text:
# Scaling behaviour in the fracture of fibrous materials

## I Introduction

The nature of fracture of non-homogeneous materials is an important problem in material science research. Computer simulation of the fracture phenomenon are very useful since the analytical approachs is very difficult to perform. This difficulty arises from the non-uniform character of the material and their discrete nature, which are fundamental ingredients for understanding the rupture process . Usually, computer simulation in these materials gives interesting results, however the high degree of correlations between the constituents leads to a high computational cost. Bundles of unidirectional fibers form a system with low degree of correlations allowing the fracture process be simulated in a large scale.

The study of fibrous materials is not recent, as one can find in the work of Daniels , who in 1941 studied the rupture of a bundle of fibers with a known probability distribution of strength. Recently, Hansen and Hemmer  studied the distribution $`H(S)`$ of the sizes $`S`$ of burst avalanches, i. e., an instantaneous propagation of a crack. They found a power-law behaviour: $`H(S)S^\alpha `$ with the exponent $`\alpha `$ depending on how the load is shared between the fibers. For global load sharing, where the load is shared equally among non breaking fibers, they obtained $`\alpha =2.5`$. For local load sharing, when a fiber breaks its load is shared among nearest-neighbours no breaking fibers, they obtained $`\alpha =4.5`$. Those results have been obtained for a one-dimensional lattice of fibers, that is, the load sharing is the only correlation between the fibers. Other approaches have been introduced to discuss this problem . The role of the homogeneous support matrix on the failure of composite materials has also been discussed by some authors .

A model of a bundle of unidirectional fibers, which takes into account external parameters like temperature and velocity of traction, has been proposed in 1994 by Bernardes and Moreira . In this model, the correlations between the fibers are present through the probability of rupture of a fiber, which depends on the number of unbroken nearest neighbouring fibers. A cascade mechanism - inspired on models for avalanches - is used to propagate cracks through the material: when a fiber breaks, its neighbours are visited and can break too. In this model, all unbroken fibers have the same deformation, i.e, one has global load sharing. However, the cascade mechanism introduces a local effect. In a subsequent work, the dependence of the frequency of cracks with the crack sizes were used to determine the failure regimes. Two basic regimes were discussed: a regime where cracks of the size of the system were present and another one where only small cracks appeared. Those regimes were identified, respectively, with the brittle and ductile failure regimes. The criterion used to distinguish one regime from another was based on self-organized criticality, i.e, in the brittle-ductile transition region, cracks of all sizes were present. However, they did not take into account finite size effects in their analysis, which are very important in this type of process. In fact, a finite-size scaling analysis should be performed, in order to guarantee a better definition of the failure regimes.

The aim of the present paper is to introduce a criterion which defines the failure regimes on fibrous materials. When a fiber bundle breaks, two regimes can be observed: a catastrophic regime, when a sufficiently large number of fibers are simultaneously broken, and a slow process of successive rupture of fibers, here called shredding regime. The first regime occurs at low temperatures and/or high strains and are similar to a brittle fracture. It is characterized by the fact that an initial deformation produces a large crack which percolates through the bundle. The shredding regime occurs for higher temperatures and/or lower strains, and is similar to the ductile regime. In this case, the first deformations produce small cracks which weaken the bundle and thus cause its failure. The criterion is implemented by considering the static failure of a modified version of the model introduced by Bernardes and Moreira . A second order phase boundary between two regimes is found for a given strain. A finite-size scaling analysis is used to determine the critical temperature and exponents.

## II The Model

The model for the fibrous material here discussed consists of a bundle of $`N_0=L\times L`$ parallel fibers with a cross-section forming a triangular lattice. Each fiber has the same elastic constant $`k`$, and they are fixed at both ends to parallel plates. One plate is fixed and the other plate can be pulled by an external force. When the bundle is pulled by a force $`F`$, all fibers undergo the same linear deformation $`z=F/Nk`$, where $`N`$ is the number of unbroken fibers. We assume that a fiber has a failure probability which increases with the deformation $`z`$. When this deformation reaches a critical value $`z_c`$, the breaking probability of an isolated fiber is equal to one. When the bundle has a deformation $`z`$, a fiber $`i`$ has a failure probability related to its elastic energy and to the number of unbroken neighbouring fibers $`n_i`$, given by

$$P_i(\delta )=\frac{z/z_c}{n_i+1}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(kz^2/2)(kz_c^2/2)}{K_BT}\right),$$
(1)
Defining the strain of the material as $`\delta =z/z_c`$ and the normalized temperature as $`t=K_BT/E_c`$, where $`T`$ is the absolute temperature, $`E_c=kz_c^2/2`$ is the critical elastic energy and $`K_B`$ is the Boltzman constant, we can rewrite the failure probability as

$$P_i(\delta )=\frac{\delta }{n_i+1}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\delta ^21}{t}\right),$$
(2)
This definition of the failure probability is different from that used by Bernardes and Moreira, since now we have introduced $`\delta `$ as a multiplicative factor to impose that, for $`\delta =0`$, $`P_i(\delta )=0`$.

