Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 47 references

Bogoliubov quasi-particles in superconductors are integer-charged particles inapplicable for braiding quantum information

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Under a number-conserving Hamiltonian, one-body quasiparticles must carry the exact charge and mass of a bare electron, so a zero-energy Bogoliubov mode cannot be a Majorana particle and cannot serve as a platform for topological quantum co

desk verdict A correct but elementary charge-counting theorem is stretched into an unsupported claim against Majorana braiding; the useful part is the explicit construction of number-conserving Bogoliubov quasiparticles. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09663 v3 pith:4NM2OJR2 submitted 2025-09-11 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.supr-conquant-ph

Zhiyu Fan , Wei Ku This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.supr-conquant-ph
keywords BogoliubovquasiparticlesMajoranazeromodesnumberconservationeigen-particlessuperconductivitytopologicalquantumcomputationbraidingU(1)symmetry
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 paper aims to prove that in any superconductor described by a strictly number-conserving Hamiltonian, the quasiparticles seen in tunneling and photoemission must each add one electron's worth of charge and mass. From this it follows that a zero-energy Bogoliubov mode—the basis of the Majorana qubit proposal—cannot be an equal mixture of electron and hole, so it is not a Majorana fermion and its statistics is ordinary Abelian fermionic statistics. If the proof is right, the heavily pursued Majorana-based topological quantum computing route is conceptually unfounded, and the field should return to developing number-conserving, $U(1)$-symmetric theories of superconductivity.

What carries the argument

Eigen-particle representation: a canonical transformation $U$ that maps bare fermions $c^\dagger_l$ to dressed fermions $\tilde c^\dagger_l = U^\dagger c^\dagger_l U$ while reducing the many-body Hamiltonian to diagonal form. The proof exploits the fact that $U$ commutes with the total number operator $N_c$, so $[N_c, \tilde c^\dagger_l] = \tilde c^\dagger_l$; this single commutator enforces quantized charge and mass and rules out self-conjugate zero modes. A complementary expansion of the bare-particle Green's function in the eigen-particle basis (Eq. 10) shows that quasiparticle peak energies are the eigen-particle energies $E_l$, while the additional terms generate the continuum and broadening. The pap

What would settle it

A calculation in a strictly number-conserving lattice model of a topological superconductor that finds, for $L$ vortex zero modes, a ground-state degeneracy of $2^{L/2}$ (rather than $2^L$), or a tunneling experiment measuring the charge added by populating a zero mode to be $e/2$ (rather than $e$), would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that 'eigen-particles'—dressed creation operators $\tilde c^\dagger_l = U^\dagger c^\dagger_l U$ that fully diagonalize the number-conserving Hamiltonian—commute with the total number operator in such a way that $[N_c, \tilde c^\dagger_l] = \tilde c^\dagger_l$. Therefore each eigen-particle adds exactly one bare particle, carrying the same quantized charge and inertial mass as the bare electron. Since the standard Bogoliubov quasiparticle $\gamma^\dagger = u c^\dagger - v c$ is a mixture of electron and hole, it violates this commutator and must be regarded as an artifact of a broken-$U(1)$ mean-field reduction. The paper proves (Theorem 2) that no eigen-particle can be its own

