Can superconductivity be understood to be a result of quantum entanglement?












6












$begingroup$


I've been trying to find out what causes superconductivity. I have seen a lot about what characterizes it (e.g the Meissner effect). But I haven't found much on the root cause.



The closest I have found to an actual root cause are "Cooper electron pairs", but even this is unclear to me.



I have a suspicion that quantum entanglement is what gives rise to superconductors and that Cooper pairs are entangled electrons. Is this suspicion accurate or am I off base?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    There is a lot that you need to understand before you can grasp BCS superconductivity and a lot more if high temperature superconductivity is your target. You need a thorough understanding of quantum physics of condensed matter. There is no explanation for high Tc superconductivity after 30 years of frantic effort, which is why googling is not bringing you the answer.
    $endgroup$
    – my2cts
    Dec 22 '18 at 2:14












  • $begingroup$
    Fair, but I can't not ask
    $endgroup$
    – Marc DiNino
    Dec 22 '18 at 2:54
















6












$begingroup$


I've been trying to find out what causes superconductivity. I have seen a lot about what characterizes it (e.g the Meissner effect). But I haven't found much on the root cause.



The closest I have found to an actual root cause are "Cooper electron pairs", but even this is unclear to me.



I have a suspicion that quantum entanglement is what gives rise to superconductors and that Cooper pairs are entangled electrons. Is this suspicion accurate or am I off base?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    There is a lot that you need to understand before you can grasp BCS superconductivity and a lot more if high temperature superconductivity is your target. You need a thorough understanding of quantum physics of condensed matter. There is no explanation for high Tc superconductivity after 30 years of frantic effort, which is why googling is not bringing you the answer.
    $endgroup$
    – my2cts
    Dec 22 '18 at 2:14












  • $begingroup$
    Fair, but I can't not ask
    $endgroup$
    – Marc DiNino
    Dec 22 '18 at 2:54














6












6








6


2



$begingroup$


I've been trying to find out what causes superconductivity. I have seen a lot about what characterizes it (e.g the Meissner effect). But I haven't found much on the root cause.



The closest I have found to an actual root cause are "Cooper electron pairs", but even this is unclear to me.



I have a suspicion that quantum entanglement is what gives rise to superconductors and that Cooper pairs are entangled electrons. Is this suspicion accurate or am I off base?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




I've been trying to find out what causes superconductivity. I have seen a lot about what characterizes it (e.g the Meissner effect). But I haven't found much on the root cause.



The closest I have found to an actual root cause are "Cooper electron pairs", but even this is unclear to me.



I have a suspicion that quantum entanglement is what gives rise to superconductors and that Cooper pairs are entangled electrons. Is this suspicion accurate or am I off base?







quantum-entanglement superconductivity






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Dec 21 '18 at 22:51









Marc DiNinoMarc DiNino

1438




1438












  • $begingroup$
    There is a lot that you need to understand before you can grasp BCS superconductivity and a lot more if high temperature superconductivity is your target. You need a thorough understanding of quantum physics of condensed matter. There is no explanation for high Tc superconductivity after 30 years of frantic effort, which is why googling is not bringing you the answer.
    $endgroup$
    – my2cts
    Dec 22 '18 at 2:14












  • $begingroup$
    Fair, but I can't not ask
    $endgroup$
    – Marc DiNino
    Dec 22 '18 at 2:54


















  • $begingroup$
    There is a lot that you need to understand before you can grasp BCS superconductivity and a lot more if high temperature superconductivity is your target. You need a thorough understanding of quantum physics of condensed matter. There is no explanation for high Tc superconductivity after 30 years of frantic effort, which is why googling is not bringing you the answer.
    $endgroup$
    – my2cts
    Dec 22 '18 at 2:14












  • $begingroup$
    Fair, but I can't not ask
    $endgroup$
    – Marc DiNino
    Dec 22 '18 at 2:54
















$begingroup$
There is a lot that you need to understand before you can grasp BCS superconductivity and a lot more if high temperature superconductivity is your target. You need a thorough understanding of quantum physics of condensed matter. There is no explanation for high Tc superconductivity after 30 years of frantic effort, which is why googling is not bringing you the answer.
$endgroup$
– my2cts
Dec 22 '18 at 2:14






