format: text

text:
# Cooper pairing with finite angular momentum: BCS vs Bose limits

## I Introduction

Since the original formulation of BCS theory Bardeen et al. (1957); de Gennes (1966) there has been great interest in possible new phenomena arising from its generalisation. The earliest example concerns the possibility of Cooper pairs having angular momentum quantum number $`l>0`$, thus breaking the rotational symmetry of the continuum Balian (1964); Anderson and Brinkman (1975). Such speculations were based on the assumtion of a different *shape* of the potential describing the effective attraction between fermions. Another generalisation concerned *stronger* values of the fermion-fermion attraction. It was realised that there is a crossover, as this strength is increased, from a BCS superfluid to a Bose-Einstein condensate of non-overlapping pairs Eagles (1969), with a dramatic effect on the critical temperature Pincus et al. (1973). It turned out that the ground state can be described by a straightforward generalisation of BCS theory Leggett (1980), while the superconducting instability requires taking into account “preformed pair” (PP) fluctuations in the normal state Nozières and Schmitt-Rink (1985).

Experimentally, Cooper pairing with $`l>0`$ was first observed in the superfluid state of 3He. Moreover since the discovery of superconductivity in cuprate preovskites Bednorz and Müller (1986), whose pairs have $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ symmetry Annett et al. (1996), several families of “anomalous superconductors” have been found. Many of these materials present exotic pairing in the form of a superconducting state that breaks the rotational symmetry of the crystal, and they often deviate from BCS theory in several other ways Annett (1999). This led to a resurgence of interest in the BCS to Bose crossover Micnas et al. (1990); Gyorffy et al. (1991); Drechsler and Zwerger (1992); Alexandrov and Rubin (1993); Haussmann (1993); Pistolesi and Strinati (1994); Haussmann (1994); Pistolesi and Strinati (1996); de Melo et al. (1993); Engelbrecht et al. (1997); Babev and Kleinert (1998, 1999); Andrenacci et al. (2000); Chen et al. (2000); Ohashi and Griffin , particularly in models with exotic pairing Randeria et al. (1990); Stintzing and Zwerger (1997); Engelbrecht et al. (1998); den Hertog (1999); Andrenacci et al. (1999); Wallington and Annett (2000); Soares et al. (2002); Quintanilla et al. (2002). On the other hand little attention has been given to the physics of the crossover in the context of the original discussions of exotic pairing Balian (1964); Anderson and Brinkman (1975), namely when a central attraction, in a continuum, leads to Cooper pairing with $`l>0`$. In fact this is a specially interesting case since the two-body ground state is guaranteed, under quite general conditions, Landau and Lifshitz (1958) to have $`l=0`$, making exotic pairing necessarily a many-body effect. Some obvious questions arise: What type of isotropic interactions lead to exotic pairing, and under what conditions? Is exotic pairing possible in the Bose-Einstein (BE) limit, when the BCS ground state is a condensate of non-overlapping pairs Eagles (1969); Pincus et al. (1973); Leggett (1980); Nozières and Schmitt-Rink (1985)? Moreover the recent achievement of Fermi degeneracy in magnetically trapped, ultra-low temperature gases has stimulated speculations that superfluidity Bruun et al. (1999); Combescot (2001); Holland et al. (2001) and indeed the BCS-Bose crossover Ohashi and Griffin  may be observable in these systems. Understanding the above questions may guide us as to whether exotic pairing is also a possibility.

Recently, we and our co-authors have studied the above questions in a simple model that features exotic pairing via a central attraction Quintanilla et al. (2002). In this contribution we revisit them with a more general point of view, using some of the results obtained for the “delta shell model” (DSM) of Ref. Quintanilla et al. (2002) as an illustration. We begin section II by reminding the reader how, as a consequence of the weak-coupling theory of superconductivity, a central potential can, *in principle*, lead to exotic pairing Balian (1964); Anderson and Brinkman (1975). Then we take this old argument one little step further by asking: what is the essential feature that makes a particular interaction potential, *in practice*, lead to this effect? Having established the existence of such potentials, and knowing what they look like, we move on to outline, in section III, the main features of a simple, but fairly general theory of the BCS to Bose crossover. Our formalism follows a recipe that has, by now, become standard Randeria (1995) (though not the only one Gyorffy et al. (1991); Chen et al. (2000)): to introduce bosonic pairing fields via a Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation (HST) Bender and Orszag (1978); Nagaosa (1999) and then expand the action to quadratic (Gaussian) order in those fields. Although limited Haussmann (1993, 1994), such scheme suffices for the discussion of the BCS and BE limits. The novelty of our formulation is that pairs may be created and annihilated with different values of their angular momentum quantum numbers. In contrast, many previous applications of the Gaussian theory assumed these internal degrees of freedom of the Cooper pairs to be “frozen” to the desired $`s`$ Drechsler and Zwerger (1992); de Melo et al. (1993) or $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ Stintzing and Zwerger (1997) state. As we shall see these internal degrees of freedom turn out to be important, determining some of the key features of the problem. In sections IV and V we apply the formalism to discuss the ground state and the superconducting instability, respectively, in the BE limit, where the original argument for exotic pairing cannot be applied. Finally, in section VI, we offer our conclusions.