The static failure of a fiber bundle is produced by applying a constant force $`F_0`$ to the bundle, for example, by hanging a weight on the moving plate. The initial strain of the bundle is given by

$$\delta _0=\frac{z_0}{z_c}=\frac{F_0}{N_0kz_c}$$
(3)
The simulation of the rupture process proceeds as follows. At each time step of the simulation, we randomly choose a set of $`N_q(=qN_0)`$ unbroken fibers, where the number $`q`$ represents a percentage of fibers and it allows us to work with any system size. So, differently of an Ising model, where all the sites are “tested” at each time step, in our model only a number $`N_q`$ of randomly chosen unbroken fibers are tested. It represents the continuous growth of the bundle due to the continuous traction. For each chosen fiber, we evaluate the probability of rupture, using Eq. 1, and compare it with a random number in the interval \[0,1). If the random number is less than the failure probability, the fiber breaks. To simulate the load spreading, the same process is repeated for all neighbouring unbroken fibers. The failure probability of these neighbouring fibers increases due to the decreasing of $`n_i`$ and a cascade of breaking fibers may begin. This procedure describes the propagation of a crack through the fiber bundle, which occurs in all directions perpendicular to the force applied to the system. The cascade process stops when the test of the probability does not allow the rupture of any other fiber on the border of the crack or when the crack meets another already formed crack. This collision leads to the fusion of cracks, and it is the mechanism to explain the rupture of the material in the shredding regime. The same cascade propagation is attempted by choosing another fiber of the set $`N_q`$. After all the $`N_q`$ fibers have been tested, the strain is increased if some fibers have been broken. This new strain is the same for all the remaining unbroken fibers. Since the force is fixed (the weight hung on the bundle), the greater the number of broken fibers, the larger is the strain on the fibers, and the higher is the failure probability. Then, other set of $`N_q`$ unbroken fibers are chosen and the rupture process restarts. This process stops when all the fibers are broken, i.e, the bundle breaks apart. In this model, a combination of local and global load sharing occurs. That is, after a fiber breaks, a cascade may begin which simulates the local load sharing. When the cascade process stops, the stress is distributed equally between all unbroken fibers which is the global load sharing.

## III RESULTS

The failure probability (Eq. 2) can be written as

$$P_i(z)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(t,\delta )}{(n_i+1)},$$
(4)
where we introduce the parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t,\delta )`$ defined as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(t,\delta )=\delta \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\delta ^21}{t}\right).$$
(5)
For a triangular lattice (with coordination number 6) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t,\delta )6`$, the rupture of any fiber induces the rupture of the whole bundle, i.e., the bundle breaks with just one crack. Obviously, this crack forms a cluster which percolates through the entire system.

We can define the density of the percolation crack as

$$\rho =\frac{N_{pc}}{N_0},$$
(6)
where $`N_{pc}`$ is the number of broken fibers belonging to the percolating crack. Thus, when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t,\delta )6`$, we have $`\rho =1`$. On the other hand, as it has been observed in previous works , for higher temperatures and/or lower strains, the fracture of the bundle is caused by many small cracks, none of then large enough to percolate through the system. Thus, for a fixed temperature, if one starts with a large enough strain $`\delta _0`$ and one decreases it, the system goes from a regime where $`\rho =1`$ to another regime where $`\rho 0`$. This behaviour is the same as the one encountered in the percolation problem.

Figure 1 shows the density of the percolation cluster $`\rho `$ versus the initial strain $`\delta _0`$, for two different temperatures. As one sees, $`\rho =1`$ for high values of $`\delta _0`$, and jumps to zero for low enough value of $`\delta _0`$. So, we may assume that, for a fixed temperature, there is a critical value $`\delta _{0c}`$ above which one observes a percolation crack, and below which there is no percolation at all. Another interesting feature that one can observe in Figure 1 is that, if one substitutes into Eq. 5 the values of $`t`$ and $`\delta _{0c}`$ corresponding to the transition region ($`\delta _01.18`$ for $`t=1.0`$ and $`\delta _01.37`$ for $`t=4.0`$), we get for both instances $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t,\delta )1.73`$. The fundamental reason for obtaining this value wil be explained below.

In contrast to that described above, the same behaviour does not occur when we keep $`\delta _0`$ fixed and change the temperature. Figure 2 shows the results obtained for the density of the percolation cluster $`\rho `$ versus temperature $`t`$, for $`\delta _0=1.4`$. We observe that, initially, $`\rho `$ decreases as the temperature $`t`$ increases, and around $`t4.5`$, the value of $`\rho `$ seems to go to zero. However, an additional increase in the temperature will revert the process and a minimum appears. Note that at the point of minimum again ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t=4.5,\delta =1.4)1.73)`$, which is the same value reported above. For low temperatures ($`t<2.0`$), when a fiber breaks, the probability is so high that this rupture initiates a cascade which breaks the whole bundle. By increasing the temperature, a number of small cracks are formed, inhibiting the formation of a percolating cluster and the density $`\rho `$ decreases. However, all those processes occur in the first step of the simulation when $`N_q`$ attempts to break the bundle are performed. Thus, for $`t<4.5`$, the bundle has been broken due to the crack which percolates the system during the first $`N_q`$ attempts to break it. For $`t>4.5`$, all the first $`N_q`$ attempts do not succeed to generate a crack which percolates the bundle. However, some fibers have been broken and cracks were formed. In the second step of the simulation, a new value of $`\delta `$ is used (higher than $`\delta _0`$) and a new set of $`N_q`$ trials are chosen. But now one has a higher value for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t,\delta )`$ therefore it is easier to produce a large crack which percolates the bundle. By increasing the temperature, a smaller number of fibers are broken in the first $`N_q`$ attempts, and then, in the second step, the are more unbroken fibers and therefore the density $`\rho `$ increases, thus forming a minimum in the graph of Figure 2.

