Microscopic theory of the lower critical field in superconducting thin-film strips

Takayuki Kubo

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Microscopic theory of the lower critical field in superconducting thin-film strips

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-08 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A microscopic theory of Bc1 for dirty superconducting thin-film strips is obtained by solving the 2D Usadel equations without a phenomenological core cutoff.

desk verdict Cutoff-free microscopic Bc1 for dirty thin-film strips via 2D Usadel + Gibbs comparison; method is sound, free-energy reduction to Pearl–London is the check that matters. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.05890 v1 pith:TTYRXK6W submitted 2026-07-07 cond-mat.supr-con

Takayuki Kubo This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.supr-con PACS 74.25.Op74.78.-w74.20.Fg74.25.Ha

keywords lowercriticalfieldBc1Usadelequationssuperconductingthin-filmstripvortexself-energyPearl–LondontheorydirtylimitGibbsfreeenergy

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The lower critical field Bc1 of a narrow superconducting thin-film strip is the thermodynamic field at which a vortex first becomes favorable, setting the scale for vortex-free operation in a perpendicular field. Standard Pearl–London estimates leave the vortex core unresolved and therefore require an ad-hoc cutoff whose value is uncertain. This paper replaces that estimate with a microscopic calculation for a dirty strip: the two-dimensional Usadel equations are solved self-consistently in the film plane with the applied field included directly in the gauge-invariant momentum. Vortex and Meissner solutions are obtained at fixed field, and Bc1 is read from the crossing of their Gibbs free energies. Because the core and its deformation by the strip edges are resolved, the resulting vortex self-energy is larger than the naive Pearl–London value and cannot be written as a London logarithm with a single width-independent cutoff. The framework works at any temperature below Tc and supplies a parameter-light basis for predicting Bc1 in nanostrips and related thin-film devices.

What carries the argument

Self-consistent numerical solutions of the 2D Usadel equations in the film plane, with the applied field entering the gauge-invariant momentum; the Gibbs free-energy difference between the vortex and Meissner solutions at fixed field supplies Bc1 and resolves the core and edge deformation.

What would settle it

Measure Bc1 of a dirty superconducting nanostrip of known width and thickness at fixed temperature and compare the measured value (and its width dependence) against the Usadel Gibbs-energy prediction; systematic deviation that cannot be absorbed by material parameters would falsify the reduction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

By solving the two-dimensional Usadel equations self-consistently for a dirty superconducting strip, the lower critical field Bc1 is obtained from the Gibbs-energy difference between vortex and Meissner states without introducing a phenomenological core cutoff; the vortex self-energy exceeds the naive Pearl–London estimate and cannot in general be represented by a London logarithm with a single width-independent cutoff.

Load-bearing premise

The dirty-limit Usadel description reduced to two dimensions (thin-film limit, order parameter uniform across thickness, and nonlocal electrodynamics captured only by the Pearl kernel) is assumed to capture the core and edge physics that set the energy difference.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Bc1 of dirty nanostrips can be predicted from material parameters and geometry without an adjustable core cutoff.
The vortex self-energy is systematically larger than Pearl–London estimates that use a conventional cutoff of order the coherence length.
A single width-independent London cutoff cannot reproduce the microscopic self-energy across different strip widths.
The same Usadel framework yields Bc1 at any temperature below Tc, including near Tc where the core size diverges.
Design of vortex-free superconducting thin-film devices can use the computed Gibbs crossing rather than phenomenological estimates.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same 2D Usadel Gibbs construction could be extended to multi-vortex or edge-barrier configurations to map the full low-field phase diagram of a strip.
If the strip is only moderately dirty, a quasiclassical Eilenberger treatment would be needed to check how much the self-energy shifts away from the Usadel result.
Quantitative comparison with existing Bc1 data on Nb or NbN nanostrips would immediately test whether the excess self-energy is observed.
The method supplies a microscopic route to the effective Pearl length and core size that enter circuit models of superconducting nanowire detectors and resonators.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The one thing to know: this paper replaces the Pearl–London Bc1 estimate (which needs a phenomenological core cutoff) with a self-consistent 2D Usadel calculation for a dirty thin-film strip. Vortex and Meissner solutions at fixed applied field give Bc1 from their Gibbs difference, so the core and edge deformation are resolved without a cutoff. That is the actual new result.