$begingroup$
There is a lot that you need to understand before you can grasp BCS superconductivity and a lot more if high temperature superconductivity is your target. You need a thorough understanding of quantum physics of condensed matter. There is no explanation for high Tc superconductivity after 30 years of frantic effort, which is why googling is not bringing you the answer.
$endgroup$
– my2cts
Dec 22 '18 at 2:14














$begingroup$
Fair, but I can't not ask
$endgroup$
– Marc DiNino
Dec 22 '18 at 2:54




$begingroup$
Fair, but I can't not ask
$endgroup$
– Marc DiNino
Dec 22 '18 at 2:54










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















8












$begingroup$

The BCS state describing a conventional superconductor is indeed an entangled state, involving a superposition of different numbers of Cooper pairs, each of which involves a superposition of different combinations of paired momenta. This is a loose verbal description of equation (40) in




  • Bardeen, Cooper, & Schrieffer, "Chapter 10: Superconductivity" (2017), http://www.phys.lsu.edu/~jarrell/COURSES/SOLID_STATE/Chap10/chap10.pdf


However, although this kind of entanglement may be a necessary condition for superconductivity, entanglement itself is certainly not a sufficient condition. The electrons in an ordinary non-superconducting metal are also in an entangled state, so I don't think we can say that entanglement "causes" superconductivity.



Entanglement is ubiquitous — it is the norm rather than the exception. Unentangled states (states in which each particle has a wavefunction of its own) are the exceptional ones.



An important thing about the BCS state is the specific way in which the electrons are entangled with each other. BCS superconductivity relies on the fact that many Cooper pairs can occupy the same "state," using the word "state" here like the word "orbital" in atomic physics. The particular way in which the electrons are entangled with each other is what makes this possible despite the fact that electrons individually obey the Pauli exclusion principle.



Here's the rough idea: let $|0rangle$ denote the ground state and let $c^dagger(k,s)$ denote the operator that promotes a single electron with spin $s=pm 1/2$ (up or down) to an excited state with momentum $k$. Then an operator of the form
$$
A equiv sum_{k,s} A(k,s)c^dagger(k,s),
$$

with complex coefficients $A(k,s)$ creates a single electron with some generic wavefunction. Electrons are fermions, which means that the operators $c^dagger(k,s)$ all anticommute with each other.
(In particular, any such operator multiplied by itself gives zero — this is the Pauli exclusion principle.) So we can't promote two electrons into the same "state" (again in the sense of "orbital"), because
begin{align*}
A^2|0rangle
&=
left(sum_{k,s} A(k,s)c^dagger(k,s)right)
left(sum_{k',s'} A(k',s')c^dagger(k',s')right)|0rangle \
&=
sum_{k,s}sum_{k',s'}
A(k,s)
A(k',s')c^dagger(k,s)c^dagger(k',s')|0rangle \
&=
sum_{k,s}sum_{k',s'}
A(k,s)
A(k',s')frac{c^dagger(k,s)c^dagger(k',s')+c^dagger(k',s')c^dagger(k,s)}{2}|0rangle \
&= 0
end{align*}

where the second-to-last step follows because the sums are invariant under the exchange of $(k,s)$ and $(k',s')$. The zero state-vector does not represent any physical state, so two electrons cannot occupy the same "state." (This sentence uses the word "state" with two different meanings: the first one means the overall state of the system, and the second one is like "orbital." If I had the power to revise the established langauge, I would!) But now consider the operator
$$
B equiv sum_{k,s} B(k,s)c^dagger(k,s)c^dagger(-k,-s),
$$

which is a rough analogue of the operator that creates a Cooper pair. The momenta and spins of the two electrons in this pair are entangled with each other (because the sum cannot be factorized). As a result of this entanglement, we have
$$
B^n|0rangleneq 0
$$

even for large $ngg 1$. The individual electrons still obey the Pauli exclusion principle (the operators $c^dagger$ still anticommute with each other), but their entanglement means that plenty of terms in the product still survive even after taking this anticommutativity into account, leaving a nonzero result.