## II Central potentials leading to exotic pairing

Let us begin by recalling some central ideas of the original weak-coupling theory of exotic pairing Balian (1964); Anderson and Brinkman (1975). Consider a system of electrons, in a three-dimensional continuum, interacting via some local, non-retarded, central potential $`V\left(𝐫𝐫^{}\right)=V\left(\left|𝐫𝐫^{}\right|\right)`$. For simplicity we will assume the interaction to take place between electrons with opposite spins and limit our discussion to the case of singlet pairing, with angular momentum quantum number $`l=0,2,4,\mathrm{}`$ As is well-known the Fourier transform

$$V\left(𝐤𝐤^{}\right)=d^3𝐫e^{i\left(𝐤𝐤^{}\right).𝐫}V\left(𝐫\right)$$
(1)
admits the partial-wave decomposition

$$V(𝐤𝐤^{})=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}K_l\left(\right|𝐤|,|𝐤^{}\left|\right)(2l+1)P_l(\widehat{𝐤}.\widehat{𝐤}^{})$$
(2)
in terms of the Legendre polynomials $`P_l(\widehat{𝐤}.\widehat{𝐤}^{})=(2l+1)^14\pi _mY_{l,m}\left(\widehat{𝐤}\right)Y_{l,m}^{}\left(\widehat{𝐤}^{}\right)`$. It was soon pointed out Balian (1964) that in the weak-coupling limit one can use the approximation

$$V(𝐤𝐤^{})K_{l_{max}}(2l_{max}+1)P_{l_{max}}(\widehat{𝐤}.\widehat{𝐤}^{}),$$
(3)
where $`l_{max}`$ is the value of $`l`$ for which the coupling constant on the Fermi surface,

$$K_lK_l(k_F,k_F),$$
(4)
is largest ($`k_F`$ is the Fermi vector). The approximate form (3) of the potential $`V\left(𝐤𝐤^{}\right)`$ is, for $`l_{max}>0`$, anisotropic, and it leads to pairing with finite angular momentum quantum number $`l_{max}`$ Balian (1964).

Let us now try to understand how the preference for a particular value of $`l`$ comes about. To do this one has to examine the relationship between the coupling constant $`K_l`$ and the interaction potential $`V\left(r\right)`$. It can be found by expanding in spherical waves the two exponentials $`e^{i𝐤.𝐫}`$ and $`e^{i𝐤^{}.𝐫}`$ in Eq. (1); comparison to (2) yields

$$K_l(\left|𝐤\right|,\left|𝐤^{}\right|)=\left(1\right)^l_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi r^2j_l\left(\left|𝐤\right|r\right)V\left(r\right)j_l\left(\left|𝐤^{}\right|r\right),$$
(5)
where $`j_l\left(x\right)`$ is a spherical Bessel function. Substituing (5) in (4) we obtain

$$K_l=\left(1\right)^l_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi r^2j_l\left(k_Fr\right)^2V\left(r\right).$$
(6)
Thus $`K_l`$ is a weighted integral of the interaction potential $`V\left(r\right)`$. The weighting factors $`j_l\left(k_Fr\right)^2`$ are shown in Fig. 1 for $`l=0,2,4,\mathrm{}`$ Evidently for a purely attractive, monotonic potential, such as the one in Fig. 2 (a), $`l_{max}=0`$. To have $`l_{max}>0`$, $`V\left(r\right)`$ has to be most attractive at distances at which the weighting factors for a finite value of the angular momentum quantum number are largest. That is achieved by non-monotonic potentials that lead to maximum attraction at some finite distance $`r_0`$, such as the one in Fig. 2 (b). For example, provided that the width of the potential well centred on $`r_0`$, namely $`r_c`$ (see figure), is sufficiently small, choosing $`r_0`$ so that $`k_Fr_03`$ yields $`l_{max}=2`$.

