Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Página 1
FS Bergeret
Departamento de Física Teórica da Matéria Condensada, Universidad Autónoma de
Madri, E-28049 Madri, Espanha
AF Volkov
Theoretische Physik III, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, D-44780 Bochum, Alemanha
e Instituto de Radioengenharia e Eletrônica da Academia Russa de Ciências,
125009 Moscou, Rússia
KB Efetov
Theoretische Physik III, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, D-44780 Bochum, Alemanha
e LD Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics, 119334 Moscou, Rússia
Publicado 28 de novembro de 2005
Página 2
1322 Bergeret, Volkov e Efetov: Supercondutividade do trigêmeo estranho e fenômenos relacionados…
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 1/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
não foi tão alto. No entanto, esse campo também já é bem sabido que os elétrons com diferentes rotações
sofreu um tremendo desenvolvimento. Tecnologicamente pertencem a diferentes bandas de energia. A mudança de energia do
Os supercondutores tradicionais costumam ser mais fáceis de duas
manipular.
bandas podem ser consideradas como uma troca eficaz
tarde do que de alto T c cuprates. Um dos principais campo atuando no spin dos elétrons. O condensado
mentos da última década é a produção de alta qualidade de supercondutores convencionais é fortemente influenciado
contatos entre supercondutores e metais normais por este campo de troca dos ferromagnetos e geralmente
S / N , supercondutores e ferromagnetos S / F , e su- isso reduz drasticamente as correlações supercondutoras.
percondutores e isoladores S / I. Essas heteroestruturas A supressão das correlações supercondutoras
podem ser muito pequenas com tamanhos característicos de é uma consequência do princípio de Pauli. Na maioria dos
micrômetros. condutores, a função de onda dos pares de Cooper é sin-
Isso abriu um novo campo de pesquisa. O pequeno glet para que os elétrons de um par tenham spins opostos.
O tamanho dessas estruturas fornece a coerência de super- Em outras palavras, ambos os elétrons não podem estar no mesmo
realização de correlações longo do comprimento total da re N estado, o que aconteceria se eles tivessem o mesmo giro. E se
gion. O comprimento da penetração de condensado no o campo de troca do ferromagneto é suficientemente
A região N é restrita por processos de decoerência forte, ele tenta alinhar os spins dos elétrons de um
espalhamento elástico ou spin-flip. Em baixas temperaturas Par de cooper paralelo entre si, destruindo assim o
comprimento característico ao longo do qual esses processos de supercondutividade.
decoerência Em relação às interfaces S / F e ao
Os cortes podem ocorrer em alguns microns. Super- penetração do condensado no ferromagneto,
conduzindo efeitos coerentes em nanoestruturas S / N , tais estes efeitos significam que o condensado supercondutor
como oscilações de condutância em um campo magnético externo, decaem rapidamente na região ferromagnética. Uma estimativa
foram estudados intensivamente durante a última década, ver, mate
por leva à conclusão de que a razão entre o
exemplo, os artigos de revisão de Beenakker 1997 e profundidade de penetração de densato em ferromagnetos ao de
Lambert e Raimondi 1998. metais não magnéticos com alta concentração de impurezas
A interação entre um supercondutor S e um é da ordem de T c / h , onde h é a energia de troca
metal normal N em tipos mais simples de estruturas S / N parae T c é a temperatura crítica do supercondutor
Por exemplo, as bicamadas S / N estão sendo estudadas ea transição. A energia de troca em ferro convencional
física principal deste chamado efeito de proximidade é bem ímãs, como Fe ou Co é várias ordens de magnitude
descrito por de Gennes 1964 e Deutscher e de superior a T c e, portanto, a profundidade de penetração
Gennes 1969. Nestes trabalhos notou-se que não os ferromagnetos são muito menores que os da nor-
só o supercondutor muda as propriedades do metais mal.
o metal normal, mas o metal normal também tem um forte O estudo do efeito de proximidade em estruturas S / F
efeito sobre o supercondutor. Foi demonstrado que perto do começou há não muito tempo, mas já evoluiu para um
Interface S / N a supercondutividade é suprimida campo muito ativo de pesquisa para uma revisão, ver Izyumov et
o comprimento de correlação S , o que significa que a ordem al. 2002; Golubov et al. 2004; Lyuksyutov e Pokémon
parâmetro é reduzido na interface em comparação rovsky 2004; Buzdin 2005a. O efeito do apoio
com seu valor em massa longe da interface. No pressão de supercondutividade por ferromagnetismo é
mesmo tempo, o condensado supercondutor penetra claramente visto experimentalmente e corresponde ao
o metal normal sobre o comprimento N , que a baixa temperatura imagem simples da destruição do superconjunto singlete
as peraturas podem ser muito maiores que S. Devido ao ductivity pelo campo de troca como discutido acima.
etração do condensado no metal normal ao longo À primeira vista, parece que, devido ao forte
grandes distâncias, o efeito de Josephson é possível em S / N /da
S supercondutividade o efeito de proximidade em S / F
junções com espessuras das N regiões do pedido estruturas é menos interessante do que nos sistemas S / N.
de algumas centenas de nanômetros. Os efeitos de Josephson em No entanto, isto não é assim porque a física da proximidade
As junções S / N / S foram estudadas em muitos trabalhos e O efeito iminente nas estruturas S / F não é exaurido
Uma boa visão geral, experimental e teórica, é supressão da supercondutividade e novos interesses muito
dada por Kulik e Yanson 1970, Likharev 1979, e efeitos de entrada entram em jogo. Além disso, sob alguns
Barone e Paterno 1982. a supercondutividade não é necessariamente supérflua
A situação descrita acima é bem diferente se um pressionado pelos ferromagnetos porque a presença do
camada isolante I é colocada entre dois superconductos este último pode levar a um emparelhamento supercondutor tripla
ors. A espessura do isolador em estruturas S / I / S Bergeret et al. , 2001a; Kadigrobov et al. , 2001. Em alguns
não pode ser tão grande quanto a dos metais normais porque casos não só o ferromagnetismo tendem a destruir
funções de onda de elétrons decair no isolador em atômica a supercondutividade, mas a supercondutividade pode
distâncias Como conseqüência, a corrente de Josephson é também suprimem o ferromagnetismo Buzdin e Bula-
extremamente pequeno em estruturas S / I / S com um evskii, 1988; Bergeret et al. , 2000. Isso pode afetar “real”
ing camada. ferromagnetos fortes como ferro ou níquel com um Curie
Mas o que dizer das heterojunções S / F / S , onde F temperatura muito maior que a temperatura de transição
observa um metal ferromagnético? Em princípio, o elétron ture do supercondutor.
função de onda pode estender para o ferromagneto ao longo de um Ao todo, está se tornando cada vez mais evidente
distância bastante grande sem uma decadência considerável. Como-
estudos experimentais e teóricos recentes de que os
Página 3
1323
Bergeret, Volkov e Efetov: Supercondutividade do trigêmeo estranho e fenômenos relacionados…
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 2/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
não homogêneo.
intrínseco para o Essas não-homogeneidades
material ferromagnético, como podem
o ser com
seçõesumsecundárias
campo de troca que oforte?
campoVeremos
de trocano subseqüente
não é homogêneo
paredes principais, ou surgem como resultado de manipula- um componente de longo alcance da atmosfera.
como estruturas multicamadas com diferentes pode ser induzido no ferromagneto. este
direções de magnetização, que também pode ser falado componente está em um estado triplet e pode penetrar o F
como um alinhamento não homogêneo do região em distâncias comparáveis a N , como no caso de
mentos. um metal normal.
Claro, estamos longe de dizer que não há nada Nós agora delineamos a estrutura da presente revisão. Dentro
interessante ser visto quando o campo de troca é homo- Sec. II discutimos os efeitos de proximidade em estruturas S / N
Gene. Embora seja verdade que neste caso a penetra- e estruturas S / F com uma magnetização homogênea.
profundidade do condensado supercondutor no Os principais resultados ilustrados foram apresentados em
ferromagneto é curto, o decaimento exponencial do outros comentários e nós discutimos-los, a fim de dar o
função densate em ferromagnets é acompanhada por leitor uma introdução aos trabalhos anteriores. Seção II pode
oscilações no espaço. Essas oscilações levam, por também ajuda na compreensão dos métodos de cálculo
amplas, às oscilações da crítica supercondutora usado nas seções subseqüentes. Já se pode ver de
temperatura T c e a corrente Josephson atual I c em essa discussão de que os ferromagnetos homogêneos
Estruturas S / F em função da espessura d F. Pré- tato com supercondutores levar a novos e interessantes
ditado por Buzdin e Kupriyanov 1990 e Radovic et física.
al. 1991, a observação desse comportamento oscilatório No entanto, as não-homogeneidades o fazem ainda mais.
foi relatado pela primeira vez por Jiang et al. 1995, sobre as estruturas
Revimos Gd / Nbvários efeitos diferentes que surgem no
abaixo
turas. Indicações do comportamento não monotônico de T c como situação não homogênea. Acontece que um não
uma funo de dF foi tamb relatada por Wong et al. 1986, alinhamento homogêneo do campo de troca leva a um
Strunk et al. 1994, Mercaldo et al. 1996, Mühge et al. estrutura de rotação complicada do con- trapaça supercondutor
1996, Obiand et al. 1999 e Velez et al. 1999. densar. Como resultado, não só o compo
Entretanto, em outros experimentos, a dependência de T c existe um condensado do condensado, mas também um tripleto
em d F era monótono. Por exemplo, no trabalho de Bour- todas as projeções possíveis do spin total do Cooper
geois e Dynes 2002 a temperatura crítica do par S z = 0, ± 1. Em contraste com o componente singleto, o
bicamada Pb / Ni diminuiu aumentando a espessura da camadaosFgiros dos elétrons no tripleto um com S z = ± 1 são
ness d F de uma maneira monótona. Nos experimentos de paralelos um ao outro. O condensado Gor'kov funciona
Mühge et al. 1998 em estruturas Fe / Nb / Fe e por ção f tr do estado triplete é uma função ímpar do Mat-
Aarts et al. 1997 em sistemas V / Fe tanto um monotônico freqüência subara. 1 A singuleto parte f sng é, como de costume, uma
e comportamento não monotônico de T c foi observado. este mesmo função de mas muda de sinal quando intercambia
comportamento diferente foi atribuído às mudanças do os índices de spin. É por isso que a anticomutação
transmitância da interface S / F. Um abrangente relações para as funções iguais em tempo f tr t, t e f sng t, t
análise tendo em conta a qualidade da amostra foi permanecer válido; em particular, f tr t , t = 0 e f sng t , t 0
feita para diferentes materiais por Chien e Reich 1999. Portanto, a supercondutividade em estruturas S / F pode ser
Resultados mais convincentes foram encontrados medindo muito incomum. Juntamente com a parte usual de singles BCS,
Corrente crítica de Josephson em uma junção S / F / S. Devidotambém
a pode conter a parte tripla que é simétrica em
o comportamento oscilatório da condensação supercondutora espaço de momentum no caso difusivo e ímpar em fre-
Na região F , a corrente crítica de Josephson deveria quência. Ambos os componentes são insensíveis à dispersão
mudar seu sinal em um entroncamento S / junção.
F / S este por impurezas não magnéticas e, portanto, sobreviver em S / F
fenômeno, previsto há muito tempo por Bulaevskii et al. estruturas, mesmo que o caminho livre médio l seja curto. Quando
1977 só recentemente foi confirmado experimentalmente gerado, o componente tripleto não é destruído pelo
Kontos et al. 2001, 2002; Ryazanov et al. 2001; Blum et campo de troca e pode penetrar no ferromagneto sobre
al. 2002; Bauer et al. 2004; Sellier et al. 2004
Experimentos em propriedades de transporte de estruturas S / F
também foram realizados nos últimos anos. Por exemplo, 1 Supercondutividade causada pelo trio ímpar em condensado
oud et al. 1998 e Petrashov et al. 1999 observou uma é chamado aqui de supercondutividade ímpar.
Página 4
1324 Bergeret, Volkov e Efetov: Supercondutividade do trigêmeo estranho e fenômenos relacionados…
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 3/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
A estrutura
aluguel flui SF / I / FS
através é colinear
de um isolantee aI, estrutura de Josephson
mas não através do mento
tato pode
com umser induzido emEste
ferromagneto. um efeito
supercondutor
tem umaque estámuito
forma em simples
ferromagnetos. Ingenuamente, seria de se esperar que a explicação. Existe uma probabilidade de que algumas das
A presença de ferromagnetos leva a uma redução do valor de tron de pares de Cooper entram no ferromagneto e sua rotação
a corrente crítica. No entanto, a situação é mais tende a ser paralelo ao momento magnético. No
esting. A corrente crítica é maior quando o magnético mesmo tempo, o spin do segundo elétron do Cooper
momentos das camadas F são antiparalelas do que quando par deve ser oposto ao primeiro, o par de singlete
são paralelos. Além disso, verifica-se que a crise crítica ou o trigêmeo com S z = 0 é assumido. Como um resultado,
aluguel para a configuração antiparalela é ainda maior do que um momento magnético com direção oposta à mag-
aquele na ausência de qualquer camada ferromagnética. Dentro momento nético do ferromagneto é induzido no
Em outras palavras, o ferromagnetismo pode melhorar a percondutor em distâncias da supercondutora co-
atual Bergeret et al. , 2001b. comprimento de herença S.
Outra configuração é sugerida para observar as viagens ímpares. Em princípio, o momento magnético total pode ser com-
deixe supercondutividade discutida na Sec. III Aqui o completamente rastreado pelo supercondutor. Formalmente, o
o aluguel deve fluir através das camadas ferromagnéticas. Usu- aparência do momento magnético no superconjunto
Por outro lado, pode-se pensar que a corrente crítica seria ductor é devido ao componente tripleto do condensado
decaimento muito rápido com o aumento da espessura do fer- que é induzido no ferromagnético F e penetra em
camada romagnética. No entanto, outro efeito é possível. o supercondutor S. É importante notar que isso
Alterando a direção mútua da ferida adicional efeito deve desaparecer se a supercondutividade estiver
camadas romagnéticas pode-se gerar o trio ímpar por exemplo, aquecimento, e isso dá a possibilidade de
componente do condensado supercondutor. Este componente uma observação do efeito. Além do Meissner
nente pode penetrar na camada ferromagnética como se fosse efeito, um este é mais um mecanismo de campo magnético
metal normal, levando a grandes valores da corrente crítica triagem por supercondutividade. Em contraste com o Meiss-
aluguel. efeito no qual o rastreio é devido ao orbital
Tais estruturas podem ser úteis para detectar e manipular movimento de elétrons, este é um tipo de triagem de spin.
nipulando o componente tripleto do condensado em Finalmente, na Sec. VI discutimos os resultados apresentados e
experimentos. Em particular, veremos que em alguns S / F tente antecipar as direções futuras da pesquisa. Ap-
estruturas do tipo de supercondutividade é diferente em O pêndulo A contém informações sobre a aplicação quasiclássica
direções diferentes. Na direção longitudinal na teoria da supercondutividade.
supercondutividade plana é causada principalmente pelo pecadoDevemos mencionar que vários artigos de revisão sobre
componente glet, enquanto que na direção transversal Tópicos relacionados a S / F foram publicados recentemente
componente tripleto contribui principalmente para a supercon-Izyumov et al. 2002; Golubov et al. 2004; Lyuksyutov
ductivity. Também discutimos as possibilidades de um experimento e Pokrovsky, 2004; Buzdin, 2005a. Nestes comentários
tal observação do componente tripleto. várias propriedades de estruturas S / F são discutidas para o
Embora o efeito mais pronunciado das interações caso de uma magnetização homogênea. Na revisão por
entre supercondutividade e ferromagnetismo é Lyuksyutov e Pokrovsky 2004 o foco principal está em
Página 5
1325
Bergeret, Volkov e Efetov: Supercondutividade do trigêmeo estranho e fenômenos relacionados…
FIG. 1. S / N bicamada.
junção com uma condutância de interface N / S alta pode onde D N , S é o coeficiente de difusão em N e S
mudar drasticamente. regiões. A quantidade 0 é o valor em massa do pedido
O estudo do efeito de proximidade remonta ao início parâmetro no supercondutor S. Desaparece quando T
ning dos anos 1960 e foi revisado em muitas publicações atinge a temperatura de transição T c .
ver, por exemplo, de Gennes 1964 e Deutscher and de Deve-se notar, no entanto, que a região aplicável
Gennes 1969. Verificou-se que a temperatura crítica da Eq. 2.1 para a descrição dos contatos S / N é
tura do supercondutor em um sistema S / N diminuiu bastante restrito. Claro, a temperatura deve ser
Página 6
1326 Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena …
perto da temperatura de transição T c, mas isso não é equação. O DOS é uma quantidade muito importante que pode
suficiente. A equação de Ginzburg-Landau descreve ser medido experimentalmente e, ao mesmo tempo, pode
variações dos parâmetros de ordem corretamente somente se ser calculado sem dificuldades.
são lentos nas escalas v F / T c para o caso limpo ou Consideramos a estrutura S / N mostrada na Fig. 1 e
D N , S / T c no caso “sujo” difusivo. Isso pode ser suponha que o sistema é difusivo, ou seja, a condição
alcançado se o metal normal for um mate supercondutor 1 é assumido como sendo cumprido, onde está a
rial tirado a uma temperatura superior à sua temperatura de tum tempo de relaxamento e é a energia e que o
perature T cN e as temperaturas de transição T cS e a transparência do S / N é baixa o suficiente. Neste caso, o
função de condensado verde f
T cN estão próximos uns dos outros. Se esta condição não for satisfatória = dt ft - t exp i t
Por exemplo, T cN = 0, deve-se usar mais complicado - t é pequeno na região de N e na equação de Usadel
equações, mesmo em temperaturas próximas a T cS , como mostramospode ser linearizado, consulte o Apêndice A.
abaixo. Assumindo que a fronteira entre o superconjunto
Segue da Eq. 2.1 que na região S , longe de O metal dutor e normal é plano e escolhe a coordenação
a interface N / S , o parâmetro order r é igual ao nate x perpendicular ao limite reduzimos o uso de
valor em massa 0 , enquanto na região N r decai equação adel na região N para a forma
ponencialmente a zero com comprimento N.
O parâmetro order r está relacionado ao condensado D N 2 f / x 2 + 2 i f = 0, 2,5
função ou função de Gor'kov onde D N = v F l / 3 é o coeficiente de difusão clássico.
A solução desta equação pode ser encontrada facilmente e
ft , t = T ↓t 2,3 escrito como
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 5/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
veniently
que usado em de
o comprimento problemas envolvendo escalas de comprimento maiores
onda Fermi = Re g . 2,8
F e energias muito
menor que a energia de Fermi. Alternativamente, pode-se As the condensate function f is small, a correction para
tente encontrar uma solução exata do normal e anômala the DOS due to the proximity effect is also small. No
funções do elétron Green para as equações de Gor'kov, main approximation the DOS is very close to its value
mas isso é, na maioria dos casos, uma tarefa difícil. in the absence of the superconductor, 1. Corrections
A fim de ilustrar a conveniência de usar a to the DOS are determined by the condensate func-
método clássico agora calculamos a mudança do tion f . Da Eq. 2.7 one obtains
densidade de tunelamento de estados DOS no metal normal
devido ao efeito de proximidade com a ajuda do Usadel f 2 /2.
Página 7
Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena … 1327
Now we consider another case when the function f is equations near the interface and compare the
not small and the correction is on the order of unity. asymptotic behavior of this solution at large distances
Then the linearized Eq. 2.5 may no longer be used and with the solutions of the Usadel equation. This proce-
we should write a more general one. For a S / N system dure is equivalent to solving the quasiclassical equations
the general equation can be written as see Appendix A with some boundary conditions. These conditions were
derived by Zaitsev 1984 and Kuprianov and Lukichev
− iD S , N gg / x S , N / x + ˆ 3 , g S , N + ˆ 1988 see also Appendix A where these conditions are
S , g S , N = 0.
2,9 discutido em mais detalhes. For the present case they can
be written as
This nonlinear equation contains the quasiclassical ma-
trix Green's function g . Both normal g and anomalous 2 S , N gg / x S , N = g S , g N x =0 , 2,13
Green's functions f enter as elements of this matrix where S , N = R b S , N , R b , measured in units cm 2 , is the
through the following relation the phase in the super- S / N interface resistance per unit area in the normal
conductor is set to zero: state, and S , N are the conductivities of the S and N
g N = g N ˆ 3 + f N iˆ 2 , 2,10 metals in the normal state.