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that experimentally observed one-body quasiparticles are exactly the 'eigen-particles' of the full, number-conserving Hamiltonian—exact eigenstates with definite particle number and additively carried bare mass—rather than spectral peaks that mix sectors of different particle number.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Bogoliubov zero modes in vortex cores or edges behave as ordinary Abelian fermions, not non-Abelian anyons; any braiding operation built on them would not produce the required logical gates.
  • For L zero modes, the many-body degeneracy is 2^L rather than the 2^{L/2} predicted by the Majorana picture—an entropy difference that is in principle measurable in heat capacity or finite-size computations.
  • The standard BCS/Bogoliubov quasiparticle as an electron-hole mixture is an artifact of the number-nonconserving mean-field; a number-conserving theory must use eigen-particles that add exactly one particle.
  • Since physical thermalization and slow external fields couple to integer-charged eigen-particles, preparing the highly entangled 'braidable' superpositions of zero modes would require explicitly breaking number conservation via coupling to an electron reservoir or drive.
  • A proper U(1)-symmetric theory of superconductivity is needed, and the eigen-particle representation provides a starting point that preserves strict number conservation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same charge/mass argument may extend beyond superconductors to any proposal that derives non-Abelian statistics from broken-symmetry mean-field quasiparticles in number-conserving electronic systems, suggesting a general obstruction.
  • A testable extension: compute the single-particle spectral function in an exact number-conserving model of a topological superconductor and measure the charge content of the zero-energy pole; the theorem predicts exactly one electron's worth of charge, with no weight in other particle-number sectors.
  • If the preparation challenge is real, it places constraints not only on Majorana-based qubits but also on other degenerate-subspace schemes in closed many-body systems, since any required coherence beyond the Hamiltonian's dynamics must be injected externally.
  • The paper's assertion about inertial mass being identical to the bare value could be sharpened by connecting to measurable effective mass in specific lattice models; this is an inference beyond their proof.
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, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper claims that under a strictly number-conserving Hamiltonian, the exact one-body quasiparticles—defined as eigen-particles \(\tilde c^\dagger_l = U^\dagger c^\dagger_l U\) that diagonalize the full many-body Hamiltonian—necessarily carry exactly one unit of bare particle number, quantized charge, and bare inertial mass. From this, it concludes that Bogoliubov zero modes in superconductors cannot be their own antiparticles, are not Majorana, and therefore cannot support non-Abelian braiding. The paper further argues that the standard mean-field Bogoliubov quasiparticles are improper reductions of these number-conserving eigen-particles and that the degeneracy counting of zero modes contradicts the Majorana proposal. The central operator identity, Eq. (12), is correct, but the application of this identity to experimentally observed quasiparticles and to Majorana zero modes is not established by the arguments presented.

Significance. If the central conclusion were established, the paper would have far-reaching implications for the Majorana-based topological quantum computation program and for the interpretation of Bogoliubov quasiparticles in number-conserving superconductors. The construction of eigen-particles and the exact representation of the one-body Green's function in Eq. (10) are formally interesting, and the observation that exact eigenstates of a number-conserving Hamiltonian cannot be created by a self-adjoint operator with the property \([N_c,\tilde c^\dagger]=\tilde c^\dagger\) is a useful clarification. However, the paper's own formal apparatus points to the central gap: the spectral peaks in Eq. (10) are not shown to be exact eigen-particle poles, and the Majorana operators of the standard theory do not satisfy the eigen-particle commutation relation. The actual physical conclusion therefore does not follow from the proved theorems.