By the way, this is also why some atoms can behave as bosons (which don't obey the Pauli exclusion principle), despite being made of fermions (which do):



Why do bosonic atoms behave like they do?



So, again, entanglement is a necessary condition for conventional superconductivity, but not a sufficient condition.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for your thorough answer. I have a follow up question though (I am not a quantum physicist but I have a fasciation with the topic. Please excuse my ignorance). You said that "The electrons in an ordinary non-superconducting metal are also in an entangled state". Why os that necessarily true? Can't electrons exist in a metal in a way that are not entangled with one another? What observables would change if they were NOT entangled with one another?
    $endgroup$
    – Marc DiNino
    Dec 22 '18 at 0:44








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This: "Entanglement is ubiquitous — it is the norm rather than the exception." can't be emphasized enough, esp. given a lot of people who may read things with only a "pop cult" understanding that makes it seem like that "entanglement" is some peculiarity that requires special and/or artificial circumstances to occur.
    $endgroup$
    – The_Sympathizer
    Dec 22 '18 at 8:12








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MarcDiNino That's a good question, and I don't have a complete answer. I didn't mean to suggest that the (mobile) electrons in a metal are entangled with each other in any usefully systematic way, only that it would be exceedingly unlikely for them to remain unentangled, given that they're all moving around and interacting in complicated ways. As stated on page 6 in "Electron-hole entanglement in the Fermi sea" (arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0508488), "One way to entangle particles is by letting them interact with each other." Entanglement is simply hard to avoid.
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Yand
    Dec 22 '18 at 15:07













Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f449757%2fcan-superconductivity-be-understood-to-be-a-result-of-quantum-entanglement%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









8












$begingroup$

The BCS state describing a conventional superconductor is indeed an entangled state, involving a superposition of different numbers of Cooper pairs, each of which involves a superposition of different combinations of paired momenta. This is a loose verbal description of equation (40) in




  • Bardeen, Cooper, & Schrieffer, "Chapter 10: Superconductivity" (2017), http://www.phys.lsu.edu/~jarrell/COURSES/SOLID_STATE/Chap10/chap10.pdf


However, although this kind of entanglement may be a necessary condition for superconductivity, entanglement itself is certainly not a sufficient condition. The electrons in an ordinary non-superconducting metal are also in an entangled state, so I don't think we can say that entanglement "causes" superconductivity.



Entanglement is ubiquitous — it is the norm rather than the exception. Unentangled states (states in which each particle has a wavefunction of its own) are the exceptional ones.



An important thing about the BCS state is the specific way in which the electrons are entangled with each other. BCS superconductivity relies on the fact that many Cooper pairs can occupy the same "state," using the word "state" here like the word "orbital" in atomic physics. The particular way in which the electrons are entangled with each other is what makes this possible despite the fact that electrons individually obey the Pauli exclusion principle.



Here's the rough idea: let $|0rangle$ denote the ground state and let $c^dagger(k,s)$ denote the operator that promotes a single electron with spin $s=pm 1/2$ (up or down) to an excited state with momentum $k$. Then an operator of the form
$$
A equiv sum_{k,s} A(k,s)c^dagger(k,s),
$$

with complex coefficients $A(k,s)$ creates a single electron with some generic wavefunction. Electrons are fermions, which means that the operators $c^dagger(k,s)$ all anticommute with each other.
(In particular, any such operator multiplied by itself gives zero — this is the Pauli exclusion principle.) So we can't promote two electrons into the same "state" (again in the sense of "orbital"), because
begin{align*}
A^2|0rangle
&=
left(sum_{k,s} A(k,s)c^dagger(k,s)right)
left(sum_{k',s'} A(k',s')c^dagger(k',s')right)|0rangle \
&=
sum_{k,s}sum_{k',s'}
A(k,s)
A(k',s')c^dagger(k,s)c^dagger(k',s')|0rangle \
&=
sum_{k,s}sum_{k',s'}
A(k,s)
A(k',s')frac{c^dagger(k,s)c^dagger(k',s')+c^dagger(k',s')c^dagger(k,s)}{2}|0rangle \
&= 0
end{align*}

