Further evidence for linearly-dispersive Cooper pairs

J.J. Valencia; M. de Llano

REVIEW

Further evidence for linearly-dispersive Cooper pairs

M. de Llano, J.J. Valencia

Superconductivity · Submitted 23 Feb 2006 · 43 references

Pith's verdict: A short empirical footnote for the linearly-dispersive Cooper-pair BEC program: suggestive visual comparison, but the order-parameter mapping is assumed and the fits lack statistics.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on August 28, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 major objections · 4 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDcond-mat/0602570 (version 5)

Pith IDHE2QSRZZ, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationJ.J. Valencia, M. de Llano. "Further evidence for linearly-dispersive Cooper pairs." arXiv:cond-mat/0602570 (2006). https://pith.science/paper/HE2QSRZZ

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Short version: this paper is a quick empirical check in the authors' ongoing BEC program, and it is suggestive but not as strong as the title claims. The new content is the comparison of five published datasets—Sn, Nb/Cu, Y123, Bi2212, and nanotube gaps—to the pure-phase BEC condensate-fraction formula 1 - (T/Tc)^{d/s} with s=1. That comparison is a legitimate extension of their earlier theoretical work, and the paper is admirably transparent about the T<0.5Tc breakdown, attributing it to a mixed 2e/2h phase. The dimensional reasoning (d=3,2,1) is clean.

The soft spots are real. The ordinate for the penetration-depth data is λ(0)^2/λ(T)^2, i.e. a superfluid-density ratio, and the paper simply asserts that this equals N0(T)/N0(0). For an ideal Bose gas the two coincide, but for a superconductor with a Fermi sea that identification is nontrivial and needs a derivation. The gap data are mapped onto condensate fraction via Δ(T) ∝ √m0(T), imported from Ref. [36] without the argument. The fits are visual: no error bars, no chi-square, no stated uncertainty in the data. And the effective dimensionality d is effectively a free parameter per material, which weakens the claim that the agreement is a sharp test of linear dispersion. So the central assertion—data agree quite well with the pure-phase BEC formula—is plausible but not rigorously established.

That said, this is not a case of a paper that is wrong on its own terms. The authors are careful to label the limitation below 0.5Tc, and the formulas are standard. The main gap is missing quantitative analysis and a firmer physical mapping.

Who is this for? Someone working in BEC-based superconductivity, or wanting a quick visual argument for why linear dispersion might matter. It is not a major result and does not deserve a broad readership. But it is a coherent, honest piece of research that could be brought up to a publishable standard with proper fits and a derivation of the order-parameter mapping. I would send it to a referee rather than desk reject, provided the referee is asked to focus on those two points. I would not cite it in my own work as evidence for linearly-dispersive pairs, but I might cite it as a marker of the program's empirical claims.

Referee report

Significance

If the central identification and the fits were established, the paper would provide a simple, cross-material empirical test favoring the BEC-of-Cooper-pairs scenario with linear dispersion over the conventional BCS order-parameter curve. The generalized BEC formulas in Eqs. (7) and (8) are standard and the paper honestly acknowledges that the pure-phase formula fails below T ≈ 0.5Tc because of a mixed 2e/2h phase. The use of independently published experimental data is a strength. However, the significance is currently limited by two load-bearing gaps: the plotted ordinate is asserted, not derived, to be the condensate fraction, and the agreement with the theoretical curves is assessed only visually. The paper is best read as a suggestive phenomenological comparison rather than a decisive test.

Major objections (3)