In fact, we can assume that there is a critical value for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t,\delta )1.73`$ that defines the transition between two regimes. In the first one, a catastrophic fracture occurs due to the first attempt to break the bundle, while in the second case the rupture of the bundle occurs due to the formation of small cracks, which weaken the bundle. A percolating crack may also occur in the second case, however the fracture dynamics is given by the weakening of the bundle not by the catastrophic propagation of a crack.

In order to consider the present model in the context of percolation theory, we shall use the parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as an arbitrary parameter without regarding it as a function of the strain $`\delta `$ and temperature $`t`$. Within the percolation point of view, we map the original model into a triangular lattice where the empty sites corresponds to the unbroken fibers. The parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the analog to the percolation probability. The algorithm for the mechanism of fracture is mapped into the following algorithm for the percolation problem. An empty site (unbroken fiber) $`i`$ is chosen at random; Its occupation (failure) probability $`P_i`$ is calculated by dividing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by the number of its neighbouring empty sites (unbroken fibers) plus one. This probability $`P_i`$ is compared with a random number $`r[0,1)`$; If $`P_i>r`$, the site is occupied (the fiber is broken) and a cluster (crack) can be formed, i.e, an empty neighbouring site (an unbroken neighbouring fiber) is randomly chosen and the process are repeated; Otherwise, another site, on $`N_q`$ in total, is chosen.

When a cluster is formed, we test if it percolated through the system. If it does, we calculate the density $`\rho `$ of the percolating cluster. Figure 3a shows the results obtained for several system sizes. Two regions are separated by the transition point $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c`$. The larger the system size, more clearly is the transition between those two regions. Observe in the detail, shown in Figure 3b, that a second order phase transition takes place at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c=1.733(1)`$. This implies that, at that point, clusters of all sizes should be present, as confirmed by the results shown in Figure 4. In this figure, the results have been obtained for a system size $`L=5000`$ ($`2.5\times 10^7`$ fibers) and averaged over 1000 samples (it took nearly 24h on a Sun Enterprise 8GB computer) which gives the following power law

$$H(S)S^\tau ,$$
(7)
where $`\tau =2.037\pm 0.007`$. A finite size analysis can be performed by plotting $`\tau (L)`$ as a function of $`L^{1/\nu }`$, where $`\nu `$ is the exponent related to the divergence of the correlation length at the transition. We tested several value of $`\nu `$ and the best linear fitting were obtained for $`\nu =4/3`$, as shown in Figure 5. This value corresponds to the exact exponent $`\nu `$ for percolation at $`d=2`$. The value of the exponent $`\tau `$ for an infinite lattice is, then, evaluated to be $`\tau (\mathrm{})=2.05\pm 0.01`$, in an excellent agreement with the theoretical value, $`\tau _{\mathrm{}}=2.055`$ .

In order to check if our problem belongs to the same universality as the percolation problem, we have done a finite-size scaling analysis by assuming the scaling law

$$\rho (\mathrm{\Gamma },L)=L^{\beta /\nu }\psi \left(ϵL^{1/\nu }\right),$$
(8)
where

$$ϵ=\left|1\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_c}\right|,$$
(9)
$`\psi `$ is a universal function of $`ϵL^{1/\nu }`$ only, and $`\beta `$ and $`\nu `$ are the critical exponents for the infinite lattice. Figure 6 shows the finize-size scaling plot $`\rho L^{\beta /\nu }`$ versus $`ϵL^{1/\nu }`$ for nine sizes of $`L`$. We have used $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c=1.733`$, $`\nu =4/3`$ and the best value of $`\beta `$ which validates Eq. 8 is $`\beta =0.14`$. This value is also in an excellent agreement with the known value for the usual percolation.

Now, returning to the original fracture model, we use Eq. 5 to obtain the critical temperature $`t_c`$ in terms of the critical parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c`$ and of the initial strain $`\delta _0`$

$$t_c=\frac{\delta _0^21}{\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_c)\mathrm{ln}(\delta _0)}.$$
(10)
Using this expression we plot the fracture regimes diagram, in the temperature $`t`$ versus the initial strain $`\delta _0`$ plane, depicted in Figure 7. Two fracture regimes are separated by a second order transition line. In region C the fracture is catastrophic and in region S we have the shredding regime. Note that the catastrophic regime only occurs for $`\delta _0>1`$ and for low temperatures. In this figure, the solid line corresponds to the analytical results, and the points were obtained by simulations.

## IV Conclusions

In conclusion, we have studied a model for fracture in fibrous materials in (2+1)-dimensions and shown the existence of two failure regimes: the catastrophic regime, where the initial deformation produces a single crack which percolates through the bundle; and the slowly shredding regime, where the initial deformation produces small cracks which gradually weaken the bundle. By using percolation theory and finize-size scaling arguments, we were able of finding the transition line between these regimes. Our results indicate that this transition is of second order. Finally, we have shown that this model belongs to the same universality class as the percolation problem.

