# Full text of "Step wise destruction of the pair correlations in micro clusters by a magnetic field"

## See other formats

Step wise destruction of the pair correlations in micro clusters by a magnetic field N.K. Kuzmenko V.G. Khlopin Radium Institute, 194021, St. -Petersburg, Russia V.M. Mikhajlov Institute of Physics St .-Petersburg State University 198904, Russia and S. Frauendorf Department of Physics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA and IKH, Research Center Rossendorf, Germany The response of nm-size spherical superconducting clusters to a magnetic field is studied for the canonical ensemble of electrons in a single degenerate shell. For temperatures close to zero, the discreteness of the electronic states causes a step like destruction of the pair correlations with increasing field strength, which shows up as peaks in the susceptibility and heat capacity. At higher temperatures the transition becomes smoothed out and extends to field strengths where the pair correlations are destroyed at zero temperature. The electron pair correlations in small systems where the single-particle spectrum is discrete and the mean level spacing is comparable with the pairing gap have recently been studied by means of electron transport through nm- scale Al clusters The pair correlations were found to sustain an external magnetic field of several Tesla, in contrast to much weaker critical field of H c = 99 Gauss of bulk Al. A step wise destruction of the pair correla- tions was suggested It is caused by the subsequent excitation of quasi particle levels, which gain energy due to the interaction of their spin with the external field. This mechanism is very different from the transition to the normal state caused by a magnetic field applied to a macroscopic superconductor. Hence it is expected that physical quantities, as the susceptibility \ an( i the spe- cific heat capacity C, which indicate the transition, be- have very differently in the micro cluster. The present letter addresses this question. For the micro clusters the energy to remove an elec- tron is much larger than the temperature T. The fixed number of the electrons on the cluster was demonstrated by the tunneling experiments Jl[. Hence, one must study the transition from the paired to the unpaired state in the frame of the canonical ensemble. The small number of particles taking part in superconductivity causes consid- erable fluctuations of the order parameter, which mod- ify the transition . Consequences of particle number conservation for the pair correlations in micro clusters have also been discussed recently in j4|-|^], where a more complete list of references to earlier work can be found. In order to elucidate the qualitative features we con- sider the highly idealized model of pair correlations be- tween electrons in a degenerate level, which permits to calculate the canonical partition function. A perfect Al- sphere of radius R — (l-5)»m confines N » 2-10 3 — 3-10 5 free electrons. Its electron levels have good angular mo- mentum I. Taking the electron spin into account, each of these levels has a degeneracy of 2M, where M = 21 + 1. For a spherical oscillator potential, the average angular momentum at the Fermi surface is I k, iV 1 / 3 — 1.4, where N is the number of free electrons. The distance between these levels is Ae ~ 10 meV is much larger than the BCS gap parameter A, which is less than ImeV. Therefore, it is sufficient to consider the pair correlations within the last incompletely filled level. This single-shell model also applies to a hemisphere, because its spectrum consists of the spherical levels with odd I, and to clusters with a superconducting layer covering an insulating sphere (cf. H) or hemisphere. The single-shell model Hamiltonian H = Hpair — uj(L z + 2S Z ), (1) Hpair = —GA^ A, A^ = S ' Q^ajr", fc>0 consists of the pairing interaction H pa i r , which acts be- tween the electrons in the last shell with the effective strength G, and the interaction with the magnetic field. We introduced the Larmour frequency Tiuj = hbB, the Bohr magneton /i^, the z-components of the total or- bital angular momentum