[Results and Fig. 1] The ordinate of Fig. 1 is called a “universal normalized order parameter” and is asserted to coincide with the BEC condensate fraction N0(T)/N0(0) of Eq. (8), but this identification is never derived. For the penetration-depth datasets (Nb/Cu, Sn, Y123, Bi2212) the plotted quantity is λ(0)^2/λ(T)^2, which by the London relation is a superfluid-density ratio n_s(T)/n_s(0), not automatically a condensate-fraction ratio. For the nanotube dataset the mapping [Δ(T)/Δ(0)]^2 = m0(T)/m0(0) is delegated to Ref. [36] through the relation Δ = f√m0 without reproducing the derivation. Superfluid density equals condensate fraction only under special assumptions (e.g., an ideal-gas BEC), and the gap relation is model-specific. The authors should derive or explicitly justify both mappings; otherwise the comparison in Fig. 1 does not test the condensate-fraction formula, and the central claim is not established.
[Results, Fig. 1 and text around Eq. (8)] The statement that the data “are seen to agree quite well” with Eq. (8) for T > 0.5Tc is supported only by visual inspection. No error bars, residuals, chi-squared values, or other goodness-of-fit statistics are reported for any dataset, and the restriction to T > 0.5Tc is justified by a reference to mixed-phase stability in Ref. [35] without a quantitative criterion. Since the central assertion is empirical agreement, the manuscript should include a quantitative fit assessment, such as reduced chi-squared per dataset, and a sensitivity check showing how the inferred exponent changes when the temperature cutoff is varied.
[Introduction, Eqs. (7)-(8), and Results] The effective dimensionality d is assigned separately for each material (d = 3 for Nb/Cu and Sn, d = 2 for Y123 and Bi2212, d = 1 for the nanotubes) while s is assumed to be 1. Because Eq. (8) depends only on the ratio d/s, the choice of d effectively selects the exponent of the temperature law for each dataset. The authors should provide independent evidence for each d, for example from crystal structure or measured anisotropy, and show that the conclusion is robust to plausible variations in d. Without such an independent determination, the agreement with Eq. (8) is partly selected by construction rather than discovered in the data.

Minor objections (4)

[Figure 1] The data points in Fig. 1 have no visible error bars; if the original measurements do not provide uncertainties, the authors should state this explicitly and also indicate how the data were digitized from the cited sources.
[Abstract] The abstract contains the typo “cup rate”; this should read “cuprate”.
[Eq. (5)] The notation in Eq. (5) uses both k and K for momentum variables; the paper should define both symbols explicitly and ensure they are used consistently throughout.
[References] Ref. [30] is an online lecture note rather than a peer-reviewed data source; a published reference for the Sn penetration-depth data would be more appropriate.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

This paper claims that normalized superconducting order parameters across 3D, 2D, and 1D materials follow the BEC condensate-fraction curve only when Cooper pairs are assigned a linear dispersion, $s=1$, providing empirical evidence for…

The reading

The paper claims that the temperature dependence of the normalized superconducting order parameter—$\lambda(0)^2/\lambda(T)^2$ from penetration depth and $[\Delta(T)/\Delta(0)]^2$ from gap measurements—is the BEC condensate fraction of Cooper pairs moving with linear dispersion. For bosons with dispersion $\varepsilon_K=C_s K^s$ in $d$ dimensions, the condensate fraction is $N_0(T)/N_0(0)=1-(T/T_c)^{d/s}$. The authors show that setting $s=1$ makes this formula agree with data from 3D conventional superconductors, quasi-2D cuprates, and quasi-1D nanotubes for $T>0.5T_c$, whereas the earlier quadratic-dispersion 3D formula fits poorly. If correct, the agreement is direct empirical evidence that Cooper pairs disperse linearly in the Fermi sea rather than quadratically as they would in vacuum, and it extends the BEC picture of superconductivity to all dimensionalities where superconductors exist.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the generalized ideal-Bose-gas condensate fraction for dispersion $\varepsilon_K=C_s K^s$ in $d$ dimensions: $N_0(T)/N_0(0)=1-(T/T_c)^{d/s}$ for $T\le T_c$, with $T_c\propto n_B^{s/d}$. For quadratic dispersion ($s=2$) in 3D it reduces to the familiar $1-(T/T_c)^{3/2}$; for linear dispersion ($s=1$) it gives exponents $d/s=3$, $2$, and approximately $1$ in $d=3$, $2$, and quasi-1D geometries, with the exact $d=1$, $s=1$ case having $T_c=0$ and the quasi-1D curves represented by $d/s=(1+\epsilon)/1>1$. The paper combines this formula with the analytic result that a Cooper pair in a two-dimensional Fermi sea has dispersion $\varepsilon_K=(2/\pi)\hbar v_F K+\cdots$, whose leading term is linear, using the condensate-fraction curves as the parameter-free standard of comparison for penetration-depth and gap data.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that normalized order-parameter data from materials spanning three dimensionalities agree with the pure-phase BEC condensate-fraction formula $$N_0(T)/N_0(0)=1-(T/T_c)^{d/s}$$ provided $s=1$, meaning a linear energy–momentum relation $\varepsilon_K=C_1 K$ for Cooper pairs. For $d=3$, $2$, and $1$ this yields the curves $1-T/T_c$, $1-(T/T_c)^2$, and $1-(T/T_c)^3$, and the data for Sn, Nb/Cu superlattices, Y123, Bi2212, and 4-Å nanotubes follow these curves for $T>0.5T_c$. The gap data enter through the relation $\Delta(T)=f\sqrt{m_0(T)}$, so that $[\Delta(T)/\Delta(0)]^2$ equals the two-hole Cooper-pair condensate fraction. The authors interpret the agreement as empirical evidence for linearly dispersive Cooper pairs, with the linearity arising from the Fermi-sea background, and they present the BCS condensate as a special case of this BEC scenario.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes, without derivation, that the measured normalized order parameter—$\lambda(0)^2/\lambda(T)^2$ from penetration depth and $[\Delta(T)/\Delta(0)]^2$ from the gap—equals the BEC condensate fraction $N_0(T)/N_0(0)$ of Eq. (8); if the measured quantity tracks superfluid density rather than condensate fraction, the fits would not test the condensate-fraction formula.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