What it does well is straightforward. The route is standard and defensible: Usadel in the film plane, applied field in the gauge-invariant momentum, free-energy comparison of two self-consistent states. Circularity is low—Bc1 is not fitted via a core radius. Material inputs are external (Tc, diffusivity, geometry). It claims the vortex self-energy comes out larger than the naive Pearl–London value and cannot in general be written as a London log with one width-independent cutoff. If that holds, it is useful for nanostrip devices (SNSPDs, KIDs) where the thermodynamic scale for vortex entry actually matters. The formulation is meant to work at any T < Tc.

The soft spot is real but proportionate. The excess self-energy claim lives or dies on whether the Usadel free-energy functional (Matsubara sum plus electromagnetic piece) correctly recovers the Pearl electromagnetic energy when the order parameter is rigid outside a core. If the magnetic term at fixed field, the kinetic-energy counting, or the 2D Pearl kernel is mishandled, the reported excess is an artifact. The abstract states the Gibbs difference and the excess without exhibiting the functional or a London-limit check; that reduction is the least secure link. The dirty-limit / thin-film reduction itself is the other assumption: if thickness or mean-free-path corrections matter, the numbers move. Neither issue is a load-bearing collapse of the method; both are checkable in the methods and numerics.

This is for people who design or model superconducting nanostrips and need a microscopic Bc1 rather than a cutoff-tuned London log. It deserves a serious referee. I would send it to peer review: the calculation is a legitimate extension with clear device relevance, and the free-energy reduction is something a referee can demand and verify. Not a desk reject.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript formulates a microscopic theory of the lower critical field Bc1 for a dirty superconducting thin-film strip by solving the two-dimensional Usadel equations in the film plane, with the applied field entering the gauge-invariant momentum. Self-consistent Meissner and single-vortex solutions are obtained at fixed applied field, and Bc1 is identified with the field at which their Gibbs free energies cross. The calculation resolves the vortex core and its finite-width deformation without a phenomenological cutoff. The central quantitative claims are that the resulting vortex self-energy exceeds the naive Pearl–London estimate and that this excess cannot, in general, be absorbed into a London logarithm with a single width-independent cutoff. The formulation is stated to apply at any T < Tc and to provide a microscopic basis for Bc1 in superconducting nanostrips.

Significance. If the free-energy comparison and the London-limit reduction are correct, the work supplies a cutoff-free microscopic route to Bc1 in dirty thin-film strips, which is of direct practical interest for vortex-free operation of superconducting nanodevices. Explicit credit is due for (i) obtaining Bc1 from an independent Gibbs comparison of two self-consistent Usadel solutions rather than by fitting a core cutoff to the same data, (ii) working at arbitrary T < Tc within the dirty-limit framework, and (iii) showing that a single width-independent London cutoff is insufficient. Those strengths would make the paper a useful reference for device-oriented estimates of Bc1 once the free-energy implementation is fully documented and checked.

major comments (3)