where the second-to-last step follows because the sums are invariant under the exchange of $(k,s)$ and $(k',s')$. The zero state-vector does not represent any physical state, so two electrons cannot occupy the same "state." (This sentence uses the word "state" with two different meanings: the first one means the overall state of the system, and the second one is like "orbital." If I had the power to revise the established langauge, I would!) But now consider the operator
$$
B equiv sum_{k,s} B(k,s)c^dagger(k,s)c^dagger(-k,-s),
$$

which is a rough analogue of the operator that creates a Cooper pair. The momenta and spins of the two electrons in this pair are entangled with each other (because the sum cannot be factorized). As a result of this entanglement, we have
$$
B^n|0rangleneq 0
$$

even for large $ngg 1$. The individual electrons still obey the Pauli exclusion principle (the operators $c^dagger$ still anticommute with each other), but their entanglement means that plenty of terms in the product still survive even after taking this anticommutativity into account, leaving a nonzero result.



By the way, this is also why some atoms can behave as bosons (which don't obey the Pauli exclusion principle), despite being made of fermions (which do):



Why do bosonic atoms behave like they do?



So, again, entanglement is a necessary condition for conventional superconductivity, but not a sufficient condition.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for your thorough answer. I have a follow up question though (I am not a quantum physicist but I have a fasciation with the topic. Please excuse my ignorance). You said that "The electrons in an ordinary non-superconducting metal are also in an entangled state". Why os that necessarily true? Can't electrons exist in a metal in a way that are not entangled with one another? What observables would change if they were NOT entangled with one another?
    $endgroup$
    – Marc DiNino
    Dec 22 '18 at 0:44








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This: "Entanglement is ubiquitous — it is the norm rather than the exception." can't be emphasized enough, esp. given a lot of people who may read things with only a "pop cult" understanding that makes it seem like that "entanglement" is some peculiarity that requires special and/or artificial circumstances to occur.
    $endgroup$
    – The_Sympathizer
    Dec 22 '18 at 8:12








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MarcDiNino That's a good question, and I don't have a complete answer. I didn't mean to suggest that the (mobile) electrons in a metal are entangled with each other in any usefully systematic way, only that it would be exceedingly unlikely for them to remain unentangled, given that they're all moving around and interacting in complicated ways. As stated on page 6 in "Electron-hole entanglement in the Fermi sea" (arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0508488), "One way to entangle particles is by letting them interact with each other." Entanglement is simply hard to avoid.
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Yand
    Dec 22 '18 at 15:07


















8












$begingroup$

The BCS state describing a conventional superconductor is indeed an entangled state, involving a superposition of different numbers of Cooper pairs, each of which involves a superposition of different combinations of paired momenta. This is a loose verbal description of equation (40) in




  • Bardeen, Cooper, & Schrieffer, "Chapter 10: Superconductivity" (2017), http://www.phys.lsu.edu/~jarrell/COURSES/SOLID_STATE/Chap10/chap10.pdf


However, although this kind of entanglement may be a necessary condition for superconductivity, entanglement itself is certainly not a sufficient condition. The electrons in an ordinary non-superconducting metal are also in an entangled state, so I don't think we can say that entanglement "causes" superconductivity.



Entanglement is ubiquitous — it is the norm rather than the exception. Unentangled states (states in which each particle has a wavefunction of its own) are the exceptional ones.



An important thing about the BCS state is the specific way in which the electrons are entangled with each other. BCS superconductivity relies on the fact that many Cooper pairs can occupy the same "state," using the word "state" here like the word "orbital" in atomic physics. The particular way in which the electrons are entangled with each other is what makes this possible despite the fact that electrons individually obey the Pauli exclusion principle.