## III Basic theory of the BCS to Bose crossover

The above discussion implies that, in the BCS limit, exotic pairing can be described by an effectively anisotropic interaction, Eq. (3). On the other hand we would like to describe the ground state and the superconducting instability also in the BE limit, where such approximation may not (and, as we shall see, does not) apply. For this we need to develop our theory in a more general framework, and in particular it is important to work with a complete description of the interaction potential. For concreteness let us write down explicitely the grand-canonical Hamiltonian for the situation at hand. At chemical potential $`\mu `$, it is (Nozières and Schmitt-Rink, 1985, Eq. (1) (for example))

$`\widehat{H}\mu \widehat{N}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}}\epsilon _𝐤\widehat{c}_{𝐤,\sigma }^+\widehat{c}_{𝐤,\sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪,𝐤,𝐤^{}}{}}V(𝐤𝐤^{})\times `$ (7)
$`\times \widehat{c}_{𝐪/2+𝐤,}^+\widehat{c}_{𝐪/2𝐤,}^+\widehat{c}_{𝐪/2𝐤^{},}\widehat{c}_{𝐪/2+𝐤^{},},`$
It is particularly illustrative to re-write it in the following way:

$`\widehat{H}\mu \widehat{N}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}}\epsilon _𝐤\widehat{c}_{𝐤,\sigma }^+\widehat{c}_{𝐤,\sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\kappa ,l,m}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}V_{\kappa ,l}\widehat{b}_{\kappa ,l,m,𝐪}^+\widehat{b}_{\kappa ,l,m,𝐪}.`$ (8)
Here, $`\widehat{c}_{𝐤,\sigma }^+,\widehat{c}_{𝐤,\sigma }`$ create and annihilate, respectively, and electron with momentum $`\mathrm{}𝐤`$ and spin $`\sigma =,`$. $`\epsilon _𝐤\mathrm{}^2\left|𝐤\right|^2/2m^{}\mu `$ is the single-particle dispersion relation ($`m^{}`$ is the effective mass of an electron) and $`L^3`$ is the (very large) sample volume. The additional operators

$`\widehat{b}_{\kappa ,l,m,𝐪}^+`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\varphi _{\kappa ,l,m,𝐤}\widehat{c}_{𝐪/2+𝐤}^+\widehat{c}_{𝐪/2𝐤}^+,`$ (9)
$`\widehat{b}_{\kappa ,l,m,𝐪}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\varphi _{\kappa ,l,m,𝐤}^{}\widehat{c}_{𝐪/2𝐤}\widehat{c}_{𝐪/2+𝐤}.`$ (10)
create and annihilate, respectively, a pair with opposite spins, total momentum $`\mathrm{}𝐪`$ and internal wave function $`\varphi _{\kappa ,l,m,𝐤}R_{\kappa ,l}\left(\left|𝐤\right|\right)Y_{l,m}\left(\widehat{𝐤}\right)`$, where $`\mathrm{}𝐤`$ is the momentum of one of the two components of the pair with respect to its centre of mass. To put the generic Hamiltonian (7) in the form (8) it suffices to define the “kernel factors” $`R_{\kappa ,l}\left(\left|𝐤\right|\right)`$ and “coupling constants” $`V_{\kappa ,l}`$ so that they yield the following parametrization:

$$K_l(\left|𝐤\right|,\left|𝐤^{}\right|)=\frac{1}{4\pi }\underset{\kappa }{}V_{\kappa ,l}R_{\kappa ,l}\left(\left|𝐤\right|\right)R_{\kappa ,l}^{}\left(\left|𝐤^{}\right|\right).$$
(11)
We may construct the $`\varphi _{\kappa ,l,m,𝐤}`$ and $`V_{\kappa ,l}`$ as a complete set of solutions to the eigenvalue problem

$$\underset{𝐤^{}}{}V\left(𝐤𝐤^{}\right)\varphi _{\kappa ,l,m,𝐤^{}}=V_{\kappa ,l}\varphi _{\kappa ,l,m,𝐤},$$
(12)
which can be regarded as the result of neglecting, for strong attraction, the kinetic energy contribution to the Schrödinger equation for a two-body bound state.

Eq. (8) generalises the usual BCS Hamiltonian by including interaction terms corresponding to pairs with $`\mathrm{}𝐪0`$ and different values of the the internal angular momentum, given by $`l,m`$. This is required for the correct description of the normal state above $`T_c`$ in the strong-coupling limit Nozières and Schmitt-Rink (1985) and, as we shall see, to capture the essential physics of exotic pairing via a central potential, respectively. The later can be understood, in essence, by noting that the angular momentum quantum numbers $`l,m`$ describe the internal rotational degrees of freedom of the Cooper pairs, and so they are a key ingredient to describe their dynamics in the case of a central attraction. The additional index $`\kappa `$ has been introduced to ensure the generality of (11), and it refers to the relative motion of the electrons in a pair in the radial direction. Evidently for interaction potentials of the type we are interested in such radial motion is “locked” so that the distance between the two electrons remains constant, and equal to $`r_0`$. We will therefore disregard these vibrational modes, assuming that there is a single kernel factor $`R_l\left(\left|𝐤\right|\right)`$ for each value of $`l`$. Obviously in that case there is a single coupling constant $`V_l`$ for each value of the angular momentum quantum number. This approximation becomes exact in the limit when $`r_c0`$ and $`V\left(r_0\right)\mathrm{}`$, keeping $`V\left(r_0\right)r_cg`$ constant. Then we obtain the DSM Quintanilla and Gyorffy (2000), featuring the central “delta shell” potential Gottfried (1966)

