Leggett rightly received a Nobel in 2003 for his work on the theory of superfluid 3He. Nevertheless, I believe his work on quantum foundations is even more significant.

Subtle point 1. What do we mean by a macroscopic quantum state?

It is commonly said that superconductors and superfluids are in a macroscopic quantum state. Signatures are the quantisation of magnetic flux in a superconducting cylinder and how the current through a Josephson junction oscillates as a function of the magnetic flux through the junction. I discuss this in the chapter on Quantum Matter in my Very Short Introduction.

Leggett argued that these experiments are explained by the Josephson equations, which treat the phase of the superconducting order parameter as a classical variable. For example, in a SQUID, it satisfies a classical dynamical equation. 

If the state is truly quantum, then the phase variable should be quantised.

Aside: a nice microscopic derivation, starting from BCS theory and using path integrals, of the effective action to describe the quantum dynamics was given in 1982 by Vinay Ambegaokar, Ulrich Eckern, Gerd Schön

Subtle point 2. There are different signatures of quantum theory: energy level quantisation, tunnelling, coherence (interference), and entanglement.

In 1984-5, Clarke, DeVoret, and Martinis observed the first two. Macroscopic quantum coherence is harder to detect and was only observed in 2000. 

In a nice autobiographical article

Matchmaking Between Condensed Matter and Quantum Foundations, and Other Stories: My Six Decades in Physics

Leggett commented in 2020,

Because of the strong prejudice in the quantum foundations community that it would never be possible to demonstrate characteristically quantum-mechanical effects at the macroscopic level, this assertion made us [Leggett and Garg, 1985] the target of repeated critical comments over the next few years. Fortunately, our experimental colleagues were more open-minded, and several groups started working toward a meaningful experiment along the lines we had suggested, resulting in the first demonstrations (29, 30) of MQC [Macroscopic Quantum Coherence] in rf SQUIDs (by then rechristened flux qubits) at the turn of the century. However, it would not be until 2016 that an experiment along the lines we had suggested (actually using a rather simpler protocol than our original one) was carried out (31) and, to my mind, definitively refuted macrorealism at that level.  

I find it rather amusing that nowadays the younger generation of experimentalists in the superconducting qubit area blithely writes papers with words like “artificial atom” in their titles, apparently unconscious of how controversial that claim once was.

Two final comments on the sociology side.

Superconductivity and superfluidity have now been the basis for Nobel Prizes in six years and four years, respectively.

The most widely cited of the three PRLs that were the basis of the Prize is the one on quantum tunnelling with about 500 citations on Google Scholar. (In contrast, Devoret has more than 20 other papers that are more widely cited). From 1986 to 1992 it was cited about a dozen times per year. Between 1993 and 2001 is was only cited a total of 30 times. Since, 2001 is has been cited about 20 times per year.

This is just one more example of how citation rates are a poor measure of the significance of work and a predictor of future success.

The role of superconductivity in development of the Standard Model

In 1986, Steven Weinberg published an article, Superconductivity for Particular Theorists, in which he stated

"No one did more than Nambu to bring the idea of spontaneously broken symmetries to the attention of elementary particle physicists. And, as he acknowledged in his ground-breaking 1960 article  "Axial Current Conservation in Weak Interactions'', Nambu was guided in this work by an analogy with the theory of superconductivity,..."

In the 1960 PRL, referenced by Weinberg, Nambu states that in the BCS theory, as refined by Bogoliubov, [and Anderson]

"gauge invariance, the energy gap, and the collective excitations are logically related to each other as was shown by the author. [Y. Nambu, Phys. Rev. 117, 648 (1960)] In the present case we have only to replace them by (chiral) (gamma_5) invariance, baryon mass, and the mesons." 

This connection is worked out explicitly in two papers in 1961. The first is

Dynamical Model of Elementary Particles Based on an Analogy with Superconductivity. I

Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio

They acknowledge, 

"that the model treated here is not realistic enough to be compared with the actual nucleon problem. Our purpose was to show that a new possibility exists for field theory to be richer and more complex than has been hitherto envisaged,"

Hence, I consider this to be a toy model for an emergent phenomena.

The model consists of a massless fermion field with a quartic interaction that has chiral invariance, i.e., unchanged by global gauge transformations associated with the gamma_5 matrix. (The Lagrangian is given above.) At the mean-field level, this symmetry is broken. Excitations include massless bosons (associated with the symmetry breaking and similar to those found earlier by Goldstone) and bound fermion pairs. It was conjectured that these could be analogues of mesons and baryons, respectively. The model was proposed before quarks and QCD. Now, the fermion degrees of freedom would be identified with quarks, and the model illustrates the dynamical generation of quark masses. When generalised to include SU(2) or SU(3) symmetry the model is considered to be an effective field theory for QCD, such as chiral effective theory.