Here's the rough idea: let $|0rangle$ denote the ground state and let $c^dagger(k,s)$ denote the operator that promotes a single electron with spin $s=pm 1/2$ (up or down) to an excited state with momentum $k$. Then an operator of the form
$$
A equiv sum_{k,s} A(k,s)c^dagger(k,s),
$$

with complex coefficients $A(k,s)$ creates a single electron with some generic wavefunction. Electrons are fermions, which means that the operators $c^dagger(k,s)$ all anticommute with each other.
(In particular, any such operator multiplied by itself gives zero — this is the Pauli exclusion principle.) So we can't promote two electrons into the same "state" (again in the sense of "orbital"), because
begin{align*}
A^2|0rangle
&=
left(sum_{k,s} A(k,s)c^dagger(k,s)right)
left(sum_{k',s'} A(k',s')c^dagger(k',s')right)|0rangle \
&=
sum_{k,s}sum_{k',s'}
A(k,s)
A(k',s')c^dagger(k,s)c^dagger(k',s')|0rangle \
&=
sum_{k,s}sum_{k',s'}
A(k,s)
A(k',s')frac{c^dagger(k,s)c^dagger(k',s')+c^dagger(k',s')c^dagger(k,s)}{2}|0rangle \
&= 0
end{align*}

where the second-to-last step follows because the sums are invariant under the exchange of $(k,s)$ and $(k',s')$. The zero state-vector does not represent any physical state, so two electrons cannot occupy the same "state." (This sentence uses the word "state" with two different meanings: the first one means the overall state of the system, and the second one is like "orbital." If I had the power to revise the established langauge, I would!) But now consider the operator
$$
B equiv sum_{k,s} B(k,s)c^dagger(k,s)c^dagger(-k,-s),
$$

which is a rough analogue of the operator that creates a Cooper pair. The momenta and spins of the two electrons in this pair are entangled with each other (because the sum cannot be factorized). As a result of this entanglement, we have
$$
B^n|0rangleneq 0
$$

even for large $ngg 1$. The individual electrons still obey the Pauli exclusion principle (the operators $c^dagger$ still anticommute with each other), but their entanglement means that plenty of terms in the product still survive even after taking this anticommutativity into account, leaving a nonzero result.



By the way, this is also why some atoms can behave as bosons (which don't obey the Pauli exclusion principle), despite being made of fermions (which do):



Why do bosonic atoms behave like they do?



So, again, entanglement is a necessary condition for conventional superconductivity, but not a sufficient condition.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for your thorough answer. I have a follow up question though (I am not a quantum physicist but I have a fasciation with the topic. Please excuse my ignorance). You said that "The electrons in an ordinary non-superconducting metal are also in an entangled state". Why os that necessarily true? Can't electrons exist in a metal in a way that are not entangled with one another? What observables would change if they were NOT entangled with one another?
    $endgroup$
    – Marc DiNino
    Dec 22 '18 at 0:44








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This: "Entanglement is ubiquitous — it is the norm rather than the exception." can't be emphasized enough, esp. given a lot of people who may read things with only a "pop cult" understanding that makes it seem like that "entanglement" is some peculiarity that requires special and/or artificial circumstances to occur.
    $endgroup$
    – The_Sympathizer
    Dec 22 '18 at 8:12








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MarcDiNino That's a good question, and I don't have a complete answer. I didn't mean to suggest that the (mobile) electrons in a metal are entangled with each other in any usefully systematic way, only that it would be exceedingly unlikely for them to remain unentangled, given that they're all moving around and interacting in complicated ways. As stated on page 6 in "Electron-hole entanglement in the Fermi sea" (arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0508488), "One way to entangle particles is by letting them interact with each other." Entanglement is simply hard to avoid.
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Yand
    Dec 22 '18 at 15:07
















8












8








8





$begingroup$

The BCS state describing a conventional superconductor is indeed an entangled state, involving a superposition of different numbers of Cooper pairs, each of which involves a superposition of different combinations of paired momenta. This is a loose verbal description of equation (40) in




  • Bardeen, Cooper, & Schrieffer, "Chapter 10: Superconductivity" (2017), http://www.phys.lsu.edu/~jarrell/COURSES/SOLID_STATE/Chap10/chap10.pdf


However, although this kind of entanglement may be a necessary condition for superconductivity, entanglement itself is certainly not a sufficient condition. The electrons in an ordinary non-superconducting metal are also in an entangled state, so I don't think we can say that entanglement "causes" superconductivity.