and spin L z and S z . The label k = {A, a} denotes the z -projections of orbital momen- tum and spin of the electrons, respectively, and A + cre- ates an electron pair on states (k, k), related by the time reversal. The magnetic susceptibility and heat capacity of the electrons are Ml d 2 F (?» d 2 F{T,u) X h 2 V do; 2 ' ST 2 ' [ ' The free energy F derived from the Hamiltonian (|l|) gives only the paramagnetic part \p of the susceptibility, be- cause we left out the term quadratic in B. For the fields we are interested in (magnetic length is small as com- pared to the cluster size), the latter can be treated in first order perturbation theory, generating the diamag- netic part of the susceptibility = _ m/4<|2+j/2> ^ _ 4 i() _ 6 where m is the electron mass is and V the volume of the cluster. It is nearly temperature and field indepen- dent [|| . The numerical estimate for Al assumes constant 1 electron density. For nm scale clusters xd ~ 10~ 3 . It is much smaller than xd ~ — 1 for macroscopic supercon- ductors, which show the Meissner effect. Since the mag- netic field penetrates the cluster it can sustain a very high field of B ~ Tesla. On the other hand, the xd is three orders of magnitude larger than the Landau diamagnetic susceptibility observed in normal bulk metals. The exact solutions to the pairing problem of parti- cles in a degenerate shell were found in nuclear physics fiof in terms of representations of the group SU2- The eigenvalues E v of H pair are E v = - — (N sh - v) (2M + 2 - N sh - v) . (4) where N s h is the number of particles in the shell. The seniority, which is the number of unpaired particles, is constrained by < v < N s h and v < M. The degenerate states {v, i} of given seniority v differ by their magnetic moments fJ,BTn u ,i, where i = {LASY*} takes all values of the total orbital (L) and total spin (S) momenta and their total z-projections (A, S) that are compatible with the Pauli principle for v electrons. In presence of a mag- netic field the states have the energy U„,i(u)) =E V — um Vt i, m Vj i = (A + 2£)„ )i , (5) and the canonical partition function becomes Z = ^exp(-0U v ,i) = exp(-/3^)[$„ - $„_ 2 (1 - *„.„)], (6) (3 = l/T, $„ = J2 exp(-pum v ,i). (7) i To evaluate the sums we take into account symmetry of the wave functions of the v unpaired electrons and reduce the sums ([?]) to products of sums over orbital projections of completely antisymmetric states (one column Young diagram, cf. with v/2 + £ and v/2 — X electrons. ®u= Yl 2(l + 5 s . )- 1 |. iy/2+s $ iy/2 _ ff cosh(2/3 w E), (8) s=s mi „ s min - [i - (-n/4 ^ = 4, + (l-4.o)II sinh 4 ■ (9) fj,— i t The derivation of (JTJ - ^ will be published separately Q . The pair correlation energy is = -A»(T,o;)/a (10) Here we have defined the parameter A c , which measures the amount of pair correlations. Applying the mean field approximation and the grand canonical ensemble to our model, the thus introduced A c becomes the familiar BCS gap parameter A. Accordingly we also refer to A c as the "canonical gap". However, A c must be clearly distin- guished from A because it incorporates the correlations caused by the fluctuations of the order parameter A. For the case of a half filled shell and even N s h, the BCS gap is A(0) ee A(T = 0,w = 0) = GM/2. Ref. § found A(0) = 0.3-0.4 meV for Al-clusters with R = 5-10 nm, which sets the energy scale. 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 w/A(0) FIG. 1. Canonical gap A C (T, uj) (full lines) and BCS gap A(T,w) ( dotted lines) v.s. the Larmour frequency lu. Let us first consider the destruction of the pair cor- relations at T = 0. The lowest state of each seniority multiplct has the maximal magnetic moment m u = ?f{v{2M -v)-\[l- (-)"] + 4(1 - *„.