Absence of a BCS-BEC crossover in the cuprate superconductors
John Sous,1, ∗Yu He,2, †and Steven A. Kivelson1, ‡
1Department of Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA
2Department of Applied Physics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06511, USA
(Dated: October 16, 2023)
We examine key aspects of the theory of the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) to Bose-Einstein
condensation (BEC) crossover, focusing on the temperature dependence of the chemical potential,
µ. We identify an accurate method of determining the change of µin the cuprate high temperature
superconductors from angle-resolved-photoemission data (along the ‘nodal’ direction), and show that
µvaries by less than a few percent of the Fermi energy over a range of temperatures from far below
to several times above the superconducting transition temperature, Tc. This shows, unambiguously,
that not only are these materials always on the BCS side of the crossover (which is a phase transition
in the d-wave case), but are nowhere near the point of the crossover (where the chemical potential
approaches the band bottom).
INTRODUCTION
The zero temperature (T) superfluid density, ns(0),
of the cuprate high temperature superconductors is sev-
eral orders of magnitude smaller than that of conven-
tional superconductors [1–3]. Indeed (when translated
into energy units) it is comparable to the critical tran-
sition temperature (Tc) [3]. This has led to the proba-
bly inescapable inference that Tc, itself, is determined,
at least to a significant degree, by the condensation scale
(i.e. the phase ordering temperature, Tθ∝ns(0)), rather
than by the pairing scale (∼∆0/2), in contrast to the
case in the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) theory of
conventional superconductors. There is also compelling
evidence that some degree of clearly identifiable super-
conducting fluctuations - colloquially referred to as ‘pair-
ing without phase coherence’ - persists for a substantial
range (at least 20% or so) above Tc[4–14]. This has
been known for some time for the underdoped cuprates,
but it has recently become increasingly clear that the
same is true for many or all overdoped cuprates as well
(Fig. 1) [8, 13, 15]. Indeed, as a function of doping, the
onset temperature (however defined) of superconducting
fluctuations more closely parallels Tcthan it does the
conventionally defined pseudo-gap crossover.
However, what is unclear is why this occurs, and what
we should learn from this. One proposal is that this
should be taken as evidence that the system is approach-
ing a strong pairing situation, referred to as the Bose-
Einstein condensation (BEC) limit, in which the elec-
trons form non-overlapping charge 2ebosons at a scale
far above Tc[16–27]. However, as we will discuss be-
low, there are other conceptually distinct, yet equally
well understood circumstances in which Tcis determined
by phase ordering and in which Cooper pairing persists
above Tc. The purpose of this work is to analyze the
behavior that would be expected of a system either in
the BEC limit or approaching the BCS to BEC crossover
from the BCS side, and to present direct experimental
evidence that this is not the case for the cuprates.
FRAMING THE ISSUE
BCS theory is a weak coupling theory that is built on a
starting point that is the electronic structure from band
theory. The BEC limit invokes electronic bound states.
In the former case, the pairing is highly collective and
the chemical potential, µ, is only weakly affected by the
advent of pairing. In the latter, the chemical potential
- by the definition of a bound state - must approach a
value that lies below the band bottom as T→0. These
differences do not refer to subtle low-energy phenomena
but rather to entirely different regimes of microscopic
physics on energy scales of the order of the Fermi energy,
EF, or larger [32].
From this perspective, the fact that the Fermi surface
and general features of the electron dispersion seen in
ARPES experiments across the superconducting dome
of the cuprates are more or less in agreement with expec-
tations from band-structure calculations appears to be
inconsistent with any large excursions toward the BEC
limit. (This is illustrated in Fig. 2.) Emergent features
of the low energy physics, such as a normal state pseudo-
gap that competes with superconductivity (apparent be-
low some generally relatively ill-defined T⋆) [7, 33–39]
and various low energy kinks in the dispersion relations
are certainly interesting and important, but occur on en-
ergy scales small compared to EF[40–43]. The fact that
the application of magnetic fields large enough to quench
superconductivity produces quantum oscillations [44] is
further evidence that pairing is a collective property of
the superconducting state rather than a microscopic fea-
ture associated with bound-state formation [45].
One important feature of the superconducting state in
the cuprates is that it has d-wave symmetry and gap-
less, nodal quasi-particle excitations [46]. There can
be no nodal quasi-particles in the BEC limit. (See
Ref. [47].) Thus, for this d-wave case, the BCS to BEC
crossover [24, 26] would constitute a (Lifshitz) phase
transition from a nodal to a nodeless state [47, 48]. The
existence of well defined nodes is, of itself, proof that
arXiv:2210.13478v2 [cond-mat.supr-con] 12 Oct 2023