We assume that the thickness of the normal metal d N
where i , i =1,2,3 are Pauli matrices and A , B = AB is smaller than the characteristic penetration length
− BA is the commutator for any matrices A and B . N = D N / for a given energy , that is 2 D N / d2N
We consider a flat S / N interface normal to the x axis. = E Th . Then the functions g and f remain almost constant
The normal metal occupies the region 0 x d N . We as- over the thickness of the metal, and to find them, one
sume that in the normal metal N there is no electron- can average the Usadel equation over the thickness. Dentro
electron interaction other words, we assume that the thickness d N of the N
N =0, see Eq. 2.4 so that in this
region the superconducting order parameter vanishes, layer satisfies the inequality
ˆ
N =0. In the superconductor the matrix S has the dN DN/, bN 2.14
ˆ
estrutura S = iˆ 2 .
At large distances from the S / N interface the Green’s bN is a characteristic energy in the DOS of the N layer
and average Eq. 2.9 over the thickness d N considering
functions g S of the superconductor do not depend on
coordinates and the first term in Eq. 2.9 can be ne- g N as a constant in the second term of this equation.
glected. Then we obtain a simpler equation Using the boundary condition, Eq. 2.13, the first term
in Eq. 2.9 can be replaced after integration by the com-
ˆ 3 , g S + iˆ 2 , g S = 0. 2,11 mutator g S , g N x =0 . At x = d N the product gg / x N is
zero because the barrier resistance R b d N is infinite the
The solution for this equation satisfying the normaliza- current cannot flow into the vacuum. Finally, we obtain
tion condition 2.7 is Zaitsev, 1990
g BCS = / , f BCS = / , 2,12 + i b g S 0 ˆ 3 , g N + bN if S 0 iˆ 2 , g N = 0, 2,15
Onde = 2 − 2 . Equation 2.12 is just the BCS solu- where bN = D N /2 N d N is a new characteristic energy
tion for a bulk superconductor. that is determined by the S / N interface resistance R b .
In order to find the matrix gx in both the S and N This equation looks similar to Eq. 2.11 after making
regions, Eq. 2.9 should be complemented by boundary the replacement g S →g N . The solution is similar to the
conditions and this is a nontrivial problem. Começando de solution 2.12,
the initial Hamiltonian Hˆ tot , Eq. 2.22, one does not
need boundary conditions at the interface between the g N = ˜ /̃ , f N = ˜ bN / ˜ , 2,16
superconductor and the ferromagnet because the inter- ˜ = ˜ 2 − ˜ 2bN , ˜ bN = bN if S 0.
face can be described by introducing a proper potential Onde ˜ = + i bN g S 0,
in the Hamiltonian. In this case the self-consistent Therefore the Green's functions in the N layer g N and f N
Gor'kov equations can be derived. are determined by the Green's functions on the S side of
However, in deriving the Usadel equation, Eq. A18, the S / N interface g S 0 and f S 0. In order to find the
we have simplified the initial Gor'kov equations using values of g S 0 and f S 0, one has to solve Eq. 2.9 on
the quasiclassical approximation. Possible spatial varia- the superconducting side x 0. However, provided the
tion of the interface potential on a very small scale, due inequality
to the roughness of the interface, cannot be included in
the quasiclassical equations. Nevertheless, this problem N/S=N/S 1 2,17
is avoided by deriving the quasiclassical equations at dis- is fulfilled, one can easily show that in the main approxi-
tances from the interface exceeding the wavelength. Dentro mation the solution in the S region coincides with the
the diffusive case one should go away from the interface solution for bulk superconductors 2.12. If the transpar-
to distances larger than the mean free path l . A fim de
match the solutions in the superconducting and nonsu-
perconducting regions one should solve exactly the 2 The quantity E Th = D N / d2Nis the Thouless energy.
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 6/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
Página 8
1328 Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena …
ency of the S / N interface is not high, bN , the char- DOS has sharp peaks at = n for a recent review see
acteristic energies bN are much smaller than e Deutscher 2005 . If E Th is much larger than ,a
the functions g S 0 and f S 0 are equal to g S 0 DOS is zero at =0 and increases with increasing
g BCS 0 / i , f S 0 f BCS 0 1/ i . For these energies the energy no gap. However, this is true only for such
the functions g N and f N have the same form as the BCS a simple geometry. For samples of more complicated
functions g BCS and f BCS 2.12 with the replacement shapes the behavior of the DOS depends on
→ bN , whether the electron dynamics in the N region is chaotic
or integrable Melsen et al. , 1996; Beenakker, 1997; Lod-
gN= ,fN= bN , 2,18 der and Nazarov, 1998; Pilgram et al. 2000; Taras-
2
2 − bN 2
2 − bN Semchuk and Altland, 2001.
Finally, it was shown by Altland et al. 2000 and Os-
where bN = D N /2 R b N d N . The energy bN can be repre-
trovsky et al. 2001 that mesoscopic fluctuations smear
sented in another form,
out the singularity in the DOS at = bN and the DOS
2 RQ vF vF Tb in the diffusive limit is finite, although small, for
bN = 2 R b k2F d N = d N 4 , 2,19
bN . The minigap discussed above has been observed
on a Nb/Si bilayer system and on a Pb/Ag granular sys-
where R Q =/ e 2 is the resistance quantum, v F and k F are tem by Heslinga et al. 1994 and Kouh and Valles
the Fermi velocity and wave vector. When obtaining the 2003, respectively.
latter expression, we used a relation between the barrier From this analysis we see that the proximity effect
resistance R b and an effective coefficient of transmission changes the DOS of the normal metal which acquires
T b through the S / N interface Zaitsev, 1984; Kuprianov superconducting properties. In the next section we shall
and Lukichev, 1988: R b n =2/3 l / T b , where l = v F é focus our attention on the case in which the normal
the mean free path, T b = T cos /1− T , éo metal is a ferromagnet. We shall see that new interesting
angle between the momentum of an incoming electron physics will arise from the mutual interaction of super-
and the vector normal to the S / N interface, and T é conductivity and magnetism.
the angle-dependent transmission coefficient. The angle
brackets mean an averaging over .
An important result follows from Eq. 2,18. The DOS B. Superconductor-ferromagnet structures with a uniform
is zero at magnetization
bN , ie, bN is a minigap in the excitation
spectrum McMillan, 1968. Remarkably, in the limit In this section we consider the proximity effect be-
bN the value of bN does not depend on , but is tween a superconductor S and a ferromagnet F . We as-
determined by the interface transparency or, in other sume that the ferromagnet is a metal and has a conduc-
words, by the interface resistance R b . A aparência de tion band. In addition, there is an exchange field due to
the minigap is related to Andreev reflections Andreev, spins of electrons of other bands.
1964. As has already been mentioned, the effective ex-
Equation 2.19 for the minigap is valid if the inequali- change field acts on spins of the conduction electrons in
ties 2.14 and bN are fulfilled. Both inequalities can the ferromagnet, and an additional term Hˆ ex describing
be written as this action appears in the total Hamiltonian for more
D N // d b dN db, 2,20 details see Appendix A
where d b =2 R b N is a characteristic length. No caso de Hˆ tot = Hˆ + Hˆ ex , 2,22
a small interface resistance R b or a large thickness of the
N layer, that is, if the condition D N /, d b d N is ful-
filled, the value of the minigap in the N layer is given by Hˆ ex = − d 3 r + rhr rdr, 2,23
Golubov and Kupriyanov, 1996
where + are creation and destruction operators, h is
DN the exchange field, are Pauli matrices, and , are
bN = c 1d 2N , 2.21
spin indices. The Hamiltonian Hˆ stands for a nonmag-
where c 1 is a factor of the order 1. This result has been netic part of the Hamiltonian. It includes the kinetic en-
obtained from a numerical solution of the Usadel equa- ergy, impurities, external potentials, etc., and is sufficient
ção. The DOS for the case of arbitrary thickness d N and to describe all properties of the system in the absence of
interface transparency was calculated by Pilgram et al. the exchange field.
2000. The energy of the spin-up electrons differs from the
The situation changes in the clean limit. Let us con- energy of the spin-down electrons by the Zeeman en-
sider, for example, a normal slab of thickness d N in con- ergy 2 h . Due to the presence of the term Hˆ ex describing
tact with an infinite superconductor. If the Thouless en- the exchange interaction, all functions, including the
ergy E Th = v F / d N is less than , then discrete energy condensate Green's function f , are generally speaking
levels n appear Saint-James, 1964 in the N region due nontrivial matrices in the spin space with nonzero diag-
to Andreev reflections Andreev, 1964. As a result, the onal and off-diagonal elements.
Página 9
Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena … 1329
The situation is simpler if the direction of the ex- sufficient to consider some limiting cases. Isto será
change field does not depend on coordinates. Nisso done in the present section leaving the general equa-
case, choosing the z axis along the direction of h one can tions for Appendix A.
consider electrons with spin up and down separately. Dentro In the case of a weak proximity effect, the condensate
this section we concentrate on this case. This can help function f is small outside the S region. We consider
the reader understand several interesting effects and get again the diffusive limit. Then, the general Eq. A18
an intuition about what one can expect from the pres- can be linearized and one obtains an equation for the
ence of the exchange field. The results of this section will
matrix f similar to Eq. 2.5 but containing an extra term
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 7/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
also help in understanding which
superconductor-ferromagnet effectscan
structures in be
theconsid- due to the exchange field h ,
ered as rather usual and what kind of behavior is exotic.
We shall see that exotic phenomena occur in cases when D F 2 f F / x 2 + 2 i ˆ 0 + hˆ 3 f F = 0. 2,26
the exchange field is not homogeneous and therefore The subscript F stands for the F region.
postpone their discussion until the next sections. In the absence of the exchange field h , Eq. 2.26 re-
If the exchange field h is homogeneous, the matrix f duces to Eq. 2.5. It is important to emphasize that Eq.
describing the condensate f is diagonal and can be rep- 2.26 is valid for a homogeneous h only. Any variation
resented in the form of h in space makes the equation much more compli-
cated.
f=f3ˆ3+f0ˆ0, 2,24 Equation 2.26 should be complemented by boundary
conditions which take the form see Appendix A
where f 3 is the amplitude of the singlet component and
f 0 is the amplitude of the triplet component with zero
projection of the magnetic moment of Cooper pairs on F fF/x=−fS, 2,27
the z axis S z =0. Note that in the case of a S / N struc- where F = R b F , R b is the boundary resistance per unit
ture, the condensate function has a singlet structure
area, F is the conductivity of the F region, and f F , S are
only, ie, it is proportional to ˆ 3 . A presença do the condensate matrix functions in the F and S regions.
exchange field leads to the appearance of the triplet
Since we assume a weak proximity effect, a deviation of
term proportional to ˆ 0 .
The amplitudes of the singlet and triplet components the f S from its BCS value f BCS = ˆ 3 f BCS is small. Lá-
are related to the correlation functions as follows fore on the right-hand side of Eq. 2.27 one can write
Leggett, 1975; Vollhardt and Wölfle, 1990: f S ˆ 3 f BCS , where f BCS is defined in Eq. 2,12. No
ferromagnet vacuum interface the boundary condition is
f3t ↑ t ↓ 0− ↓ t ↑ 0, given by the usual expression x f F =0, which follows
f0t 2,25 from the condition R b → .
↑ t ↓ 0+ ↓ t ↑ 0. Using Eq. 2.27, one can easily solve Eq. 2.26. Nós
One can see that a permutation of spins does not change assume, as in the previous section, that the normal metal
the function f 3 0, whereas such a permutation leads to a ferromagnet is in contact with the superconductor at
change of the sign of f 0 0. This means that the ampli- x =0 x is the coordinate perpendicular to the interface.
tude of the triplet component taken at equal times is The other boundary of the ferromagnet is located at x
zero in agreement with the Pauli exclusion principle. = d F and the space at xd F is empty.
Later we shall see that in the case of a nonhomogeneous The proper solution for the diagonal matrix elements
magnetization all triplet components including f ± f 1122 can be written as
↑ t ↑ 0 and ↓ t ↓ 0 differ from zero.
Once one determines the condensate function, Eq. f BCS cosh x − d
2.24, one is able to determine physical quantities such ± sinh d 0
± F
x dF,
f±x= ±F
± F
2.28
as DOS, the critical temperature T c , or the Josephson 0, x dF.
critical current through a S / F / S junction.
The next paragraphs are devoted to a discussion of Aqui ± = −2 i ± h / D F is a characteristic wave vector
these physical properties in F / S systems with homoge- that determines the inverse penetration depth of the
neous magnetization. condensate functions f 0,3 into the ferromagnet.
Usually, the exchange energy h is much larger than
the energy max, T . This means that the conden-
1. Density of states sate penetration depth F = D F / h is much shorter than
In this section we discuss the difference between the the penetration depth into a normal nonmagnetic
DOS in S / N and S / F structures. General equations for metal N . The strong suppression of the condensate in
the quasiclassical Green's functions describing the sys- the ferromagnet is caused by the exchange interaction
tem can be written but they are rather complicated see that tries to align the spins of electrons parallel to the
Appendix A. In order to simplify the problem and at magnetization. This effect destroys the Cooper pairs
the same time give the basic idea about the effects, it is with zero total magnetic moment.
Página 10
1330 Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena …
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 8/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
layer d F F we obtain from Eq. 2.28 al. 2005.
It is interesting to note that in the ballistic case h
f±=± exp− x / F cos x / F ± i sin x / F , 1, is the momentum relaxation time, the DOS in the
EF±F F layer is constant in the main approximation in the
2,29 parameter 1/ h while in the diffusive case h 1 it ex-
periences the damped oscillations. The reason for the
where E = 2 − 2 , F ± = ± at =0. The damped os- constant DOS in the ballistic case is that both parts of f ,
cillations of f ± lead to many interesting effects and, in the symmetric and antisymmetric in momentum space,
particular, to a nonmonotonic dependence of the critical contribute to the DOS. Each of them oscillates in space.
temperature on the thickness d F of a F / S bilayer, which However, while in the diffusive case the antisymmetric
will be discussed in the next section. part is small, in the ballistic case the contributions of
In order to calculate the DOS we have to use the both parts to the DOS are equal to each other, but op-
normalization condition, Eq. 2.7, which is also valid for posite in sign, thus compensating each other.
the matrix elements f ± and g ± . Thus for g ± we obtain Finally, we would like to emphasize that both the sin-
g ± = 1+ f 2± , which can be written for small f ± as g ± 1 glet and triplet components contribute to the DOS. Como
+ f2± /2. Then the correction to the normalized DOS in seen from Eq. 2.30, the changes of the DOS can be
the F region F = F −1 takes the form represented in the form 2 + f23/2, which explic-
F =Re f 0
2 + f 2−/4. itly demonstrates this fact.
F x = Re f + 2,30
Substituting Eq. 2.28 into Eq. 2.30, we obtain finally
the DOS variation the edge of the F film, 2. Transition temperature
As we have seen previously, the exchange field greatly
f BCS 2 affects singlet pairing in conventional superconductors.
−2
F d F = 1/4Re + sinh + d F Therefore the critical temperature of the superconduct-
F
ing transition T c is considerably reduced in S / F struc-
+ −2 . 2,31 tures with a high interface transparency.
− sinh − d F
The critical temperature for S / F bilayer and multilay-
In Fig. 3 we plot the function F for different thick- ered structures was calculated in many works. 3 Experi-
nesses d F and h /=20. It can be seen that at zero energy mental studies of the T c were also reported in many
=0 the correction to DOS F is positive for F films publications Jiang et al. 1995; Aarts et al. , 1997; Mühge
with d F =0.8 0 while it is negative for films with d F et al. 1998; Lazar et al. 2000; Gu et al. , 2002a. Boa
=0.5 0 , where 0 = D F /.
Such behavior of the DOS, which is typical for S / F 3 See, for example, Buzdin and Kupriyanov, 1991; Radovic et
systems, has been observed experimentally by Kontos et
al. 1991; Demler et al. , 1997; Khusainov and Proshin, 1997;
al. 2001 in a bilayer consisting of a thin PdNi film 5 Proshin and Khusainov, 1998, 1999; Tagirov, 1998; Baladie et
d F 7.5 nm on the top of a thick superconductor. o al. 2001; Proshin et al. 2001; Fominov et al. , 2002, 2003; Ba-
DOS was determined by tunneling spectroscopy. este grets et al. 2003; Baladie and Buzdin, 2003; You et al. , 2004;
type of dependence of N on d N can also be obtained in Tollis et al. , 2005.
Página 11
Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena … 1331
± h˜ ˜
g±= ,f±= , 2,32
E± E±
where E ± = ± h˜ 2 −˜ 2 , h˜ = r F h , ˜ = r S , r F =1− r S
= F d F / F d F + S d S . In this case the Green's functions
are uniform in space and have the same form as in a
magnetic superconductor or in a superconducting film in
a parallel magnetic field acting on the spins of electrons.
The difference between the S / F bilayer system and a
magnetic superconductor is that the effective exchange
energy h˜ depends on the thickness of the F layer and
may be significantly reduced in comparison with its
value in a bulk ferromagnet. A thin superconducting
film in a strong magnetic field H = h˜ / B B is an effec-
tive Bohr magneton is described by the same Green’s
funções. The behavior of these systems and, in particu-
lar, the critical temperature of the superconducting tran-
sition T c , was studied long ago by Sarma 1963, Larkin
FIG. 4. Dependence of superconducting transition tempera- and Ovchinnikov 1964, Fulde and Ferrell 1965, and
ture on the thickness of the Fe layer as determined by resistiv-Maki 1968. It was established that both first- and
ity measurements. The dashed line is a fit assuming a perfect
second-order phase transitions may occur in these sys-
interface transparency while the solid line corresponds to a
nonperfect interface. Adapted from Lazar et al. , 2000. tems if h˜ is less than or on the order of ˜ . If the effective
exchange field h˜ exceeds the value ˜ / 20.707 ˜ , a
system remains in the normal state the Clogston 1962
agreement between theory and experiment has been and Chandrasekhar 1962 limit. Independently from
achieved in some cases see Fig. 4. One should mention each other, Larkin and Ovchinnikov 1964 and Fulde
that despite many papers published on this subject, the and Ferrell 1965 found that in a clean system and in a
problem of the transition temperature T c in S / F struc-
tures is not completely clear. For example, Jiang et al. narrow interval of h˜ the homogeneous state is unstable
1995 and Ogrin et al. 2000 claimed that the nonmono- and an inhomogeneous state with the order parameter
varying in space is established in the system. This state,
tonic dependence of T c on the thickness of the ferro- denoted as the Fulde-Ferrel-Larkin-Ovchinnikov state,
magnet observed on Gd/Nb samples was due to the os- has not been observed yet in bulk superconductors. Dentro
cillatory behavior of the condensate function in F .
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 9/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
However, Aarts et al. 1997 in another experiment on bilayeredofSa/ short
because F systems
meansuch
free apath.
state cannot be realized
V/FeV showed that the interface transparency plays a In the case of a first-order phase transition from the
crucial role in the interpretation of the experimental superconducting to the normal state, the order param-
data that showed both nonmonotonic and monotonic eter drops from a finite value to zero. The study of this
dependence of T c on d F . In other experiments Bour- transition requires the use of nonlinear equations for .
geois and Dynes, 2002 the critical temperature of the It was shown by Tollis 2004 that under some assump-
bilayer Pb/Ni decreases with increasing d F in a mono- tions both the first- and second-order phase transitions
tonic way. may occur in a S / F / S structure.
From the theoretical point of view, the T c problem in In the case of a second-order phase transition, one can
a general case cannot be solved exactly. In most papers it linearize the corresponding equations the Eilenberger
is assumed that the transition to the superconducting or Usadel equation for the order parameter and use the
state is of second order, ie, the order parameter var- Ginzburg-Landau expression for the free energy assum-
ies continuously from zero to a finite value with decreas- ing that the temperature T is close to the critical tem-
ing temperature T . However, this is generally not so. perature T c . Just this case was considered in most papers
Let us consider, for example, a thin S / F bilayer with on this topic. The critical temperature of an S / F struc-
thicknesses obeying the condition d F F , d S S , where ture can be found from an equation which is obtained
d F , S are the thicknesses of the FS layer. Neste caso, o from the self-consistency condition 2.4. In the Matsub-
Usadel equation can be averaged over the thickness ara representation it has the form
see, for instance, Bergeret et al. 2001b and reduced to
an equation describing a uniform magnetic supercon- Tc 1
ln T *c − if / , 2,33
ductor with an effective exchange energy h˜ and order T *c = n
parameter ˜ . where T c is the critical temperature in the absence of the
This problem can easily be solved. The Green's func- proximity effect and T *c is the critical temperature taking
tions g ± and f ± are given by into account the proximity effect.