„)}. (11) According to (Q) , @ and (|TT| ) the state of lowest energy changes from v to v + 2 at U v +2 — 2 A(0) M M-v M - v - 1 (1 - <S,.o) (12) At each such step m v increases according to (|1 1|) . The pair correlations are reduced because two electron states are blocked. At the last step leading to the maximum seniority v max all electron states are blocked. Hence the field B c corresponding to ui c = U! Vmax can be regarded as the critical one, which destroys the pairing completely at T = 0. For a half filled shell w c = 3A(0) /M for even electron number and 4A(0)/M for odd (v max = M — 1 and M, respectively). Fig. |l| illustrates the step wise destruction of pairing by blocking for the half filled shell M = 11 (I = 5). This mechanism was discussed in jy, where the crossing of states with different seniority could be observed. It is a well established effect in nuclear physics, where the states of maximum angular momentum, are observed as "High- K isomers" |l3| . Fig. [j] also shows results for the mean 2 field (BCS) approximation (cf. p|,p^|) to the single shell model. The pair correlations are more rapidly destroyed. The quantum fluctuations of the order parameter stabi- lize the pairing. which is smaller than the coherence length, 1.2r 1.0- 0.8- 0.6- < < 0.4- 0.2- M=11 N.=10 sh X B/B C =1 : B/B^=1J^^__ i . i 0.0 0.5 1.5 2.0 1.0 FIG. 2. Canonical gap A c (T,w) (full lines) and BCS gap A(T, uj) ( dotted lines) v.s. the temperature T We introduce T c as the temperature at which the mean field pair gap A(T C , uj — 0) takes the value zero when the magnetic field is absent. For the half filled shell T c = A(0)/2. Fig. [| shows the mean field gap A(T,w), It behaves as expected from macroscopic superconductors: The frequency where A = shifts towards smaller values with increasing T. Fig. |^ shows that the temperature where A = shifts from T c to lower values for uj > 0. However, fig. [I] also demonstrates that the canonical gap A c behaves differently. For T = 0.8T C there is a re- gion above uj c where there are still pair correlations. For T = 2T C this region extends to 2lo c . The pair correlations fall off very gradually with u>. Fig. || shows how these "temperature induced" pair correlations manifest them- selves with increasing T. For u> = there is a pronounced drop of of A c around T c , which signalizes the break down of the static pair field. Above this temperature there is a long tail of dynamic pairing. For uj > uj c the dynamic pair correlations only built up with increasing T. The temperature induced pairing can be understood in the following way: At T — 0, all electrons are unpaired when the state of maximum seniority becomes the ground state for w > uj cr it- At T > excited states with lower seniority enter the canonical ensemble, reintroducing the pair correlations. Here we have adopted the terminology of nuclear physics, calling "static" the mean field (BCS) part of the pair correlations and "dynamic" the quantal and statis- tical fluctuations of the mean field (or equivalently of the order parameter). The "pair vibrations" , which are oscillations of the pair field around zero 14 , are well established in nuclei. Fluctuation induced superconduc- tivity was discussed before |15|. The fluctuations play a particularly important role in the systems the size of 1.2 1.0 0.8 O <f 0.6 <j" 0.4 0.2 0.0 I— 0.5 0.6 T7T.-0.1 M=7 N sh =6 T/T =0.02 T/T c =0.2 M=23, N sh =22 T/T =0.1 0.8 co/co FIG. 3. Canonical gap A C (T, uj) v.s. uj. -1.0 o. M=7, N sh =6 T/T =0.02 T/T =0.1 M / 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 T/T =0.2 [ \ 4 \ M=23, N sh =22 T/T=0.1 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 co/o FIG. 4. Susceptibility x(T, uj) v.s. uj. Fig. H shows a very small cluster (M = 7) with very pronounced steps. Already at T = 0.1T C the steps are noticeably washed out. In the single-shell model the step length is lo v — cj„_ 2 ~ A(0)/M. Accordingly, no indi- vidual steps are recognizable at T = 0.1T C for the large cluster (M = 23) shown. Yet there is some irregularity around uj — 0.7cj c , which is a residue of the discreteness of the electronic states. It is thermally averaged out for T = 0.2T C . Hence only for M < 50 i. e. N < 2 • 10 4 and T < 0.1T C the step wise change of A c is observable. The discreteness of the electronic levels has dramatic consequences for the the susceptibility at low tempera- 3 tures. As shown in the upper panel of fig. |I| \p nas pro- nounced peaks at the frequencies where the states with higher seniority and magnetic moment take over. The