$$V\left(𝐫𝐫^{}\right)=g\delta \left(\left|𝐫𝐫^{}\right|r_0\right),$$
(13)
for which Quintanilla et al. (2002)

$$K_l(\left|𝐤\right|,\left|𝐤^{}\right|)=g4\pi r_0^2\left(1\right)^lj_l\left(\left|𝐤\right|r_0\right)j_l\left(\left|𝐤^{}\right|r_0\right).$$
(14)
More generally, it must be regarded as a convenient approximation, valid when the potential well in Fig. 2 (b) is sufficiently deep and narrow.

Having set up our Hamiltonian, we can now use the standard method reviewed by Randeria Randeria (1995), which has been applied to specific models by several authors Drechsler and Zwerger (1992); de Melo et al. (1993); Stintzing and Zwerger (1997); Engelbrecht et al. (1997), to discuss the ground state at $`T=0`$ and the superconducting instability at $`T_c`$. In short we introduce bosonic fields $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{l,m,𝐪}\left(\tau \right),\mathrm{\Delta }_{l,m,𝐪}^{}\left(\tau \right)`$ coupling to the pair creation and annihilation operators $`\widehat{b}_{l,m,𝐪}^+,\widehat{b}_{l,m,𝐪}`$, respectively. In terms of these fields one can define an effective action $`S_{eff}[\mathrm{\Delta }^{},\mathrm{\Delta }]`$ that determines the partition function of the system:

$$Z=D[\mathrm{\Delta }^{},\mathrm{\Delta }]e^{S_{eff}[\mathrm{\Delta }^{},\mathrm{\Delta }]}.$$
(15)
We then expand it to the lowest non-trivial (Gaussian) order:

$$S_{eff}[\mathrm{\Delta }^{},\mathrm{\Delta }]S_{eff}[\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)},\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}]+S_{eff}^{(2)}[\mathrm{\Delta }^{},\mathrm{\Delta }].$$
(16)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{l,m,𝐪}^{(0)}\left(\tau \right),\mathrm{\Delta }_{l,m,𝐪}^{(0)}\left(\tau \right)`$ is the configuration of the pairing fields at the saddle point and the Gaussian contribution, $`S_{eff}^{(2)}[\mathrm{\Delta }^{},\mathrm{\Delta }]`$, takes into account fluctuations of the fields about that saddle point.

## IV Exotic pairs in the ground state

In the ground state, the pairing fields become “frozen” in their saddle-point configurations Randeria (1995). $`S_{eff}^{(2)}[\mathrm{\Delta }^{},\mathrm{\Delta }]`$ acquires a trivial form such that $`D[\mathrm{\Delta }^{},\mathrm{\Delta }]\mathrm{exp}\left\{S_{eff}^{(2)}[\mathrm{\Delta }^{},\mathrm{\Delta }]\right\}=1`$, Eq. (15) thus becoming $`Z=\mathrm{exp}\left\{S_{eff}[\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)},\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}]\right\}`$. As usual we look for a stationary and homogeneous saddle point:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{l,m,𝐪}^{(0)}\left(\tau \right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{l,m}^{(0)}\delta _{𝐪,0},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{l,m,𝐪}^{(0)}\left(\tau \right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{l,m}^{(0)}\delta _{𝐪,0},`$
which yields the BCS ground state de Gennes (1966). As is well-known this state can describe, at least variationally, the BCS to Bose crossover at $`T=0`$ Leggett (1980); Nozières and Schmitt-Rink (1985); Andrenacci et al. (1999). The amplitudes $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{l,m}^{(0)}`$ are related to the expectation values of the pair annihilation operators by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{l,m}^{(0)}=V_l\widehat{b}_{l,m,0}`$. The equations determining the saddle point take the following form:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{l,m}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`V_l{\displaystyle \underset{l^{},m^{}}{}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐤}{\left(2\pi \right)^3}\frac{\varphi _{l,m,𝐤}^{}\varphi _{l^{},m^{},𝐤}}{2E_𝐤}}\right\}\mathrm{\Delta }_{l^{},m^{}}^{(0)}`$ (17)
where $`E_𝐤\sqrt{\epsilon _𝐤^2+\left|\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤\right|^2}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤_{l,m}\mathrm{\Delta }_{l,m}^{(0)}R_l\left(\left|𝐤\right|\right)Y_{l,m}\left(\widehat{𝐤}\right)`$ the usual BCS “gap function”. Evidently this non-linear system of equations may have many different solutions, each corresponding to a different superposition of angular momentum states. To determine their relative stability one has to evaluate the appropriate potential. If, as usual, we fix the density $`n`$, treating the chemical potential $`\mu `$ as a parameter to be determined self-consistenly Nozières and Schmitt-Rink (1985), the energy $`𝒰_0=\widehat{H}`$ has to be calculated. Quite generally, it is given by