Acknowledgements We thank H. J. Herrmann and J. A. Plascak for fruitful discussions and suggestions. C. Moukarzel and M. Continentino did important suggestions about the approach through percolation theory. We also thank O. F. de Alcantara Bonfim for helpful criticism of the manuscript. One of us (ATB) acknowledges the kind hospitality of the Depto de Física, UFMG. We also acknowledge CNPq and FAPEMIG (Brazilian agencies) for financial support. Most of our simulations have been performed on the Sun Enterprise 8GB computer of the CENAPAD MG/CO.


format: text

text:
# Linear to quadratic crossover of Cooper-pair dispersion relation

## I  Introduction

The large-momentum divergence in the Cooper pair (CP) problem  was originally eliminated by a momentum-space cutoff introduced in what is now known as the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) model interaction which was also successfully used by BCS in the study of conventional low-temperature superconductors . On the other hand, the short coherence length of some high-$`T_c`$ superconductors  possibly implies a stronger interfermion interaction. In the limit of very strong coupling one gets well-isolated “diatomic molecules” or dimers of fermions, as opposed to strongly overlapping CPs in the weak-coupling limit of BCS superconductivity . In strong coupling these dimers can conceivably undergo Bose-Einstein (BE) condensation (BEC). Although there is considerable controversy over the precise pairing dynamics in so-called “exotic”  superconductors, tracking this many-body problem from strong to weak coupling—known as the BCS-Bose crossover—has promoted the understanding of various properties of exotic materials .

Here we focus on how Cooper pairing itself evolves from weak to strong coupling. We also study the excitation of CPs with nonzero center-of-mass momentum (CMM), which should play an important role in a superconducting or superfluid transition of the many-fermion system simultaneously exhibiting both BCS and BE condensates as in the formulation by Friedberg and Lee  and more generally by Tolmachev .

The BCS model interaction simulates a phonon-mediated force which is effective in explaining the isotopic effect by appropriate momentum-space cutoffs placed symmetrically on either side of the Fermi surface . However, exotic materials do not exhibit such systematic isotopic effects. Also, as coupling increases the chemical potential $`\mu `$ decreases in value from the (positive) Fermi energy $`E_F`$ (its value at zero temperature and zero interaction), and even turns negative as the so-called Bose regime is entered . The Fermi surface then washes out, eliminating any physical motivation for the BCS model interaction with Fermi-surface dependent cutoffs. Alternatively, in the BCS-Bose crossover a renormalization procedure  may be used to handle the large-momentum divergences. This leads to a renormalized dynamical model expressible in terms of physical observables of the system rather than ad hoc cutoffs.

Here we derive renormalized $`t`$-matrix and Cooper equations for a pair of fermions which move in vacuum and in the Fermi sea, respectively. In three dimensions (3D) Cooper binding is expressed in terms of the two-fermion scattering length in vacuum. For a CP with a nonzero CMM we define a pair excitation energy as the (positive) difference between the CP binding energy at zero and at a finite CMM. For high fermion density and any coupling only a linear term in CMM dominates  the CP excitation, which was in fact mentioned as far back as 1964 (Ref. , p. 33). At any coupling and for vanishing fermion-number density a quadratic term dominates which is just the kinetic energy of the composite pair. The crossover from a linear to a quadratic dispersion for the pair excitation energy is then illustrated via numerical calculations.

The CP dispersion relation enters the BE distribution function of the boson number equation from which $`T_c`$ is extracted . The linear CP dispersion relation for weak coupling leads to novel phase-transition properties in either a heuristic  or a first-principles  BEC picture of superconductivity as BE-condensing CPs. It is common knowledge that BEC is possible only for dimensions $`d>2`$ for bosons with quadratic dispersion; this limitation reappears in virtually all BEC schemes thus far applied to explain superconductivity . But for bosons with a linear dispersion relation found here in weak and medium coupling, BEC can now occur for all $`d>1`$. This should be relevant in models of superconductivity encompassing both BCS and BE condensates .

In Sec. II the two-body problem is formulated in vacuum for a short-range, separable interaction. In Sec. III the renormalized CP equation is derived for nonzero CMM. In Sec. IV the CP dispersion relation in CMM is obtained numerically. Finally, Sec. V offers discussion and Sec. VI conclusions.

## II Two-body problem in vacuum

Consider $`N`$ fermions in a box with sides of length $`L`$ that interact via an S-wave short-range, attractive (rank-one) separable potential in 3D of the form

$$V_{pq}=(v_0/L^3)g_pg_q,$$
(1)
where $`v_00`$ is the interaction strength and $`g_p`$ are dimensionless form factors $`g__p=(1+p^2/p_0^2)^{1/2}`$ , where the parameter $`p_0`$ is the inverse range of the potential. Such an interaction model may mimic a wide variety of short-range effective interactions: a force mediated by phonons, plasmons, excitons, magnons, etc. or even a purely electronic interaction. Here $`p_0\mathrm{}`$ implies $`g__p=1`$ and corresponds to a zero-range potential. The advantage of potential (1) is that many problems then yield analytic solutions. The BCS model interaction is a special case of (1) when $`g_p`$ is constant in the interval $`E_F\mathrm{}\omega _D<`$ $`\mathrm{}^2p^2/2m<E_F+\mathrm{}\omega _D`$ and zero otherwise, where $`\omega _D`$ is the Debye frequency. More realistic potentials can be approximated by a rank-N separable potential .