Página 12
1332 Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena …
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 10/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
Thiseteffect
evskii was predicted
al. 1977. forconsidered
The authors the first time by Bula-
a Josephson
junction consisting of two superconductors separated by
a region containing magnetic impurities. The Josephson
current through a S / F / S junction was calculated for the
first time by Buzdin et al. 1982. Different aspects of the
Josephson effect in S / F / S structures were studied in
many subsequent papers Buzdin and Kupriyanov, 1991;
Fogelström, 2000; Heikkilä et al. 2000; Chtchelkatchev FIG. 6. Critical current of a Nb/Cu/Ni/Cu/Nb junction as a
et al. 2001; Barash et al. 2002; Golubov et al. , 2002a; function of the Ni layer thickness d . The squares are the mea-
Radovic et al. 2003; Zyuzin et al. , 2003. Recent experi- sured points. The theoretical fits are presented according to
ments confirmed the 0- transition of the critical current Buzdin et al. 1982 dashed line and Bergeret et al. 2001c
in S / F / S junctions Ryazanov et al. 2001; Blum et al. , solid line. Adapted from Blum et al. , 2002.
Página 13
Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena … 1333
I S = L y L z F i T /4 e Tr ˆ 3 f + f + / x + f − f − / x ,
2,34
where L y L z is the area of the interface and F is the FIG. 7. Dependence of the critical current on T for h =0.06,
0 =0.03, d / l =, and different values of Ql . Aqui éo
conductivity of the F layer. momentum relaxation time.
In the considered case of a nonzero phase difference
the condensate functions f ± are matrices in the particle-
hole space. If in Eq. 2.34 instead of f ± we write a too large. If the exchange energy was not too large, the
44 matrix for f , then is given by ˆ effective penetration length F ,eff would be temperature
= iˆ 2 cos /2 iˆ 1 sin /2 ˆ 3 . We set the phase of the dependent. According to estimates presented by Ryaza-
right left superconductor equal to ± /2. For simplicity nov et al. , h 30 K, which means that the exchange en-
we assume that the overlap between the condensate ergy in this experiment was much smaller than in the
functions f ± induced in the F region by each supercon- one performed by Blum et al. and by Kontos et al. no
ductor is small. This assumption is correct in the case last reference h 35 meV.
d F F . Under this assumption the condensate function The conditions under which the state is realized in
may be written in the form of two independently in- S / F / S Josephson junctions of different types were stud-
duced f functions, ied theoretically in many papers Buzdin and Kupriy-
anov 1991; Buzdin, Vujicic, and Kupriyanov, 1992;
f ± x = 1/ ˆ Chtchelkatchev et al. 2001; Krivoruchko and Koshina
F ± F l exp− ± x + d F /2
2001a; Li et al. 2002; Buzdin and Baladie, 2003. In these
+ ˆ r exp− ± − x + d F /2 . 2,35 papers it was assumed that the ferromagnet consisted of
a single domain with a magnetization M fixed in space.
Aqui ˆ r is the order parameter in the right supercon-
The case of a S / F / S Josephson junction with a two-
ductor and ˆ l is the left. Substituting Eq. 2.35 into Eq. domain ferromagnet was analyzed by Blanter and Hek-
2.34, we get king 2004. The Josephson critical current I c was calcu-
IS I c sin = 4 TL y L z 2 exp− d F / F lated for parallel and antiparallel magnetization
F / FF orientations in both ballistic and diffusive limits. It turns
2 out that in such a junction the current I c is larger for the
cos d F / F 2,36
2 + 2 sin . antiparallel orientation.
A similar effect arises in a S / F / S junction with a ro-
When deriving Eq. 2.36, it was assumed that the ex- tating in-space magnetization, as was shown by Bergeret
change energy h is much larger than both T and . et al. 2001c. In this case not only the singlet and triplet
Calculating the sum in Eq. 2.36, we come to the final components with projection S z =0, but also the triplet
formula for the critical current, component with S z = ±1 arises in the ferromagnet. o
Ic= tanh/2 T F / FF 2 exp− d F / F cos d F / F . last component penetrates the ferromagnet over a large
length of the order of N and contributes to the Joseph-
2,37 son current.
As expected, according to Eq. 2.37 the critical current In Fig. 7 the temperature dependence of the critical
oscillates with varying the thickness of the ferromagnet current is presented for different values of Ql , where
d F . The period of these oscillations gives the value of F Q =2 / L m , L m is the period of the spatial rotation of the
and therefore the value of the exchange energy h . Para magnetization, and l is the mean free path. Pode ser
example, according to the experiments on Nb/Cu/Ni/Cu/ seen that at Q =0 homogeneous ferromagnet and low
Ni/Nb performed by Blum et al. 2002; see also Palevski, temperatures T the critical current I c is negative
2005, h 110 meV, which is a quite reasonable value state, whereas with increasing temperature, I c becomes
for CuNi. positive 0 state. If Q increases, the interval of negative
The nonmonotonic dependence of the critical current I c gets narrower and disappears completely at Ql 0.04,
on temperature observed by Ryazanov et al. 2001 can that is, the S / F / S structure with a nonhomogeneous M
be obtained only in the case of an exchange energy h is an ordinary Josephson junction with a positive critical
comparable with at least, the ratio h / should not be atual.
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 11/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
Página 14
1334 Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena …
It is interesting to note that the -type Josephson cou- tional superconductors, are in a singlet state. Isto é, o
pling may also be realized in S / N / S junctions provided order parameter is represented in the form
the distribution function of quasiparticles n in the N =· i 3 , where 3 is the Pauli matrix in the spin
region deviates significantly from the equilibrium. este espaço. The difference between the s and d pairing is due
deviation may be achieved with the aid of a nonequilib- to a different dependence of the order parameter em
rium quasiparticle injection through an additional elec- the Fermi momentum p F = k F . In isotropic conventional
trode in a multiterminal S / N / S junction. The Josephson superconductors is a k almost independent quantity.
current in such a junction is again determined by Eq. In anisotropic conventional superconductors Depende
2.34 in which one has to set h =0, f + = f − , and replace on the k F direction but it does not change sign as a func-
tanh =1−2 n de 1/2 tanh + eV +tanh tion of the momentum k F orientation in space. In high-
− eV , where V is a voltage difference between N and T c superconductors where d -wave pairing occurs, the or-
S electrodes. der parameter k F changes sign at certain points at the
At a certain value of V the critical current changes Fermi surface.
placa. Thus there is some analogy between the sign- On the other hand, the Pauli principle requires the
reversal effect in a S / F / S junction and the one in a mul- função k F to be an even function of k F , which im-
titerminal S / N / S junction under nonequilibrium condi- poses certain restrictions for the dependence of the or-
ções. der parameter on the Fermi momentum. Por exemplo,
Indeed, when calculating I S in a multiterminal S / N / S for d pairing the order parameter is given by kF
junction one can shift the energy by eV or − eV . Então o =0 k x 2 − k2y, where k x , y are the components of the k F
function 1/2 tanh + eV +tanh − eV is trans- vector in the Cu-O plane. This means that the order
formed into tanh while in the other functions one parameter may have either positive or negative sign de-
performs the substitution → ± eV . So we see that eV is pending on the direction.
analogous to the exchange energy h that appears in the The change of sign of the order parameter leads to
case of a S / F / S junction. different physical effects. For example, if a Josephson
The sign-reversal effect in a multiterminal S / N / S junction consists of two high- T c superconductors with
junction under nonequilibrium conditions was observed properly chosen crystallographic orientations, the
by Baselmans et al. 1999 and studied theoretically by ground state of the system may correspond to the phase
Volkov 1995, Wilhelm et al. 1998, and Yip 1998. difference = junction. In some high- T c supercon-
Later Heikkilä et al. 2000 studied theoretically a com- ductors the order parameter may consist of a mixture of
bined effect of a nonequilibrium quasiparticle distribu- s - and d -wave components Tsuei and Kirtley, 2003.
tion on the current I c in a S / F / S Josephson junction. Another type of pairing, spin-triplet superconductiv-
Concluding this section we note that the experimental ity, has been discovered in materials with strong elec-
results by Strunk et al. 1994, Ryazanov et al. 2001, tronic correlations. The triplet superconductivity has
Blum et al. 2002, and Kontos et al. 2002 seem to con- been found in heavy-fermion intermetallic compounds
firm the theoretical prediction of an oscillating conden- and also in organic materials for a review, see Mineev
sate function in the ferromagnet and the possibility of and Samokhin 1999 . Recently a lot of work has been
switching between the 0 and the Estado. carried out studying the superconducting properties of
strontium ruthenate Sr 2 RuO 4 . Convincing experimental
data have been obtained in favor of triplet, p -wave su-
III ODD TRIPLET SUPERCONDUCTIVITY IN S / F perconductivity. For more details we refer the reader to
ESTRUTURAS the review articles by Maeno et al. 1994 and Eremin et
A. Conventional and unconventional superconductivity al. 2004.
Due to the fact that the condensate function
Since the development of the BCS theory of super- r , t r , t must be an odd function with respect
conductivity 1957, only one type of superconductivity to the permutations ↔ , r↔r for equal times, t = t ,
has been observed in experiments. This type is charac- the wave function of a triplet Cooper pair has to be an
terized by the s -wave pairing between the electrons with odd function of the orbital momentum, that is, the or-
opposite spin orientations due to the electron-phonon bital angular momentum L is an odd number: L =1 p
interação. It can be called conventional since it is ob- wave, 3, etc. Thus the superconducting condensate is
served in most superconductors with critical tempera- sensitive to the presence of impurities. Only the s -wave
ture below 20 K the low-temperature superconductors. L =0 singlet condensate is not sensitive to scattering by
Bednorz and Müller 1986 discovered that a nonmagnetic impurities Anderson theorem. In con-
La 2− x Sr x CuO 4 compound is a superconductor with a trast, the p -wave condensate in an impure material is
critical temperature of 30 K. This was the first known suppressed by impurities and therefore the order param-
high- T c copper-oxide cuprate superconductor. Nowa- eter =k kF k r , t r , t k is also sup-
days many cuprates have been discovered with critical pressed Larkin, 1965. That is why superconductivity in
temperatures above the temperature of liquid nitrogen. impure Sr 2 RuO 4 samples has not been observed. In or-
These superconductors the high- T c superconductors in der to observe triplet p -wave superconductivity or an-
general show a d -wave symmetry and similar to conven- other orbital order parameter with higher odd L , one
Página 15
Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena … 1335
needs to use clean samples of appropriate materials. Abrahams 1992, Abrahams et al. 1993, and Balatsky
At first glance one cannot avoid this fact and there is et al. 1995 the case of a singlet odd pairing was consid-
no hope of seeing nonconventional superconductivity in ered, while in the other works a triplet odd pairing was
impure materials. However, another nontrivial possibil- estudou.
ity for the triplet pairing exists. The Pauli principle im- We would like to emphasize that while theories of un-
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 12/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
poses r ,restrictions
t r , t k foronequal times.a In correlation
the Matsubarafunção conventional superconductivity are often based on the
presence of strong correlations where one has to use a
representação esta significa aquele a soma phenomenology, the triplet state induced in the S / F
r, r, k , must change sign under the per- structures can be studied within the framework of the
mutation r↔r for the triplet pairing the diagonal BCS theory, which is valid in the weak-coupling limit.
matrix elements = of these correlation functions This fact drastically simplifies the problem not only from
estamos not zero. Isso implica que o soma
the theoretical but also from experimental point of view
r, r, k , has to be either an odd function since well-known superconductors grown in a controlled
of k or just reduces to zero. The latter possibility does
way may be used in order to detect the triplet compo-
not mean that the pairing must vanish. It can remain
nent.
finite if the average r, r, k , is an odd func- We summarize the properties of this new type of su-
tion of the Matsubara frequency in this case it must
perconductivity which we speak of as triplet odd super-
be an even function of k . Then the sum over all fre-
conductivity :
quencies is zero and therefore the Pauli principle for the
equal-time correlation functions is not violated. • It contains the triplet component. In particular the
This type of pairing was first suggested by Berezinskii components with projection S z = ±1 on the direction
1975 as a possible mechanism of superfluidity in 3 He. of the field are insensitive to the presence of an ex-
He assumed that the order parameter change field and therefore long-range proximity ef-
,k r , r , k , is an odd function of : fects arise in S / F structures.
=−− . However, experiments on superfluid 3 He have
• In the dirty limit it has a s -wave symmetry. O con-
shown that the Berezinskii state is only a hypothetical
densate function is even in the momentum p and
state and the p pairing in 3 He has different symmetries.
therefore, contrary to other unconventional super-
As is known nowadays, the condensate in 3 He is anti-
symmetric in the momentum space and symmetric trip- conductors, is not destroyed by the presence of non-
let in the spin space. Thus the Berezinskii hypothetical magnetic impurities.
pairing mechanism remained unrealized for a few de- • The triplet condensate function is odd in frequency.
cades.
However, in recent theoretical works it was found that Before we turn to a quantitative analysis let us make a
a superconducting state similar to the one suggested by last remark. We assume that in ferromagnetic regions no
Berezinskii might be induced in conventional S / F sys- attractive electron-electron interaction exists, and there-
tems due to the proximity effect Bergeret et al. , 2001a, fore =0 in the F regions. The superconducting conden-
2003. In the next sections we shall analyze this new type sate arises in the ferromagnet due only to the proximity
of superconductivity with triplet pairing that is odd in efeito. This will become more clear later.
frequency and even in momentum. This pairing is pos- Another type of triplet superconductivity in the S / F
sible not only in the clean limit but also in samples with structures that differs from the one considered in this
a high impurity concentration. review was analyzed by Edelstein 2001. The author as-
It is important to note that, in spite of the similarity, sumed that spin-orbit interaction takes place at the S / F
there is a difference between this new superconducting interface due to a strong electric field which exists over
state in the S / F structures and that proposed by Berez- interatomic distances the so-called Rashba term in the
inskii. In the S / F structures both the singlet and triplet Hamiltonian Rashba, 1960 . It was also assumed that
types of the condensate f coexist. However, the order electron-electron interaction is not only not zero in the
parameter is not equal to zero only in the S region we s -wave singlet channel but also in the p -wave triplet
assume that the superconducting coupling in the F re- canal. The spin-orbit interaction mixes both the trip-
gion is zero and is determined there by the singlet part
let and singlet components. Then the triplet component
of the condensate only. This contrasts the Berezinskii
state where the order parameter should contain a trip- can penetrate into the F region over a large distance.
let component. However, in contrast to odd superconductivity, the
Note that attempts to find conditions for the existence triplet component analyzed by Edelstein is odd in mo-
of odd superconductivity were undertaken in several pa- mentum and therefore must be destroyed by scattering
pers in connection with the pairing mechanism in high- on ordinary nonmagnetic impurities. This type of triplet
T c superconductors Kirkpatrick and Belitz, 1991; Bal- component was also studied in two-dimensional systems
atsky and Abrahams, 1992; Belitz and Kirkpatrick, 1992; and in S / N structures in the presence of the Rashba-
Abrahams et al. , 1993; Coleman et al. , 1993a, 1993b, type spin-orbit interaction Edelstein, 1989, 2001;
1995; Balatsky et al. , 1995. In the works by Balatsky and Gor'kov and Rashba, 2001.
Página 16
1336 Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena …
B. Odd triplet component homogeneous magnetization g BCS = g BCS ˆ 0 , f BCS = f BCS ˆ3, 3,6
As we have mentioned in Sec. II.B, even in the case of Onde
a homogeneous magnetization the triplet component
with the zero projection S z =0 of the total spin on the g BCS = / , f BCS =/i 3,7
direction of the magnetic field appears in the S / F struc-
e = 2+2.
ture. Unlike the singlet component it is an odd function
We now linearize the Usadel equation with respect to
of the Matsubara frequency . In order to see this, we
look for a solution of the Usadel equation in the Mat- a small deviation g S g S ˆ 3 + f S iˆ 2 = g S − g BCS and ob-
subara representation. In this representation the linear- tain for the condensate function f S in the supercon-
ized Usadel equation for the ferromagnet takes the form ductor the following equation:
Página 17
Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena … 1337
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 14/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
ferromagnet over a short length F because it consists of theso.
be S layer. It is not difficult to understand why it should
averages of two operators with opposite spins ↑ ↓ and
is strongly suppressed by the exchange field. The triplet As we have seen in the previous section, each of the
layers generates the triplet component with zero total
component with projections S z = ±1 on the direction of
the field results in more interesting properties of the sys- projection of the spin, S z =0, in the direction of the ex-
tem since it is not suppressed by the exchange interac- change field. If the magnetic moments of the layers are
ção. It can be generated by nonhomogeneous magneti- collinear to each other parallel or antiparallel, the total
projection remains zero. However, if the moments of the
zation as we shall discuss next.
ferromagnetic layers are not collinear, the superposition
of the triplet components coming from the different lay-
ers should have all possible projections of the total spin.
C. Triplet odd superconductivity inhomogeneous
magnetization From this argument we can expect the generation of
the triplet component with all projections of the total
According to the results of the last section the pres- spin provided the thickness of the S layer is not too
ence of an exchange field leads to the formation of the ampla. Since the only relevant length in the supercon-
triplet component of the condensate function. In a ho- ductors is S D S / T c , we assume that the thickness of
mogeneous exchange field, only the component with the the superconducting layer S does not exceed this length.
projection S z =0 is induced. Now we perform explicit calculations that support the
A natural question arises: Can the other components qualitative conclusion on the generation of the triplet
with S z = ±1 be induced? If they could, this would lead
to a long-range penetration of superconducting correla-
tions into the ferromagnet because these components 4 Note that as was shown by Shelankov and Ozana 2000 and
correspond to correlations of the type Galaktionov and Zaikin 2002, in the ballistic case and in the
↑ ↑ with paral- presence of several potential barriers some effects similar to
lel spins and are not as sensitive to the exchange field as
outras. the quantum interference effects may be important. We do not
consider purely ballistic systems assuming that the impurity
In what follows we analyze some examples of S / F scattering is important. In this case the quasiclassical approach
structures in which all projections of the triplet compo- is applicable. The applicability of the quasiclassical approxima-
nent are induced. The common feature of these struc- tion was discussed by Larkin and Ovchinnikov Larkin and
tures is that magnetization is nonhomogeneous. Ovchinnikov, 1968.
Página 18
1338 Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena …
component with all projections of the total spin. Nós con- 3.22, we find the functions b i x and b¯ i x which are
sider the diffusive case when the Usadel equation is ap- decaying exponential functions and can be written as
plicable. This means that the condition
b k x = b k exp− x − d S ,
h 1 3,14
is assumed to be fulfilled is the elastic-scattering time. b¯ k x = b¯ k exp x + d S . 3,23
The linearized Usadel equation in the F region takes
the form see Appendix A Substituting Eq. 3.23 into Eqs. 3.15–3.18, we obtain
a set of linear equations for the coefficients b k . O con-
i h2 dition for the existence of nontrivial solutions yields an
2f−2f+ ˆ 0 ˆ 3 , f + cos ± ˆ 3 ˆ 2 , f sin = 0,
xx 2 equation for the eigenvalues . This equation reads
3,15 2−2 2 − 2 2 + h 4 = 0. 3,24
where f is a 44 matrix condensate function which is Equation 3.24 is of the sixth order and therefore has
assumed to be small and ˆ 3 , f + = ˆ 3 · f + f · ˆ 3 . The wave six solutions. Three of these solutions should be dis-
vectors and h entering Eq. 3.15 have the form carded because those corresponding to b k x grow when
going away from the interface. The remaining three so-
2 =2/ D F 3,16 lutions of Eq. 3.24 give three different physical values
e of .
If the exchange energy h is sufficiently large h
2 = 2 h sgn / D F . 3,17 T , , the eigenvalues are
h
The magnetization vector M lies in the y , z plane = , 3,25
and has components M = M 0 , ± sin ,cos . The sign +
corresponds to the right F film and − to the left. Nós
consider the simplest case of a highly transparent S / F ± 1 ± i h / 2. 3,26
interface and temperatures close to the critical tempera- We see that these solutions are completely different.
ture of the superconducting transition T c . Nesse caso The roots ± proportional to h cf. Eq. 3.17 are very
the function f , being small, obeys a linear equation simi- large and therefore the corresponding solutions b k s de-
lar to Eq. 3.8, cay very fast similar to the singlet component. Isto é
the solution that exists for a homogeneous magnetiza-
2 f / x 2 − S2 f = 2 i ˘ / D S g2BCS, 3,18 tion collinear magnetization vectors.