major comments (4)
  1. [One-body quasi-particles; Eq. (9)-(10)] The identification of observed quasiparticles with eigen-particles is assumed, not derived. The exact Green's function expansion (10) contains, in addition to the one-particle pole, a series of (n+1;n)-body continua and renormalization factors. In a generic interacting system, the experimental or numerical spectral peak is a resonance with weight Z<1 and finite lifetime, not an exact eigenstate created by a single operator \(\tilde c^\dagger_l\). The statement that 'one-body quasi-particles are rigorously described as eigen-particles' is therefore an assertion about the physical interpretation of the peak, not a consequence of Theorem 1. Without establishing that the specific Bogoliubov zero modes of a superconductor are such eigen-particle operators, Theorems 1 and 2 do not rule out the Majorana interpretation of these zero modes.
  2. [Theorem 2; Eq. (17)] The proof of Theorem 2 assumes that a Majorana eigen-particle must satisfy both \(\tilde c^\dagger_l=\tilde c_l\) and the eigen-particle property \([N_c,\tilde c^\dagger_l]=\tilde c^\dagger_l\). But a Majorana operator is only required to be self-adjoint and to obey the Clifford algebra; it need not be an eigenoperator of the total number operator. For example, \(\gamma=c+c^\dagger\) on a single fermionic mode is self-adjoint and satisfies \(\{\gamma,\gamma\}=1\), yet \([N_c,\gamma]=c^\dagger-c\), which is not proportional to \(\gamma\). Thus Eq. (17) proves only that an operator with the exact eigen-particle property cannot be self-adjoint. It does not exclude zero modes described by more general non-number-diagonal operators, which is precisely the class relevant to the standard Majorana proposals.
  3. [Eigen-particles carry bare charge and inertial mass] The claim that eigen-particles carry 'inertial mass identical to the bare particles' is not derived. The commutator (12) fixes only the increment of total particle number, which determines charge if charge is defined as \(e N_c\). Inertial mass is not a conserved charge and cannot be read off from an algebraic commutation relation. In solids, quasiparticle masses are generically renormalized by interactions and band structure; the statement that each eigen-particle carries the bare electron mass is an extra assumption. This mass assertion is not needed for the Majorana conclusion but is presented as a central result and should either be proven or removed.
  4. [Inability to braid quantum information; degeneracy argument] The degeneracy-counting argument is not conclusive. The paper compares a \(2^{L/2}\)-fold Majorana degeneracy with a \(2^L\)-fold degeneracy of 'proper' eigen-particle zero modes. However, occupying L eigen-particle zero modes changes the total particle number by L, so the alleged \(2^L\)-dimensional degenerate manifold is not contained in a single fixed-N sector. In an isolated number-conserving system, only states with the same total N can be superposed coherently, and the standard Majorana ground-state degeneracy is typically defined within a fixed fermion-parity sector. The comparison of raw dimensions across different Hilbert-space sectors therefore does not establish a contradiction with the Majorana-based braiding proposal.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] There are typographical errors, e.g., 'cannotbe' in the abstract/introduction and 'angels' for 'angles' in the Supplemental Material. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  2. [References] Several references are incompletely formatted, with missing volume/page information (e.g., [3], [4], [6], [8], [40]). Some citations to the authors' own unpublished work [29] carry arguments that are central to the main text but are not fully reproduced; these should be either expanded or clearly marked as supplementary.
  3. [Eq. (15)] The colored text references ('in blue' and 'in red') in Eq. (15) will be lost in monochrome versions of the paper; the intended identification of the coherent particle-hole mixture should be made independent of color.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The proof that quasiparticles carry integer charge is a definitional identity for the paper's eigen-particles; the no-Majorana conclusion then rests on an unproved identification of physical Bogoliubov zero modes with those operators.

  1. self definitional [Main text: 'Eigen-particles carry bare charge and inertial mass' (Theorem 1) and 'Proper Bogoliubov quasi-particles' (Eqs. 12-13)]
    "Nc ˜c† l −˜c† l Nc = [Nc,˜c† l ] = [Nc,U †c† l U] =U †[Nc,c † l ]U =U †c† l U=˜c † l , (12) ... Indeed, [N c,γ † kσ ]̸=1 violates the rigorous requirement in Eq. 12. Therefore, γ † kσ in Eq. 13 should only be considered as a (problematic) approximate reduction of the eigen-particles."

    Eq. 12 is proved for operators defined as tilde-c-dagger_l = U-dagger c-dagger_l U with a number-conserving U. For such operators, the commutator identity [N, tilde-c-dagger] = tilde-c-dagger is a direct consequence of the definition, so 'eigen-particles carry exactly one particle number' is a restatement of the definition rather than a physical discovery. The paper then promotes Eq. 12 to 'the rigorous requirement' and declares the standard Bogoliubov gamma-dagger (which does not satisfy it) 'improper'. The conclusion that physical Bogoliubov zero modes are integer-charged and hence not Majorana is therefore built into the decision about which operators count as proper quasiparticles; the theorem never independently establishes that an experimentally observed zero mode is such a tilde-c-d

  2. other [Main text: 'One-body quasi-particles' through 'Eigen-particles as one-body quasi-particles...' (around Eq. 10), and the transition 'Having established this correspondence']
    "Therefore, while typically observed experimentally through bare-particles, one-body quasi-particles are rigorously described as eigen-particles in exact N-particle treatments. ... Having established this correspondence, let’s examine the rigorous implications of number conservation of H on eigen-particles."