[Theory / free-energy evaluation (Gibbs difference used for Bc1)] The central claim that the vortex self-energy exceeds the Pearl–London estimate rests on the Gibbs free-energy difference between self-consistent Usadel solutions. The manuscript must exhibit the explicit free-energy (or Gibbs) functional that is evaluated numerically—Matsubara sum over the anomalous Green’s function plus the electromagnetic contribution—and must demonstrate that this functional reduces to the standard Pearl electromagnetic energy when the order parameter is taken rigid outside a core and the thin-film nonlocal kernel is used. Without that reduction check (or an equivalent analytic limit), the reported excess self-energy and the single-cutoff claim could be an artifact of double-counting kinetic energy, mishandling the applied-field interaction at fixed B, or an incorrect Pearl kernel under the 2-D reduction. This is load-bearing for the abstract’s quantitative statement
[Methods / numerical solution of the 2-D Usadel problem] Numerical reliability of the 2-D Usadel solutions is not adequately established for a result that hinges on small free-energy differences. Mesh resolution near the core and edges, convergence with Matsubara cutoff and spatial discretization, and independence of the Meissner–vortex energy crossing on solver tolerances should be documented (tables or appendices). Residual risks on mesh/convergence and free-energy functional details leave the quantitative excess over Pearl–London only moderately secure.
[Formulation of the 2-D Usadel problem and thin-film reduction] The thin-film reduction to a 2-D in-plane Usadel problem (uniform order parameter across thickness, dirty-limit diffusivity, Pearl-type nonlocal kernel) is assumed to capture the core and edge deformation that set the Gibbs difference. The manuscript should state the range of thickness d, mean free path, and strip width W for which this reduction remains controlled, and should indicate how Bc1 would shift if nonlocal electrodynamics beyond the Pearl kernel or thickness-averaged order-parameter variations become important. This bounds the domain of the claimed excess self-energy.

minor comments (5)

[Results / vortex self-energy extraction] Define the precise subtraction that isolates the vortex self-energy from the total Gibbs difference (Meissner reference, applied-field interaction term, and any constant offsets) so that readers can reproduce the comparison to Pearl–London.
[Figures and parameter lists] State material inputs (Tc, diffusivity or elastic scattering rate, normal-state conductivity / Pearl length, strip geometry W and d) in a single table or paragraph for each figure that reports Bc1 or self-energy.
[Theory setup] Clarify notation for the gauge-invariant momentum and the boundary conditions at the strip edges (no-current / vacuum) when the applied field is included directly in the Usadel equations.
[Results / comparison to Pearl–London] A short comparison plot or table of Bc1 versus the Pearl–London form with several conventional cutoffs (e.g., ξ, ξ/2) would make the ‘cannot be represented by a single width-independent cutoff’ claim immediately readable.
[Throughout] Minor typographical and reference-list consistency checks (Usadel / Pearl–London spelling, arXiv or journal citations for the free-energy functional used) would improve presentation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. The three major comments correctly identify load-bearing elements of the work: the Gibbs free-energy functional and its London/Pearl reduction, numerical reliability of the 2-D Usadel solutions, and the controlled domain of the thin-film reduction. We address each point below. Where the manuscript was incomplete we will revise; where the existing formulation already answers the concern we explain why. No standing objections remain after these revisions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Theory / free-energy evaluation (Gibbs difference used for Bc1)] The central claim that the vortex self-energy exceeds the Pearl–London estimate rests on the Gibbs free-energy difference between self-consistent Usadel solutions. The manuscript must exhibit the explicit free-energy (or Gibbs) functional that is evaluated numerically—Matsubara sum over the anomalous Green’s function plus the electromagnetic contribution—and must demonstrate that this functional reduces to the standard Pearl electromagnetic energy when the order parameter is taken rigid outside a core and the thin-film nonlocal kernel is used. Without that reduction check (or an equivalent analytic limit), the reported excess self-energy and the single-cutoff claim could be an artifact of double-counting kinetic energy, mishandling the applied-field interaction at fixed B, or an incorrect Pearl kernel under the 2-D reducti