With $s=1$, BEC of Cooper pairs occurs for all $d>1$, matching the existence of superconductors down to quasi-1D organics and nanotubes; the quadratic-dispersion case forbids BEC for $d\le2$.
In the range $T>0.5T_c$, the normalized order parameter follows the simple power laws $1-(T/T_c)^d$ in $d$ dimensions rather than the BCS gap curve or the two-fluid $1-(T/T_c)^4$ curve.
The same $s=1$ formula accounts for both conventional 3D superconductors and quasi-2D cuprates once the dimensionality is chosen correctly, so a BEC description of cuprate superconductors does not require abandoning the framework used for conventional materials.
Below $T\approx0.5T_c$, deviations are expected because a mixed phase of two-electron and two-hole Cooper pairs becomes thermodynamically stable, so the pure-phase formula is not universal at low temperature.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct test the paper does not run is to plot $\ln[1-\text{(normalized order parameter)}]$ against $\ln(T/T_c)$; the measured slope would give $d/s$ directly, offering a sharper check of $s=1$ that avoids any assumption about the low-temperature mixed phase.
The same $d/s$ exponent law could be tested in other bosonic condensates with linear spectra, such as exciton-polariton condensates, where the condensate fraction is measured directly; agreement would show the scaling is a general property of linear-dispersion BEC rather than a superconductor-specific coincidence.
If Cooper pairs really disperse linearly, their group velocity is momentum-independent, so fluctuation transport above $T_c$ (paraconductivity, Nernst signal) should have a temperature width different from that of quadratic-dispersion bosons; this is a measurable consequence the paper leaves implicit.

Original abstract

A recent Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) model of several cuprate superconductors is based on bosonic Cooper pairs (CPs) moving in 3D with a quadratic energy-momentum (dispersion) relation. The 3D BEC condensate-fraction vs. temperature (T/Tc, where Tc is the BEC transition temperature) formula poorly fits penetration-depth data for two cuprates in the range (1/2, 1]. We show how these fits are dramatically improved assuming cuprates to be quasi-2D, and how equally good fits obtain for conventional 3D and quasi-1D nanotube superconducting data, provided the correct CP dispersion is assumed in BEC at their assumed corresponding dimensionalities. This is offered as additional concrete empirical evidence for linearly-dispersive pairs in another recent BEC scenario of superconductors within which a BCS condensate turns out to be a very special case.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 3,866 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.04 · states limitation 0.21 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.29 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.25 · compares with prior results 0.92 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v5. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