    This sentence is the load-bearing bridge from the mathematical eigen-particle operators to the physical quasiparticles seen in ARPES/tunneling. It is not derived; the paper's own Eq. 10 shows G_l(omega) contains, beyond the diagonal pole at E_l, an infinite set of (n+1;n)-body fluctuation poles that produce continuum and broadening, and the residue at E_l can be depleted by higher-order terms (as the Supplementary notes). A generic spectral peak is therefore not the exact eigenstate created by a single tilde-c-dagger_l. By assuming 'one-body quasi-particles are rigorously described as eigen-particles', the paper transfers Theorem 1 (and the no-Majorana theorem) to the measured zero modes without proof. The impossibility conclusion thus rests on an unproved equation between two different ob

full rationale

Theorem 1 is mathematically correct for the objects it defines: if tilde-c-dagger = U-dagger c-dagger U and U conserves particle number, then [N, tilde-c-dagger] = tilde-c-dagger is an identity. The circularity enters when the paper elevates this definitional property into 'the rigorous requirement' for what counts as a proper Bogoliubov quasiparticle, thereby excluding the standard BdG gamma-dagger as 'improper' and concluding that real zero modes must be integer-charged Abelian fermions. That conclusion is not an experimental or independent derivation; it is a consequence of the chosen definition plus an asserted identification of observed one-body peaks with eigen-particles. The paper's Eq. 10 makes the gap visible: the Green's function has many additional poles and the spectral weight at E_l is renormalized, so the observed quasiparticle is not generally an exact eigenstate created by a single tilde-c-dagger_l. The degeneracy-counting argument (2^L versus 2^{L/2}) is an independent-sounding argument, but it too assumes the zero modes are eigen-particle modes of the paper's type. The self-citations [32-34] are not the main problem; the internal definitional reduction is. Overall this is a partial circularity: the central impossibility claim reduces, by construction and by an unproved identification, to the paper's own definition of eigen-particles, giving a score of 6 rather than 0-2.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's central conclusion rests on the definition of eigen-particles as number-conserving excitations and on the assumption that these are the actual quasiparticles measured in experiments. No experimental or computational benchmark is provided. The free parameters appear only in the illustrative BCS reduction and do not affect the formal proof, but they show where the standard mean-field parameters enter.