Authors: We agree that the free-energy functional and its London/Pearl reduction are load-bearing and were not exhibited with sufficient explicitness. In the revised manuscript we will (i) write out the full Gibbs functional that is evaluated numerically: the standard dirty-limit Usadel free-energy density (Matsubara sum involving the anomalous Green’s function F and the self-consistent gap Δ, together with the condensation-energy term) plus the electromagnetic contribution expressed through the thin-film Pearl kernel for the vector potential at fixed applied field B; and (ii) demonstrate analytically and numerically that, when the order parameter is held rigid outside a prescribed core and the same Pearl nonlocal kernel is used, the functional reduces to the standard Pearl electromagnetic energy (plus the usual core contribution that is absorbed into the London cutoff). This reduction check rules out double-counting of kinetic energy and mishandling of the applied-field interaction. With that documentation in place, the reported excess self-energy relative to the naive Pearl–London estimate and the failure of a single width-independent cutoff remain genuine microscopic results rather than numerical artifacts. revision: yes
Referee: [Methods / numerical solution of the 2-D Usadel problem] Numerical reliability of the 2-D Usadel solutions is not adequately established for a result that hinges on small free-energy differences. Mesh resolution near the core and edges, convergence with Matsubara cutoff and spatial discretization, and independence of the Meissner–vortex energy crossing on solver tolerances should be documented (tables or appendices). Residual risks on mesh/convergence and free-energy functional details leave the quantitative excess over Pearl–London only moderately secure.

Authors: We accept this criticism. The present manuscript does not document mesh resolution, Matsubara cutoff, spatial discretization, or solver-tolerance independence at the level required for a result that rests on small Gibbs differences. In revision we will add an appendix (or supplementary tables) that reports: (a) local mesh refinement near the vortex core and the strip edges, with measured residual of the Usadel equations; (b) convergence of both the Meissner and single-vortex free energies (and of their crossing field Bc1) with Matsubara cutoff Nω and with successive spatial refinements; and (c) independence of the Meissner–vortex energy crossing on the nonlinear solver tolerances within the range used for production runs. These checks will place the quantitative excess over Pearl–London on a firmer numerical footing. revision: yes
Referee: [Formulation of the 2-D Usadel problem and thin-film reduction] The thin-film reduction to a 2-D in-plane Usadel problem (uniform order parameter across thickness, dirty-limit diffusivity, Pearl-type nonlocal kernel) is assumed to capture the core and edge deformation that set the Gibbs difference. The manuscript should state the range of thickness d, mean free path, and strip width W for which this reduction remains controlled, and should indicate how Bc1 would shift if nonlocal electrodynamics beyond the Pearl kernel or thickness-averaged order-parameter variations become important. This bounds the domain of the claimed excess self-energy.

Authors: We agree that the domain of validity of the 2-D reduction should be stated explicitly. The reduction assumes (i) dirty-limit diffusivity (ℓ ≪ ξ0), (ii) film thickness d small enough that the order parameter and the Green’s functions are essentially uniform across the thickness (d ≲ ξ(T) and d ≪ λ), and (iii) the standard Pearl nonlocal kernel for the in-plane electrodynamics (valid when d ≪ λ and the strip is treated as infinitesimally thin for the magnetic field). Under these conditions the core and edge deformations that determine the Gibbs difference are captured by the 2-D Usadel problem. In the revised text we will list the corresponding ranges of d, ℓ, and W (relative to ξ and λ) and will note that if nonlocal electrodynamics beyond the Pearl kernel (e.g., finite-thickness corrections to the kernel) or thickness-averaged order-parameter variations become important, Bc1 would receive additional corrections of relative order d/λ or d/ξ; those corrections lie outside the present framework and would systematically shift the absolute scale of Bc1 while leaving the qualitative conclusion—that a single width-independent London cutoff is insufficient—intact within the stated domain. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Bc1 is obtained from an independent Gibbs-energy comparison of two self-consistent Usadel solutions, not forced by a fitted cutoff or self-definition.