paramagnetic contribution is very sensitive to the tem- perature and to the fluctuations of the order parameter. Using the BCS mean field approximation we find much more narrow peaks, which are one to two orders of mag- nitude higher. For the larger cluster in the lower panel the individual steps are no longer resolved, resulting in a peak of \p near oj = 0.7lo c . Since for the considered temperatures it is unlikely to excite states with finite magnetic moment, \p is small at low to . It grows with uj because these states come down. It falls off at large u> when approaching the maximum magnetic moment of the electrons in the shell. The curve T = 0.1T C shows still a double peak structure, which is residue of the dis- creteness of the electron levels. the spin orbit coupling is small as in Al §. Most of the findings of the present paper are expected to hold qualitatively for these spin flips. In summary, at a temperature T < O.IT c an increasing external magnetic field causes the magnetic moment of small spherical superconducting clusters (R < 5nm) to grow in a step like manner. Each step reduces the pair correlations until they are destroyed. The steps mani- fest themselves as peaks in the magnetic susceptibility and the heat capacity. The steps are washed out at T > 0.2T C . For T ~ T c , reduced but substantial pah- correlations persist to a higher field strength than for T = 0. This phenomenon of the temperature-induced pairing in a strong magnetic field is only found for the canonical ensemble. Supported by the grant INTAS-93-151-EXT. 2 o M=23, N sll =22 T/T =0.1 FIG. 5. Heat capacity C(T, LO V.S. LO. The heat capacity is displayed in fig. Is has a dou- ble peak structure for the M = 7 cluster at T = 0.02T C . In this case C is very small because the spacing between the states of different v is much larger than T. Near a crossing the spacing becomes small and C goes up. The dip appears because at the crossing frequency the two states are degenerate. Then they do not contribute to C because their relative probability does not depend on T. For T = O.IT c the probability to excite states with different seniority has increased and C takes substantial values between the crossings. The dips due to the degen- eracy at the crossings remain. For the M — 23 cluster C shows only two wiggles, which are the residue of the discreteness of the electronic levels. The deviation of real clusters from sphericity will at- tenuate the orbital part of xp an d round the steps of A c already at T = 0. The back-bending phenomenon observed in deformed rotating nuclei ||l3fl is an exam- ple. How strongly the orbital angular momentum is sup- pressed needs to be addressed by a more sophisticated model than the present one. In any case, there will be steps caused by the reorientation of the electron spin, if [1 [2 [3 [4] [5] [6] [7] [8 [9 [10 [11 [12 [13 [14 [15] D.C.Ralf, C.T.Black, and M.Tinkham, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78,4087(1997) and ealier works cited therein. B. Miihlschlegel, D. J. Scalapino and R. Denton, Phys. Rev. B 6, 1767 (1972) N. K. Kuzmenko, V. M. Mik hajlov, S. Frauend orf, J. Cluster Sci., 10, 195 (1999); |cond-mat 980701 1| v2 10 Aug 1998. B. Janko, A.Smith, and VAmbegaokar, Phys. Rev. B50,1152(1994). F.Braun, J. von Delft, and M.Tinkham, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79,921(1997). D. S. Golubev, A. D. Zaikin, Phys. Lett. A 195, 380 (1994) A. Mastellone, G. Falci, and R. Fazio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4542 (1998) F. Braun and J. v. Delft, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4712 (1998) R. Neuendorf, M. Quinten, and U. Kreibig, J. Chem. Phys. 104, 6348 (1996) C. Esebag, J.L.Edigo, Nucl. Phys. A552,205(1993) and earlier work cited therein. M.Hammermesh, Group theory and its applicationM to physical problem, Addison- Wesley (1964) N. K. Kuzmenko, V. M. Mikhajlov, S. Frauendorf, Phys. Rev. B, in preparation Z. Szymanski, Fast Nuclear Rotation, Claredon, (1983) Bohr, A., and Mottelson, B., Nuclear Structure II, W.A. Benjamin, (1975) W. J. Skocpol and M. Tinkham, Rep. Prog. Phys. 38 1049, (1975) 158,319(1967). 4