A recent Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) model of several cuprate superconductors is based on bosonic Cooper pairs (CPs) moving in 3D with a quadratic energy-momentum (dispersion) relation. The 3D BEC condensate-fraction vs. temperature (T/Tc, where Tc is the BEC transition temperature) formula poorly fits penetration-depth data for two cuprates in the range (1/2, 1]. We show how these fits are dramatically improved assuming cuprates to be quasi-2D, and how equally good fits obtain for conventional 3D and quasi-1D nanotube superconducting data, provided the correct CP dispersion is assumed in BEC at their assumed corresponding dimensionalities. This is offered as additional concrete empirical evidence for linearly-dispersive pairs in another recent BEC scenario of superconductors within which a BCS condensate turns out to be a very special case.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	A recent Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) model of several cuprate superconductors is based on bosonic Cooper pairs (CPs) moving in 3D with a quadratic energy-momentum (dispersion) relation.	background 1.00	0.04	0.04	asserted 1.00
s1	The 3D BEC condensate-fraction vs. temperature (T/Tc, where Tc is the BEC transition temperature) formula poorly fits penetration-depth data for two cuprates in the range (1/2, 1].	background 0.46	0.32	0.05	asserted 1.00
s2	We show how these fits are dramatically improved assuming cuprates to be quasi-2D, and how equally good fits obtain for conventional 3D and quasi-1D nanotube superconducting data, provided the correct CP dispersion is assumed in BEC at their assumed corresponding dimensionalities.	result 0.84	0.90	0.23	asserted 1.00
s3	This is offered as additional concrete empirical evidence for linearly-dispersive pairs in another recent BEC scenario of superconductors within which a BCS condensate turns out to be a very special case.	interpretation 1.00	0.30	0.79	hedged possibility 0.67

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.55 · evidence from analysis of existing data 0.99.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v5

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** [42] Y.H. Kim and P.-H. Hor, Mod. Phys. Letters B 15, 497 (2001). [43] B. Lorenz, Z.G. Li, T. Honma, and P.-H. Hor, Phys. Rev. 65, 144522 (2002). 6

Figures reproduced from arXiv:cond-mat/0602570 by the authors.

References

Works cited (43)

[36]

V.V. Tolmachev, Phys. Lett. A 266, 400 (2000)

View on Pith 2000
[35]

M. de Llano and V.V. Tolmachev, Physica A 317, 546 (2003) , see esp. Fig. 1

View on Pith 2003
[1]

A. Rosencwaig, Phys. Rev. B 67, 184514 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[2]

J.R. Schrieﬀer, Theory of Superconductivity (Benjamin, New York, 1964) p. 33

View on Pith 1964
[3]

A.L. Fetter and J.D. Walecka, Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Systems (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1971), p. 336, Prob. 10.4

View on Pith 1971
[4]

S. Fujita, S. Godoy, Quantum Statistical Theory of Supercond uctivity (Plenum, NY, 1996)

View on Pith 1996
[5]

M. Casas, S. Fujita, M. de Llano, A. Puente, A. Rigo, and M.A. Sol ´ ıs, Physica C295, 93 (1998)

View on Pith 1998
[6]

S.K. Adhikari, M. Casas, A. Puente, A. Rigo, M. Fortes, M.A. Sol ´ ıs, M. de Llano, A.A. Valladares, and O. Rojo, Phys. Rev. B 62, 8671 (2000)

View on Pith 2000
[7]

S.K. Adhikari, M. Casas, A. Puente, A. Rigo, M. Fortes, M. de Llan o, M.A. Sol ´ ıs, A. A. Valladares, and O. Rojo, Physica C 351, 341 (2001)

View on Pith 2001
[8]

L.N. Cooper, Phys. Rev. 104, 1189 (1956)

View on Pith 1956
[9]

M. Fortes, M.A. Sol ´ ıs, M. de Llano, and V.V. Tolmachev, Physica C 364-365, 95 (2001)

View on Pith 2001
[10]