$$\frac{1}{L^3}𝒰_0=\frac{d^3𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{\mathrm{}^2\left|𝐤\right|^2}{2m^{}}\left(1\frac{\epsilon _𝐤}{E_𝐤}\right)+\underset{l,m}{}\frac{\left|\mathrm{\Delta }_{l,m}^{(0)}\right|^2}{V_l}$$
(18)
which results from taking the $`T0`$ limit of $`L^3\widehat{H}=L^3\beta ^1\mathrm{ln}Z+\mu n`$.

The above equations are entirely equivalent to the usual mean-field theory Ketterson and Song (1999) for a sufficiently general interaction potential (at least, when only pairing correlations are taken into account). In particular, in the limit of very weak attraction (BCS limit), the argument of section II applies. Thus we expect that, for the type of interaction that we are interested in, represented in Fig. 2 (b), pairing with $`l=2`$ will be preferred to $`l=0`$ for a range of values of the density, $`n=k_F^3/3\pi ^2`$, such that $`k_Fr_03`$. In the extreme case in which the attraction takes place only exactly at $`r=r_0`$ one expects the densities at which the preferred value $`l_{max}`$ of the angular momentum quantum number changes to be given by

$$j_0\left(k_Fr_0\right)^2=j_2\left(k_Fr_0\right)^2$$
(19)
This result, which is degenerate in the quantum number $`m`$, is exact for the DSM (13), and it gives the boundaries of a *quantum phase transition* in which the ground state changes the rotational symmetry.

On the other hand in the dilute, strong coupling limit (BE limit), there is no longer a well-defined Fermi surface and the approximation (3) ceases to be useful. The gap equation (17) describes a two-body bound state with energy $`\epsilon _b^l=2\mu `$ and wave function $`\psi _𝐤=\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤/2E_𝐤`$ Leggett (1980); Nozières and Schmitt-Rink (1985); Randeria et al. (1990) and so, evidently, the full functional form of the interaction potential $`V\left(𝐫𝐫^{}\right)`$ has to be taken into account. Since $`l`$ is a good quantum number for the Schrödinger equation, a well-defined angular momentum is a shared characteristic of the BCS and BE limits. On the other hand it is easy to show, using $`\mu \left|\mathrm{\Delta }_{l,m}^{(0)}\right|`$, that in the BE limit Eq. (18) becomes

$$\frac{1}{L^3}𝒰_0=\frac{1}{2}n\epsilon _b^l.$$
(20)
This equation has a simple interpretation: in the dilute, strong-coupling limit, the system is a BE condensate of non-overlapping pairs. Each pair has $`\mathrm{}𝐪=0`$ and they are all in the same internal state with energy $`\epsilon _b^l`$. It follows that the energy of the system is given simply by the formation energies of the individual pairs. Since, for a central potential, the bound state with lowest energy always has $`l=0`$, one expects that *rotational symmetry is never broken in the BE limit*.

Fig. 3 shows a specific result for the DSM Quintanilla et al. (2002) that illustrates the above points. It is a phase diagram for the relative stability of ground states in which Cooper pairs have $`s`$ and $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ symmetries. At weak coupling, pairing with $`l=0`$ is preferred at low and high densities, with a quantum phase transition leading to the onset of $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ pairing in the intermediate-density regime. The location of the phase boundary is accurately predicted by Eq. (19). In contrast, as the attraction is made stronger the range of densities over which the state with $`l=2`$ is preferred becomes narrower until, above some critical value of the coupling constant, rotational symmetry is restored for all values of the density. The $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ state is thus confined to a relatively small “island” in parameter space. This result not only confirms our expectation that pairing should take place in the $`s`$ state in the BE limit, but in fact suggests that $`l=0`$ is preferred at all densities, provided that the attraction is sufficiently strong. However note that the phase boundary, at finite values of the coupling constant $`g`$, is not necessarily degenerate in $`m`$ (unlike at weak coupling). Thus investigations carried out with more general trial ground states (allowing, for example, for mixing of $`s`$ and $`d`$ symmetries) have to be carried out.