My review article on emergence

I just posted on the arXiv a long review article on emergence

Emergence: from physics to biology, sociology, and computer science

The abstract is below.

I welcome feedback. 

------

Many systems of interest to scientists involve a large number of interacting parts and the whole system can have properties that the individual parts do not. The system is qualitatively different to its parts. More is different. I take this novelty as the defining characteristic of an emergent property. Many other characteristics have been associated with emergence are reviewed, including universality, order, complexity, unpredictability, irreducibility, diversity, self-organisation, discontinuities, and singularities. However, it has not been established whether these characteristics are necessary or sufficient for novelty. A wide range of examples are given to show how emergent phenomena are ubiquitous across most sub-fields of physics and many areas of biology and social sciences. Emergence is central to many of the biggest scientific and societal challenges today. Emergence can be understood in terms of scales (energy, time, length, complexity) and the associated stratification of reality. At each stratum (level) there is a distinct ontology (properties, phenomena, processes, entities, and effective interactions) and epistemology (theories, concepts, models, and methods). This stratification of reality leads to semi-autonomous scientific disciplines and sub-disciplines. A common challenge is understanding the relationship between emergent properties observed at the macroscopic scale (the whole system) and what is known about the microscopic scale: the components and their interactions. A key and profound insight is to identify a relevant emergent mesoscopic scale (i.e., a scale intermediate between the macro- and micro- scales) at which new entities emerge and interact with one another weakly. In different words, modular structures may emerge at the mesoscale. Key theoretical methods are the development and study of effective theories and toy models. Effective theories describe phenomena at a particular scale and sometimes can be derived from more microscopic descriptions. Toy models involve minimal degrees of freedom, interactions, and parameters. Toy models are amenable to analytical and computational analysis and may reveal the minimal requirements for an emergent property to occur. The Ising model is an emblematic toy model that elucidates not just critical phenomena but also key characteristics of emergence. Many examples are given from condensed matter physics to illustrate the characteristics of emergence. A wide range of areas of physics are discussed, including chaotic dynamical systems, fluid dynamics, nuclear physics, and quantum gravity. The ubiquity of emergence in other fields is illustrated by neural networks, protein folding, and social segregation. An emergent perspective matters for scientific strategy, as it shapes questions, choice of research methodologies, priorities, and allocation of resources. Finally, the elusive goal of the design and control of emergent properties is considered.

Phase diagrams elucidate emergence

Phase diagrams have been ubiquitous in materials science for decades. They show what states of matter are thermodynamically stable depending on the value of external parameters such as temperature, pressure, magnetic field, or chemical composition. However, they are only beginning to be appreciated in other fields. Recently, Bouchaud argued that they needed to be used more to understand agent-based models in the social sciences.

For theoretical models, whether in condensed matter, dynamical systems, or economics, phase diagrams can show how the state of the system predicted by the model has qualitatively different properties depending on the parameters in the model, such as the strength of interactions. 

Phase diagrams illustrate discontinuities, how quantitative changes produce qualitative changes (tipping points), and diversity (simple models can describe rich behaviour). Phase diagrams show how robust and universal a state is, i.e., whether it only exists for fine-tuning of parameters. Theoretical phase diagrams can expand our scientific imagination, suggesting new regimes that might be explored by experiments. An example is how the phase diagram for QCD matter (shown below) has suggested new experiments, such as at the RHIC.

For dynamical systems, I recently illustrated this with the phase diagram for the Lorenz model. It shows for what parameter ranges strange attractors exist.

Today, for theoretical models for strongly correlated electron systems it is common to map out phase diagrams as a function of the model parameters. However, this was not always the case. It was more common to just investigate a model for specific parameter values that were deemed to be relevant to specific materials. Perhaps, Anderson stimulated this new approach when, in 1961, he drew the phase diagram for the mean-field solution to his model for local moments in metals, a paper that was partly the basis of his 1977 Nobel Prize.

At a minimum, a phase diagram should show the state with the emergent property and the disordered state. Diagrams that contain multiple phases may provide hints for developing a theory for a specific phase. For example, for the high-Tc cuprate superconductors, the proximity of the Mott insulating, pseudogap, and non-Fermi liquid metal phases has aided and constrained theory development.