V.C. Aguilera-Navarro, M. Fortes, and M. de Llano, Sol. St. Com m. 129, 577 (2004)

View on Pith 2004
[11]

P.W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. 112, 1900 (1958)

View on Pith 1958
[12]

N.N. Bogoliubov, V.V. Tolmachev and D.V. Shirkov, A New Method in the Theory of Superconductivity (Consultants Bureau, NY, 1959)

View on Pith 1959
[13]

P.W. Higgs, Phys. Lett. 12, 132 (1964)

View on Pith 1964
[14]

J. Gavoret and P. Nozi` eres, Ann. Phys. (NY) 28 349 (1964)

View on Pith 1964
[15]

P.C. Hohenberg and P.C. Martin, Ann. Phys. (NY) 34 291 (1965)

View on Pith 1965
[16]

P. Gosdzinsky and R. Tarrach, Am. J. Phys. 59, 70 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[17]

M. Casas, M. Fortes, M. de Llano, A. Puente, and M.A. Sol ´ ıs, I nt. J. Theor. Phys. 34, 707 (1995)

View on Pith 1995
[18]

K. Miyake, Prog. Teor. Phys. 69, 1794 (1983)

View on Pith 1983
[19]

J. Bardeen, L.N. Cooper, and J.R Schrieﬀer, Phys. Rev. 108, 1175 (1957)

View on Pith 1957
[20]

M. Casas, A. Rigo, M. de Llano, O. Rojo, and M.A. Sol ´ ıs, Phys. L ett. A 245, 55 (1998)

View on Pith 1998
[21]

D. J´ erome, Science 252, 1509 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[22]

J.M. Williams, A.J. Schultz, U. Geiser, K.D. Carlson, A.M. Kini, H.H. Wan g, W.K. Kwok, M.H. Whangbo, and J.E. Schirber, Science 252, 1501 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[23]

H. Hori, Int. J. Mod Phys. B 8, 1 (1994)

View on Pith 1994
[24]

A. Bezryadin, C.N. Lau, and M. Tinkham, Nature 404, 971 (2000)

View on Pith 2000
[25]

C.N. Lau, N. Markovic, M. Bockrath, A. Bezryadin, and M. Tinkh am, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 217003 (2001)

View on Pith 2001
[26]

J.A. Wilson, Phil. Mag. 84, 2183 (2004). Also cond-mat/0304661. See esp. Fig. 2. 5

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[27]

J.E. Hoﬀman, K. McElroy, D.-H. Lee, K.M. Lang, H. Eisaki, S. Uchid a, and J.C. Davis, Science 297, 1148 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[28]

K. McElroy, R.W. Simmonds, J.E. Hoﬀman, D.-H. Lee, J. Orenstein , H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, and J.C. Davis, Nature 422, 592 (2003); see also article by J. Zaanen, p. 569

View on Pith 2003
[29]

J. Guimpel, F. de la Cruz, J. Murduck, and I.K. Schuller, Phys. Re v. B 35, 3655 (1987)

View on Pith 1987
[30]

A.H. Harker, Superconductivity II (2002) www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/ ∼ahh/teaching/3C25/ Lecture31p.pdf

View on Pith 2002
[31]

T. Jacobs, S. Sridhar, Q. Li, G.D. Gu, and N. Koshizuka, Phys. R ev. Lett. 75, 4516 (1995)

View on Pith 1995
[32]

D.A. Bonn, S. Kamal, K. Zhang, R. Liang, D.J. Baar, E. Klein, and W .N. Hardy, Phys. Rev. B 50, 4051 (1994)

View on Pith 1994
[33]

J.E. Sonier, J.H. Brewer, R.F. Kieﬂ, G.D. Morris, R.I. Miller, D.A. Bon n, J. Cakhalian, R.H. Heﬀner, W.N. Hardy, and R. Liang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4156 (1999)

View on Pith 1999
[34]

Z.K. Tang, L. Zhang, N. Wang, X.X. Zhang, G.H. Wen, G.D. Li, J.N. W ang, C.T. Chan, and P. Sheng, Science 292, 2462 (2001)

View on Pith 2001
[37]