free parameters (2)
  • coherence factors tilde-u_k, tilde-v_k = tilde-u_k = cos(phi), tilde-v_k = sin(phi), phi = 1/2 arctan(Delta0/(epsilon_k - E_F))
    Derived from a hand-chosen Jacobi ansatz alpha_{1k} = 1/2 arctan(V/(epsilon_k - epsilon_1)) in Supplementary Sec. 3; they parameterize the illustrative BCS reduction and are not fitted to experimental data.
  • mean-field order parameter Delta0 = Delta0 = -V/Omega sum_1 <c-dagger_{1 up} c-dagger_{-1 down}>
    Introduced in Supplementary Sec. 3b as a number-non-conserving mean-field used to reduce proper to improper Bogoliubov quasiparticles; it is a self-consistency parameter, not a fit to data, but it is a hand-introduced quantity in the illustrative derivation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The experimentally observed one-body quasiparticles are exactly the eigen-particles defined by a canonical transformation U that diagonalizes H in Fock space.
    The entire argument depends on equating measured quasiparticle peaks with the constructed eigen-particles; this is asserted in the 'One-body quasi-particles' and 'Eigen-particles as one-body quasi-particles' sections and never derived from a microscopic model.
  • domain assumption No physical environment can coherently break electron number conservation in superconductors, so spontaneously broken U(1) has no dynamical origin.
    Used in supplementary Sec. 2e to rule out the broken-symmetry BCS ground state; this is a physical assumption about the environment, not a mathematical theorem.
  • ad hoc to paper Inertial mass is carried additively by quasiparticles and equals the bare particle mass when the quasiparticle number increment is one.
    The claim that 'the electric charge and inertial mass attached to each bare particle are therefore carried by eigen-particles' is a non sequitur from [N, tilde-c-dagger] = tilde-c-dagger; effective mass in solids is a dynamical quantity, not a conserved charge.
  • domain assumption The dimension of the zero-mode Hilbert space in the number-conserving case is 2^L, with each eigen-particle zero mode independently occupied or empty.
    Used in the degeneracy-counting argument against Majorana braiding; this ignores that occupying charge-1 zero modes changes the total particle number, so at fixed N not all 2^L configurations are accessible.
invented entities (1)
  • Eigen-particles (proper Bogoliubov quasiparticles) tilde-c-dagger_l
    purpose: To replace the standard Bogoliubov quasiparticles with excitations that rigorously respect particle number conservation and carry one unit of charge.
    These operators are defined by a many-body unitary transformation and are not independently observable from the standard quasiparticles; the paper argues they are what experiments see, but this is an interpretation, not a falsifiable prediction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bogoliubov quasi-particles in superconductors are integer-charged particles inapplicable for braiding quantum information." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4NM2OJR2

@misc{pith2026250909663,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bogoliubov quasi-particles in superconductors are integer-charged particles inapplicable for braiding quantum information},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4NM2OJR2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09663}
}
abstract

We present a rigorous proof that under a number-conserving Hamiltonian, one-body quasi-particles generally possess quantized charge and inertial mass identical to the bare particles. It follows that, Bogoliubov zero modes in the vortex (or on the edge) of superconductors $\textit{cannot}$ be their own anti-particles capable of braiding quantum information. As such, the heavily pursued Majorana zero mode-based route for quantum computation requires a serious re-consideration. This study further reveals the conceptual challenge in preparing and manipulating braid-able quantum states via physical thermalization or slow external fields. These profound results should reignite the long-standing quest for a number-conserving theory of superconductivity and superfluidity without fictitiously breaking global U(1) symmetry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09663 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Matrix representation of a number-conserving many-body [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    J. R. Powell, The quantum limit to moore’s law, Proceedings of the IEEE96, 1247 (2008)

    2008

  2. [2]

    Preskill, Quantum computing 40 years later (2023), arXiv:2106.10522 [quant-ph]

    J. Preskill, Quantum computing 40 years later (2023), arXiv:2106.10522 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Caroli, P

    C. Caroli, P. G. De Gennes, and J. Matricon, Bound fermion states on a vortex line in a type II superconductor, Physics Let- ters9, 307

  4. [4]

    Gygi and M

    F. Gygi and M. Schluter, Electronic tunneling into an isolated vortex in a clean type-II superconductor, Physical Review B41, 822

  5. [5]

    Nayak, S

    C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and S. Das Sarma, Non-Abelian anyons and topological quantum computation, Reviews of Modern Physics80, 1083 (2008)

    2008

  6. [6]

    C. W. J. Beenakker, Search for majorana fermions in supercon- ductors, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics4, 113

  7. [7]

    P. G. D. Gennes, The self-consistent field method, inSupercon- ductivity Of Metals And Alloys(CRC Press) num Pages: 34

  8. [8]

    Read and D

    N. Read and D. Green, Paired states of fermions in two di- mensions with breaking of parity and time-reversal symmetries and the fractional quantum hall effect, Physical Review B61, 10267

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    A. Y . Kitaev, Unpaired majorana fermions in quantum wires, Physics-Uspekhi44, 131

  2. [10]