Entanglement is ubiquitous — it is the norm rather than the exception. Unentangled states (states in which each particle has a wavefunction of its own) are the exceptional ones.



An important thing about the BCS state is the specific way in which the electrons are entangled with each other. BCS superconductivity relies on the fact that many Cooper pairs can occupy the same "state," using the word "state" here like the word "orbital" in atomic physics. The particular way in which the electrons are entangled with each other is what makes this possible despite the fact that electrons individually obey the Pauli exclusion principle.



Here's the rough idea: let $|0rangle$ denote the ground state and let $c^dagger(k,s)$ denote the operator that promotes a single electron with spin $s=pm 1/2$ (up or down) to an excited state with momentum $k$. Then an operator of the form
$$
A equiv sum_{k,s} A(k,s)c^dagger(k,s),
$$

with complex coefficients $A(k,s)$ creates a single electron with some generic wavefunction. Electrons are fermions, which means that the operators $c^dagger(k,s)$ all anticommute with each other.
(In particular, any such operator multiplied by itself gives zero — this is the Pauli exclusion principle.) So we can't promote two electrons into the same "state" (again in the sense of "orbital"), because
begin{align*}
A^2|0rangle
&=
left(sum_{k,s} A(k,s)c^dagger(k,s)right)
left(sum_{k',s'} A(k',s')c^dagger(k',s')right)|0rangle \
&=
sum_{k,s}sum_{k',s'}
A(k,s)
A(k',s')c^dagger(k,s)c^dagger(k',s')|0rangle \
&=
sum_{k,s}sum_{k',s'}
A(k,s)
A(k',s')frac{c^dagger(k,s)c^dagger(k',s')+c^dagger(k',s')c^dagger(k,s)}{2}|0rangle \
&= 0
end{align*}

where the second-to-last step follows because the sums are invariant under the exchange of $(k,s)$ and $(k',s')$. The zero state-vector does not represent any physical state, so two electrons cannot occupy the same "state." (This sentence uses the word "state" with two different meanings: the first one means the overall state of the system, and the second one is like "orbital." If I had the power to revise the established langauge, I would!) But now consider the operator
$$
B equiv sum_{k,s} B(k,s)c^dagger(k,s)c^dagger(-k,-s),
$$

which is a rough analogue of the operator that creates a Cooper pair. The momenta and spins of the two electrons in this pair are entangled with each other (because the sum cannot be factorized). As a result of this entanglement, we have
$$
B^n|0rangleneq 0
$$

even for large $ngg 1$. The individual electrons still obey the Pauli exclusion principle (the operators $c^dagger$ still anticommute with each other), but their entanglement means that plenty of terms in the product still survive even after taking this anticommutativity into account, leaving a nonzero result.



By the way, this is also why some atoms can behave as bosons (which don't obey the Pauli exclusion principle), despite being made of fermions (which do):



Why do bosonic atoms behave like they do?



So, again, entanglement is a necessary condition for conventional superconductivity, but not a sufficient condition.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



The BCS state describing a conventional superconductor is indeed an entangled state, involving a superposition of different numbers of Cooper pairs, each of which involves a superposition of different combinations of paired momenta. This is a loose verbal description of equation (40) in




  • Bardeen, Cooper, & Schrieffer, "Chapter 10: Superconductivity" (2017), http://www.phys.lsu.edu/~jarrell/COURSES/SOLID_STATE/Chap10/chap10.pdf


However, although this kind of entanglement may be a necessary condition for superconductivity, entanglement itself is certainly not a sufficient condition. The electrons in an ordinary non-superconducting metal are also in an entangled state, so I don't think we can say that entanglement "causes" superconductivity.



Entanglement is ubiquitous — it is the norm rather than the exception. Unentangled states (states in which each particle has a wavefunction of its own) are the exceptional ones.



An important thing about the BCS state is the specific way in which the electrons are entangled with each other. BCS superconductivity relies on the fact that many Cooper pairs can occupy the same "state," using the word "state" here like the word "orbital" in atomic physics. The particular way in which the electrons are entangled with each other is what makes this possible despite the fact that electrons individually obey the Pauli exclusion principle.