C.J. Gorter and H.B.G. Casimir, Physica 1, 306 (1934)

View on Pith 1934
[38]

B. M¨ uhlschlegel, Z. Phys. 155, 313 (1959)

View on Pith 1959
[39]

A.B. Migdal, JETP 7, 996 (1958)

View on Pith 1958
[40]

J.M. Blatt, Theory of Superconductivity (Academic, New York, 1964) p. 204

View on Pith 1964
[41]

M. Casas, M. de Llano, A. Puente, A. Rigo, and M.A. Sol ´ ıs, Sol. S tate Comm. 123, 101 (2002), see esp. Fig. 1

View on Pith 2002
[42]

Y.H. Kim and P.-H. Hor, Mod. Phys. Letters B 15, 497 (2001)

View on Pith 2001
[43]

B. Lorenz, Z.G. Li, T. Honma, and P.-H. Hor, Phys. Rev. 65, 144522 (2002). 6

View on Pith 2002

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [36]

V.V. Tolmachev, Phys. Lett. A 266, 400 (2000)

View on Pith 2000

[2] [35]

M. de Llano and V.V. Tolmachev, Physica A 317, 546 (2003) , see esp. Fig. 1

View on Pith 2003

[3] [1]

A. Rosencwaig, Phys. Rev. B 67, 184514 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[4] [2]

J.R. Schrieﬀer, Theory of Superconductivity (Benjamin, New York, 1964) p. 33

View on Pith 1964

[5] [3]

A.L. Fetter and J.D. Walecka, Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Systems (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1971), p. 336, Prob. 10.4

View on Pith 1971

[6] [4]

S. Fujita, S. Godoy, Quantum Statistical Theory of Supercond uctivity (Plenum, NY, 1996)

View on Pith 1996

[7] [5]

M. Casas, S. Fujita, M. de Llano, A. Puente, A. Rigo, and M.A. Sol ´ ıs, Physica C295, 93 (1998)

View on Pith 1998

[8] [6]

S.K. Adhikari, M. Casas, A. Puente, A. Rigo, M. Fortes, M.A. Sol ´ ıs, M. de Llano, A.A. Valladares, and O. Rojo, Phys. Rev. B 62, 8671 (2000)

View on Pith 2000

[9] [7]

S.K. Adhikari, M. Casas, A. Puente, A. Rigo, M. Fortes, M. de Llan o, M.A. Sol ´ ıs, A. A. Valladares, and O. Rojo, Physica C 351, 341 (2001)

View on Pith 2001

[10] [8]

L.N. Cooper, Phys. Rev. 104, 1189 (1956)

View on Pith 1956

[11] [9]

M. Fortes, M.A. Sol ´ ıs, M. de Llano, and V.V. Tolmachev, Physica C 364-365, 95 (2001)

View on Pith 2001

[12] [10]

V.C. Aguilera-Navarro, M. Fortes, and M. de Llano, Sol. St. Com m. 129, 577 (2004)

View on Pith 2004

[13] [11]

P.W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. 112, 1900 (1958)

View on Pith 1958

[14] [12]

N.N. Bogoliubov, V.V. Tolmachev and D.V. Shirkov, A New Method in the Theory of Superconductivity (Consultants Bureau, NY, 1959)

View on Pith 1959

[15] [13]

P.W. Higgs, Phys. Lett. 12, 132 (1964)

View on Pith 1964

[16] [14]

J. Gavoret and P. Nozi` eres, Ann. Phys. (NY) 28 349 (1964)

View on Pith 1964

[17] [15]

P.C. Hohenberg and P.C. Martin, Ann. Phys. (NY) 34 291 (1965)

View on Pith 1965

[18] [16]

P. Gosdzinsky and R. Tarrach, Am. J. Phys. 59, 70 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[19] [17]

M. Casas, M. Fortes, M. de Llano, A. Puente, and M.A. Sol ´ ıs, I nt. J. Theor. Phys. 34, 707 (1995)

View on Pith 1995

[20] [18]

K. Miyake, Prog. Teor. Phys. 69, 1794 (1983)

View on Pith 1983

[21] [19]