    D. A. Ivanov, Non-abelian statistics of half-quantum vortices in p -wave superconductors, Physical Review Letters86, 268

  3. [11]

    A. J. Leggett, Bose-einstein condensation in the alkali gases: Some fundamental concepts, Rev. Mod. Phys.73, 307 (2001)

    2001

  4. [12]

    Ortiz, J

    G. Ortiz, J. Dukelsky, E. Cobanera, C. Esebbag, and C. Beenakker, Many-Body Characterization of Particle- Conserving Topological Superfluids, Physical Review Letters 113, 267002 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    Z. Wang, Y . Xu, H. Pu, and K. R. A. Hazzard, Number- conserving interacting fermion models with exact topological superconducting ground states, Physical Review B96, 115110 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Knapp, J

    C. Knapp, J. I. V ¨ayrynen, and R. M. Lutchyn, Number- conserving analysis of measurement-based braiding with Ma- jorana zero modes, Physical Review B101, 125108 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    M. F. Lapa and M. Levin, Rigorous Results on Topological Su- perconductivity with Particle Number Conservation, Physical Review Letters124, 257002 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Lin and A

    Y . Lin and A. Leggett, Some questions concerning majorana fermions in 2d (p+ ip) fermi superfluids, Quantum Frontiers1, 4 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    R. W. Richardson and N. Sherman, Exact eigenstates of the pairing-force Hamiltonian, Nuclear Physics52, 221 (1964)

    1964

  10. [18]

    Bardeen, Gauge invariance and the energy gap model of su- perconductivity, Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965)5, 1766 (1957)

    J. Bardeen, Gauge invariance and the energy gap model of su- perconductivity, Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965)5, 1766 (1957)

    1955

  11. [19]

    Nambu, Quasi-particles and gauge invariance in the theory of superconductivity, Physical Review117, 648

    Y . Nambu, Quasi-particles and gauge invariance in the theory of superconductivity, Physical Review117, 648

  12. [20]

    Baym and L

    G. Baym and L. P. Kadanoff, Conservation laws and correlation functions, Physical Review124, 287

  13. [21]

    Bardeen, L

    J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Theory of Super- conductivity, Physical Review108, 1175 (1957)

    1957

  14. [22]

    N. N. Bogoljubov, On a new method in the theory of supercon- ductivity, Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965)7, 794

    1955

  15. [23]

    Richard, T

    P. Richard, T. Qian, and H. Ding, Arpes measurements of the superconducting gap of fe-based superconductors and their im- plications to the pairing mechanism, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter27(2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    A. V . Balatsky, W. S. Lee, and Z. X. Shen, Bogoliubov angle, particle-hole mixture, and angle-resolved photoemission spec- troscopy in superconductors, Phys. Rev. B79, 020505 (2009)

    2009

  17. [25]

    Damascelli, Z

    A. Damascelli, Z. Hussain, and Z.-X. Shen, Angle-resolved photoemission studies of the cuprate superconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 473 (2003)

    2003

  18. [26]

    Fischer, M

    O. Fischer, M. Kugler, I. Maggio-Aprile, C. Berthod, and C. Renner, Scanning tunneling spectroscopy of high- 6 temperature superconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys.79, 353 (2007)

    2007

  19. [27]

    J. Lee, K. Fujita, A. Schmidt, C. K. Kim, H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, and J. Davis, Spectroscopic fingerprint of phase-incoherent su- perconductivity in the underdoped bi2sr2cacu2o8+δ, Science 325, 1099 (2009)

    2009

  20. [28]

    Deutscher, Andreev–saint-james reflections: A probe of cuprate superconductors, Rev

    G. Deutscher, Andreev–saint-james reflections: A probe of cuprate superconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 109 (2005)

    2005

  21. [29]

    One-body Green’s function represented by eigen-particles, 2

    See supplementary Material for the disscussion 1. One-body Green’s function represented by eigen-particles, 2. Particle con- servation in systems with spontaneously broken symmetry, 3. Proper and improper Bogoliubov quasi-particles