In contrast, the value for given by Eq. 3.25 is much
where S 2 =2 / D S . smaller see Eq. 3.16 and corresponds to a slow decay
The boundary conditions at the S / F interfaces are of superconducting correlations. Solutions correspond-
ing to the root given by Eq. 3.25 describe a long-range
fx=d S +0 =fx=d S −0 , 3,19 penetration of the triplet component into the ferromag-
netic region. For each root one can easily obtain rela-
f/xF=f/xS, 3,20 tions between the coefficients b k x . As a result, we ob-
tain
where = F / S and F is the conductivity in the ferro-
magnet and S is the conductivity of the superconductor. b 1 x = be − x − d − sin
S b 3+ e − + x − d S − b 3− e − − x − d, S
Página 19
Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena … 1339
pecado h / S tanh S
b - , 3.37
E cosh 2 2 1+
S tanh S + h/S h / S tanh S
1
b 3± . 3,38
2 iE 1 + ± / S tanh S
One can see from Eqs. 3.37 and 3.38 that provided eral case of an arbitrary S / F interface transparency and
the parameter given by Eq. 3.33 is not small and a finite thickness of the F films.
,S 1, the amplitudes b and b 3± are again compa- In Fig. 9 we plot the spatial dependence of the triplet
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 16/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
rable
Thetoamplitudes
each other.of the triplet and singlet components and singlet
seen components
from this in as
figure that, a Fexpected,
/ S / F structure. Pode
the triplet ser
com-
were calculated by Bergeret et al. 2003 in a more gen- ponent decays slowly, whereas the singlet component
Página 20
1340 Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena …
Página 21
Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena … 1341
similar structure was considered in the clean limit by Performing this transformation we obtain instead of
Kadigrobov et al. 2001. We assume for simplicity that Eq. 3.15 a new equation,
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 17/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
the magnetization
tates vector Mfrom
in the F film starting = Mthe
„0,sin x ,cos xx … ro-
S / F interface 2 − Q 2 /2 f n − 2 f n + i h 2 ˆ 3 , f n + −Q 2 ˆ 1 f n ˆ 1
=0 and the rotation angle has a simple piecewise x de- xx 2 2
pendence,
+ iQˆ 3 ˆ 1 , x f n + = 0. 3,45
Qx , 0 x w, Correspondingly, the boundary condition, Eq. 3.42,
x= 3,41
w = Qw , w x. takes the form
This form means that the M vector is aligned parallel to 3,46
the z axis at the S / F interface and rotates by the angle F Q /2 iˆ 3 ˆ 1, f n + + f n / x = − f s .
Equation 3.45 complemented by this boundary condi-
w = w over the length ww may be the width of a tion has to be solved in the region 0 x w . Lá-
domain wall. At xw the orientation of the vector M is
fixed. gion wx one needs to solve Eq. 3.15 with Q =0. Ambos
We calculate the condensate function in the F region solutions should be matched at x = w under the assump-
and show that it contains the long-range triplet compo- tion that there is no barrier at this point. Therefore the
nent LRTC. As in the preceding section, we assume matrix f n and its “generalized” derivative should be con-
that the condensate function in the F region is small. tinuous at x = w ,
The smallness of f in this case is either due to a mis-
match of the Fermi velocities in the superconductor and f nx = w −0 = f nx = w +0 , 3,47
ferromagnet or due to a possible potential barrier at the
S / F interface. In such cases the transparency of the in- Q
iˆ 3 ˆ 1, f n + + x f nx = w −0 = x f nx = w +0 . 3,48
terface is small and only a small portion of the supercon- 2
ducting electrons penetrates the ferromagnet.
In this case the solution has the same structure as Eq.
Due to the smallness of the transparency of the inter-
3.21 but small changes should be made. The eigenval-
face, the function f can experience a jump at the S / F ues obey the equation
interface, which contrasts with the preceding case. o
2 − Q 2 − 2 2 +4 Q 2 2 2 − 2 + h 4 2 − Q 2 − 2 = 0,
boundary condition for the 44 matrix f has the same
form as in Eq. 2.27, 3,49
Página 22
1342 Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena …
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 18/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
b 1 x = b Q exp Q x + b¯ Q exp− Q x , 3,54
The maximum of c is achieved at
b 0 x = − b 3+ exp− + x + b 3− exp− − x , 3.55
e max = w 5 − 1/ 2 0.786 w . 3,61
b 3 x = b 3+ exp− + x + b 3− exp− − x . 3,56 At w = max the ratio in the first set of large parentheses
in Eq. 3.60 is equal to 0.68. This means that the am-
In the region wx the solution for the condensate func- plitude of the LRTC is of the order of the singlet com-
tion f n takes the form ponent at the S / F interface. The width w should not be
too small because in deriving the expression for c Q we
f n = iˆ 1 ˆ 1 c exp− x−w, 3.57 assumed the condition w h.
where c is a coefficient that has to be found by match- In Fig. 11 we present the dependence of c on w for
ing the solutions at x = w . a fixed w . The spatial dependence of the LRTC and the
Terms of the order of Q / h are small and they are singlet component is shown in Fig. 12. It can be seen that
omitted now. for the parameters chosen the LRTC is larger than the
singlet component and decays much slower with increas-
Then from the matching conditions at the S / F inter-
ing the distance x .
face, Eq. 3.48, we find the following relations for the
coefficients: If the magnetization vector M rotates by an angle uma
domain wall over a small length w so that Q /w
f BCS
b 3± = 3,58 w , then the ratio in the first set of large parentheses in
2F± Eq. 3.60 is equal to
e Q
Q / Q sinh 0.087,
Q sinh w + cosh w
b Q = − b¯ Q = Q / Q b 3+ − b 3− 3.59
3,62
the parameter F given by Eq. 3.42 .
One can see from the above equations that the con- which shows that the amplitude of the LRTC in this case
is smaller than the amplitude of the singlet component.
densate function f is small provided the parameter
F ± is large. It follows from Eq. 3.59 that the ampli-
tude of the LRTC, b Q , is not zero only if the magnetiza-
tion is nonhomogeneous, ie, Q 0.
Matching the solutions 3.54–3.57 at x = w , we find
for the amplitude of the LRTC
if BCS Q h sgn / D F
c=− ,
2F cosh w 2 Re +
Q sinh w + +
3.60
where w = Qw is the total angle of the magnetization
rotation. As has been mentioned, the amplitude of the
LRTC is an odd function of . FIG. 12. Spatial dependence of amplitudes of singlet dashed
As one can see from the last expression, the ampli- line and triplet solid line, components of the condensate
tude c increases from zero when increasing Q , reaches function in the F wire for different values of w . Here w
a maximum at Q max corresponding a certain angle max , = L /5, = E T , and h / E T =400. E T = D / L 2 is the Thouless en-
and then exponentially decreases at w max . ergy. From Bergeret et al. , 2001a.
Página 23
Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena … 1343
We can conclude from this analysis that in order to get mesoscopic structure. The authors considered a struc-
a large LRTC, a small total angle of rotation of the mag- ture with a thin normal-metal layer N and a ferromag-
netization vector is preferable. netic insulator F . The density-of-states variation in a
The amplitude of the condensate function calculated conventional superconductor which is in contact with a
here enters different physical quantities. In Sec. III.D we ferromagnetic insulator was analyzed by Tokuyasu et al.
discuss how the long-range penetration of the triplet 1988.
component into the ferromagnet affects transport prop- Eschrig et al. 2003 considered a clean S / F / S Joseph-
erties of F / S structures. son junction in which the ferromagnet F was a half metal
It is interesting to note that the type of magnetic so that the electrons with only one spin orientation say
structure discussed in this section differs drastically from the spin-up ↑ electrons existed in the ferromagnet. Dentro
the one in the case of an in-plane rotating magnetiza- this case only the triplet component corresponding to
ção. The latter was considered recently by Champel and the condensate function ↑ ↑ may penetrate the ferro-
Eschrig 2005a, 2005b. It was assumed that the magne- magnet. Assuming the p -wave triplet condensate func-
tization vector M F was parallel to the S / F interface tion, the authors have calculated the critical Josephson
e rotates; that is, it has the FormatoM F current I c . They showed that the state negative criti-
= M 0 0,sin Qy ,cos Qy the x axis is normal to the S / F cal current I c is possible in this junction. The dc Joseph-
interface plane. As shown by Champel and Eschrig son effect in a junction consisting of two superconduct-
2005b, the odd triplet component also arises in this ors and a spin-active interface between them was
case but it penetrates into the ferromagnetic region over analyzed by Fogelström 2000.
a short distance of the order of h . It would be of interest to analyze the influence of im-
purities on the critical current in such Josephson junc-
3. Spin-active interfaces tions because, as we noted, in the clean case the singlet
component can penetrate the ferromagnet not a half
In almost all papers discussing S / F structures it is as-
metal over a large distance.
sumed that the S / F interface is spin inactive, ie, the
spin of an electron does not change when the electron
goes through the interface. D. Long-range proximity effect
Although in many cases this is really so, one can imag-
In the last decade transport properties of mesoscopic
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 19/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
ing another
ine through situation
the interface
whenchanges.
the spinOne
of an
can
electron
consider
pass-
a superconductor–normal-metal S / N structures were in-
region with a domain wall at the interface also as a tensively studied see, for example, the review articles
“spin-active interface” provided the width w of the do- by Beenakker 1997, Lambert and Raimondi 1998,
main wall is very small but the product Qw is of the and references therein. In the course of these studies
order unity. As we have seen in Sec. III.C.2, at this type many interesting phenomena have been discovered.
of interface the triplet condensate arises. Among them is a nonmonotonic voltage and tempera-
Boundary conditions at spin-active S / F interfaces for ture dependence of the conductance in S / N meso-
quasiclassical Green's functions were derived in a num- scopic structures, ie, structures whose dimensions are
ber of publications Millis et al. 1988; Kopu et al. 2004 less than the phase coherence length L and the
and were used in studying different problems. Kulic and inelastic-scattering length l . This means that the resis-
Endres 2000 employed these boundary conditions in tance R of a S / N structure changes nonmonotonically
the study of a system similar to the one shown in Fig. 8. when the temperature decreases below the critical tem-
Contrary to Bergeret et al. 2003, they assumed that the perature T c .
ferromagnets F are insulators so that the condensate This complicated behavior is due to the fact that there
does not penetrate them. Nevertheless, the calculated are two contributions to the resistance in such systems:
critical temperature T c of the superconducting transition one coming from the S / N interface resistance and the
depends on the mutual orientation of the magnetization resistance of the normal wire itself. The experimentally
M F in the ferromagnets. In accordance with the works of observed changes of the resistance can be both positive
Tagirov 1998, Fominov et al. 2002, and Baladie and R 0 and negative R 0 Shapira et al. 2000;
Buzdin 2003 in which metallic ferromagnets were con- Quirion et al. , 2002. The increase or decrease of the
sidered in a F / S / F structure, Kulic and Endres found resistance R depends, in particular, on the interface re-
that the critical temperature T c was maximal for the an- sistance R S / N . If the latter is very small, the resistance of
tiparallel magnetization orientation. If the directions of the S / N structure is determined mainly by the resistance
magnetization vector M F are perpendicular to each of the N wire R N . This resistance decreases with decreas-
other, a triplet component also arises in the supercon- ing temperature T , reaches a minimum at a temperature
ductor. The authors considered a clean case only, so that of the order of the Thouless energy D N / L N 2 , and in-
the influence of impurity scattering on the triplet com- creases again returning to the value in the normal state
ponent remained unclear. R N T c at low T , where D N is the diffusion coefficient
According to Huertas-Hernando et al. 2002, a spin- and L N is the length of the N wire. This is the so-called
active N / F interface plays an important role in the ab- reentrant behavior observed in many experiments
solute spin-valve effect which can take place in a S / N / F Gubankov and Margolin, 1979; Pothier et al. 1994; Di-
Página 24
1344 Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena …
Página 25
Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena … 1345
l ↑↓ LF L SO , L in , 3.66 ˆ 3 dg R x g K + g Kx g A , 3.67
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 21/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
Página 26
1346 Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena …
g RA ± ˆ 3 ˆ 0 + f RA , 3,68
where f R A is given by Eq. 3.37 or 3.60.
We have to find the conductance of the vertical F wire
in Fig. 15. In the main approximation the distribution FIG. 16. The GT dependence. Here = h / R b , / E T 1,
function in this F wire is equal to and w / L =0.05. From Bergeret et al. , 2001a.
Fˇ = F 0 · ˆ 0 ˆ 0 + F 3 · ˆ 3 ˆ 0 , 3,69
where F 0,3 =tanh + V /2 T ±tanh − V /2 T . this leads to a difference in transport properties. Em um
The distribution function F 3 symmetric in deter- S / N system, the relation f R = f A =0 holds and this
mines the current I . The differential conductance G d equality is a consequence of the time-reversal symmetry.
= dI / dV can be represented as É por isso que G 0= GT c =0 in S / N structures,
Gd=G0+G, 3.70 whereas in a S / F structure f R fA =0 and why
ST T =0 0
where G 0 = F L F A is the conductance in the normal Although the LRTC may be the reason for the en-
state here for simplicity we neglect the difference be- hancement of the conductivity in the S / F structures this
tween ↑ and ↓ . possibility was also pointed out by Giroud et al. 2003 ,
The normalized correction to the conductance due to our understanding is based on the assumption that the
the proximity effect ST G / G 0 can be found using a magnetic moment is fixed and does not change with tem-
general formula Bergeret et al. , 2001a perature. Dubonos et al. 2002 suggested another
mechanism based on the assumption of a domain redis-
ST = − 32 T −1 Tr ˆ 0 df R − f A 2 F V , 3.71 tribution when the temperature drops below T c . The fer-
romagnetic wires or strips used in different experi-
Onde ments may consist of many domains. Their form and
number depend on the sample geometry and parameters
FV = cosh −2 + eV /2 T + cosh −2 − eV /2 T /2. do sistema. When the temperature decreases below
The angle brackets ¯ denote the average over the T c , stray magnetic fields excite the Meissner currents in
length of the ferromagnetic wire between the F or N the superconductor attached to the F wire. Assim sendo
the demagnetizing factors change, which may lead to a
reservatórios. The functions f R A are given by expressions new domain structure. At the same time, the total con-
similar to Eq. 3.60. This formula shows that if T ductance or resistance G F depends on the form and the
D F / L 2 , on the order of magnitude ST f tr 2 , where number of domains. So one might expect that the con-
L is the length of the ferromagnetic wire and f tr is the ductance G F T below T c would differ from G F in the
amplitude of the triplet component at the S / F interface normal state. This idea was supported by measurements
at a characteristic energy ch min T , D F / L . De acordo carried out by Dubonos et al. 2002. In this work a
to Eq. 3.60 the amplitude of the triplet component is of structure consisting of a two-dimensional electron gas
the order of c 1 h / R b , where is the resistivity of the and five Hall probes was used. An F / S system Ni+Al
ferromagnet and c 1 is determined by the factor in the disks was placed on top of this structure. By measuring
first term in large parentheses, that is, by the character- the Hall voltage, the authors were able to probe local
istics of the domain wall. In principle the amplitude f tr magnetic fields around the ferromagnetic disks. Eles
may be on the order of 1. found that these fields really change when the tempera-
Strictly speaking, both the singlet and triplet compo- ture dropped below T c .
nents contribute to the conductance. However, if the On the other hand, the Meissner currents and hence
length L F exceeds the short length F , only the contribu- the redistribution of the domain walls may be consider-
tion of the LRTC is essential. ably reduced in wires, as discussed previously. Mudando
In Fig. 16 we present the temperature dependence of the thickness of the superconducting wires in a con-
the correction to the conductance GT . Pode ser visto trolled way and measuring the conductance could help
that by increasing the temperature G F T decreases in to distinguish experimentally between the contribution
a monotonous way. This dependence differs from the of the triplet condensate to the conductivity and the re-
reentrant behavior discussed above that occurs in the distribution of domain walls.
S / N structures. The reason for this difference is that the An experiment in which the domain redistribution
time-reversal symmetry in S / F structures is broken and was excluded was performed by Nugent et al. 2004.
Página 27
Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena … 1347
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 22/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
The authors measured the resistance variation of a fer- junction observed in many experiments and discussed in
romagnetic wire Ni 1− x Cu x lowering the temperature T Sec. II.B.2. Another manifestation of the transition from
below the critical temperature T c of the superconductor the 0 state to the state is the sign reversal of the criti-
Al or Pb, which was attached to the middle part of the cal current observed in the experiment by Ryazanov et
ferromagnetic wire. A magnetic field, strong enough to al. 2001 on Nb/Cu x Ni 1− x /Nb Josephson junctions see
align all domains in the ferromagnet in one direction but Fig. 5. The proper choice of an alloy with a weak ferro-
not too strong to suppress the superconductivity, was ap- magnetic coupling was crucial for the observation of the
plied to the system. Under these conditions a small in- efeito.
crease in the resistance R / R 310 −3 was observed Subsequent experiments, Blum et al. 2002, Kontos et
when the temperature T drops below T c . A análise al. 2002, and Guichard et al. 2003, corroborated the
presented above shows that the triplet component leads observed sign change of the Josephson coupling when
to an increase of the conductance but not in the resis- varying the thickness of the intermediate F layer. Quali-
tance of the ferromagnetic wire. Therefore this particu- tatively, the experimental data on the Josephson effect
lar experiment can hardly be explained in terms of the in the S / F / S structures are in agreement with the theo-
long-range proximity effect. Perhaps the small increase retical works mentioned above. However, a more accu-
in the resistance of the ferromagnetic wire observed by rate control and understanding of the 0- transition de-
Nugent et al. 2004 was related to the “kinetic” mecha- mands knowledge on the magnetic structure of the
nism discussed above see Eq. 3.65 or to weak- ferromagnetic materials.
localization corrections caused by the triplet Cooperons In almost all theoretical papers very simplified models
McCann et al. , 2000. According to McCann et al. 2000 of the S / F / S junction were analyzed. Por exemplo,
the change of the resistance of the ferromagnetic wire is Blanter and Hekking 2004 assumed that the F layer
positive contrary to the contribution of the LRTC and consisted of either one domain or two domains with the
its order of magnitude is e 2 / R F , where R F is the resis- collinear orientation of the magnetization. Nesse caso
tance of the F wire in the normal state. A fim de and according to the discussion of Sec. III.C, the LRTC
clarify the role of the LRTC in the transport properties is absent in the system.
of S / F structures, further theoretical and experimental If the F layer is a single domain layer, the critical cur-
investigations are needed. Note that strong ferromag- rent I c is maximal at a nonzero external magnetic field
nets such as Fe are not suitable materials for observing H ext equal to −4 M F , where M F is the magnetization of
the contribution of the LRTC into the conductance the F layer. At the same time, in experiments Strunk et
variation because of the strong exchange field h . Nisso al. 1994; Kontos et al. , 2001, 2002; Ryazanov et al. 2001;
case, according to Eqs. 3.34 and 3.60, the amplitude Blum et al. 2002; Sellier et al. , 2004 a decrease of the
of the LRTC is small because it contains h in the de- current I c with increasing field H ext was observed and it
nominator. was maximal at H ext =0. This means, as assumed in these
experimental works, that the F layer in real junctions
IV. JOSEPHSON EFFECT IN S / F SYSTEMS contains many magnetic domains. In this case the Jo-
INHOMOGENEOUS MAGNETIZATION sephson critical current I c may change sign in S / F / S
junctions with a multidomain magnetic structure even if
As we have mentioned above, one of the most inter- the local Josephson current density j c is always positive.
esting issues in S / F structures is the possibility of switch- The reason for the sign reversal of I c in this case is a
ing between the so-called 0 and states in Josephson spatial modulation of the phase difference x due to
S / F / S junctions. o state denotes the state for which an alternating magnetization M x in the domains
the Josephson critical current I c becomes negative. este Volkov and Anishchanka, 2004. In order to determine
occurs for a certain thickness d F and temperature T . Dentro the mechanism that leads to the sign reversal of the criti-
this state the minimum of the Josephson coupling en- cal current further experiments are needed.
ergy E J = I c / e 1−cos corresponds to a phase differ- In this section we discuss a new phenomenon, namely,
ence of = but not to =0 as in conventional Joseph- how the Josephson coupling between the F layers in the
son junctions. S / F structures is affected by the LRTC.