Phase diagrams constrain theories as they provide a minimum criterion of something a successful theory should explain, even if only qualitatively. Phase diagrams illustrate the potential and pitfalls of mean-field theories. Sometimes they get qualitative details correct, even for complex phase diagrams, and can show what emergent states are possible. Ginzburg-Landau and BCS theories are mean-field theories and work extremely well for many superconductors. On the other hand, in systems with large fluctuations, mean-field theory may fail spectacularly, and they are sometimes the most interesting and theoretically challenging systems.

Superconductivity: a poster child for emergence

Superconductivity beautifully illustrates the characteristics of emergent properties.

Novelty. 

Distinct properties of the superconducting state include zero resistivity, the Meissner effect, and the Josephson effect. The normal metallic state does not exhibit these properties.

At low temperatures, solid tin exhibits the property of superconductivity. However, a single atom of tin is not a superconductor. A small number of tin atoms has an energy gap due to pairing interactions, but not bulk superconductivity.

There is more than one superconducting state of matter. The order parameter may have the same symmetry as a non-trivial representation of the crystal symmetry and it can have spin singlet or triplet symmetry. Type II superconductors in a magnetic field have an Abrikosov vortex lattice, another distinct state of matter.

Unpredictability. 

Even though the underlying laws describing the interactions between electrons in a crystal have been known for one hundred years, the discovery of superconductivity in many specific materials was not predicted. Even after the BCS theory was worked out in 1957 the discovery of superconductivity in intermetallic compounds, cuprates, organic charge transfer salts, fullerenes, and heavy fermion compounds was not predicted.71

Order and structure. 

In the superconducting state, the electrons become ordered in a particular way. The motion of the electrons relative to one another is not independent but correlated. Long-range order is reflected in the generalised rigidity, which is responsible for the zero resistivity. Properties of individual atoms (e.g., NMR chemical shifts) are different in vacuum, metallic state, and superconducting state.

Universality. 

Properties of superconductivity such as zero electrical resistance, the expulsion of magnetic fields, quantisation of magnetic flux, and the Josephson effects are universal. The existence and description of these properties are independent of the chemical and structural details of the material in which the superconductivity is observed. This is why the Ginzburg-Landau theory works so well. In BCS theory, the temperature dependences of thermodynamic and transport properties are given by universal functions of T/Tc where Tc is the transition temperature. Experimental data is consistent with this for a wide range of superconducting materials, particularly elemental metals for which the electron-phonon coupling is weak.

Modularity at the mesoscale. 

Emergent entities include Cooper pairs and vortices. There are two associated emergent length scales, typically much larger than the microscopic scales defined by the interatomic spacing or the Fermi wavelength of electrons. The coherence length is associated with the energy cost of spatial variations in the order parameter. It defines the extent of the proximity effect where the surface of a non-superconducting metal can become superconducting when it is in electrical contact with a superconductor. The coherence length turns out to be of the order of the size of Cooper pairs in BCS theory.  The second length scale is the magnetic penetration depth (also known as the London length) which determines the extent that an external magnetic field can penetrate the surface of a superconductor. It is determined by the superfluid density. The relative size of the coherence length and the penetration depth determines whether  the formation of an Abrikosov vortex lattice is stable in a large enough magnetic field.

Quasiparticles. 

The elementary excitations are Bogoliubov quasiparticles that are qualitatively different to particle and hole excitations in a normal metal. They are a coherent superposition of a particle and hole excitation (relative to the Fermi sea), have zero charge and only exist above the energy gap. The mixed particle-hole character of the quasiparticles is reflected in the phenomenom of Andreev reflection.

Singularities. 

Superconductivity is a non-perturbative phenomenon. In BCS theory the transition temperature, Tc, and the excitation energy gap are a non-analytic function of the electron-phonon coupling constant lambda, Tc \sim exp(-1/lambda).

A singular structure is also evident in the properties of the current-current correlation function. Interchange of the limits of zero wavevector and zero frequency do not commute, this being intimately connected with the non-zero superfluid density.

Effective theories.

These are illustrated in the Figure below. The many-particle Schrodinger equation describes electrons and atomic nuclei interacting with one another. Many-body theory can be used to justify considering the electrons as a jellium liquid of non-interacting fermions interacting with phonons. Bardeen, Pines, and Frohlich showed that for that system there is an effective interaction between fermions that is attractive. The BCS theory includes a truncated version of this attractive interaction. Gorkov showed that Ginzburg-Landau theory could be derived from BCS theory. The London equations can be derived from Ginzburg-Landau theory. The Josephson equations only include the phase of order parameter to describe a pair of coupled superconductors.