The Lippmann-Schwinger equation for the $`t`$-matrix with potential (1) between two fermions each of mass $`m`$ in free space is

$$t_{pq}(E)=V_{pq}+\underset{k}{}V_{pk}\frac{1}{E\mathrm{}^2k^2/m+i0}t_{kq}(E),$$
(2)
where $`E`$ is the two-particle energy. For potential (1) the solution of Eq. (2) is

$$t_{pq}(E)=\frac{g_pg_q}{{\displaystyle \frac{L^3}{v_0}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_k^2}{E\mathrm{}^2k^2/m+i0}}}.$$
(3)
In the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$, the momentum sum may be replaced by an integral

$$\underset{k}{}\nu \frac{L^3}{(2\pi )^3}d^3k,$$
(4)
where $`\nu `$ is the spin degeneracy. Using (4), the zero-energy, on-shell $`t`$-matrix is given in terms of the (S-wave) scattering length $`a`$ by

$$t_{00}(0)=\frac{4\pi \mathrm{}^2a}{m\nu L^3},$$
(5)
Eq. (3) for $`E=0`$ then becomes

$$\frac{\nu }{4\pi }\frac{mL^3}{\mathrm{}^2a}=\frac{L^3}{v_0}+\underset{k}{}\frac{g_k^2}{\mathrm{}^2k^2/m},\text{ }$$
(6)
since $`g_01`$, where the $`i0`$ term in the denominator is unnecessary as the sum no longer diverges in the small $`k`$ limit.

## III Two-body (Cooper) problem in Fermi sea

The CP equation for two fermions above the Fermi sea with momentum wavevectors $`𝐤_1`$ and $`𝐤_2`$ is given by

$$[\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{m}E_K+\frac{\mathrm{}^2K^2}{4m}]C_k=_q^{^{}}V_{kq}C_q,$$
(7)
where $`𝐤\frac{1}{2}(𝐤_1𝐤_2)`$ is the relative, and $`𝐊𝐤_1+𝐤_2`$ the center-of-mass, momentum wavevectors, $`E_K2E_F\mathrm{\Delta }_K`$ the total pair energy, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K0`$ the CP binding energy, $`C_q`$ its momentum-space wave function, and the prime on the sum implies restriction to states above the Fermi surface: viz., $`|𝐤\pm 𝐊/2|>k_F`$, where $`k_F`$ is the Fermi wave number. For potential (1), Eq. (7) can be solved and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K`$ determined from

$$\underset{k}{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}\frac{g_k^2}{\mathrm{}^2k^2/m+\mathrm{\Delta }_K2E_F+\mathrm{}^2K^2/4m}=\frac{L^3}{v_0}.$$
(8)
Although the summand in Eq. (8) is angle-independent, the restriction on the sum arising from the full Fermi sea is a function of the relative wave vector $`𝐤`$, and therefore angle-dependent. The interaction strength $`v_0`$ in Eq. (8) may then be eliminated by combining with Eq. (6). Thus, in terms of the scattering length $`a`$, the renormalized CP equation is

$$\underset{k}{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}\frac{g_k^2}{\mathrm{}^2k^2/m+\mathrm{\Delta }_K2E_F+\mathrm{}^2K^2/4m}\underset{k}{}\frac{g_k^2}{\mathrm{}^2k^2/m}=\frac{m\nu L^3}{4\pi \mathrm{}^2}\frac{1}{a}.$$
(9)
For an attractive interaction with $`g_k=1`$ the sums in Eq. (9) have large-momentum divergences. However, each of the sums of Eq. (9) diverges in the same fashion so that the difference is finite. A similar renormalization of a general scattering equation can be performed . Also, renormalized BCS gap and number equations have been used in the BCS-Bose crossover problem . We shall determine the binding energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K`$ with Eq. (9) employing $`a`$ as interaction coupling parameter instead of the potential parameter $`v_0`$. In what follows variables are dimensionless and expressed in terms of $`k_F`$ or $`E_F\mathrm{}^2k_F^2/2m`$, viz., $`\xi k/k_F`$, $`\stackrel{~}{K}K/k_F`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_K\mathrm{\Delta }_K/E_F`$, $`\stackrel{~}{a}ak_F`$, etc.

The sums in Eq. (9) are transformed into integrals using Eq. (4). The restriction in the first term of Eq. (9) arising from the full Fermi sea leads to two expressions depending on whether $`\stackrel{~}{K}K/k_F`$ is $`<2`$ or $`>2`$, as discussed in the Appendix,