## V Superconducting critical temperature for exotic pairs

When the attraction is strong, fluctuations around the saddle-point configurations of the fields are important to determine the low-lying excitations of the BCS ground state Alexandrov and Rubin (1993); Engelbrecht et al. (1997) as well as to describe the superconducting instability at $`T_c`$ Drechsler and Zwerger (1992); de Melo et al. (1993); Stintzing and Zwerger (1997). Our interest here is in the later, as we wish to see whether such instability can correspond, in the strong-coupling, low-density limit, to the formation of a BE condensate of *exotic* pairs.

Just above $`T_c`$, the partition function (15) is given by

$$Z=Z_0\times \delta Z$$
(21)
where $`Z_0=\mathrm{exp}\left\{S[0,0]\right\}`$ corresponds to a free electron gas while $`\delta Z=D[\mathrm{\Delta }^{},\mathrm{\Delta }]\mathrm{exp}\left\{S_{eff}^{(2)}[\mathrm{\Delta }^{},\mathrm{\Delta }]\right\}`$ is the contribution from PP just above $`T_c`$. The normal state is composed of a mixture of two gases, one made out of free electrons and the other one consisting of PP. In effect, on account of (21) the total electron density $`n(\beta ,\mu )=L^3k_BT\mathrm{ln}Z/\mu `$ can be written as

$$n(\beta ,\mu )=n_0(\beta ,\mu )+\delta n(\beta ,\mu )$$
(22)
where the first and second terms on the right hand side come from $`Z_0`$ and $`\delta Z`$, respectively. In particular the contribution from free electrons has the familiar form $`n_0(\beta ,\mu )=2L^3_𝐤f\left(\beta \epsilon _𝐤\right)`$ where $`f\left(x\right)\left(e^x+1\right)^1`$ is the Fermi distribution function. As is well known in the BCS limit $`\mu \beta \mathrm{}`$ all electrons are unpaired just above $`T_c`$ so we have $`nn_0`$. Conversely, in a dilute system with strong attraction (BE limit) we have $`n\delta n`$: the normal state just above $`T_c`$ is composed exclusively of preformed pairs, whose BE condensation leads to superconductivity.

It is important to note that the above functional-integral theory is only valid either at weak coupling or for sufficiently dilute systems with strong attraction. The problem is (leaving aside the fact that the it relies on an expansion in powers of the *amplitude* of the pairing fields, while neglecting other fluctuations due exclusively to their *phase*, which are essential in two dimensions Loktev et al. (2001)) that as the density is increased interactions between the PP, which the Gaussian theory neglects, become important. Similarly, when the interaction becomes weaker the PP increase their radius and begin to overlap. Quite generally, at low densities and intermediate coupling the Gaussian theory of $`T_c`$ must be regarded only as a convenient interpolation scheme Nozières and Schmitt-Rink (1985); Randeria (1995), while it fails completely at higher densities (as is evidenced for example in the negative bosonic mass obtained for the DSM at sufficiently large values of the density and the coupling constant Quintanilla et al. (2002)). Such limitations (illustrated in Fig. 4) have been, at least partially, addressed Haussmann (1993, 1994); Pieri and Strinati (2000), however for simplicity our discussion of $`T_c`$ below refers only to the regions of parameter space in which the standard theory Randeria (1995) can be safely applied at that temperature. These are illustrated in Fig. 4.

Let us now see what form the above standard equations Randeria (1995) take in the case of our fairly general model. In terms of the bosonic Matsubara frequencies $`\omega _\nu =2\nu \pi /\beta `$ the quadratic contribution to the effective action has the form