The historical of the development of theories mostly went downwards. London preceded Ginzburg-Landau which preceded BCS theory. Today for specific materials where superconductivity is known to be due to electron-phonon coupling and the electron gas is weakly correlated one can now work upwards using computational methods such as Density Functional Theory (DFT) for Superconductors or the Eliashberg theory with input parameters calculated from DFT-based methods. However, in reality this has debatable success. The superconducting transition temperatures calculated typically vary with the approximations used in the DFT such as the choice of functional and basis set, and often differ from experimental results by the order of 50 percent. This illustrates how hard prediction is for emergent phenomena.

Potential and pitfalls of mean-field theory. 

Mean-field approximations and theories can provide a useful guide as what emergent properties are possible and as a starting point to map out properties such as phase diagrams. For some systems and properties, they work incredibly well and for others they fail spectacularly and are misleading. 

Ginzburg-Landau theory and BCS theory are both mean-field theories. For three-dimensional superconductors they work extremely well. However, in two dimensions as long-range order and breaking of a continuous symmetry cannot occur and the physics associated with the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless transition occurs. Nevertheless, the Ginzburg-Landau theory provides the background to understand the justification for the XY model and the presence of vortices to proceed. Similarly, the BCS theory fails for strongly correlated electron systems, but a version of the BCS theory does give a surprisingly good description of the superconducting state.

Cross-fertilisation of fields. 

Concepts and methods developed for the theory of superconductivity bore fruit in other sub-fields of physics including nuclear physics, elementary particles, and astrophysics. Considering the matter fields (associated with the electrons) coupled to electromagnetic fields (a U(1) gauge theory) the matter fields can be integrated out to give a theory in which the photon has mass. This is a perspective on the Meissner effect in which the magnitude of an external magnetic field decays exponentially as it penetrates a superconductor. This idea of a massless gauge field acquiring a mass due to spontaneous symmetry breaking was central to steps towards the Standard Model made by Nambu and by Weinberg. 

Emergence and continuous phase transitions in flatland

In two dimensions the phase transition that occurs for superfluids, superconductors, and planar classical magnets is qualitatively different from those which occur in higher  dimensions. Known as the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) transition, it involves several unique emergent phenomena. 

Novelty

The low-temperature state does not exhibit long-range-order or spontaneous symmetry breaking. Instead, the order parameter has power-law correlations, below a temperature T_BKT. Hence, it is qualitatively different from the high-temperature disordered state, which has correlations that decay exponentially. It is a distinct state of matter, with properties that are intermediate between the low- and high-temperature states normally associated with phase transitions. The power law correlations are similar to those at a conventional critical point, which decay in powers of the critical exponent eta. However, the BKT phase diagram can be viewed as having a line of critical points, consisting of all the temperatures below TBKT. Along this line, the critical exponent eta varies continuously with a value that depends on interaction strength. In contrast, at conventional critical points, eta has a fixed value determined by the universality class.

Sometimes it is stated that the low-temperature state has topological order, but I am not really sure what that means. Has this been made precise somewhere? 

The mechanism of the phase transition is qualitatively different from that for conventional phase transitions. It is driven by the unbinding of vortex and anti-vortex pairs by thermal fluctuations. In contrast, conventional phase transitions are driven by thermal fluctuations in the magnitude of the order parameter.

Discontinuity

There is a discontinuity in the stiffness of the order parameter at this transition temperature.

Unlike for conventional phase transitions the specific heat capacity is a continuous function of temperature. This is why the BKT transition is sometimes referred to as a continuous transition.

Toy model

A classical Heisenberg model for a planar spin, also known as the XY model, captures the essential physics.

Modularity at the mesoscale

The quasiparticles of the system that are relevant to understanding the transition are not magnons (for magnets) or phonons (for superfluids), but vortices, i.e., topological defects.  

These entities are usually on the mesoscale, i.e, there size is much larger than the lattice spacing. The relevant effective theory is not a non-linear sigma model. Thermal excitation of vortex-antivortex pairs determines the temperature dependence of physical properties and the transition at T_BKT.  There is an effective interaction between a vortex and an anti-vortex that is attractive and a logarithmic function of their spatial separation, analogous to a two-dimensional Coulomb gas. 

Universality

The BKT transition occurs in diverse two-dimensional models and materials including superfluids, superconductors, ferromagnets, arrays of Josephson junctions, and the Coulomb gas. The discontinuity in the order parameter stiffness at T_BKT has a universal value. 