full rationale

The paper’s central claim is a microscopic evaluation of Bc1 for a dirty thin-film strip by solving the 2D Usadel equations in the film plane with the applied field in the gauge-invariant momentum, computing self-consistent vortex and Meissner states at fixed field, and extracting Bc1 from their Gibbs-energy difference. This procedure resolves the core without a phenomenological cutoff and yields a vortex self-energy larger than the naive Pearl–London estimate. Material inputs (Tc, diffusivity/dirty-limit parameters, strip geometry) are external; the prediction is not obtained by fitting a core radius or cutoff to the same Bc1 data and then re-predicting it. The comparison to Pearl–London is a post-hoc numerical check against a known limiting estimate, not a self-definitional identity. Any residual self-citation risk is generic methods-paper citation of prior Usadel/thin-film work and is not load-bearing for the energy difference itself. The skeptic concern about whether the free-energy functional correctly recovers the Pearl electromagnetic energy is a correctness/implementation issue, not circularity by construction. No equation in the claimed chain reduces the reported Bc1 or excess self-energy to a fitted input or to a tautology. Score 1 reflects only the possibility of ordinary author self-citation in the methods setup, which does not force the result.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Central claim rests on standard dirty-limit Usadel theory, thin-film 2D reduction, and thermodynamic identification of Bc1 with the Meissner–vortex Gibbs crossing. No new particles or forces. Free parameters are ordinary material/geometry inputs (diffusivity, Tc, strip width/thickness, temperature), not ad-hoc core cutoffs—the point of the work is to eliminate the latter. No invented entities with independent-evidence claims beyond the computed Bc1 itself.

free parameters (3)

dirty-limit diffusivity / elastic scattering rate
Sets the Usadel coherence length and pair-breaking scale; taken from material characterization, not fitted to Bc1 in the method as stated.
strip geometry (width W, thickness d) and temperature T/Tc
External device and operating parameters that enter the 2D Usadel problem and free-energy comparison.
normal-state conductivity / Pearl length scale inputs
Enter the electromagnetic kernel and screening; standard material inputs rather than a phenomenological vortex-core cutoff.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Dirty-limit Usadel equations describe the superconducting state of the strip.
Standard for dirty superconductors; fails if mean free path is not short compared with coherence length.
domain assumption Thin-film reduction to 2D in-plane Usadel with applied field in the gauge-invariant momentum is valid.
Assumes thickness much less than relevant lengths and uniformity across thickness; stated as the formulation of the problem.
standard math Bc1 is the field where Gibbs free energies of self-consistent Meissner and single-vortex solutions cross.
Thermodynamic definition of the lower critical field for vortex entry in type-II/thin-film geometry.
domain assumption No phenomenological vortex-core cutoff is required once the core is resolved by Usadel.
Central methodological claim; true within Usadel but depends on the continuum dirty-limit description remaining valid inside the core.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Microscopic theory of the lower critical field in superconducting thin-film strips." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TTYRXK6W

@misc{pith2026260705890,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Microscopic theory of the lower critical field in superconducting thin-film strips},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TTYRXK6W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.05890}
}

abstract

The lower critical field \(B_{c1}\) of a narrow superconducting thin-film strip sets the thermodynamic scale for vortex-free operation in a perpendicular magnetic field. The standard Pearl--London estimate requires a phenomenological vortex-core cutoff, because the London theory does not resolve the core. We formulate a microscopic theory for a dirty strip by solving the two-dimensional Usadel equations in the film plane, with the applied field included directly in the gauge-invariant momentum. Self-consistent vortex and Meissner solutions are computed at fixed field, and \(B_{c1}\) is obtained from their Gibbs-energy difference. The calculation resolves the vortex core and its finite-width deformation without introducing a cutoff. The resulting vortex self-energy is larger than the naive Pearl--London estimate and cannot, in general, be represented by a London logarithm with a single width-independent cutoff. The formulation applies at any \(T<T_c\) and provides a microscopic basis for predicting \(B_{c1}\) in superconducting nanostrips and related thin-film devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05890 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Finite-temperature behavior of the vortex self [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Microscopic theory of the field-induced instability of the vortex-free state in superconducting thin-film strips
cond-mat.supr-con 2026-08 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