The reason for the sign reversal of I c is the oscillatory First, we consider a planar S / F / S Josephson junction
dependence of the condensate functions f on the thick- with a ferromagnet magnetization M F rotating in the di-
ness d F see Eq. 2.37 . Since the critical current I c is rection normal to the junction plane. This model is an
sensitive to the phase of the condensate function at the idealization of a real multidomain structure with differ-
boundary, the state is a rather natural consequence of ent magnetization orientations. In this case, as discussed
the oscillations. in Sec. III.D, the LRTC arising in the structure strongly
The possibility of the state was predicted by Bula- affects the critical current I c .
evskii et al. 1977 and Buzdin et al. 1982, and studied Next, we shall analyze a multilayered S / F / S /¯ struc-
later in many other works eg, Radovic et al. 1991; ture in which the vector M F has a different direction in
Buzdin, Vujicic, and Kupriyanov, 1992. Experimentally, different F layers. Again, in this case the LRTC arises in
this phenomenon manifests in a nonmonotonic depen- the system. Interestingly, if the thickness of the F layers
dence of the critical temperature on the thickness of the d F is much larger than the penetration length F of the
Página 28
1348 Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena …
singlet component but less than or on the order of N , The presence of the second term in Eq. 4.3 is espe-
then Josephson coupling between the F layers is realized cially interesting in the case when the thickness d F of the
due to the LRTC odd triplet superconductivity in the ferromagnetic spacer between the superconductors
transverse direction. At the same time, the in-plane su- obeys F d F −1 eu
. Then the main contribution to the
perconductivity is due to the conventional singlet super- Josephson coupling comes from the long-range triplet
conducting pairing. component of the condensate. Another important fea-
Finally, we shall discuss the dc Josephson effect in a ture of this limit is that for sufficiently large values of Ql
SF / I / FS junction here SF is a superconductor- the critical current is always positive no possibility for
ferromagnet bilayer and I is a thin insulating layer. Dentro contato. This can be seen from Fig. 7.
this structure the exchange field may lead not only to a The fact that the superconductivity loses its “exotic
suppression of the Josephson coupling as one would na- properties” at large Q is quite understandable. The su-
ively expect but, under a certain condition, to its en- perconductivity is sensitive not to the local values of the
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 23/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
hancement.
Let us consider first a planar S / F / S Josephson junc- exchange
order of thefield but to its average
superconducting on the scales
coherence length.ofSethe
o
ção. We assume the following spacial dependence of exchange field oscillates very fast such that the period of
the magnetization vector in the F layer: M F the oscillations is much smaller than the superconduct-
= M F „0,sin Qx ,cos Qx …, where the x axis is normal to ing coherence length, its average on this scale vanishes
the junction plane. and therefore all new properties of the superconductiv-
In this case, as seen in Sec. III.C.2, the LRTC arises. ity originating from the presence of the exchange field
Due to the long-range penetration into the ferromagnet become negligible.
the triplet component can give a contribution to the Jo- To conclude we summarize the results known for
sephson current. A general expression for the Josephson S / F / S Josephson junctions. When the magnetization in
current can be written in the form the ferromagnetic F is homogeneous, we have to distin-
guish between two different cases.
I J = L y L z /4 e F T i Tr ˆ 0 ˆ 3 · fxf. 4.1 In the dirty limit h 1 the change of sign of the
critical current occurs if the thickness of the F layer d F is
We assume that the impurity concentration is sufficiently on the order of F . The condensate function in the F
layer decays exponentially over this h and oscillates
high and therefore the condensate function f should be
with the same period.
determined from the Usadel equation. In the limit of a
In the opposite clean limit, h 1, the condensate
weak proximity effect the S / F interface transparency is
function oscillates in space with the period v F / h and de-
not too high this equation can be linearized and solved
cays exponentially over the mean free path l .
exatamente. The solution for the f matrix in the F region Finally, if the ferromagnetic region contains a domain
can be found in a similar way as done in Sec. III.C.2. wall described by a vector Q , a long-range component of
Due to rotation of the magnetization, the condensate the condensate appears. It decays in the F film over a
function contains the LRTC. We obtain for the Joseph-
considerably larger length on the order of N = D /2 T
son current Bergeret et al. , 2001c the following expres- that can greater exceed the characteristic length
sion:
D / h in a homogeneous F layer Q =0. Nesse caso
I J = I c sin , 4,2 the coupling between the superconductors survives even
if the thickness of F is larger than F .
where the critical current I c is equal to It is clear that the presence of a domain wall between
the superconductors is something that cannot be con-
Ql 2 e −
I c = L y L z F / l ˜ F2 Re f 2s e − d +
d
trolled very well experimentally. Therefore in the next
l F
+ F
,
0 +l 23 h 3/2 section we discuss a possible experiment on S / F multi-
4,3 layered structures that may help in detecting the LRTC
by measuring the Josephson critical current.
and l 2 =2 n /+ Q 2 . The parameter ˜ F =3/4 T é
an effective, averaged over angles, transmittance coeffi-
A. Josephson coupling between S layers via the triplet
cient which characterizes the S / F interface transparency componente
and + is defined in Eq. 3.52.
The first term in the brackets in Eq. 4.3 containing In this subsection we analyze another type of multi-
the parameter + corresponds to Eq. 2,36. It decays by layered S / F structure in which the LRTC arises. Isto é um
increasing the thickness d F over the short characteristic multilayered periodic ¯/ S / F n −1 / S / F n / S / F n +1 / S /¯
length F = D F / h and can change sign. The second term structure with alternating magnetization vector M F , n in
in Eq. 4.3 originates from the rotation of h along the x different F layers. We assume that the vector M F , n is
eixo. It decays with the thickness d F over another char- rotated with respect to the vector M F , n −1 by an angle 2 ,
acteristic length l −1 that can be much larger than F . such that the angle increases monotonously with increas-
Therefore this term results in a drastic change of the ing n . We call this type of magnetization the one with a
critical current. positive chirality.
Página 29
Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena … 1349
In an infinite system the magnetization vector M F av- d F is assumed to be much larger than F as usual, we
eraged over n is equal to zero it rotates when one assume that F N , the Josephson coupling between
moves from the n th to the n +1th, layer, etc.. Another the S layers is solely due to the LRTC. So in such sys-
type of chirality negative chirality is when the angle tems we come to a new type of superconductivity: an
between vectors M F , n and M F , n −1 is equal to 2 −1 n . Dentro odd triplet out-of-plane superconductivity and conven-
this case the averaged vector M F is not zero. tional singlet in-plane superconductivity the triplet
In Sec. III.C.1 we have seen that in a F / S / F structure component gives only a small contribution to the in-
with a noncollinear orientation of the magnetization plane superconductivity.
vectors in the F layers the LRTC arises. If one assumes Using Eqs. 3.21–3.29 one can perform explicit cal-
that the thickness of the F layers d F is larger than the culations for this case without considerable difficulties.
coherence length in the normal metal N , the overlap of As a result, the Josephson critical current I c can be writ-
the condensate functions created in a F layer by neigh- ten as follows Bergeret et al. , 2003:
boring S layers is weak, and the solutions given by Eqs.
3.21–3.29 remain valid for the multilayered S / F struc- eR F I c = ±2 T d F b2 1 1 + tan 2 e − d , 4,4 F
ture.
Using these solutions one can calculate the Josephson
current between neighboring S layers. As the thickness Onde
˜ 2S ˜ + − ˜ − sgn
b1 = − f BCS sin ,
cosh 2 S M + T − + M − T + g BCS + Ftanh F
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 24/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
Página 30
1350 Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena …
Página 31
Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena … 1351
I J = 2 T / eR Tr fh 1 fh 2 sin , 4,9
n
Onde
Eu
f= Fˆ d 4,10
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 26/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
the currentare
pressions I c equal
uma
for to
theeach
antiparallel case.
other only These
in the two ex-
absence of
any magnetization.
In Figs. 20 and 21 we present the dependence of the
critical current on the strength of the exchange field. Nós
see from Fig. 20 that for the parallel configuration the
exchange field reduces the value of the Josephson cur-
rent and this is exactly what one would expect. No FIG. 21. The same dependence as in Fig. 20 for the case of an
same time, the critical current increases with the antiparallel orientation.
Page 32
1352 Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena …
reduction of the Josephson current. However, if the ex- junction. Similar results were obtained by Krivoruchko
change fields of the different layers are antiparallel, they and Koshina 2001a, 2001b. The case of an arbitrary
may favor the location of the Cooper pairs in the vicinity S / F transparency was also studied by Barash et al.
of the Josephson junction. A certain probability exists 2002, Chtchelkatchev et al. 2002, and Li et al. 2002.
that one of the electrons of the pair is located in one Barash et al. 2002 calculated the Josephson current as a
layer, whereas the other is in the second layer. Such a function of the angle between magnetizations in the F
possibility is energetically favorable because the spins of film.
the electrons of the pair can now have the same direc-
tion as the exchange fields of the layers. Then it is more
probable for the pairs to be near the junction even in
comparison with a junction without exchange fields and, V. REDUCTION OF THE MAGNETIZATION DUE TO
as a result, the critical current may increase. SUPERCONDUCTIVITY: INVERSE PROXIMITY EFFECT
The results presented above have been obtained for
the SF / I / FS structure by Bergeret et al. 2001b. Mais cedo Until now we have studied the superconducting prop-
a formula for the Josephson critical current in the S m IS m
erties of different S / F structures for a fixed magnetiza-
S m is the magnetic superconductor junction was pre- ção. This means that we have assumed a certain value
sented by Kulic and Kulic 2001. From that formula one
for this quantity and its dependence on coordinates. o
could, in principle, derive an enhancement of the critical
implied justification of this assumption was that ferro-
current for the antiparallel M orientation in magnetic
magnetism is a stronger phenomenon than superconduc-
superconductors S m . Unfortunately, the authors seem to
tivity and the magnetic moment of conventional ferro-
have missed this interesting effect.
Some remarks should be made at this point. magnets can hardly be affected by superconductivity.
This assumption is certainly correct in many cases but
Eu The results presented above are valid in the tun- not always. Often the presence of superconductivity can
neling regime, ie, when the transparency of the drastically change magnetic properties of ferromagnets
insulating barrier I is low enough. Golubov et al. even if they are strong.
2002b have shown that a smearing of the singu- Experiments performed by Mühge et al. 1998 and
larity of I cuma
is provided by a finite temperature or Garifullin et al. 2002 showed that the total magnetiza-
a not very low barrier transparency. The maxi- tion of certain S / F bilayers with strong ferromagnets de-
mum of the critical current for the antiparallel creased with lowering the temperature below the critical
configuration I cuma decreases with decreasing resis- superconducting transition temperature T c . As an expla-
tance of the I layer. The effect becomes weaker as nation, it was suggested that due to the proximity effect
the thickness of the F layer grows. domains with different magnetization appeared in the
ii We assumed that the S / F interface was perfect. Dentromagnetic materials and this could reduce the total mag-
a structure with a large S / F interface resistance netization. At the same time, quantitative estimates
R S / F the bulk properties of the S film are not con- based on an existing theory Buzdin and Bulaevskii,
siderably influenced by the proximity of the F film 1988 led to a conclusion that this mechanism was not
to be more precise, the condition R S / F very probable.
In this section we address the problem of the magnetic
F d F / S d SFF must be satisfied, where F is moment reduction by the presence of a superconductor
the specific resistance of the F film. Then, as one
can readily show see Sec. II.B, a minigap bF assuming that, in the absence of the ferromagnet, we
= D F /2 R S / F d F arises in the F layer. The Green’s have conventional singlet superconducting pairing. isto
functions in the F layers have the same form as turns out that two different and independent mecha-
nisms that lead to a decrease of the magnetization in
before with replaced by bF . The singularity in
S / F heterostructures due to the proximity effect exist
I c h first occurs at h equal to bF .
and we give a detailed account of them.
A physical explanation for the singular behavior of In order to study the magnetic properties we have to
the critical current I c uma was given by Golubov et al. choose a model. One can distinguish two different types
2002b. These authors noted that the density of states in of ferromagnetism: i itinerant ferromagnetism due to
the F layer has a singularity when h = bF . At this value the spin ordering of free electrons and ii ferromag-
of h the maximum of I cuma is achieved due to an overlap of netism caused by localized spins. Most ferromagnetic
two −1/2 singularities. This leads to the logarithmic di- metals show both types of ferromagnetism simulta-
vergency of the critical current in the limit T→ 0 in anal- neously, ie, their magnetization consists of both contri-
ogy with the well-known Riedel peak in S / I / S tunnel butions.
junctions for the voltage difference 2. In the latter case We consider a model in which the conducting elec-
the shift of the energy is due to the electric potential. trons interact with the localized moments via an effec-
Golubov et al. 2002b have also shown that, for the tive exchange interaction. The corresponding term in
parallel configuration, at h = bF the critical current the Hamiltonian is taken by the following form see Ap-
changes its signs, ie, there is a transition from 0 to a pendix A:
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 27/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
Página 33
Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena … 1353
Page 34
1354 Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena …
Página 35
Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena … 1355
Página 36
1356 Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena …
Página 37
Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena … 1357
Página 38
1358 Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena …
0
M¯ S = dx M S x .
−d s
Assuming aquele h bF = D F /2 F d F ou h
D F /2 d2 F F d F / R b , we can easily compute the ratio
M¯ S D SS 2 T 1
- 5,23
MF0dF d F SF bF 2 + 2 3/2 = − 1,
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 32/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
Rev. Mod. Phys., Vol. 77, No. 4, October 2005
Página 39
Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena … 1359
Página 40
1360 Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena …
cay of the magnetic field created by a ferromagnetic F We assume again that the transmission coefficient
grain embedded in a superconductor if the radius of the through the S / F interface is not small and the condition
grain a is larger than L . However, if the radius a is h D F / a 2 is fulfilled. In this case the expression for
small, the Meissner effect can be neglected and a stray g S 3 drastically simplifies. Indeed, in this limit g F 3
magnetic field around the grain should decay, as in a = f F 0 f BCS / g BCS and f F 0 ihf BCS g BCS / bF . Therefore Eq.
normal metal, over a length of the order a . We now 5.25 acquires the form
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 33/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
consider just this case. f 2BCS umih2
Above the critical temperature T c the stray magnetic gS3= e− r−a.
S 5,26
field polarizes the spins of free electrons and induces a S r bF
magnetic moment. This magnetic moment is very small
2 10 −6 . This solution can be obtained from Eq. 5.24 if one
because the Pauli paramagnetism is weak B writes down the term 4 A r on the right-hand side of
In addition, the total magnetic moment induced by the 2 a 2 ih / S bF . Isso significa que
this equation with A = f BCS
stray magnetic field is zero. The penetration depth L
can be on the order of hundreds of interatomic distances the ferromagnetic grain acts on Cooper pairs as a mag-
netic impurity embedded in a dirty superconductor. isto
or larger, so that if a is smaller or on the order of 10 nm,
induces a ferromagnetic cloud of the size of the order S
the Meissner effect can be neglected.
The screening of the magnetic moment is a phenom- with a magnetic moment − B hV F .
enon specific to superconductors. It is usually believed In order to justify the assumptions made above we
that in the situation when screening due to the orbital estimate the energy D F / a 2 assuming that the mean free
electron motion can be neglected small grains and thin path is on the order of a . For a =30 Å and v F
films, the total magnetic moment is just the magnetic =10 8 cm/sec, we get D F / a 2 1000 K. This condition is
moment of the ferromagnetic particle and no additional fulfilled for ferromagnets with exchange energy of the
magnetization is induced by the electrons of the super- order of several hundred K.
condutor. In the limit of low temperatures the calculation of the
This common wisdom is quite natural because in con- magnetic moment becomes very easy and we obtain for
ventional superconductors the total spin of a Cooper the magnetic moment M¯ S induced in the superconductor
pair is equal to zero and the polarization of the conduc- the following expression:
tion electrons is even smaller than in the normal metal.
Spin-orbit interactions may lead to a finite magnetic sus- M¯ S
ceptibility of the superconductor but it is positive and = − 1. 5,27
M F 0 4 a 3 /3
smaller anyway than the one in the normal state Abri-
kosov and Gor'kov, 1962; Abrikosov, 1988. This is a remarkable result which shows that the in-
Let us now take a closer look at the results of the last duced magnetic moment is opposite in sign to the mo-
subsection. We have seen that the proximity effect in- ment of the ferromagnetic particle and their absolute
duces in the superconductor a magnetic moment with values are equal to each other. In other words, the mag-
sign opposite to the one in the ferromagnet. In view of netic moment of the ferromagnet is completely screened
this result it is quite natural to expect that the magnetic by the superconductor Bergeret et al. , 2004b. The char-
moment of a small ferromagnetic particle embedded in a acteristic radius of the screening is the coherence length
superconductor may be screened by the Cooper pairs as S , which contrasts to the orbital screening due to the
is sketched in Fig. 26. So let us consider this situation in Meissner effect characterized by the London penetra-
more detail. tion depth L .
We consider a ferromagnetic grain of radius a embed- To avoid misunderstanding we emphasize once again
ded in a bulk superconductor. If the size of the particle is that full screening occurs only if the magnetization per
smaller than the length F , we can again assume that the unit volume of the ferromagnetic grain M F 0 is given by
quasiclassical Green's functions in the F region are al- Eq. 5.16, which means that the ferromagnetic grain is
most constant and given by Eq. 5.21, where now bF an itinerant ferromagnet. If the magnetization of the fer-
=3 D F /2 F a . In the superconductor we have to solve the romagnet is caused by both localized moments M loc
linearized Usadel equation for the component g S 3 deter- and itinerant electrons M itin , full screening is not
mining the magnetization alcançado. Moreover, magnetization M loc may be larger
than M itin and have opposite direction. Neste caso nós
2 g S 3 −2Sg S 3 = 0, 5.24 would have antiscreening Bergeret and García, 2004.
Actually, we have discussed the diffusive case only.
where 2 = rr +2/ r r is the Laplace operator in spheri-
However, it turns out that spin screening also occurs in
cal coordinates.
the clean case provided the exchange field is not too
Using the boundary conditions A21 we write the so-
high: hv F / d F , where v F and d F are the Fermi velocity
lution of this equation as
and the thickness radius of the ferromagnetic film or
f BCS um 2 e − r − a
S
grain Bergeret et al. 2005; Kharitonov et al. , 2005.
gS3= g BCS f F 0 − f BCS g F 3 , 5,25 The energy spectrum of a superconductor with a
S 1 + S a r
pointlike classical magnetic moment was studied many
where f F 0 = f F + + f F − /2 and g F 3 = g F + − g F − /2. years ago by Shiba 1968, Rusinov 1969, and Sakurai
Página 41
Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena … 1361
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 34/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
moment of the impurity S 1 cannot be screened by
the quasiparticles.
1. The Knight shift in superconductors
Since the pioneering work of Abrikosov and Gor'kov
1962 it has been well established that the magnetic sus-
D. Spin-orbit interaction and its effect on the proximity ceptibility of small superconducting samples is not zero
efeito due to the spin-orbit interaction. This explains the ex-
periments performed for the first time by Androes and
In this section we discuss the influence of the spin- Knight 1961 who used the nuclear-magnetic-resonance
orbit SO interaction on the proximity effect. Apesar técnica.
in general its characteristic energy scale is much smaller Let us consider a superconductor in an external mag-
than the exchange energy h , it can be comparable to the netic field H . In the Usadel equation, Eq. 5.28, the field
superconducting gap and therefore this effect can be H plays the role of the exchange energy h . We are inter-
muito importante. Since SO scattering leads to a mixing of ested in the linear response to this field, ie, in the mag-
the spin channels, we expect that it will affect not only netic susceptibility S of the superconductor. Nós presumimos
the singlet component of the condensate but also the that the superconductor is homogeneous and therefore
triplet one in the ferromagnet. we drop the gradient term in Eq. 5.28:
In conventional superconductors the SO interaction
does not affect thermodynamic properties. No entanto, um - ˆ 3 , g + i ˇ , g + i B H n , g − 1/ so S ˇ ˆ 3 gˆ 3 Š, g
nonvanishing magnetic susceptibility at zero tempera-
ture Knight shift observed in small superconducting = 0, 5,29
samples and films can be explained only if the SO inter-
action is taken into account Abrikosov and Gor'kov, g 2 = 1. 5,30
1962. In the F / S structures considered here the ex-
The solution of Eq. 5.29 has the form
change field h breaks the time-reversal symmetry in
analogy to the external magnetic field in the Knight-shift g = g BCS + g 3 ˆ 3 ˆ 3 + f BCS ˆ 3 + f 0 iˆ 2 , 5.31
problema. Therefore the SO interaction in the supercon-
ductor is expected to influence the inverse proximity ef- where the functions g 3 and f 0 are corrections to the nor-
fect studied in this section. mal g BCS and anomalous f BCS Green's functions. No
In this section we shall generalize the analysis of the particle-hole space the matrix g has the usual form, ie,
long-range proximity effect and the inverse proximity it is expanded in matrices ˆ 3 and iˆ 2 . In spin space the
effect presented above taking the SO interaction into triplet component the g 3 and f 0 terms appears due to
conta. The quasiclassical equations in the presence of the magnetic field acting on the spins. Using Eqs.
the SO interaction were derived by Alexander et al. 5.29–5.31 one can readily obtain
1985 and used for the first time for the F / S systems by
Demler et al. 1997. 2
g3=−i BH , 5.32
The derivation of these equations is presented in Ap- E 2 E + 4/ so
pendix A. The resulting Usadel equation takes the form
where E = 2+2.