The renormalisation group (RG) equations associated with the transition are the same as those of a multitude of other systems. The classical two-dimensional systems include the Coulomb gas, Villain model, Z_n model for large n, solid-on-solid model, eight vertex model, and the Ashkin-Teller model. They also apply to classical Ising chain with 1/r^2 interactions. Aside: Phil Anderson discovered these RG equations for the Ising chain before BKT derived their own equations.

Quantum models with the same RG equations include the anisotropic Kondo model, spin boson model, XXZ antiferromagnetic Heisenberg spin chain, and the sine-Gordon quantum field theory in 1+1 dimensions. In other words, all these models are in the same universality class.

Singularity

The correlation length of the order parameter is a non-analytic function of the temperature. 

This is related to the non-perturbative nature of the corresponding quantum models at their critical point. 

Personal aside: I first encountered this singularity (long ago) when working on a spin-Peierls model with quantum phonons.

Two-dimensional crystals

Similar physics is relevant to the solidification of two-dimensional liquids. However, the relevant toy model is not the classical XY model as one needs to include the effect of the discrete rotational symmetry of the lattice of the solid. The low-temperature state exhibits discrete rotational, but not spatial, symmetry breaking, with power-law spatial correlations. This state does not directly melt into a liquid, but into a distinct state of matter, the hexatic phase. It has short-range spatial order and quasi-long-range orientational (sixfold) order. The phase transitions are driven by topological defects, disclinations and dislocations.

Predictability

The BKLT transition, the quasi-ordered low-temperature state, and the hexatic phase were all predicted theoretically before they were observed experimentally. This is unusual for emergent phenomena but shows that unpredictability is not equivalent to novelty.

Quantum states of matter and metrology

Two characteristics of states of matter are associated with them being referred to as quantum. One characteristic is the importance of quantum statistics of particles, i.e., that the system is composed of particles that obey Fermi-Dirac or Bose-Einstein statistics. The second characteristic is that a macroscopic property is quantized with values determined by Planck’s constant. I now discuss each of these with respect to emergence.

Quantum statistics. 

For a system of non-interacting  fermions and bosons at high temperatures the properties of the system are those of a classical ideal gas. As the temperature decreases there is a smooth crossover to low-temperature properties that are qualitatively different for fermions, bosons, and classical particles. This crossover occurs around a temperature, known as the degeneracy temperature, that is dependent on the particle density and Planck’s constant. 

Many of the properties resulting from quantum statistics also occur in systems of strongly interacting particles and this is central to the concept of Landau’s Fermi liquid and viewing liquid 4He as a boson liquid. If liquid 3He and the electron liquid in elemental metals are viewed as a gas of non-interacting fermions, the degeneracy temperature is about 1 K and 1000 K, respectively. Thermodynamic properties are qualitatively different above and below the degeneracy temperature. Low-temperature properties can have values that differ by orders of magnitude from classical values and have a different temperature dependence. In contrast to a classical ideal gas, a fermion gas has a non-zero pressure at zero temperature and its magnitude is determined by Planck’s constant. This degeneracy pressure is responsible for the gravitational stability of white dwarf and neutron stars.  

These properties of systems of particles can be viewed as emergent properties, in the sense of novelty, as they are qualitatively different from high-temperature properties. However, they involve a crossover as a function of temperature and so are not associated with discontinuity. They also are not associated with unpredictability as they are straightforward to calculate from a knowledge of microscopic properties.

Quantised macroscopic properties.

These provide a more dramatic illustration of emergence. Here I consider four specific systems: superconducting cylinders, rotating superfluids, Josephson junctions, and the integer Quantum Hall effect. All of these systems have a macroscopic property that is observed to have the following features.

i. As an external parameter is varied the quantity varies in a step-like manner with discrete values on the steps. This is contrast to the smooth linear variation seen when the material is not condensed into the quantum state of matter.

ii. The value on the steps is an integer multiple of some specific parameter.

iii. This parameter (unit of quantisation) only depends on Planck’s constant h and other fundamental constants. 

iv. The unit of quantisation does not depend on details of the material, such as chemical composition, or details of the device, such as its geometrical dimensions.

v. The quantisation has been observed in diverse materials and devices.

vi. Explanation of the quantisation involves topology.