$$S_{eff}^{(2)}[\mathrm{\Delta }^{},\mathrm{\Delta }]=\beta \underset{𝐪\nu }{}\underset{l,m,l^{},m^{}}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{l,m,𝐪}^{}\left(\omega _\nu \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{l,m,l^{},m^{}}^1(𝐪,i\omega _\nu )\mathrm{\Delta }_{l^{},m^{},𝐪}\left(\omega _\nu \right)$$
(23)
where the sums on $`l`$ and $`l^{}`$ extend only over values of the angular momentum quantum number having the same parity (both even or both odd). As usual, we start by writing out the inverse bosonic propagator explicitly. It is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{l,m,l^{},m^{}}^1(𝐪,i\omega _\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L^3}{V_l}}\delta _{l,l^{}}\delta _{m,m^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}i^{l^{}l}\varphi _{l,m,𝐤}^{}\varphi _{l^{},m^{},𝐤}\times `$ (24)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}G_0({\displaystyle \frac{𝐪}{2}}+𝐤,i\omega _n)G_0({\displaystyle \frac{𝐪}{2}}𝐤,i\omega _\nu i\omega _n)`$
where $`G_0(𝐤,i\omega _n)\left(\epsilon _𝐤i\omega _n\right)^1`$ is a free-electron Green’s function and $`\omega _n=(2n+1)\pi /\beta `$ a fermion Matsubara frequency. This is a slightly more general form of the similar expression found in the literature Nozières and Schmitt-Rink (1985); Drechsler and Zwerger (1992); de Melo et al. (1993); Stintzing and Zwerger (1997); Quintanilla et al. (2002). Such fairly general bosonic propagator, like the one obtained in Ref. Quintanilla et al. (2002) for the DSM, describes not only the centre-of-mass motion of the PP existing above $`T_c`$ (represented by their total momentum $`\mathrm{}𝐪`$) but also the freedom that they have to change their angular momentum (represented by the labels $`l,m`$). On the other hand in Refs. Nozières and Schmitt-Rink (1985); Drechsler and Zwerger (1992); de Melo et al. (1993); Stintzing and Zwerger (1997) these internal degrees of freedom were not taken into account. In effect, the interaction potentials employed in Ref. Nozières and Schmitt-Rink (1985); Drechsler and Zwerger (1992); de Melo et al. (1993) had the form (3) with $`l_{max}=0`$ and, therefore, could only lead to pairing in the $`s`$ state; similarly, the potential in Ref. Stintzing and Zwerger (1997) was chosen so that it could only lead to pairing in a particular $`d`$-wave state, with $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ symmetry. But for strong *central* attraction one expects that, just above $`T_c`$, preformed pairs exist with all values of the angular momentum quantum number, as reflected by Eq. (24). The question that we are trying to answer here is what pairs will form a BE condensate at $`T_c`$; in particular, whether they can have $`l>0`$.

As usual the “$`T_c`$ equation” is found as the temperature at which the system becomes unstable with respect to pairing fluctuations describing a homogeneous, static field:

$$\beta \underset{l,m,l^{},m^{}}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{l,m,0}^{}\left(0\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{l,m,l^{},m^{}}^1(0,0)\mathrm{\Delta }_{l^{},m^{},0}\left(0\right)=0.$$
(25)
We obtain

$$1=\frac{V_l}{\left(2\pi \right)^3}_0^{\mathrm{}}d\left|𝐤\right|\left|𝐤\right|^2\left|R_l\left(\left|𝐤\right|\right)\right|^2\frac{12f\left(\beta _c\epsilon _𝐤\right)}{2\epsilon _𝐤}$$
(26)
which is diagonal in $`l`$ and degenerate in $`m`$. In general (26) has several solutions $`\beta _c1/k_BT_c`$, corresponding to the formation of a superconducting state with different values of the angular momentum quantum number $`l=0,2,4,\mathrm{}`$ Evidently the highest $`T_c`$ corresponds to the true superconducting instability, and it gives the angular momentum quantum number of the Cooper pairs in the superconducting state, just below $`T_c`$.

As expected Randeria (1995) Eq. (26) has the same form as in the mean-field theory and so the weak-coupling limit the Gaussian theory reduces to it. In particular the argument for exotic pairing in the BCS limit that we recalled above applies also to the critical temperature: thus at intermediate densities we expect pairs to form and condense simultaneously, at $`T_c`$, with angular momentum quantum number $`l_{max}=2`$.

Let us now focus on the BE limit. For sufficiently strong coupling and low densities the inverse propagator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{l,m,l^{},m^{}}^1(𝐪,i\omega _\nu )`$ can be expanded to the lowest non-trivial order in the pair’s total momentum $`\mathrm{}𝐪`$ and frequency $`\omega _\nu `$ Nozières and Schmitt-Rink (1985). Such expansion was carried out in Ref. Quintanilla et al. (2002) for the DSM, following closely the procedure of Drechsler and Zwerger (1992); Stintzing and Zwerger (1997). The derivation is entirely analogous in the present slightly more general case. In short we find that, after appropriate rescaling of the fields,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{l,m,l^{},m^{}}^1(𝐪,i\omega _\nu )=\left[i\omega _\nu \mu _l^b(\beta ,\mu )\right]\delta _{l,l^{}}\delta _{m,m^{}}+\underset{i,j=x,y,z}{}\frac{\mathrm{}^2𝐪_i𝐪_j}{2m_{l,m,l^{},m^{}}^{b,ij}(\beta ,\mu )}.$$
(27)
Thus the action $`S_{eff}^{(2)}[\mathrm{\Delta }^{},\mathrm{\Delta }]`$ describes an ideal Bose gas made out of bosons that propagate with some effective mass $`m_{l,m,l^{},m^{}}^{b,ij}(\beta ,\mu )`$ and chemical potential $`\mu _l^b(\beta ,\mu )`$ (these quantities are given by explicit formulae which we shall omit, for brevity). In general the effective masses $`m_{l,m,l^{},m^{}}^{b,ij}(\beta ,\mu )`$ represent anisotropic dispersion relations that are different for PP in distinct internal states. Moreover, their off-diagonal values ($`ll^{},mm^{}`$) may be finite, reflecting hybridization between such states. Nevertheless in the BE limit we have