Here's the rough idea: let $|0rangle$ denote the ground state and let $c^dagger(k,s)$ denote the operator that promotes a single electron with spin $s=pm 1/2$ (up or down) to an excited state with momentum $k$. Then an operator of the form
$$
A equiv sum_{k,s} A(k,s)c^dagger(k,s),
$$

with complex coefficients $A(k,s)$ creates a single electron with some generic wavefunction. Electrons are fermions, which means that the operators $c^dagger(k,s)$ all anticommute with each other.
(In particular, any such operator multiplied by itself gives zero — this is the Pauli exclusion principle.) So we can't promote two electrons into the same "state" (again in the sense of "orbital"), because
begin{align*}
A^2|0rangle
&=
left(sum_{k,s} A(k,s)c^dagger(k,s)right)
left(sum_{k',s'} A(k',s')c^dagger(k',s')right)|0rangle \
&=
sum_{k,s}sum_{k',s'}
A(k,s)
A(k',s')c^dagger(k,s)c^dagger(k',s')|0rangle \
&=
sum_{k,s}sum_{k',s'}
A(k,s)
A(k',s')frac{c^dagger(k,s)c^dagger(k',s')+c^dagger(k',s')c^dagger(k,s)}{2}|0rangle \
&= 0
end{align*}

where the second-to-last step follows because the sums are invariant under the exchange of $(k,s)$ and $(k',s')$. The zero state-vector does not represent any physical state, so two electrons cannot occupy the same "state." (This sentence uses the word "state" with two different meanings: the first one means the overall state of the system, and the second one is like "orbital." If I had the power to revise the established langauge, I would!) But now consider the operator
$$
B equiv sum_{k,s} B(k,s)c^dagger(k,s)c^dagger(-k,-s),
$$

which is a rough analogue of the operator that creates a Cooper pair. The momenta and spins of the two electrons in this pair are entangled with each other (because the sum cannot be factorized). As a result of this entanglement, we have
$$
B^n|0rangleneq 0
$$

even for large $ngg 1$. The individual electrons still obey the Pauli exclusion principle (the operators $c^dagger$ still anticommute with each other), but their entanglement means that plenty of terms in the product still survive even after taking this anticommutativity into account, leaving a nonzero result.



By the way, this is also why some atoms can behave as bosons (which don't obey the Pauli exclusion principle), despite being made of fermions (which do):



Why do bosonic atoms behave like they do?



So, again, entanglement is a necessary condition for conventional superconductivity, but not a sufficient condition.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Dec 22 '18 at 0:35









Dan YandDan Yand

8,59011235




8,59011235












  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for your thorough answer. I have a follow up question though (I am not a quantum physicist but I have a fasciation with the topic. Please excuse my ignorance). You said that "The electrons in an ordinary non-superconducting metal are also in an entangled state". Why os that necessarily true? Can't electrons exist in a metal in a way that are not entangled with one another? What observables would change if they were NOT entangled with one another?
    $endgroup$
    – Marc DiNino
    Dec 22 '18 at 0:44








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This: "Entanglement is ubiquitous — it is the norm rather than the exception." can't be emphasized enough, esp. given a lot of people who may read things with only a "pop cult" understanding that makes it seem like that "entanglement" is some peculiarity that requires special and/or artificial circumstances to occur.
    $endgroup$
    – The_Sympathizer
    Dec 22 '18 at 8:12








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MarcDiNino That's a good question, and I don't have a complete answer. I didn't mean to suggest that the (mobile) electrons in a metal are entangled with each other in any usefully systematic way, only that it would be exceedingly unlikely for them to remain unentangled, given that they're all moving around and interacting in complicated ways. As stated on page 6 in "Electron-hole entanglement in the Fermi sea" (arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0508488), "One way to entangle particles is by letting them interact with each other." Entanglement is simply hard to avoid.
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Yand
    Dec 22 '18 at 15:07




