Superconducting cylinders. A hollow cylinder of a metal is placed in a magnetic field parallel to the axis of the cylinder. In the metallic state the magnetic flux enclosed by the cylinder increases linearly with the magnitude of the external magnetic field. In the superconducting state, the flux is quantized in units of the magnetic flux quantum, Φ0 = h/2e where e is the charge on an electron. It is also found that in a type II superconductor the vortices that occur in the presence of an external magnetic field enclose a magnetic flux equal to Φ0.  

Rotating superfluids. When a cylinder containing a normal fluid is rotated about an axis passing down the centre of the cylinder the fluid rotates with a circulation proportional to the speed of rotation and the diameter of the cylinder. In contrast, in a superfluid, as the speed of rotation is varied the circulation is quantised in units of h/M where M is the mass of one atom in the fluid. This quantity is also the circulation around a single vortex in the superfluid. 

Josephson junctions. In the metallic state the current passing through a junction increases linearly with the voltage applied across the junction. In the superconducting state the AC Josephson effect occurs. If a beam of microwaves of constant frequency is incident on the junction, jumps occur in the current when the voltage is an integer multiple of h/2e. The quantisation is observed to better than one part in a million (ppm).

Integer Quantum Hall effect. In a normal conductor the Hall resistance increases linearly with the external magnetic field for small magnetic fields. In contrast, in a two-dimensional conductor at high magnetic fields the Hall resistance is quantized in units of h/2e^2. The quantisation is observed to better than one part in ten million. Reflecting universality, the observed value of the Hall resistance for each of the plateaus is independent of many details, including the temperature, the amount of disorder in the material, the chemical composition of system (silicon versus gallium arsenide), or whether the charge carriers are electrons or holes.

Other examples of macroscopic quantum effects are seen in SQUIDs (Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices). They exhibit quantum interference phenomena analogous to the double-slit experiment. The electrical current passing through the SQUID has a periodicity defined by the ratio of the magnetic flux inside the current loop of the SQUID and the quantum of magnetic flux.

The precision of the quantisation provides a means to accurately determine fundamental constants. Indeed, the title of the paper announcing the discovery of the integer quantum Hall effect was, “New Method for High-Accuracy Determination of the Fine-Structure Constant Based on Quantized Hall Resistance.” It is astonishing that a macroscopic measurement of a property of a macroscopic system, such as the electrical resistance, can determine fundamental constants that are normally associated with the microscale and properties of atomic systems. 

Laughlin and Pines claimed that the quantisation phenomena described above reflect organizing principles associated with emergent phenomena, and their universality supports their claim of the unpredictability of emergent properties. 

Quantum states of matter and metrology

The universality of these macroscopic quantum effects has practical applications in metrology, the study of measurement and the associated units and standards. In 1990 new international standards were defined for the units of voltage and electrical resistance, based on the quantum Hall effect and the AC Josephson effect, respectively.

Prior to 1990 the standard used to define one volt was based on a particular type of electrical battery, known as a Weston cell. The new standard using the AC Josephson effect allowed voltages to be defined with a precision of better than one part per billion. This change was motivated not only by improved precision, but also improved portability, reproducibility, and flexibility. The old voltage standard involved a specific material and device and required making duplicate copies of the standard Weston cell. In contrast, the Josephson voltage standard is independent of the specific materials used and the details of the device. 

Prior to 1990 the international standard for the ohm was defined by the electrical resistance of a column of liquid mercury with constant cross-sectional area, 106.3 cm long, a mass of 14.4521 grams and a temperature 0 °C. Like the Josephson voltage standard, the quantum Hall resistance standard has the advantage of precision, portability, reliability, reproducibility, and independence of platform. The independence of the new voltage and resistance standards from the platform used reflects the fact that the Josephson and quantum Hall effects have the universality characteristic of emergent phenomena.

This post is an adaptation of material in Condensed Matter Physics: A Very Short Introduction

More superconductivity in Hollywood

I wrote a post about superconductivity being central to the plot of the cult-classic movie, Joe Versus the Volcano. A commenter on the post kindly pointed out that the movie Avatar also features superconductivity. It is nicely captured in this scene.

The Wikipedia entry for Unobtanium is interesting as it describes the long history of the term, predating the movie by decades. I had not heard the term before. It does capture much of the hype and fantasy about research in "advanced materials".

About Avatar the entry states

In the 2009 film Avatar,^[23] "Unobtanium" is the common name of a rare-earth mineral found exclusively in the exomoon Pandora (where the movie takes place, being the fifth moon of the gas giant Polyphemus, which orbits Alpha Centauri A), highly prized (and priced) because of its application as a powerful superconductor material; because of its unusual magnetic properties, entire mountains with high concentrations of unobtanium "levitate" in the atmosphere of Pandora.