$$_0^{\pi /2}d\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta [_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }d\xi g_\xi ^2_{\xi _0(\theta )}^\mathrm{\Lambda }d\xi \frac{\xi ^2g_\xi ^2}{\xi ^2\alpha _K^2}]=\frac{\pi }{2\stackrel{~}{a}},\text{ }\stackrel{~}{K}<2,$$
(10)
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\pi /2}}`$ $`d\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta \left[{\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{\Lambda }}𝑑\xi g_\xi ^2{\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{\Lambda }}𝑑\xi {\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2g_\xi ^2}{\xi ^2+\beta _K^2}}\right]`$ (11)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\theta _0}}\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta {\displaystyle _{\xi _0^{}(\theta )}^{\xi _0(\theta )}}𝑑\xi {\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2g_\xi ^2}{\xi ^2+\beta _K^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\stackrel{~}{a}}},\text{ }\stackrel{~}{K}>2,`$ (12)
where $`\alpha _K^21\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_K/2\stackrel{~}{K}^2/4`$, $`\beta _K^2=\alpha _K^2`$, $`\xi _0(\theta )\sqrt{1\stackrel{~}{K}^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta /4}+\stackrel{~}{K}\mathrm{cos}\theta /2`$, $`\xi _0^{}(\theta )\sqrt{1\stackrel{~}{K}^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta /4}+\stackrel{~}{K}\mathrm{cos}\theta /2`$, $`\theta _0=\mathrm{arcsin}(2/\stackrel{~}{K})<\pi /2`$, with $`\theta `$ the angle between $`𝐤`$ and $`𝐊`$. To deal with the large-momentum divergences we have introduced a finite upper limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and eventually let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$. The momentum-space integrals in Eqs. (10) and (12) are easily performed for a zero-range interaction, i.e., with $`g_\xi =1`$. For CPs with $`\stackrel{~}{K}=0`$, only the first equation is of concern. Since in this case $`\xi _0(\theta )=1`$ and $`\alpha _K^2\alpha _0^2\beta _0^2=1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0/2`$ , one arrives at

$$1+\frac{\alpha _0}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{1\alpha _0}{1+\alpha _0}\right|=\frac{\pi }{2\stackrel{~}{a}},\alpha _0^2>0,$$
(13)
$$\frac{\pi }{2}\beta _0+1\beta _0\mathrm{arctan}\frac{1}{\beta _0}=\frac{\pi }{2\stackrel{~}{a}},\alpha _0^2<0.$$
(14)
These two equations relate the dimensionless scattering length $`\mathrm{}<\stackrel{~}{a}k_Fa<+\mathrm{}`$ to the dimensionless CP binding energy for zero CMM $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0\mathrm{\Delta }_0/E_F`$ for all coupling. Transcendental equation (13) can be solved for CP binding for weak coupling. In this limit the argument of the logarithm in Eq. (13) reduces to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0/8,`$ and one obtains

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0(8/e^2)\mathrm{exp}(\pi /|\stackrel{~}{a}|)\text{ (weak\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}coupling),}$$
(15)
a limit first reported by Van Hove. One can also find $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0`$ for strong coupling or for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0\mathrm{}.`$ Since in this limit $`\beta _0\mathrm{arctan}(1/\beta _0)1`$, we obtain from Eq. (14)

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_02/\stackrel{~}{a}^2\text{ (strong\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}coupling). }$$
(16)
Equations (13) and (14) were solved numerically to obtain the exact functional dependence of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0`$ on $`1/\stackrel{~}{a}`$ , and this is compared with asymptotic forms Eqs. (15) and (16). In Fig. 1 we plot $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_K`$ vs $`1/\stackrel{~}{a}`$ spanning weak to strong coupling. One sees how the asymptotic form given by Eq. (15) (short-dashed line) coincides with the exact $`\stackrel{~}{K}=0`$ result in weak coupling, whereas Eq. (16) (long-dashed curve) is also quite accurate over a sizeable region for strong coupling.

## IV  Cooper pair dispersion curves

Equations (10) and (12) are valid for all $`K0`$ and all coupling. They can be solved numerically for CP binding $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K`$ for any $`K`$. Before discussing numerical results we derive analytically the small-CMM behavior for zero range using $`g_\xi =1`$ for weak coupling in Eq. (10) which we take both for a small but non-zero $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ and for $`\stackrel{~}{K}=0`$, and then subtract one equation from the other. A small-CMM expansion of the resultant equation leads to the weak coupling expression

$$\underset{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_01}{lim}\epsilon {}_{K}{}^{}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}v_FK+O(K^2)+\mathrm{},$$
(17)
where a positive CP excitation energy  $`\epsilon _K(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Delta }_K)`$ has been defined, and the Fermi velocity $`v_F`$ is given by $`E_F/k_F=\mathrm{}v_F/2`$. The coefficient of the linear term depends only on properties of the Fermi sea and not on any parameters of the potential. In contrast, the complete excitation energy does depend on the coupling parameter $`\stackrel{~}{a}k_Fa.`$

It is this excitation energy that must enter the BE distribution function in determining the critical temperature in a picture of superconductivity as a BEC of CPs . The leading term in (17) is linear in the CMM, followed by a quadratic term. But it is only for sufficiently small fermion density, i.e., when $`k_F`$ or $`E_F0`$, and for any nonzero coupling, that the quadratic term dominates, viz.,

$$\epsilon {}_{K}{}^{}\frac{\mathrm{}^2K^2}{2(2m)}\text{}$$
(18)
the familiar nonrelativistic kinetic energy of the composite pair of mass $`2m`$ and CMM h $`K`$. As mentioned, it is this dispersion relation that has been assumed in virtually all BEC studies of superconductivity . However, recent calculations of root-mean-square radii in two (2D) and three (3D) dimensions in the BCS-Bose crossover scheme, when compared with experimental coherence lengths of several typical 2D cuprates  as well as of 3D materials , suggest that they are describable well within the BCS (weak-coupling) regime and away from the Bose (strong-coupling) one. This implies that the linear approximation to the dispersion relation would be relevant in these cases, and that perhaps a more general description of the BEC of CPs for all coupling might require the exact dispersion relation.