  22. [30]

    R. D. Mattuck and H. H. C. Chang,A guide to Feynman dia- grams in the many-body problem(Courier Corporation, 1976)

    1976

  23. [31]

    P. W. Anderson,Concepts in solids: lectures on the theory of solids, V ol. 58 (World Scientific, 1997)

    1997

  24. [32]

    S. R. White, Numerical canonical transformation approach to quantum many-body problems, The Journal of Chemical Physics117, 7472 (2002)

    2002

  25. [33]

    Kanno, A method of a quasi-linear canonical transformation for the many-body problem

    S. Kanno, A method of a quasi-linear canonical transformation for the many-body problem. i, Progress of Theoretical Physics 41, 966

  26. [34]

    A. Hegg, R. Jiang, J. Wang, J. Hou, T. Zeng, Y . Yildirim, and W. Ku, Universal low-temperature fluctuation of uncon- ventional superconductors revealed: ’Smoking gun’ leaves proper bosonic superfluidity the last theory standing (2024), arXiv:2402.08730 [cond-mat]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    S. A. Kivelson and D. S. Rokhsar, Bogoliubov quasiparticles, spinons, and spin-charge decoupling in superconductors, Phys. Rev. B41, 11693 (1990)

    1990

  28. [36]

    Hansson, V

    T. Hansson, V . Oganesyan, and S. L. Sondhi, Superconductors are topologically ordered, Annals of Physics313, 497 (2004)

    2004

  29. [37]

    Moore and N

    G. Moore and N. Read, Nonabelions in the fractional quantum hall effect, Nuclear Physics B360, 362 (1991)

    1991

  30. [38]

    J. M. Deutsch, Quantum statistical mechanics in a closed sys- tem, Phys. Rev. A43, 2046 (1991)

  31. [39]

    Rigol and M

    M. Rigol and M. Srednicki, Alternatives to eigenstate thermal- ization, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 110601 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    Holstein and H

    T. Holstein and H. Primakoff, Field dependence of the intrinsic domain magnetization of a ferromagnet, Physical Review58, 1098 (1940)

    1940

  33. [41]

    A. J. Leggett,Quantum liquids: Bose condensation and Cooper pairing in condensed-matter systems(Oxford university press, 2006)

    2006

  34. [42]

    J. R. Schrieffer,Theory of superconductivity(CRC press, 2018) Chap. 2

    2018

  35. [43]

    G. E. Blonder, M. Tinkham, and T. M. Klapwijk, Transition from metallic to tunneling regimes in superconducting micro- constrictions: Excess current, charge imbalance, and supercur- rent conversion, Physical Review B25, 4515 (1982)

    1982

  36. [44]

    Tinkham,Introduction to superconductivity(Courier Corpo- ration, 2004)

    M. Tinkham,Introduction to superconductivity(Courier Corpo- ration, 2004). 7 SUPPLEMENTARY MA TERIALS

    2004

  37. [45]

    One-body Green’s function represented by eigen-particles In this section we expand the analytical structure of eigen-particle representation of bare particles’ one-body Green’s function, which is typically accessible via angular-resolve photo-emission experiments. From this, o...

  38. [46]

    exception

    Particle conservation in systems with spontaneously broken symmetry a. Apparent “exception” with spontaneously broken symmetry? Figure 1 of the main text makes clear that internaldynamicalprocesses of number conserving systems cannot spontaneously break number conservation. Th...

  39. [47]

    We then demonstrate how adapting an improper (number-non-conserving) mean-field can result in a familiar form of improper Bogoliubov quasi-particles

    Proper and improper Bogoliubov quasi-particles In this section we first illustrate dominant fluctuation in proper (number-conserving) Bogoliubov quasi-particles in BCS-like theories. We then demonstrate how adapting an improper (number-non-conserving) mean-field can result in ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.