Superconductors in Hollywood

 Recently my wife and I watched the movie, Joe Versus the Volcano, starring Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan. What I did not expect was that making superconductors commercially viable was central to the (silly but amusing) plot. 

The plot summary on Wikipedia says

a wealthy industrialist named Samuel Graynamore needs "bubaru", a mineral essential for manufacturing superconductors. There are deposits of it on the tiny Pacific island of Waponi Woo, but the resident Waponis will only let him mine it if he solves a problem for them...

Here is the relevant scene...

The movie was made in 1990, just after the discovery of cuprate superconductors and at that time there was a lot of hype about commercialisation. I wonder if the scriptwriters drew on that.

Emergence in nuclear physics

Nuclear physics exhibits many characteristics associated with emergent phenomena. These include a hierarchy of scales, effective interactions and theories, and universality.

The table below summarises how nuclear physics is concerned with phenomena that occur at a range of length and number scales. At each level of the hierarchy, there are effective interactions that are described by effective theories. Some of the biggest questions in the field concern how the effective theories that operate at each level are related to the levels above and below.

Moving from the bottom level to the second top level, relevant length scales increase from less than a femtometre to several femtometres.

The challenge in the 1950s was to reconcile the liquid drop model and the nuclear shell model. This led to the discovery of collective rotations and shape deformations. The observed small moments of inertia were explained by BCS theory. Integration of the liquid drop and shell models led to the award of the1975 Nobel Prize in Physics to Aage Bohr, Ben Mottelson, and Rainwater.

Since the 1980s a major challenge is to show how the strong nuclear force between two nucleons can be derived from Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). The figure below illustrates how the attractive interaction between a neutron and a proton can be understood in terms of the creation and destruction of a down quark-antiquark pair. The figure is taken from here.

An outstanding problem concerns the equation of state for nuclear matter, such as found in neutron stars. A challenge is to learn more about this from the neutron star mergers that are detected in gravitational wave astronomy.

Characteristics of universality are also seen in nuclear physics. Landau’s Fermi liquid theory provides a basis for the nuclear shell model which starts from assuming that nucleons can be described in terms of weakly interacting quasiparticles moving in an average potential from the other nucleons. The BCS theory of superconductivity can be adapted to describe the pairing of nucleons, leading to energy differences between nuclei with odd and even numbers of nucleons. 

Universality is also evident in the statistical distribution of energy level spacings in heavy nuclei. They can be described by random matrix theory which makes no assumptions about the details of interactions between nucleons, only that the Hamiltonian matrix has unitary symmetry. Random matrix theory can also describe aspects of quantum chaos and zeros of the Riemann zeta function relevant to number theory.

Probing the relationship between superexchange and superconductivity in cuprates

One of the most basic ideas in science is the controlled experiment. A single "independent" variable is changed while all others are held fixed. One then observes how the properties of the system change. Unfortunately, reality is more complicated and there are rarely any truly independent variables, particularly in materials science.

Since the discovery of cuprate superconductors one-quarter of a century ago there has been a constant struggle to tease out systematic trends that can provide insight into the underlying physics causing the superconductivity. This is a challenge because it is difficult to change only one variable. For example, a key property is how the superconductivity changes with the chemical composition of the material, particularly with regard to the doping level, i.e., the density of charge carriers. The problem is that with changes in doping, many other things change as well: the amount of disorder, the periodicity and strength of magnetic interactions, crystal structure, ... 

There is a beautiful experimental paper that recently overcomes these problems. 

On the electron pairing mechanism of copper-oxide high temperature superconductivity

Shane M. O’Mahony, Wangping Ren, Weijiong Chen,  Yi Xue Chong, Xiaolong Liu, H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, M. H. Hamidian, and J. C. Séamus Davis 

In a very clever way they can do all their measurements on a single material of fixed chemical composition, and yet vary a key parameter, the size of the energy difference between the relevant oxygen and copper electronic states, Epsilon.

In the material under study,  Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+x, there are CuO5 units, as pictured below. In the crystal there is a modulation of delta, the distance at which the fifth oxygen sits above the CuO4 squares that form the square lattices that comprise the layers responsible for the superconductivity.

Due to electrostatics, the distance delta has an effect on the energy Epsilon. This in turn changes the size of the magnetic superexchange between neighbouring copper spins, as pictured below.

In the experiment, a STM is used to measure how Epsilon varies as delta varies (see the red dots in the Figure below). We then expect this to vary the superexchange.