In Fig. 2 we display the reduced CP excitation energy $`\epsilon {}_{K}{}^{}/\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ as a function of reduced CMM $`K/k_F`$ for zero- and finite-range potentials. Note that the CPs break up when $`\epsilon {}_{K}{}^{}/\mathrm{\Delta }_0(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Delta }_K)/\mathrm{\Delta }_0=1`$, i.e., when $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K`$ vanishes and turns negative. These points are marked by dots in Fig. 2. For zero range we solve Eqs. (10) and (12) for $`g_\xi =1`$ and for typical values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0/E_F`$ spanning weak to strong coupling. For finite range we display results using $`g_p=(1+p^2/p_0^2)^{1/2}`$ with $`p_0=k_F`$ (i.e., range $`1/p_0`$ of the order of the average interfermion spacing $`1/k_F`$). Also shown in Fig. 2 is the quadratic approximation in $`K`$ as given by Eq. (18). We have labeled the curves by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0/E_F`$ as we found that the zero-range curves are closer to the corresponding finite-range ones than if they are labeled by $`1/k_Fa`$ as in Fig. 1. The linear approximation Eq. (17) is valid only in the very weak-coupling and/or high fermion density limit. The quadratic term dominates only at vanishing density, for any nonzero coupling. For finite-range interaction the crossover in Fig. 2 is characterized by an inflection point with positive slope while for zero-range there is no such inflection point.

## V Discussion

The single-CP problem treated here may appear academic at first. However, it has serious consequences. Our CPs are taken as “bosonic” even though they do not obey (Ref. p. 38) Bose commutation relations. This is because for a given $`K`$ they have indefinite occupation number since for fixed $`K`$ there are (in the thermodynamic limit) an indefinitely large number of allowed (relative wavenumber) $`k`$ values. Hence, for any coupling—and thus any degree of overlap between them—CPs do in fact obey the Bose-Einstein distribution from which BEC is determined. There have been attempts  to formulate the superfluid and superconducting transition problem in a many-fermion system by accommodating both BE and BCS condensed phases. In these studies, the BCS (BE) condensed phase dominates for weak (strong) coupling. For intermediate coupling one could have both types of condensation with a certain density of CP bosons (fermions) available for BE (BCS) condensation. However, the full boson dispersion relation should be used to calculate the BEC transition temperature.

The linear dispersion relation of a CP should not be confused with the linear dispersion of Anderson-Bogoliubov-Higgs (ABH) many-body excitation phonon-like modes. Collective modes in a superconductor were studied since the late 1950’s by several workers. A more recent treatment for 1D, 2D and 3D is available  which confirms the linear ABH form $`\mathrm{}v_FK/\sqrt{d}`$ for $`d`$ =1, 2 or 3 in the zero-coupling limit. ABH phonons (like photons or plasmons, etc.) cannot suffer a BEC as their number is always indefinite. The number of CPs, on the other hand, is fixed, say, at half the number of (pairable) fermions if all of these are imagined paired.

The above crossover of linear to quadratic forms of the CP dispersion relation was also found in 2D  so that we include both 2D and 3D cases in the following discussion of the BEC transition temperature $`T_c`$. The 2D case is specially interesting as $`T_c`$ is zero for the usual quadratic dispersion relation of CP bosons but nonzero for linear dispersion.

The general BEC $`T_c`$ formula for bosons in any dimension $`d`$ and with a general boson dispersion relation $`\epsilon _K=C_sK^s`$, for $`s`$ $`>0`$, is given  for $`d>s`$ by

$$T_c=\frac{C_s}{k_B}\left[\frac{s\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2)(2\pi )^dn_B}{2\pi ^{d/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/s)\zeta (d/s)}\right]^{s/d},$$
(19)
but vanishes for $`ds`$. Here $`n_B`$ is the number density of bosons of mass $`m_B`$, $`k_B`$ the Boltzmann constant, and $`\zeta (d/s)`$ the Riemann Zeta function. For quadratic dispersion $`s=2`$, $`C_s=\mathrm{}^2/2m_B`$ and in 3D $`\zeta (3/2)2.612`$ (19) leads to the familiar $`T_c`$ formula $`T_c3.31\mathrm{}^2n_B^{2/3}/m_Bk_B`$  and to the fact that $`T_c=0`$ for all $`d2`$. For the linear dispersion case $`s=1`$, and consequently $`T_c=0`$ for all $`d1`$ and $`T_c>0`$ for all $`d>1`$. The latter is precisely the range of effective dimensionalities for all known superconductors if one includes the quasi-1D organo-metallic Bechgaard salts .

Before discussing the consequences of the $`T_c`$ formula (19) with $`s=1`$ in superconductivity, we stress its limitations. Firstly, this $`T_c`$ formula with $`s=1`$ is derived with the linear dispersion relation predominant for weak to moderate coupling, while the full correct dispersion relation should be used in general. Secondly, in deriving this formula we have taken the full momentum space of CP bosons so that the momentum integrals run from 0 to $`\mathrm{}`$, whereas we have seen that the CPs break up above some specific momentum value so the integrals should run only from 0 to the breakup $`K_0`$. Thirdly, the effect of unpaired fermions in the background is ignored. Nevertheless, preliminary study shows  that once we remove these three limitations the result (19) for $`s=1`$ does not change drastically.