Substituting Eq. 5.32 into Eq. 5.22 we can write the
7 One assumes that the magnetic impurity has spin up. magnetization M as follows:
Página 42
1362 Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena …
1 2 = 2 +2 4
M=M0−B 2T2 H. 5,33 0 . 5.36
E 2 E + 4/ so so D F
The first term in Eq. 5.33 cannot be calculated in the We see from these equations that both the singlet and
framework of the quasiclassical theory and one should triplet components are affected by the spin-orbit inter-
use exact Green's functions. It corresponds to the Pauli action making the decay of the condensate in the ferro-
paramagnetic term given by M 0 = B H . In the quasiclas- magnet faster. In the limiting case, when 4/ so h,Tc,
sical approach this term is absent. This term does not both components penetrate over the same distance so
depend on temperature on the energy scale on the order = so D F and therefore the long-range effect is sup-
of T c and originates from a contribution of short dis- pressed. In this case the characteristic oscillations of the
tances where the quasiclassical approximation fails. singlet component are destroyed Demler et al. , 1997. In
This situation is rather typical for the quasiclassical the more interesting case 4/ so T c h , the singlet com-
approach and one usually adds by hand to formulas ob- ponent does not change and penetrates over the short
tained with this approach contributions coming from distance F . At the same time, the triplet component is
short distances or times see, for example, Artemenko more sensitive to the spin-orbit interaction and the pen-
and Volkov 1980, Rammer and Smith 1986, and etration length equals min so , T F.
Kopnin 2001 . Equation 5.33 was first obtained by Therefore if the spin-orbit interaction is not very
Abrikosov and Gor'kov 1962. strong, the penetration of the triplet condensate over the
In the absence of the spin-orbit interaction the mag- long distances discussed in the preceding sections is still
netization at T =0 is, as expected, equal to zero. Como- possible, although the penetration length is reduced.
ever, if the SO interaction is finite, the spin susceptibility
S does not vanish at T =0. It is interesting that, as fol- 3. Spin-orbit interaction and the inverse proximity
lows from Eq. 5.29, the singlet component of the con- efeito
densate is not affected by the SO interaction. The origin
In studying a S / F bilayer we have seen that the in-
of the finite susceptibility is the existence of the triplet
duced magnetic moment in the superconductor S is re-
component f 0 of the condensate.
lated to the appearance of the triplet component f 0 .
In S / F structures there is no exchange field in the
Moreover, we have shown that this component is af-
superconductor and therefore the situation is in prin-
fected by the SO interaction, while the singlet one f 3 is
ciple different. However, we have seen that due to the
não. So one should expect that the SO interaction may
proximity effect the triplet component f 0 is induced in
change the scale over which the magnetic moment is
the superconductor.
induced in the superconductor and one can easily esti-
From the above analysis one expects that the SO in-
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 35/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
teraction may affect the penetration length of the mate
Assuming
this length.
that the Green's functions in the supercon-
triplet-component into the superconductor. In the next
ductor take values close to the bulk values we linearize
sections we consider the influence of the SO on the su-
the Usadel equation 5.28 in the superconductor. o
perconducting condensate in both the ferromagnet and
solution has the same form as before, Eq. 5.20, but S
the superconductor.
should be replaced by
2 → S2 + so2 , 5,37
2. Influence of the spin-orbit interaction on the long- S
range proximity effect where so 2 =8 D S / so . Therefore the length of the penetra-
Now we again consider the S / F / S / F / S structure of tion of g S 3 and, in turn, of M S into the S region decreases
Sec. IV.A and assume that the long-range triplet compo- if S 2 −2S
2.
assim
nent is created, which is possible provided the angle In principle, one can measure the spatial distribution
between the magnetizations differs from 0 and . Em or- of the magnetic moment in the S region as done by
der to understand how the SO interaction affects the Luetkens et al. 2003 by means of muon spin rotation
triplet component it is convenient to linearize Eq. 5,28 and get information on the SO interaction in supercon-
in the F layer assuming, for example, that the proximity ductors. As Eq. 5.37 shows, this would be an alterna-
effect is weak. One can easily obtain a linearized equa- tive method for measuring the strength of the SO inter-
action in superconductors, complementary to the
tion similar to Eq. 3.15 for the condensate function f .
measurement of the Knight shift Androes and Knight,
The solution of this equation is represented again in the
1961
Formato
fx = iˆ 2 f 0 x ˆ 0 + f 3 x ˆ 3 + iˆ 1 f 1 x ˆ 1 . 5.34 VI. DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS AND OUTLOOK
The functions f i x are given as before by f i x In this review we have discussed new unusual proper-
= j b j exp j x but now the new eigenvalues j are writ- ties of structures consisting of conventional supercon-
ten as ductors in contact with ferromagnets. It has been known
2i 4 2 4 that such systems might exhibit very interesting proper-
2 =± h2− + , 5,35 ties such as a nonmonotonic reduction of the supercon-
± DF assim so D F
Rev. Mod. Phys., Vol. 77, No. 4, October 2005
Página 43
Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena … 1363
ducting temperature as a function of the thickness of the Moreover, it was not even easy to see from the models
superconductor, the possibility of a contact in Joseph- studied in these papers that the odd frequency supercon-
son junctions with ferromagnetic layers, etc. ductivity had really to exist. The prediction that the odd
However, as we have seen, everything is even more triplet condensate must be generated in a real system
interesting and some spectacular phenomena are pos- has been made for the first time in the work by Bergeret
sible that might even at first glance look to be paradoxi- et al. 2001b.
cal. The common feature of the effects discussed in this The triplet component with the projection of the total
review is that almost all of them originate in situations spin S z = ±1 penetrates the ferromagnet over a long dis-
when the exchange field is not homogeneous. As a con- tance on the order of N D F /2 T , which shows that
sequence of the inhomogeneity, the spin structure of the the exchange field does not affect the triplet part of the
superconducting condensate function becomes very non- condensate. At the same time, the exchange field sup-
trivial and, in particular, the triplet components are gen- presses the amplitude of the singlet component at the
erated. In the presence of the inhomogeneous exchange S / F interface that determines the amplitude of the trip-
field, the total spin of a Cooper pair is not necessarily let component. The long-range triplet component arises
equal to zero and the total spin equal to unity with all only in the case of a nonhomogeneous magnetization.
projections onto the direction of the exchange field is The triplet component also appears in a system with a
possible. homogeneous magnetization but in this case it corre-
We have discussed the main properties of odd triplet sponds to the projection S z =0 and penetrates the ferro-
superconductivity in S / F structures. This superconduc- magnet over a short length F = D F / h N.
tivity differs from the well-known types of superconduc- The triplet component also exists in magnetic super-
tivity: i singlet superconductivity with s -wave conven- conductors Bulaevskii et al. 1985; Kulic and Kulic,
tional T c superconductors and d -wave high- T c 2001 with a spiral magnetic structure. However, it al-
superconductors types of pairing; ii odd in momentum ways coexists with the singlet component and cannot be
p and even in frequency triplet superconductivity ob- separated from it. In contrast, in multilayered S / F struc-
served, eg, in Sr 2 RuO 4 . tures with nonhomogeneous magnetization and with the
The odd triplet superconductivity discussed in this re- thickness of F layers d F exceeding F , Josephson cou-
view has a condensate Gor'kov function that is an odd pling between S layers is realized only through the long-
function of the Matsubara frequency and an even range triplet component and this separates the singlet
function in the main approximation of momentum p in and triplet components from each other. Como um resultado,
the diffusive limit. It is insensitive to scattering on non- “real” odd triplet superconductivity may be realized in
magnetic impurities and therefore may be realized in the transverse direction in such structures.
thin-film S / F structures where the mean free path is very Another interesting peculiarity of S / F structures is the
short. inverse proximity effect, namely, the penetration of the
A condensate function of this type was first suggested magnetic order parameter spontaneous magnetic mo-
by Berezinskii 1975 as a possible candidate to describe ment M into the superconductor and spatial variation
superfluidity in 3 He. Later, it was established that the of the magnetization direction in the ferromagnet under
superfluid condensate in 3 He had a different the influence of superconductivity. It turns out that both
structure—it was odd in p and even in . Em princípio, effects are possible. A homogeneous distribution of the
there is an important difference between the triplet su- magnetization M F in the S / F bilayer structures may not
perconductivity discussed here and that predicted by Be- be energetically favored in F even in a one-domain case
rezinskii, who assumed that the order parameter estava resulting in a nonhomogeneous distribution of M F in the
also an odd function of . In our case the order param- ferromagnet.
eter is determined by the singlet, s -wave condensate Moreover, the magnetic moment penetrates the super-
function and has ordinary BCS structure ie, it does not conductor induced ferromagnetism changing sign at
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 36/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
depend on momentum p and frequency . No outro thethe
of S / system
F interface. Therefore
is reduced. thesome
Under total conditions
magnetic moment
full
hand, the structure of the triplet condensate function f in spin screening of M F occurs. For example, at zero tem-
the diffusive case considered here is similar to that sug- perature the itinerant magnetic moment of a ferromag-
gested by Berezinskii: it is an odd function of the Mat- netic grain embedded in a superconductor is completely
subara frequency and, in the main approximation, is screened by spins of the Cooper pairs in S . The radius of
constant in momentum space. The antisymmetric part of the screening cloud is on the order of the superconduct-
f is small compared with the symmetric part, being odd ing coherence length S . If the magnetization vector M F
in p and even in . The possibility of an odd frequency is oriented in the opposite direction to the ferromagnetic
superconductivity in solids was investigated by Kirk- exchange field h , antiscreening is possible.
patrick and Belitz 1991, Balatsky and Abrahams As to the experimental situation, there are indications
1992, Belitz and Kirkpatrick 1992, Abrahams et al. in favor of the long-range triplet component, although
1993, Coleman et al. 1993a, 1993b, 1995, and Balatsky so far unambiguous evidence does not exist. Por exemplo
et al. 1995. However, to the best of our knowledge, ample, the resistance of ferromagnetic films or wires in
none of these suggestions is realized experimentally. S / F structures changes on distances that exceed the
Página 44
1364 Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena …
length of the decay of the singlet component h Giroud range proximity effects already observed experimentally
et al. 1998; Petrashov et al. , 1999; Aumentado and Chan- are due to triplet pairing or to a simple redistribution of
drasekhar, 2001. A possible reason for this long-range the domain walls by the Meissner currents. Nós acreditamos
proximity effect in S / F systems is the long-range pen- that measurements on thin ferromagnetic wires in which
etration of the triplet component. However, a simpler the Meissner currents are reduced may clarify the situa-
effect might also be the reason for this long-range prox- ção.
imity effect. It is related to the rearrangement of the It is very interesting to distinguish experimentally be-
domain structure in the ferromagnet when the tempera- tween two possible inverse proximity effects. Apesar
ture lowers below T c . The Meissner currents induced in both the formation of the cryptoferromagnetic state and
the superconductor by a stray magnetic field affect the the induction of magnetic moments in superconductors
domain structure and the resistance of the ferromagnet are very interesting effects, it is not clear yet which of
may change Dubonos et al. , 2002. At the same time, these effects causes the magnetization reduction ob-
the Meissner currents should be considerably reduced in served by Mühge et al. 1998 and Garifullin et al. 2002.
a one-dimensional geometry for the ferromagnet such as The enhancement of the Josephson current by the
that used by Giroud et al. 1998 and the explanation in presence of the ferromagnet near the junction is one
terms of the long-range penetration of the triplet com- more theoretical prediction that has not been observed
ponent are more probable here. yet but still deserves attention. An overview for experi-
Sefrioui et al. 2003 and Peña et al. 2004 also ob- mentalists interested in these subjects is presented in
tained indications on the existence of a triplet compo- Appendix B, where we briefly discuss different experi-
nent in a multilayered S / F / S / F /¯ structure. o ments on S / F structures, focusing our attention on the
samples used by Sefrioui et al. contained the high- T c ma- materials for which we expect the main effects discussed
terial YBa 2 Cu 3 O 7 as a superconductor and the half- in this review may be observed.
metallic ferromagnet La 0.7 Ca 0.3 MnO 3 as a ferromag- In addition, further theoretical investigations are
net. They found that superconductivity persisted even necessário. The odd triplet component has been studied
in the case when the thickness of F layers d F essentially mainly in the diffusive limit h 1. It would be inter-
exceeded F d F 10 nm and F 5 nm. In a half-metal esting to investigate the properties of the triplet compo-
ferromagnet with spins of free electrons aligned in one nent for an arbitrary impurity concentration h 1. No
direction the singlet Cooper pairs cannot exist. Lá- theoretical work on the dynamics of magnetic moments
fore it is reasonable to assume that superconducting in S / F structures has been performed yet, although the
coupling between neighboring S layers is realized via the triplet component may play a very important role in the
triplet component Eschrig et al. 2003; Volkov et al. , dynamics of these structures. Transport properties of
2003. S / F structures also require also further theoretical con-
A reduction of the magnetic moment of S / F struc- siderações. It would be useful to study the influence of
tures due to superconducting correlations has already domain structures on properties of S / F structures, etc.
been observed Garifullin et al. , 2002. This reduction In other words, the physics of the proximity effects in
may be caused both by the spin screening of the mag- superconductor-ferromagnet structures is evolving into a
netic moment M F and by the rotation of M F in space very popular field of research, both experimentally and
Bergeret et al. , 2000, 2004a. Perhaps the spin screening theoretically.
can be observed directly by probing the spatial distribu- The study of the proximity effect in S / F structures
tion of the magnetic field or magnetic moment M with may be extended to include ferromagnets in contact
the aid of the muon spin rotation technique Luetkens et with high-temperature superconductors. Apesar de alguns
al. , 2003. The variation of the magnetic moment M oc- experiments have been done already Sefrioui et al. ,
curs on a macroscopic length S and therefore can be 2003; Stahn et al. , 2005, one can expect much more
detectou. broad experimental investigations in the future. Modern
Evidence in favor of the inverse proximity effect has techniques allow the preparation of multilayered
also been obtained in another experimental work Stahn S / F / S / F /¯ structures consisting of thin ferromagnetic
et al. , 2005. Analyzing data of neutron reflectometry on layers eg, La 2/3 Ca 1/3 MnO 3 and thin layers of high- T c
a multilayered YBa 2 Cu 3 O 7 /La 2/3 Ca 1/3 MnO 3 structure, superconductor eg, YBa 2 Cu 3 O 7 with variable thick-
the authors concluded that a magnetic moment was in- . It would be very interesting to study, both experi-
duced in superconducting YBa 2 Cu 3 O 7 layers. O sinal mentally and theoretically, such a system with noncol-
of this induced moment was opposite to the sign of the linear magnetization orientations. In this case d -wave
magnetic moment in ferromagnetic La 2/3 Ca 1/3 MnO 3 lay- singlet and odd triplet superconductivity should coexist
ers, which correlates with our prediction. in the system. It is well known that many properties of
In spite of these experimental results that may be con- ordinary BCS superconductivity remain unchanged in
sidered preliminary confirmation of the existence of the high- T c superconductors. This means that many effects
triplet component in S / F structures, there is a need for considered in this review can also occur in S / F struc-
additional experimental studies of the unconventional tures containing high- T c materials, but there will cer-
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 37/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
superconductivity
important issues isdiscussed in this
to understand review.the
whether Um dos
long- tainly be differences
conductors that have with respect
s -wave to conventional super-
pairing.
Página 45
Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena … 1365
We hope that this review will encourage experimen- conducting and magnetic h order parameter. o
talists and theorists to make further investigations in this exchange field h is parallel to the magnetization M F in
fascinating field of research. F . 8 In strong ferromagnets the magnitude of h is much
higher than and corresponds to an effective magnetic
AGRADECIMENTOS field H exc = h / B on the order of 10 6 Oe where B
= g Bohr , g is the g factor and Bohr is the Bohr magne-
We appreciate fruitful discussions with AI Buzdin, ton.
YV Fominov, IA Garifullin, A. Gerber, AA Gol- In order to describe the ferromagnetic region we use a
ubov, A. Palevski, LR Tagirov, K. Westerholt, and H. simplified model that contains all the physics we are in-
Zabel. We would like to thank SFB 491 for financial terested in. Ferromagnetism in metals is caused by the
Apoio, suporte. FSB would like to thank the EU network electron-electron interaction between electrons belong-
DIENOW for financial support. ing to different bands that can correspond to localized
and conducting states. Only the latter participate in the
proximity effect. If the contribution of free electrons
APPENDIX A: BASIC EQUATIONS strongly dominates an itinerant ferromagnet, one has
Throughout this review we mainly use the well- M F M e and the exchange energy is caused mainly by
established method of quasiclassical Green's functions. free electrons.
Within this method the Gor'kov equations can be dras- If the polarization of the conduction electrons is due
tically simplified by integrating the Green's function to the interaction with localized magnetic moments, the
over momentum. This method was first introduced by Hamiltonian Hˆ F can be written in the form
Eilenberger 1968 and Larkin and Ovchinnikov 1968
and then extended by Usadel 1970 for a dirty case and Hˆ F = − h 1 a+sp S ss a s p , A2
by Eliashberg 1971 for a nonequilibrium case. o p,s
method of the quasiclassical Green's functions is dis- where S = a S a r − r a and S a is the spin of a particular
cussed in many reviews Serene and Reiner 1983; Lar- ion. A constant h 1 is related to h via the equation h
kin and Ovchinnikov 1984; Rammer and Smith 1986;
= h 1 n M S 0 , where n M is the concentration of magnetic
Belzig et al. 1999 and in the book by Kopnin 2001. In
ions and S 0 is a maximum value of S a we consider these
this appendix we present a brief derivation of equations
spins as classical vectors; see Gor'kov and Rusinov
for the quasiclassical Green's functions and write formu-
las for the main observable quantities in terms of these 1963 . In this case the magnetization is a sum, M
funções. Special attention will be paid to the depen- = M loc + M e , and the magnetization M e can be aligned
dence of these functions on the spin variables that play a parallel h 1 0, the ferromagnetic type of the exchange
crucial role in S / F structures. In particular, we take into field to M or antiparallel h 1 0, the antiferromagnetic
account the spin-orbit interaction along with the ex- type of the exchange field. In the following we shall
change interaction in the ferromagnet. assume a ferromagnetic exchange interaction M e and M
We start with a general Hamiltonian describing a con- are oriented in the same direction. In principle, one can
ventional BCS–superconductor-ferromagnet structure: add to Eq. A2 the term a , b S a S b describing a di-
rect interaction between localized magnetic moments
Hˆ = „ a+sp p pp + eV + U imp ss + U so but in most of the review this term is not important
p,s except in Sec. VA, where the cryptoferromagnetic state
−h· a s p − a†sp a†s p + cc…. A1 is discussed.
Starting from the Hamiltonian A1 and using a stan-
The summation is carried out over all momenta p , p dard approach Larkin and Ovchinnikov, 1984, one can
and spins s , s the notation s¯ , p¯ means inversion of derive the Eilenberger and Usadel equations. Initially
both spin and momentum, p = p 2 /2 m − F is the kinetic these equations have been derived for 22 matrix
energy counted from the Fermi energy F , and V is a Green's functions g n , n , where indices n , n relate to nor-
smoothly varying electric potential. The superconduct- mal g 11 , g 22 and anomalous or condensate f 12 , f 21
ing order parameter must be determined self- Green's functions. These functions describe the singlet
consistently. It vanishes in the ferromagnetic regions. componente. In the case of nonhomogenous magnetiza-
The potential U imp = U p − p describes the interaction tion considered in this review, one has to introduce ad-
of the electrons with nonmagnetic impurities, and U so ditional Green's functions depending on spins and de-
describes a possible spin-orbit interaction Abrikosov scribe not only the singlet but also the triplet
and Gor'kov, 1962: componente. These matrices depend not only on n , n in-
dices but also on the spin indices s , s , and are 44 ma-
u soEu trices in the spin and Gor'kov space sometimes the n , n
U so = p .