An electron-pair (Josephson) STM is used to measure the magnitude of the superfluid density (electron-pair density) and how it changes with delta (see the blue dots in the figure below).

These two sets of measurement are combined in the second figure below. 

The yellow band in the figure above is the range of values expected from theory, including the recent paper.

Oxygen hole content, charge-transfer gap, covalency, and cuprate superconductivity

Nicolas Kowalski, Sidhartha Shankar Dash, Patrick Sémon, David Sénéchal, and André-Marie Tremblay

The theory is based on DMFT calculations for a three-band Hubbard model, following earlier work including by Weber, Haule, Kotliar, and independently by Maier.

Quanta magazine has a popular report on the experiment. The headline, "High-Temperature Superconductivity Understood at Last", overstates the significance of the experiment.

There are still issues of correlation versus causality. I would also like to see what other theories predict for the relationship between Epsilon and the pairing density. Nevertheless, it is a beautiful experiment and marks a significant advance.

Can emergent properties be explained?

An important question about emergent properties is whether they can be explained solely in terms of the properties of the components of the system. Here I explore the question from the point of view of Hempel's covering law of scientific explanation, discussed in my last post.

According to Hempel, a scientific explanation E of a specific phenomena P is a logical argument that starts with some premises, at least one of which is a scientific law L, and which logically implies P.

I now give a version of this that describes a microscopic scientific explanation of some emergent property.

Suppose that a macroscopic system S has property X. S is composed of many interacting microscopic components whose properties, including their interactions, have a finite enumeration x1, x2, x3,...xn. None of these properties is X. Hence, in the sense of novelty, X is an emergent property of S. Let l1, l2, l3,.., lm be a finite number of microscopic laws. Then X has a microscopic scientific explanation if it can be deduced from the x's and l's.

A possible problem with most microscopic "explanations" of emergent properties may be whether they at some point implicitly assume some "emergent" scientific law, such as spontaneous symmetry breaking, or the existence of X. Let me illustrate this possible problem with some examples.

Irreversibility. Microscopic laws are invariant under time-reversal. But macroscopic systems exhibit irreversible behaviour such as the mixing of two distinct fluids. This is encoded in the second law of thermodynamics. This problem of the "arrow of time" is nicely discussed by Tony Leggett in The Problems of Physics, in a chapter entitled "Skeletons in the Cupboard." An alternative perspective is that of Joel Lebowitz, who claims Boltzmann solved the problem.

Superconductivity. One could claim that BCS theory provides a microscopic explanation of superconductivity. We start with the properties of electrons, ions, Coulomb's law, quantum mechanics, and statistical mechanics. These properties and microscopic laws can be used to show that there is an effective attractive interaction between electrons. One then considers the BCS variational wavefunction and calculates the properties of the macroscopic system. They are consistent with experimental observations of superconductivity. It is explained!

However, there are several problems on the way, which all in some sense involve assuming that superconductivity does occur. First, investigating the variational wave function only shows that the superconducting state has lower energy than the normal metallic state. This does not prove it is the true ground state. In fact, in one dimension it is not.

But potentially more fatal to the claimed microscopic explanation is that it assumes that spontaneous symmetry breaking is allowed, including (in some subtle sense that people still argue about) the breaking of the gauge symmetry of electromagnetism. One of the major points that Phil Anderson was trying to make in More is Different is that spontaneous symmetry breaking is a law of nature that should be viewed as of similar status to microscopic laws such as Schrodinger's equation. 

Mean-field theory of antiferromagnetism. One might claim that one can start with a classical Heisenberg or Ising model, and classical statistical mechanics, crank the mathematical handle and get antiferromagnetic. If one does mean-field theory, then one is not really doing statistical mechanics as one is considering a weird ensemble and a Hamiltonian that is no longer microscopic. Suppose instead one does the exact solution of the Ising model. That can give the magnetic state and all the critical exponents. But, it is not clear to me that when one takes the thermodynamic limit, one assumes that the broken symmetry state is allowed. Similar questions arise for me if one does a computer simulation on large lattices and uses clever finite-size scaling techniques to deduce physical properties of the emergent state. Does the assumption of the validity of these techniques amount to some extra (macroscopic) law of nature?  

I wonder whether some of these issues would be clarified (or just muddied) by considering the Thermodynamic Formalism: The Mathematical Structure of Equilibrium Statistical Mechanics by David Ruelle. In particular, does he make clear how an equilibrium broken symmetry magnetic state is fundamentally different from the microscopic equilibrium state associated with a finite number of spins.

I welcome ideas on how to clarify these issues.