A Usadel-theory stability analysis determines the vortex-free-state instability field of a superconducting thin-film strip without a core cutoff, yielding three width regimes and B_s proportional to 1/W in wide strips.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

This representation satisﬁes the no-normal-ﬂow condition at the strip edges

is the singular vortex con- tribution; we denote it by qX ≡ − 2π ∇ × (ψ X ˆz). This representation satisﬁes the no-normal-ﬂow condition at the strip edges. Although it has a stream-function form, ψ X is not the stream function of the physical current, because the current also contains the spatially varying factor S(r) and the remaining terms in qv. With o...

work page
[2]

The black curves overlaid on the microscopic results in Fig

also describes the ﬁnite- temperature data. The black curves overlaid on the microscopic results in Fig. 2 are ﬁts to Eq. ( 12). The ﬁtted parameters are ( c1,c 2) = (0 . 7192, 4. 3075), (0. 9097, 4. 7047), and (1 . 7023, 7. 8772) for T/T c = 0, 0 . 4, and 0. 8, respectively. For T/T c = 0. 2 and 0. 6, which are not shown in Fig. 2, the same analysis give...

work page 2021
[3]

Kubo, How high a ﬁeld has been and can be achieved in superconducting bulk niobium cavities: the role of RRR, Jpn

T. Kubo, How high a ﬁeld has been and can be achieved in superconducting bulk niobium cavities: the role of RRR, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 64 018002 (2025)

work page 2025
[4]

G. Stan, S. B. Field, and J. M. Martinis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 097003 (2004)

work page 2004
[5]

Bronson, M

E. Bronson, M. P. Gelfand, and S. B. Field, Equilibrium conﬁgurations of Pearl vortices in narrow strips, Phys. Rev. B 73, 144501 (2006)

work page 2006
[6]

K. H. Kuit, J. R. Kirtley, J. R. Clem, H. Rogalla and J. Flokstra, Vortex Trapping and Expulsion in Thin-Film Type-II Superconducting Strips, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, 19, 3537 (2009)

work page 2009
[7]

Pearl, Current Distribution in Superconducting Film s Carrying Quantized Fluxoids Appl

J. Pearl, Current Distribution in Superconducting Film s Carrying Quantized Fluxoids Appl. Phys. Lett. 5, 65 (1964)

work page 1964
[8]

K. K. Likharev, The formation of a mixed state in planar semiconductor ﬁlms, Radiophys. Quantum Electron. 6, 722 (1972)

work page 1972

Show all 21 references

[9]

V. G. Kogan, Pearl’s vortex near the ﬁlm edge, Phys. Rev. B 49, 15874 (1994)

1994
[10]

G. M. Maksimova, Mixed state and critical current in narrow semiconducting ﬁlms, Phys. Solid State 40, 1607 (1998)

1998
[11]

J. R. Clem, Vortex exclusion from superconducting strip s and SQUIDs in weak perpendicular ambient magnetic ﬁelds, Bull. Amer. Phys. Soc., 43, 401 (1998)

1998
[12]

V. G. Kogan and M. Ichioka, Vortex Cores in Narrow Thin-Film Strips, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 89, 094711 (2020)

2020
[13]

V. G. Kogan and N. Nakagawa, Moving Pearl Vortices in Thin-Film Superconductors, Condens. Matter 6, 4 (2021)

2021
[14]

Kubo, Tuning Critical Field, Critical Current, and Diode Eﬀect of Narrow Thin-Film Superconduc- tors Through Engineering Inhomogeneous Pearl Length, Phys

T. Kubo, Tuning Critical Field, Critical Current, and Diode Eﬀect of Narrow Thin-Film Superconduc- tors Through Engineering Inhomogeneous Pearl Length, Phys. Rev. Applied 20, 034033 (2023)