2p space is called the Nambu or Nambu-Gor'kov space.
Eup F
Here the summation is performed over all impurities.
The representation of the Hamiltonian in A1 implies 8 We remind the reader that the exchange field h is measured
that we use the mean-field approximation for the super- in energy units; see also footnote 5.
Página 46
1366 Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena …
In order to define the Green's functions in a custom- states, the Josephson current, etc.. The matrix
ary way it is convenient to write the Hamiltonian A1 in Gˇ t , t K = Gˇ t 1 , t 2 + Gˇ t 2 , t is
1 related to the distribu-
terms of new operators c nsp† and c nsp that are related to tion function and has a nontrivial structure only in
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 38/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
the creation and annhilation operators a s + and a s by the the nonequilibrium case. In the equilibrium case it is
relation we drop the index p related to the momentum equal to Gˇ K = dt − t Gˇ t − t K exp i t − t = Gˇ R
a s , n = 1, − Gˇ A tanh /2 T .
c ns = A3
a†s¯ , n = 2. In order to obtain the equations for the quasiclassical
Green's functions, we follow the procedure introduced
These operators for s =1 were introduced by Nambu by Larkin and Ovchinnikov 1984. The equation of mo-
1960. The new operators allow one to express the tion for the Green's functions is
anomalous averages a ↑ · a ↑ introduced by Gor'kov as
conventional averages c 1 · c +
2 and therefore the theory i t − Hˇ − ˇ imp −ˇ so ˇG = 1̌, A8
of superconductivity can be constructed by analogy to a Onde
theory of normal systems. Thus the index n operates in
particle-hole Nambu-Gor'kov space, while the index s 2
Hˇ = − ˆ 3 r − F − h ˆ 3 ˇS+ ˆ ˜ˆ 3
operates in spin space. In terms of the c ns operators the 2m
Hamiltonian can be written in the form
e ˇ ˇ
imp and so are the self-energies given in the Born
H= c+ns H nn ss c n s , A4 approximation by
p,n,s
where the summation is performed over all momenta, ˇ 2 3 G ˇ ˆ 3 , Ǧ = d
imp = N imp u ˆimp dp
4
Ǧ,
particle-hole, and spin indices. The matrix Hˇ is given by
ˇ 2 Gˇ
Hˇ =1 ˆ ˜ˆ 3 − h ˆ 3 S ˇ so = N imp u so so , A9
2 p pp + eV + U imp ˆ 3 ˆ 0 +
d
u soEu Ǧ so = dp n n Sˇ ǦŠ n n.
+ 2p p Sˇ . A5 4
Eup F Here N imp is the impurity concentration, is the density
The matrices ˆ i and ˆ i are the Pauli matrices in particle- of states at the Fermi level, and n is a unit vector parallel
hole and spin space, respectively; i =0,1,2,3 where ˆ 0 and to the momentum.
The next step is to subtract from Eq. A8, multiplied
0 are the corresponding unit matrices. The matrix vec-
tor Š is defined as by ˆ 3 from the left, its conjugate equation multiplied by
ˆ 3 from the right. Then one has to go from the variables
Š = ˆ 1 , ˆ 2 , ˆ 3 ˆ 3 , r , r to „ r + r / 2 , r − r … and to perform a Fourier trans-
formation with respect to the relative coordinate. De
and the matrix order parameter equals ˆ=
˜ ˆ 1 Re making use of the fact that the Green's functions are
− ˆ 2 Im . Now we can define the matrix Green's func- peaked at the Fermi surface, one can integrate the re-
tions in particle-hole spin space in the Keldysh rep- sulting equation over p , and finally one obtains
resentation in a standard way, 1
ˆ 3 t g + t gˆ 3 + v F g − i hŠ, g − i ˇ , g + g,g
1 2
Gˇ t i , t k = T C c ns t i c†n s t k , A6
Eu 1
+ ˆ 3 g so ˆ 3 , g = 0, A10
where the temporal indices take the values 1 and 2, 2 so
which correspond to the upper and lower branches of
the contour C , running from − to + and back to −. Onde ˇ = ˆ 3 ˆ 3ˆ ˜and the quasiclassical Green's functions
One can introduce a matrix in the Keldysh space of gt i , t k are defined as
the form
Eu
gpF,r= ˆ3ˆ0 d p Ǧ t i , t k ; p , r , A11
Gˇ t , t R Gˇ t , t K
Ǧ t , t = , A7
0 Gˇ t , t A and v F is the Fermi velocity. The scattering times appear-
where the retarded advanced Green's functions ing in Eq. A10 are defined as
Gˇ t , t RA estamosrelacionadopara a matrices −1 = 2 N imp u2imp , A12
Gˇ t i , t k : Gˇ t , t RA = Gˇ t 1 , t 1 − Gˇ t 12 , t21 . All these
elements are 44 matrices. These functions determine −1 = 1 N imp
d 2 sin 2 .
u so A13
thermodynamic properties of the system density of assim3 4
Página 47
Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena … 1367
Equation A10 is a generalization of an equation de- If we take the elements A11 or A22 of the super-
rived by Eilenberger 1968 and Larkin and Ovchinni- matrix g , we obtain the Usadel equation for the retarded
kov 1968 for the general nonequilibrium case. este and advanced Green's functions g R A t , t generalized
generalization in the absence of spin-dependent inter- for the case of the exchange field acting on the spins of
actions was done by Eliashberg 1971 and Larkin and electrons. In this review we are mainly interested in sta-
Ovchinnikov 1984. A solution for Eq. A10 is not tionary processes, when the matrices g R A t , t depend
único. The proper solutions must obey the normaliza- only on the time difference t − t . Performing the Fou-
tion condition rier transformation g R A = dt − tg RA t − t exp i t
− t , we obtain for g R A the following equation we
d 1 /2 g p F , r ; , 1 · g p F , r ; 1 , =1 A14 drop the indices RA :
Page 48
1368 Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena …
Equations A18 and A21 together with the self- Mx,y=B 1/2 i T Tr ˆ 0 ˆ 1,2 g , A29
consistency equation that determines the superconduct-
ing order parameter constitute a complete set of equa-
tions from which one can obtain the Green's functions. where is the density of states at the Fermi level in the
The Usadel equation can be solved in some particular normal state and B = g Bohr is an effective Bohr magne-
casos. We often use the linearized Usadel equation ob- ton.
tained by representing the Green's functions g of the Finally, it is important to remark on the notations
superconductor in the form used in this review. In most works where S / F structures
with homogeneous magnetization are studied, the
Green's function g is a 22 matrix with the usual nor-
g p F , r ; = g BCS +gS+fS, A22
mal and Gor'kov components. Of course, this simplifica-
tion can be made provided magnetizations of F layers
where g BCS = ˆ 3 g BCS + iˆ 2 f BCS , g BCS = i / f BCS ,
involved in the problem are aligned in one direction.
and f BCS =/ i 2 + 2 . We have written the matrix g in
However, this simple form leads to erroneous results if
the Matsubara representation. This means that a substi- magnetizations are arbitrarily oriented with respect to
tution ⇒ i = T 2 n +1, n =0,±1,±2,… is done entre si. The 44 form of the Green's function is
and g coincides with g R for positive and with unavoidable if one studies structures with nonhomoge-
g A for negative . The linearized Usadel equation has neous magnetization. Of course, the c operators in Eq.
the form A3 can be defined in different ways. Por exemplo,
Maki 1969 introduced a spinor representation of the
2 f S − S 2 f S = 2 i ˘ / D S g2BCS A23 field operators, which is equivalent to letting the spin
xx
index of the operator a in Eq. A3 be unchanged when
in the S region and n =2. This notation was used in later works eg, Alex-
ander et al. 1985; Demler et al. , 1997 in which the
2 f − 2 f + i h 2 ˆ 3 , f + cos ± ˆ 3 ˆ 2 , f − sin =0 Green's functions have a 22 block matrix form. o
xx diagonal blocks represent the normal Green's functions,
A24 while the off-diagonal blocks represent the anomalous
1. With this notation the matrix, Eq. A5, changes its
in the F region. Aqui 2 =2 E / D S , 2 =2 / D F , 2
S h Formato. For example, the term containing is propor-
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 40/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
= h sgn
signs / DEq.
± in F , and A , B ± = AB ± BA ,
A24 correspond to the right˘ =and
iˆ 2left
ˆ3 .o tional
pends tooniˆthe
2 and not to ˆ 3 . The choice of notation de-
problem to solve. In order to study the
layers, respectively. triplet superconductivity induced in S / F systems and to
The boundary conditions for f S and f F f in zero- see explicitly the three projections S z =0,±1 of the con-
order approximation f F =0 are obtained from Eq. densate function, it is more convenient to use the opera-
A21. They have the form tors defined in Eq. A3 see, for example, Bergeret et al.
2001c and Fominov et al. 2003.
2
x f S = 1/ S g BCS f − g BCS f BCS ˆ 3 g F 3 , A25
APPENDIX B: FUTURE DIRECTION OF EXPERIMENTAL
A26 PESQUISA
x f F = 1/ F g BCS f − f S ,
As we have seen throughout the paper there are a
where F , S = R b F , S . great number of experiments on S / F structures. The va-
If the Green's functions are known, one can calculate riety of superconducting and ferromagnetic materials is
macroscopic quantities such as the current, magnetic very large. In this section we briefly review some of
moment, etc. For example, the current is given by Lar- these experiments. We shall not dwell on specific fabri-
kin and Ovchinnikov 1984, cation techniques but rather focus on which pairs of ma-
terial S and F are more appropriate for the observation
I S = L y L z /16 F Tr ˆ 3 ˆ 0 dg s g s / x 12 , A27 of the effects studied in this review.
First experiments on S / F structures used strong ferro-
magnets large exchange fields like Fe, Ni, Co, or Gd
where L y , z are the widths of the films in the y and z and conventional superconductors like Nb, Pb, V, etc.
directions the current flows in the transverse x direc- Hauser et al. , 1963. In these experiments the depen-
tion and the subscript 12 shows that one has to take the dence of the superconducting transition temperature on
Keldysh component of the supermatrix g s g s / x . Variação the thicknesses of S and F layers was measured. Em outro
tion of the magnetic moment due to the proximity effect words, the suppression of the superconductivity due to
is determined by the formulas the strong exchange field of the ferromagnet was ana-
lyzed. It is clear that for such strong ferromagnets spin
Mz=B 1/2 i T Tr ˆ 3 ˆ 3 g , A28 splitting is large and therefore a mismatch in electronic
parameters of S and F regions is large. This leads to a
Page 49
Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena … 1369
low interface transparency and a weak proximity effect. though the materials employed in this experiment can-
This was confirmed by Aarts et al. 1997 in experiments not be quantitatively described with the methods pre-
on V/V 1− x Fe x multilayers. By varying the concentration sented in this review the ferromagnet they used is a half
of Fe in VFe alloys they could change the values of the metal with an exchange field comparable to the Fermi
exchange field and indirectly the transparency of the in- energy and the superconductor is unconventional, the
terface. Such systems consisting of a conventional super- experimental technique may be used in other experi-
conductor and a ferromagnetic alloy, both with similar ments in order to detect induced magnetization pre-
band structure in the above experiment the mismatch dicted in Secs. VB and VC
was 5%, are good candidates for observing the effects
discussed in Secs. IV.A, VB, and VC LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Weak ferromagnets have been used in recent years in S superconductor
many experiments on S / F structures. Before we turn our N nonmagnetic normal metal
attention to ferromagnets with small exchange fields it is F ferromagnetic metal
worth mentioning the experiment by Rusanov et al. Eu insulator
2004. They analyzed the so-called spin-switch effect. Dentro LRTC long-range triplet component
particular, they studied the transport properties of Per- ˆ i , i =1,2,3 Pauli matrices in particle-hole space
malloy Py/Nb bilayers. They observed an enhance- ˆ i , i =1,2,3 Pauli matrices in spin space
ment of superconductivity in the resistive transition in ˆ0,ˆ0 unit matrices
the field range where the magnetization of the Py D diffusion coefficient
switches and many domains were present. Interesting density of states
for us is that Py shows a well-defined magnetization = T 2 n +1 Matsubara frequency
switching at low fields and therefore could be used to real frequency energy
detect the long-range triplet component that appears g BCS quasiclassical normal Green's func-
when magnetization of the ferromagnet is not homoge- tion for a bulk superconductor
neous see Sec. III.C. Finally, a magnetic configuration f BCS quasiclassical anomalous Green’s
analysis of strong-ferromagnetic structures used in trans- function for a bulk superconductor
port experiments, such as those performed by Giroud et Tc superconducting critical temperature
al. 1998 and Petrashov et al. 1999, may also serve to Ic Josephson critical current
confirm the predictions of Sec. III.C. As discussed be-
Rb interface resistance per unit area
fore, increase in the conductance of the ferromagnet for
temperatures below the superconducting T c may be ex- bN = D N /2 R b N d N minigap induced in a normal metal
S,F conductivity in the normal state
plained assuming a long-range proximity effect.
S,F R bS , F
The proximity effect in S / F is stronger if one uses
ratio F / S
dilute ferromagnetic alloys. Thus such materials are the J magnetic coupling between localized
best candidates in order to observe most of the effects
magnetic moments
discussed in this review. The idea of using ferromagnetic
h exchange field acting on the spin of
alloys with small exchange fields was used by Ryazanov
conducting electrons
et al. 2001. They were the first in observing the sign
N = D N /2 T characteristic penetration length of
reversal of the critical current in a S / F / S Josephson
the condensate into a dirty normal
junction. Nb was used as superconductor while
metal
Cu 0.48 Ni 0.52 alloy was used as a ferromagnet exchange
characteristic penetration length of
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 41/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
field 25 et
Kontos K.al.
Later
2002ononsimilar results
Nb/Al/Al 2 Owere obtained
3 /PdNi/Nb by
struc- F=DF/h the condensate into a dirty ferro-
magnet
turas. The CuNi alloy was also used in the experiment
S = D S /2 T c superconducting coherence length
by Gu et al. 2002b on F / S / F structures. In this experi-
for a dirty superconductor
ment the authors determined the dependence of the su-
perconducting transition temperature on the relative
magnetization orientation of two F layers. A fim de REFERÊNCIAS
get different alignments between the two CuNi layers an
exchange-biased spin-valve stack of CuNi/Nb/ Aarts, J., JME Geers, E. Brück, AA Golubov, and R.
CuNi/Fe 50 Mn 50 was employed. With a small magnetic Coehoorn, 1997, Phys. Rev. B 56 , 2779.
Abrahams, E., AV Balatsky, JR Schrieffer, and PB Allen,
field the authors could switch the magnetization direc-
1993, Phys. Rev. B 47 , 513.
tion of the free NiCu layer. This technique could be very
Abrikosov, AA, 1988, Fundamentals of the Theory of Metals
useful for observing Josephson coupling via the triplet North-Holland, Amsterdam.
component as described in Sec. IV.A. Abrikosov, AA, and LP Gor'kov, 1962, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.
Finally, it is worth mentioning the experiment by 42 , 1088 Sov. Phys. JETP 15 , 752 1962 .
Stahn et al. 2005 on YBa 2 Cu 3 O 7 /La 2/3 Ca 1/3 MnO 3 . Nos- Adkins, CJ, and BW Kington, 1969, Phys. Rev. 177 , 777.
ing the neutron reflectometry technique they observed Aharoni, A., 1996, Introduction to the Theory of Ferromag-
an induced magnetic moment in the superconductor. Al- netism Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Page 50
1370 Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena …
Alexander, JAX, TP Orlando, D. Rainer, and PM Ted- Bergeret, FS, AF Volkov, and KB Efetov, 2004b, Euro-
row, 1985, Phys. Rev. B 31 , 5811. phys. Lett. 66 , 111.
Altland, A., D. Taras-Semchuk, and BD Simons, 2000, Adv. Bergeret, FS, AL Yeyati, and A. Martín-Rodero, 2005,
Phys. 49 , 321. Phys. Rev. B 72 , 064524.
Anderson, P., and H. Suhl, 1959, Phys. Rev. 116 , 898. Blanter, YM, and FWJ Hekking, 2004, Phys. Rev. B 69 ,
Andreev, A., 1964, Sov. Phys. JETP 19 , 1228. 024525.
Androes, GM, and WD Knight, 1961, Phys. Rev. 121 , 779. Blum, Y., MKA Tsukernik, and A. Palevski, 2002, Phys.
Anthore, A., H. Pothier, and D. Esteve, 2003, Phys. Rev. Lett. Rev. Lett. 89 , 187004.
90 , 127001. Bourgeois, O., and RC Dynes, 2002, Phys. Rev. B 65 , 144503.
Artemenko, SN, and AF Volkov, 1980, Sov. Phys. Usp. 22 , Bulaevskii, LN, ML Buzdin, AI Kulic, and SV
295 Panyukov, 1985, Adv. Phys. 34 , 175.
Artemenko, SN, A. Volkov, and AV Zaitsev, 1979, Solid Bulaevskii, LN, VV Kuzii, and AA Sobyanin, 1977, Pis'ma
State Commun. 30 , 771. Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 25 , 314 JETP Lett. 25 , 290 1977 .
Aumentado, J., and V. Chandrasekhar, 2001, Phys. Rev. B 64 Buzdin,
, A., 2000, Phys. Rev. B 62 , 11377.
054505. Buzdin, A., 2005a, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77 , 935.
Bagrets, A., C. Lacroix, and A. Vedyayev, 2003, Phys. Rev. BBuzdin, A., 2005b, private communication.
68 , 054532. Buzdin, A., and I. Baladie, 2003, Phys. Rev. B 67 , 184519.
Baladie, I., and A. Buzdin, 2001, Phys. Rev. B 64 , 224514. Buzdin, AI, B. Bujicic, and M. Yu. Kupriyanov, 1992, Zh.
Baladie, I., and A. Buzdin, 2003, Phys. Rev. B 67 , 014523. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 101 , 231 Sov. Phys. JETP 74 , 124 1992 .
Baladie, I., A. Buzdin, N. Ryzhanova, and A. Vedyayev, 2001,Buzdin, AI, and LN Bulaevskii, 1988, Sov. Phys. JETP 67 ,
Phys. Rev. B 63 , 054518. 576.
Balatsky, A., and E. Abrahams, 1992, Phys. Rev. B 45 , 13125. Buzdin, AI, LN Bulaevskii, and SV Panyukov, 1982,
Balatsky, A., E. Abrahams, DJ Scalapino, and JR Schrief- Pis'ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 35 , 147 JETP Lett. 35 , 178
fer, 1995, Phys. Rev. B 52 , 1271. 1982 .
Barash, YS, IV Bobkova, and T. Kopp, 2002, Phys. Rev. B Buzdin, AI, and MY Kupriyanov, 1990, Pis'ma Zh. Eksp.
66 , 140503. Teor. Fiz. 52 , 1089 JETP Lett. 52 , 487 1990 .
Bardeen, J., LN Cooper, and JR Schrieffer, 1957, Phys. Buzdin, AI, and MY Kupriyanov, 1991, Pis'ma Zh. Eksp.
Rev. 106 , 162. Teor. Fiz. 53 , 308 JETP Lett. 53 , 321 1991 .
Barone, A., and G. Paterno, 1982, Physics and Applications ofChampel, T., and M. Eschrig, 2005a, e-print cond-mat/0504198.
the Josephson Effect Wiley, New York. Champel, T., and M. Eschrig, 2005b, Phys. Rev. B 71 , 220506.
Baselmans, JJA, A. Morpurgo, BJ van Wees, and TM Chandrasekhar, BS, 1962, Appl. Phys. Lett. 1 , 7.
Klapwijk, 1999, Nature London 397 , 43. Charlat, P., H. Courtois, P. Gandit, D. Mailly, AF Volkov, and
Bauer, A., J. Bentner, M. Aprili, MLD Rocca, M. Reinwald, B. Pannetier, 1996, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 , 4950.
W. Wegscheider, and C. Strunk, 2004, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 , Chien, CJ, and V. Chandrasekhar, 1999, Phys. Rev. B 60 ,
217001. 3655.
Beckmann, D., HB Weber, and H. v. Löhneysen, 2004, Phys. Chien, CL, and DH Reich, 1999, J. Magn. Magn. Mater.
Rev. Lett. 93 , 197003. 200 , 83.
Bednorz, JG, and KA Müller, 1986, Z. Phys. B: Condens. Chtchelkatchev, NM, W. Belzig, and C. Bruder, 2002, JETP
Matter 64 , 189. Lett. 75 , 646.