J. Bardeen, L.N. Cooper, and J.R Schrieﬀer, Phys. Rev. 108, 1175 (1957)

View on Pith 1957

[22] [20]

M. Casas, A. Rigo, M. de Llano, O. Rojo, and M.A. Sol ´ ıs, Phys. L ett. A 245, 55 (1998)

View on Pith 1998

[23] [21]

D. J´ erome, Science 252, 1509 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[24] [22]

J.M. Williams, A.J. Schultz, U. Geiser, K.D. Carlson, A.M. Kini, H.H. Wan g, W.K. Kwok, M.H. Whangbo, and J.E. Schirber, Science 252, 1501 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[25] [23]

H. Hori, Int. J. Mod Phys. B 8, 1 (1994)

View on Pith 1994

[26] [24]

A. Bezryadin, C.N. Lau, and M. Tinkham, Nature 404, 971 (2000)

View on Pith 2000

[27] [25]

C.N. Lau, N. Markovic, M. Bockrath, A. Bezryadin, and M. Tinkh am, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 217003 (2001)

View on Pith 2001

[28] [26]

J.A. Wilson, Phil. Mag. 84, 2183 (2004). Also cond-mat/0304661. See esp. Fig. 2. 5

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[29] [27]

J.E. Hoﬀman, K. McElroy, D.-H. Lee, K.M. Lang, H. Eisaki, S. Uchid a, and J.C. Davis, Science 297, 1148 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[30] [28]

K. McElroy, R.W. Simmonds, J.E. Hoﬀman, D.-H. Lee, J. Orenstein , H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, and J.C. Davis, Nature 422, 592 (2003); see also article by J. Zaanen, p. 569

View on Pith 2003

[31] [29]

J. Guimpel, F. de la Cruz, J. Murduck, and I.K. Schuller, Phys. Re v. B 35, 3655 (1987)

View on Pith 1987

[32] [30]

A.H. Harker, Superconductivity II (2002) www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/ ∼ahh/teaching/3C25/ Lecture31p.pdf

View on Pith 2002

[33] [31]

T. Jacobs, S. Sridhar, Q. Li, G.D. Gu, and N. Koshizuka, Phys. R ev. Lett. 75, 4516 (1995)

View on Pith 1995

[34] [32]

D.A. Bonn, S. Kamal, K. Zhang, R. Liang, D.J. Baar, E. Klein, and W .N. Hardy, Phys. Rev. B 50, 4051 (1994)

View on Pith 1994

[35] [33]

J.E. Sonier, J.H. Brewer, R.F. Kieﬂ, G.D. Morris, R.I. Miller, D.A. Bon n, J. Cakhalian, R.H. Heﬀner, W.N. Hardy, and R. Liang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4156 (1999)

View on Pith 1999

[36] [34]

Z.K. Tang, L. Zhang, N. Wang, X.X. Zhang, G.H. Wen, G.D. Li, J.N. W ang, C.T. Chan, and P. Sheng, Science 292, 2462 (2001)

View on Pith 2001

[37] [37]

C.J. Gorter and H.B.G. Casimir, Physica 1, 306 (1934)

View on Pith 1934

[38] [38]

B. M¨ uhlschlegel, Z. Phys. 155, 313 (1959)

View on Pith 1959

[39] [39]

A.B. Migdal, JETP 7, 996 (1958)

View on Pith 1958

[40] [40]

J.M. Blatt, Theory of Superconductivity (Academic, New York, 1964) p. 204

View on Pith 1964

[41] [41]

M. Casas, M. de Llano, A. Puente, A. Rigo, and M.A. Sol ´ ıs, Sol. S tate Comm. 123, 101 (2002), see esp. Fig. 1

View on Pith 2002

[42] [42]

Y.H. Kim and P.-H. Hor, Mod. Phys. Letters B 15, 497 (2001)

View on Pith 2001

[43] [43]

B. Lorenz, Z.G. Li, T. Honma, and P.-H. Hor, Phys. Rev. 65, 144522 (2002). 6

View on Pith 2002