2023
[15]

K. D. Usadel, Generalized Diﬀusion Equation for Super- conducting Alloys, Phys. Rev. Lett. 25, 507 (1970)

1970
[16]

N. B. Kopnin, Theory of Nonequilibrium Superconductiv- ity (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001)

2001
[17]

Gurevich and T

A. Gurevich and T. Kubo, Surface impedance and op- timum surface resistance of a superconductor with an imperfect surface, Phys. Rev. B 96, 184515 (2017)

2017
[18]

Kubo, Superﬂuid ﬂow in disordered superconductors with Dynes pair-breaking scattering: Depairing current, kinetic inductance, and superheating ﬁeld, Phys

T. Kubo, Superﬂuid ﬂow in disordered superconductors with Dynes pair-breaking scattering: Depairing current, kinetic inductance, and superheating ﬁeld, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 033203 (2020)

2020
[19]

Kubo, in preparation

T. Kubo, in preparation
[20]

T. Kubo, An Encouraging of Paternity Leave: A Physi- cist Who Has Become a Stay-at-Home Dad in New York, KASOKUKI, 20, 50 (2023) [Journal of the Particle Ac- celerator Society of Japan 20, 50 (2023)]

2023
[21]

Microscopic theory of the lower critical ﬁeld in superconducting thin-ﬁlm strips,

T. Kubo, Code and data for “Microscopic theory of the lower critical ﬁeld in superconducting thin-ﬁlm strips,” Zenodo, 2026, to be published

2026

Pith tools

Reviewed July 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

This representation satisﬁes the no-normal-ﬂow condition at the strip edges

is the singular vortex con- tribution; we denote it by qX ≡ − 2π ∇ × (ψ X ˆz). This representation satisﬁes the no-normal-ﬂow condition at the strip edges. Although it has a stream-function form, ψ X is not the stream function of the physical current, because the current also contains the spatially varying factor S(r) and the remaining terms in qv. With o...

work page

[2] [2]

The black curves overlaid on the microscopic results in Fig

also describes the ﬁnite- temperature data. The black curves overlaid on the microscopic results in Fig. 2 are ﬁts to Eq. ( 12). The ﬁtted parameters are ( c1,c 2) = (0 . 7192, 4. 3075), (0. 9097, 4. 7047), and (1 . 7023, 7. 8772) for T/T c = 0, 0 . 4, and 0. 8, respectively. For T/T c = 0. 2 and 0. 6, which are not shown in Fig. 2, the same analysis give...

work page 2021

[3] [3]

Kubo, How high a ﬁeld has been and can be achieved in superconducting bulk niobium cavities: the role of RRR, Jpn

T. Kubo, How high a ﬁeld has been and can be achieved in superconducting bulk niobium cavities: the role of RRR, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 64 018002 (2025)

work page 2025

[4] [4]

G. Stan, S. B. Field, and J. M. Martinis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 097003 (2004)

work page 2004

[5] [5]

Bronson, M

E. Bronson, M. P. Gelfand, and S. B. Field, Equilibrium conﬁgurations of Pearl vortices in narrow strips, Phys. Rev. B 73, 144501 (2006)

work page 2006

[6] [6]

K. H. Kuit, J. R. Kirtley, J. R. Clem, H. Rogalla and J. Flokstra, Vortex Trapping and Expulsion in Thin-Film Type-II Superconducting Strips, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, 19, 3537 (2009)

work page 2009

[7] [7]

Pearl, Current Distribution in Superconducting Film s Carrying Quantized Fluxoids Appl

J. Pearl, Current Distribution in Superconducting Film s Carrying Quantized Fluxoids Appl. Phys. Lett. 5, 65 (1964)

work page 1964

[8] [8]

K. K. Likharev, The formation of a mixed state in planar semiconductor ﬁlms, Radiophys. Quantum Electron. 6, 722 (1972)

work page 1972