Beenakker, CWJ, 1997, Rev. Mod. Phys. 69 , 731. Chtchelkatchev, NM, W. Belzig, Y. Nazarov, and C. Bruder,
Belitz, D., and TR Kirkpatrick, 1992, Phys. Rev. B 46 , 8393. 2001, JETP Lett. 74 , 323.
Belzig, W., A. Brataas, YV Nazarov, and GEW Bauer, Clogston, AM, 1962, Phys. Rev. Lett. 9 , 266.
2000, Phys. Rev. B 62 , 9726. Coleman, P., E. Miranda, and A. Tsvelik, 1993a, Phys. Rev.
Belzig, W., F. Wilhelm, C. Bruder, G. Schön, and A. Zaikin, Lett. 70 , 2960.
1999, Superlattices Microstruct. 25 , 1251. Coleman, P., E. Miranda, and A. Tsvelik, 1993b, Phys. Rev. B
Berezinskii, VL, 1975, JETP Lett. 20 , 287. 49 , 8955.
Bergeret, FS, KB Efetov, and AI Larkin, 2000, Phys. Rev. Coleman, P., E. Miranda, and A. Tsvelik, 1995, Phys. Rev. Lett.
B 62 , 11872. 74 , 1653.
Bergeret, FS, and N. García, 2004, Phys. Rev. B 70 , 052507. de Gennes, PG, 1964, Rev. Mod. Phys. 36 , 225.
Bergeret, FS, VV Pavlovskii, AF Volkov, and KB Efetov, de Gennes, PG, 1966, Superconductivity of Metals and Alloys
2002, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 16 , 1459. Benjamin, New York.
Bergeret, FS, AF Volkov, and KB Efetov, 2001a, Phys. de Jong, MJM, and CWJ Beenakker, 1994, Phys. Rev.
Rev. Lett. 86 , 4096. Lett. 74 , 1657.
Bergeret, FS, AF Volkov, and KB Efetov, 2001b, Phys. Demler, EA, GB Arnold, and MR Beasley, 1997, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 86 , 3140. Rev. B 55 , 15174.
Bergeret, FS, AF Volkov, and KB Efetov, 2001c, Phys. Deutscher, G., 2005, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77 , 109.
Rev. B 64 , 134506. Deutscher, G., and PG de Gennes, 1969, Superconductivity
Bergeret, FS, AF Volkov, and KB Efetov, 2002, Phys. Dekker, New York, Vol. 2
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 42/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
Rev. B 65 , 134505. Dimoulas, A., JP Heida, BJ van Wees, and TM Klapwijk,
Bergeret, FS, AF Volkov, and KB Efetov, 2003, Phys. 1995, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 , 602.
Rev. B 68 , 064513. Dubonos, SV, AK Geim, KS Novoselov, and IV Grig-
Bergeret, FS, AF Volkov, and KB Efetov, 2004a, Phys. orieval, 2002, Phys. Rev. B 65 , 220513.
Rev. B 69 , 174504. Edelstein, VM, 1989, Sov. Phys. JETP 68 , 1244.
Page 51
Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena … 1371
Edelstein, VM, 2001, Phys. Rev. B 67 , 020505. Heslinga, DR, SE Shafranjuk, H. van Kempen, and TM
Eilenberger, G., 1968, Z. Phys. 214 , 195. Klapwijk, 1994, Phys. Rev. B 49 , 10484.
Eliashberg, GM, 1971, Sov. Phys. JETP 34 , 668. Huertas-Hernando, D., YV Nazarov, and W. Belzig, 2002,
Eremin, I., D. Manske, SG Ovchinnikov, and JF Annett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 , 047003.
2004, Ann. Phys. 13 , 149. Izyumov, YA, YN Proshin, and MG Khusainov, 2002,
Eschrig, M., 2000, Phys. Rev. B 61 , 9061. Phys. Usp. 45 , 109.
Eschrig, M., J. Kopu, JC Cuevas, and G. Schön, 2003, Phys. Jedema, FJ, BJ van Wees, BH Hoving, AT Filip, and T.
Rev. Lett. 90 , 137003. M. Klapwijk, 1999, Phys. Rev. B 60 , 16549.
Falko, VI, AF Volkov, and CJ Lambert, 1999, Phys. Rev. Jiang, JS, D. Davidovic, D. Reich, and CL Chien, 1995,
B 60 , 15394. Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 , 314.
Fazio, R., and C. Lucheroni, 1999, Europhys. Lett. 45 , 707. Kadigrobov, A., RI Skehter, and M. Jonson, 2001, Europhys.
Fogelström, M., 2000, Phys. Rev. B 62 , 11812. Lett. 54 , 394.
Fominov, YV, NM Chtchelkatchev, and AA Golubov, Karchev, NI, KB Blagoev, KS Bedell, and PB Little-
2002, Phys. Rev. B 66 , 014507. wood, 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 , 846.
Fominov, YV, AA Golubov, and MY Kupriyanov, 2003, Kharitonov, M., AF Volkov, and KB Efetov, 2005, unpub-
JETP Lett. 77 , 510. lished.
Fulde, P., and RA Ferrell, 1965, Phys. Rev. 135 , 550. Khusainov, MG, and YN Proshin, 1997, Phys. Rev. B 56 ,
Galaktionov, AV, and AD Zaikin, 2002, Phys. Rev. B 65 , R14283.
184507. Kirkpatrick, TR, and D. Belitz, 1991, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 ,
Garifullin, IA, DA Tikhonov, NN Garif'yanov, MZ 1533.
Fattakhov, K. Theis-Broehl, K. Westerholt, and H. Zabel, Kontos, T., M. Aprili, J. Lesueur, F. Genet, B. Stephanidis, and
2002, Appl. Magn. Reson. 22 , 439. R. Boursier, 2002, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 , 137007.
Ginzburg, VL, and LD Landau, 1950, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. Kontos, T., M. Aprili, J. Lesueur, and X. Grison, 2001, Phys.
20 , 1064. Rev. Lett. 86 , 304.
Giroud, M., H. Courtois, K. Hasselbach, D. Mailly, and B. Kopnin, NB, 2001, Theory of Nonequilibrium Superconduc-
Pannetier, 1998, Phys. Rev. B 58 , R11872. tivity Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Giroud, M., K. Hasselbach, H. Courtois, D. Mailly, and B. Kopu, J., M. Eschrig, JC Cuevas, and M. Fogelström, 2004,
Pannetier, 2003, Eur. Phys. J. B 31 , 103. Phys. Rev. B 69 , 094501.
Golubov, AA, 1999, Physica C 326-327 , 46. Kouh, T., and J. Valles, 2003, Phys. Rev. B 67 , 140506.
Golubov, AA, and MY Kupriyanov, 1996, Physica C 259 , Krawiec, M., BL Györffy, and JF Annett, 2004, Phys. Rev.
27 B 70 , 134519.
Golubov, AA, MY Kupriyanov, and YV Fominov, 2002a, Krivoruchko, VN, and EA Koshina, 2001a, Phys. Rev. B 63 ,
JETP Lett. 75 , 588. 224515.
Golubov, AA, MY Kupriyanov, and YV Fominov, 2002b, Krivoruchko, VN, and EA Koshina, 2001b, Phys. Rev. B 64 ,
JETP Lett. 75 , 190. 172511.
Golubov, AA, MY Kupriyanov, and E. Il'ichev, 2004, Rev. Krivoruchko, VN, and EA Koshina, 2002, Phys. Rev. B 66 ,
Mod. Phys. 76 , 411. 014521.
Golubov, AA, MY Kupriyanov, and M. Siegel, 2005, JETP Kulic, ML, and M. Endres, 2000, Phys. Rev. B 62 , 11846.
Lett. 81 , 180. Kulic, ML, and IM Kulic, 2001, Phys. Rev. B 63 , 104503.
Golubov, AA, FK Wilhelm, and AD Zaikin, 1997, Phys. Kulik, IO, and IK Yanson, 1970, The Josephson Effect in
Rev. B 55 , 1123. Superconducting Tunneling Structures Nauka, Moscow.
Gor'kov, LP, and EI Rashba, 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 , Kuprianov, MY, and VF Lukichev, 1988, Sov. Phys. JETP
037004. 67 , 1163.
Gor'kov, LP, and AI Rusinov, 1963, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 46 , Lambert, C., and R. Raimondi, 1998, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter
1363 Sov. Phys. JETP 19 , 922 1964 . 10 , 901.
Gu, JY, C.-Y. You, JS Jiang, J. Pearson, YB Bazaliy, and Lambert, C., R. Raimondi, V. Sweeney, and AF Volkov,
SD Bader, 2002a, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 , 267001. 1997, Phys. Rev. B 55 , 6015.
Gu, JY, C.-Y. You, JS Jiang, J. Pearson, YB Bazaliy, and Larkin, AI, 1965, JETP Lett. 2 , 130.
SD Bader, 2002b, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 , 267001. Larkin, AI, and YN Ovchinnikov, 1964, Zh. Eksp. Teor.
Gubankov, VN, and NM Margolin, 1979, JETP Lett. 29 , Fiz. 47 , 1136 Sov. Phys. JETP 20 , 762 1965 .
673. Larkin, AI, and YN Ovchinnikov, 1968, Zh. Eksp. Teor.
Guéron, S., H. Pothier, NO Birge, D. Esteve, and MH Fiz. 55 , 2262 Sov. Phys. JETP 28 , 1200 1969 .
Devoret, 1996, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 , 3025. Larkin, AI, and YN Ovchinnikov, 1984, Nonequilibrium
Guichard, W., MAO Bourgeois, T. Kontos, J. Lesueur, and Superconductivity Elsevier, Amsterdam, p. 530
P. Gandit, 2003, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 , 167001. Lawrence, MD, and N. Giordano, 1996a, J. Phys.: Condens.
Gupta, AK, L. Crtinon, N. Moussy, B. Pannetier, and H. Matter 8 , 563.
Courtois, 2004, Phys. Rev. B 69 , 104514. Lawrence, MD, and N. Giordano, 1996b, J. Phys.: Condens.
Halterman, K., and OT Valls, 2002a, Phys. Rev. B 66 , 224516.Matter 11 , 1089.
Halterman, K., and OT Valls, 2002b, Phys. Rev. B 65 , 014509.Lazar, L., K. Westerholt, H. Zabel, LR Tagirov, YV
Hauser, JJ, HC Theurer, and NR Werthamer, 1963, Phys. Goryunov, NN Garif'yanov, and IA Garifullin, 2000,
Rev. 142 , 118. Phys. Rev. B 61 , 3711.
Heikkilä, TT, FK Wilhelm, and G. Schön, 2000, Europhys. Leggett, AJ, 1975, Rev. Mod. Phys. 47 , 331.
Lett. 51 , 434. Li, X., Z. Zheng, DY Xing, G. Sun, and Z. Dong, 2002, Phys.
Page 52
1372 Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena …
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 43/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
Rev. B 65KK,
Likharev, , 134507.
1979, Rev. Mod. Phys. 51 , 101. Quirion, D., B
Phys. Rev. C.65
Hoffmann,
, 100508.F. Lefloch, and M. Sanquer, 2002,
Lodder, A., and Yu. V. Nazarov, 1998, Phys. Rev. B 59 , 5783.Radovic, Z., L. Dobrosavljevic-Grujic, AI Buzdin, and JR
Luetkens, H., et al. , 2003, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 , 017204. Clem, 1991, Phys. Rev. B 44 , 759.
Lyuksyutov, IF, and V. Pokrovsky, 2004, e-print cond-mat/ Radovic, Z., N. Lazarides, and N. Flytzanis, 2003, Phys. Rev. B
0409137. 68 , 014501.
Maeno, Y., H. Hashimoto, K. Yoshida, S. Nishizaki, T. Fujita,Rammer, J., and H. Smith, 1986, Rev. Mod. Phys. 58 , 323.
JG Bednorz, and F. Lichtenberg, 1994, Nature London Rashba, E., 1960, Sov. Phys. Solid State 2 , 1109.
372 , 532. Reymond, S., P. SanGiorgio, M. Beasley, J. Kim, T. Kim, and
Maki, K., 1968, Prog. Theor. Phys. 39 , 897. K. Char, 2000, e-print cond-mat/0504739.
Maki, K., 1969, Superconductivity Dekker, New York. Rusanov, AY, M. Hesselberth, and J. Aarts, 2004, Phys. Rev.
Marten, JP, A. Brataas, and W. Belzig, 2005, Phys. Rev. B 72 , Lett. 93 , 057002.
014510. Rusinov, AI, 1969, JETP Lett. 9 , 85.
McCann, E., VI Falko, AF Volkov, and CJ Lambert, 2000, Ryazanov, VV, VA Oboznov, AY Rusanov, AV Vereten-
Phys. Rev. B 62 , 6015. nikov, AA Golubov, and J. Aarts, 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 ,
McMillan, WL, 1968, Phys. Rev. 175 , 537. 2427.
Mélin, R., 2001, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 13 , 6445. Saint-James, D., 1964, J. Phys. Paris 25 , 899.
Mélin, R., and D. Feinberg, 2004, Phys. Rev. B 70 , 174509. Sakurai, A., 1970, Prog. Theor. Phys. 44 , 1472.
Mélin, R., and S. Peysson, 2003, Phys. Rev. B 68 , 174515. Salkola, MI, AV Balatsky, and JR Schrieffer, 1997, Phys.
Melsen, JA, PW Brouwer, KM Frahm, and C. Beenakker, Rev. B 55 , 12648.
1996, Europhys. Lett. 35 , 7. Sarma, G., 1963, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 24 , 1029.
Mercaldo, V., C. Affanasio, C. Coccorese, L. Maritato, SL Sefrioui, Z., D. Arias, V. Peña, JE Villegas, M. Varela, P.
Prischepa, and M. Salvato, 1996, Phys. Rev. B 53 , 14040. Prieto, C. León, JL Martinez, and J. Santamaria, 2003, Phys.
Millis, A., D. Rainer, and JA Sauls, 1988, Phys. Rev. B 38 , Rev. B 67 , 214511.
4504. Sellier, H., C. Baraduc, F. Lefloch, and R. Calemczuk, 2004,
Mineev, VP, and KV Samokhin, 1999, Introdction to Uncon- Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 , 257005.
ventional Superconductivity Gordon and Breach, Amster- Serene, JW, and D. Reiner, 1983, Phys. Rep. 101 , 222.
dam. Shapira, S., EH Linfield, CJ Lambert, R. Serviour, AF
Mühge, T., N. Garif'yanov, YV Goryunov, GG Khaliullin, Volkov, and AV Zaitsev, 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 , 159.
LR Tagirov, K. Westerholt, IA Garifullin, and H. Zabel, Shelankov, A., and M. Ozana, 2000, Phys. Rev. B 61 , 7077.
1996, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 , 1857. Shen, R., ZM Zheng, S. Liu, and DY Xing, 2003, Phys. Rev.
Mühge, T., N. Garif'yanov, YV Goryunov, K. Theis-Bröhl, K. B 67 , 024514.
Westerholt, IA Garifullin, and H. Zabel, 1998, Physica C Shiba, H., 1968, Prog. Theor. Phys. 40 , 435.
296 , 325. Stahn, J., J. Chakhalian, C. Niedermayer, J. Hoppler, T. Gut-
Nambu, Y., 1960, Phys. Rev. 117 , 648. berlet, J. Voigt, F. Treubel, H.-U. Habermeier, G. Cristiani, B.
Nazarov, YV, 1999, Superlattices Microstruct. 25 , 1221. Keimer, and C. Bernhard, 2005, Phys. Rev. B 71 , 140509.
Nazarov, YV, and TH Stoof, 1996, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 , 823. Strunk, C., C. Sürgers, U. Paschen, and H. v. Löhneysen, 1994,
Nugent, P., I. Sosnin, and VT Petrashov, 2004, J. Phys.: Con- Phys. Rev. B 49 , 4053.
dens. Matter 16 , L509. Taddei, F., S. Sanvito, and CJ Lambert, 2001, Phys. Rev. B 63 ,
Obiand, Y., M. Ikebe, T. Kubo, and H. Fujimori, 1999, Physica012404.
C 317-318 , 149. Tagirov, LR, 1998, Physica C 307 , 145.
Ogrin, FY, SL Lee, AD Hillier, A. Mitchell, and T.-H. Taras-Semchuk, D., and A. Altland, 2001, Phys. Rev. B 64 ,
Shen, 2000, Phys. Rev. B 62 , 6021. 014512.
Oh, S., Y.-H. Kim, D. Youm, and MR Beasley, 2000, Phys. Tkachov, G., E. McCann, and VI Falko, 2002, Phys. Rev. B
Rev. B 63 , 052501. 65 , 024519.
Ostrovsky, PM, MA Skvortsov, and MV Feigel'man, 2001, Tokuyasu, T., JA Sauls, and D. Rainer, 1988, Phys. Rev. B 38 ,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 , 027002. 8823.
Palevski, A., 2005, private communication. Tollis, S., 2004, Phys. Rev. B 69 , 104532.
Peña, V., Z. Sefriouri, D. Arias, C. Leon, J. Santamaria, M. Tollis, S., M. Daumens, and A. Buzdin, 2005, Phys. Rev. B 71 ,
Varela, SJ Pennycook, and JL Martinez, 2004, Phys. Rev. 024510.
B 69 , 224502. Toplicar, JR, and DK Finnemore, 1977, Phys. Rev. B 16 ,
Petrashov, VT, VN Antonov, P. Delsing, and T. Claeson, 2072.
1995, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 , 5268. Tsuei, CC, and JR Kirtley, 2003, Rev. Mod. Phys. 72 , 969.
Petrashov, VT, IA Sosnin, I. Cox, A. Parsons, and C. Troa- Usadel, KL, 1970, Phys. Rev. Lett. 25 , 507.
dec, 1999, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 , 3281. Vaks, VG, VM Galitskii, and AI Larkin, 1962, Sov. Phys.
Pilgram, S., W. Belzig, and C. Bruder, 2000, Phys. Rev. B 62 , JETP 14 , 1177.
12462. Velez, M., MC Cyrille, S. Kim, JL Vicent, and IK
Pothier, H., S. Gueron, D. Esteve, and MM Devoret, 1994, Schuller, 1999, Phys. Rev. B 59 , 14659.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 73 , 2488. Volkov, AF, 1995, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 , 4730.
Proshin, YN, YA Izyumov, and MG Khusainov, 2001, Volkov, AF, N. Allsopp, and CJ Lambert, 1996, J. Phys.:
Phys. Rev. B 64 , 064522. Condens. Matter 8 , 45.
Proshin, YN, and MG Khusainov, 1998, JETP 86 , 930. Volkov, AF, and A. Anishchanka, 2004, Phys. Rev. B 71 ,
Proshin, YN, and MG Khusainov, 1999, JETP 89 , 1021. 024501.
Page 53
Bergeret, Volkov, and Efetov: Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena … 1373
Volkov, AF, FS Bergeret, and KB Efetov, 2003, Phys. Xia, K., PJ Kelly, GEW Bauer, and I. Turek, 2002, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 90 , 117006. Rev. Lett. 89 , 166603.
Volkov, AF, and VV Pavlovskii, 1996, in Proceedings of the Yip, SK, 1998, Phys. Rev. B 58 , 5803.
XXXI Rencontres de Moriond , edited by T. Martin, G. Mon-You, C.-Y., YB Bazaliy, JY Gu, S.-J. Oh, LM Litvak, and
tambaux, and J. Tran Thanh Van Frontiers, France. SD Bader, 2004, Phys. Rev. B 70 , 014505.
Volkov, AF, AV Zaitsev, and TM Klapwijk, 1993, Physica Zaitsev, AV, 1984, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 86 , 1742 Sov. Phys.
C 210 , 21.
JETP 59 , 1015 1984 .
Vollhardt, D., and P. Wölfle, 1990, The Superfluid Phases of He
3 Taylor and Francis, New York. Zaitsev, AV, 1990, JETP Lett. 51 , 35.
Wilhelm, FK, G. Schön, and AD Zaikin, 1998, Phys. Rev. Zareyan, M., W. Belzig, and YV Nazarov, 2001, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 81 , 1682. Lett. 86 , 308.
Wong, HK, B. Jin, HQ Yang, JB Ketterson, and JE Zyuzin, AY, B. Spivak, and M. Hruska, 2003, Europhys. Lett.
Hillard, 1986, J. Low Temp. Phys. 63 , 307. 62 , 97.
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 44/45
11/05/2018 Supercondutividade do tripleto ímpar e fenômenos relacionados em estruturas ferro-elétricas supercondutoras
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 45/45