If one assumes that all fermions are paired into CP bosons so that the boson density $`n_B`$ is $`n/2`$ with $`n`$ $`N/L^3`$ the fermion density in the normal state, Eq. (19) with $`s=1`$ leads to huge values of $`T_c`$ $`10^3`$ K for weak to intermediate coupling—the region of interest in superconductivity even though $`T_c`$ empirically is at most about $``$ $`100`$ K. However, the number of paired fermions vulnerable to BEC is strongly coupling-dependent and generally  is only a small fraction of all the fermions so that $`n_B`$ in Eq. (19) is effectively much smaller than $`n/2`$. Thus, a realistic $`T_c`$ is certainly feasible. In the extreme weak coupling limit $`n_B0`$, driving the BEC $`T_c`$ to zero and allowing the BCS theory to be recovered from analyses as in Refs. . For higher coupling $`n_B`$ increases so that one accommodates both BE and BCS condensates. One can surmise that in a realistic theory of superconductivity BE and BCS condensates play their respective roles. Elaborate calculations must still be performed with the exact CP dispersion in order to find a more accurate $`T_c`$ for this many-body system.

## VI Conclusions

The single CP problem with non-zero CMM is studied as it evolves (or crosses over) by varying the interfermion short-range pair interaction from weak to strong. The CP excitation energy is exhibited as a function of its CMM. For weak coupling the correct excitation energy is a linear  dispersion relation in the CMM, which changes gradually to a quadratic relation as coupling increases and/or density is reduced to the vacuum limit. These results will play a critical role in a model of superconductivity that includes both BCS and BE condensates . With a quadratic dispersion the BEC $`T_c=0`$ in 2D, from which one might infer that BEC is irrelevant for quasi-2D cuprate superconductivity. However, even in 2D, nonzero BEC transition temperatures emerge for weak and medium coupling where the linear dispersion relation is found to dominate , thus vindicating the relevance of BEC for such materials. The pioneering attempts  developing a model of superconductivity accommodating BE and BCS condensates both assumed the quadratic dispersion relation for unbreakable CPs for all coupling. It would be interesting to reformulate those studies using the proper dispersion relation with a finite breakup momentum. Lastly, although our study is based on a separable potential we expect our conclusions on the CP dispersion to be valid more generally, and applicable to superconductivity, and to neutral-atom superfluidity such as in liquid <sup>3</sup>He and in trapped Fermi gases.

## VII Appendix

The restriction that both fermions lie above the Fermi sea in Eq. (9) can be written as

$$\left(𝐤/k_F\pm 𝐊/2k_F\right)^21=\xi ^2\pm \xi \stackrel{~}{K}\mathrm{cos}\theta +\stackrel{~}{K}^2/410,$$
(20)
where $`\xi k/k_F`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{K}K/k_F`$. The equality leads to two pairs of roots in $`\xi `$, say $`\xi _{1,2}=a\pm b`$ and $`\xi _{3,4}=a\pm b`$, where $`a(\stackrel{~}{K}/2)\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, $`b\sqrt{1(\stackrel{~}{K}^2/4)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }`$, and $`\theta `$ is the angle between $`𝐤`$ and $`𝐊`$.

For $`\stackrel{~}{K}<2`$, $`b>a`$, one root of the two pairs is positive and the other negative. Thus, Eq. (20) can be satisfied provided that $`\xi `$ $`>\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3,\xi _4`$, or specifically, if $`\xi >\xi _0(\theta )a+b.`$ For $`\stackrel{~}{K}>2`$ and $`\theta >\theta _0\mathrm{arcsin}(2/\stackrel{~}{K})`$, $`b`$ becomes imaginary and Eq. (20) is satisfied for all $`\xi `$. Therefore, there is no restriction in the integration over $`\xi `$. However, for $`\stackrel{~}{K}>2`$ and $`\theta <\theta _0`$, $`b<a`$ the pair of roots $`\xi _{1,2}`$ are both negative while the pair $`\xi _{3,4}`$ are both positive (with $`\xi _3>\xi _4`$). Consequently, in both cases Eq. (20) is satisfied only if $`\xi `$ is in the interval $`[0,\xi _0^{}(\theta )ab],`$ and in the interval $`[\xi _0(\theta ),\mathrm{}]`$ , respectively. Equation (9) is evaluated using these restrictions on the $`\xi `$ integration.

## VIII Acknowledgments:

M.deLl. thanks S. Fujita for discussions, D.M. Eagles for reading the manuscript, and V.V. Tolmachev for extensive correspondence. Partial support from UNAM-DGAPA-PAPIIT (Mexico) # IN102198, CONACyT (Mexico) # 27828 E, DGES (Spain) # PB95-0492 and FAPESP (Brazil) is gratefully acknowledged.

## IX Figure captions

1. Dimensionless CP binding energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K/E_F`$ calculated for zero-range interaction using Eqs. (10) and (12) for different CMM momentum $`K`$ ($`K/k_F=0,1,`$ and 3) versus the inverse dimensionless scattering length $`1/k_{F\text{ }}a`$. Short-dashed straight line (15) holds for weak coupling while long-dashed quadratic one (16) is valid for strong coupling.

2. Reduced CP excitation energy $`\epsilon _K/\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ versus $`K/k_F`$ for different reduced couplings measured in terms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0/E_F`$ calculated from Eqs. (10) and (12) for zero-range (full curves) and finite-range potential with $`p_0=k_F`$ (long-dashed). Short-dashed curves are the quadratic term of Eq. (18). Dots denote CMM wavenumbers $`K_0`$ where the CPs break up.