  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for your thorough answer. I have a follow up question though (I am not a quantum physicist but I have a fasciation with the topic. Please excuse my ignorance). You said that "The electrons in an ordinary non-superconducting metal are also in an entangled state". Why os that necessarily true? Can't electrons exist in a metal in a way that are not entangled with one another? What observables would change if they were NOT entangled with one another?
    $endgroup$
    – Marc DiNino
    Dec 22 '18 at 0:44








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This: "Entanglement is ubiquitous — it is the norm rather than the exception." can't be emphasized enough, esp. given a lot of people who may read things with only a "pop cult" understanding that makes it seem like that "entanglement" is some peculiarity that requires special and/or artificial circumstances to occur.
    $endgroup$
    – The_Sympathizer
    Dec 22 '18 at 8:12








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MarcDiNino That's a good question, and I don't have a complete answer. I didn't mean to suggest that the (mobile) electrons in a metal are entangled with each other in any usefully systematic way, only that it would be exceedingly unlikely for them to remain unentangled, given that they're all moving around and interacting in complicated ways. As stated on page 6 in "Electron-hole entanglement in the Fermi sea" (arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0508488), "One way to entangle particles is by letting them interact with each other." Entanglement is simply hard to avoid.
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Yand
    Dec 22 '18 at 15:07


















$begingroup$
Thank you for your thorough answer. I have a follow up question though (I am not a quantum physicist but I have a fasciation with the topic. Please excuse my ignorance). You said that "The electrons in an ordinary non-superconducting metal are also in an entangled state". Why os that necessarily true? Can't electrons exist in a metal in a way that are not entangled with one another? What observables would change if they were NOT entangled with one another?
$endgroup$
– Marc DiNino
Dec 22 '18 at 0:44






$begingroup$
Thank you for your thorough answer. I have a follow up question though (I am not a quantum physicist but I have a fasciation with the topic. Please excuse my ignorance). You said that "The electrons in an ordinary non-superconducting metal are also in an entangled state". Why os that necessarily true? Can't electrons exist in a metal in a way that are not entangled with one another? What observables would change if they were NOT entangled with one another?
$endgroup$
– Marc DiNino
Dec 22 '18 at 0:44






1




1




$begingroup$
This: "Entanglement is ubiquitous — it is the norm rather than the exception." can't be emphasized enough, esp. given a lot of people who may read things with only a "pop cult" understanding that makes it seem like that "entanglement" is some peculiarity that requires special and/or artificial circumstances to occur.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Dec 22 '18 at 8:12






$begingroup$
This: "Entanglement is ubiquitous — it is the norm rather than the exception." can't be emphasized enough, esp. given a lot of people who may read things with only a "pop cult" understanding that makes it seem like that "entanglement" is some peculiarity that requires special and/or artificial circumstances to occur.
$endgroup$
– The_Sympathizer
Dec 22 '18 at 8:12






1




1




$begingroup$
@MarcDiNino That's a good question, and I don't have a complete answer. I didn't mean to suggest that the (mobile) electrons in a metal are entangled with each other in any usefully systematic way, only that it would be exceedingly unlikely for them to remain unentangled, given that they're all moving around and interacting in complicated ways. As stated on page 6 in "Electron-hole entanglement in the Fermi sea" (arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0508488), "One way to entangle particles is by letting them interact with each other." Entanglement is simply hard to avoid.
$endgroup$
– Dan Yand
Dec 22 '18 at 15:07






$begingroup$
@MarcDiNino That's a good question, and I don't have a complete answer. I didn't mean to suggest that the (mobile) electrons in a metal are entangled with each other in any usefully systematic way, only that it would be exceedingly unlikely for them to remain unentangled, given that they're all moving around and interacting in complicated ways. As stated on page 6 in "Electron-hole entanglement in the Fermi sea" (arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0508488), "One way to entangle particles is by letting them interact with each other." Entanglement is simply hard to avoid.
$endgroup$
– Dan Yand
Dec 22 '18 at 15:07




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f449757%2fcan-superconductivity-be-understood-to-be-a-result-of-quantum-entanglement%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

"Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'ON'. (on update cascade, on delete cascade,)

Alcedinidae

RAC Tourist Trophy