$$m_{l,m,l^{},m^{}}^{b,ij}(\beta ,\mu )\{\begin{array}{c}2m^{}\text{ if }l=l^{}\text{ and }m=m^{}\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\text{ otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$

indicating that the tightly-bound PP propagate freely as particles of mass $`2m^{}`$ without changing their angular momentum. This simplifies (23) to

$$S_{eff}^{(2)}[\mathrm{\Delta }^{},\mathrm{\Delta }]=\beta \underset{𝐪\nu }{}\underset{l,m}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{l,m,𝐪}^{}\left(\omega _\nu \right)\left(i\omega _\nu +\frac{\mathrm{}^2\left|𝐪\right|^2}{4m^{}}\mu _l^b(\beta ,\mu )\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_{l,m,𝐪}\left(\omega _\nu \right)$$
(28)
in that limit. The effective chemical potentials $`\mu _l^b(\beta ,\mu )`$, on the other hand, are different for bosons with different values of the angular momentum quantum number $`l`$. The condition for an instability of the gas of preformed pairs to a superconducting state with angular momentum quantum number $`l`$, Eq. (26), corresponds to the BE condensation of the corresponding PP: $`\mu _l^b(\beta _c,\mu _c)=0`$. Typically, other PP with angular momentum quantum number $`l^{}l`$ are also present in the normal state, just above $`T_c`$, however their chemical potential is $`\mu _l^{}^b(\beta _c,\mu _c)<0`$ at the transition so, unless they are also close to their own critical temperature, they are only present in small number. One can thus neglect such additional PP, and check the assumption a posteriori by ensuring that the critical temperatures are quite different. Thus we eliminate the sum on $`l`$ from Eq. (28). We can now very easily deduce the explicit form of the density equation (22) in this case. At the critical temperature, it is

$$n(\beta _c,\mu )=\underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}\delta n_{l,m}\left(\beta _c\right),$$
(29)
where $`\delta n_{l,m}\left(\beta _c\right)=2L^3_𝐪g\left(\beta _c\mathrm{}^2\left|𝐪\right|^2/4m^{}\right)`$ is the density of a Bose gas that is exactly at its BE condsation temperature, $`T_c`$ ($`g\left(x\right)\left(e^x1\right)^1`$ is the Bose distribution function). Evidently the fact that there are $`2l+1`$ values of $`m`$ lowers the critical temperature: it is given by

$$k_BT_c=3.315\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m^{}}\left[\frac{n}{2\left(2l+1\right)}\right]^{2/3}$$
(30)
i.e. it is the BE condensation temperature for $`n/[2(2l+1)]`$ bosons of mass $`2m^{}`$ each. This reduces to the usual result Nozières and Schmitt-Rink (1985); Drechsler and Zwerger (1992); de Melo et al. (1993); Stintzing and Zwerger (1997) only for bosons with internal angular momentum $`l=0`$:

$$k_BT_c=3.315\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m^{}}\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)^{2/3}\text{ for }l=0$$
(31)
For higher values of the angular momentum, the bosons still condense all at the same temperature, but they do so as $`2l+1`$ independent Bose gases, each one corresponding to one of the degenerate angular momentum states consistent with that value of $`l`$. Obviously the crucial consequence of this is that *the supeconducting instability in the low-density, strong-coupling limit always corresponds to the BE codensation of pairs with $`l=0`$.* Evidently this result is quite generic since the degeneracy in $`m`$ is an unavoidable featue of any central potential.111In contrast, the anisotropic effective interaction considered in Stintzing and Zwerger (1997) has, by definition, a single, non-degenerate bound state. Hence the result that the BE limit of the critical temperature is given by (31), in spite of the $`d`$-wave nature of the superconducting state.

## VI Conclusion

In these pages we have revisited the old problem Balian (1964); Anderson and Brinkman (1975) of exotic pairing via a central potential. According to a well-known argument, a central potential can lead to a supercondcuting ground state in which Cooper pairing takes place with a finite value of the angular momentum quantum number $`l>0`$. We have demonstrated that the natural framework for that to happen is provided by an interaction in which the distance between the paired electrons is “locked” to some finite value $`r_0`$. We have then used the well-known functional integral formulation of the BCS to Bose crossover Randeria (1995) to explore the behaviour of such models away from the original weak-coupling limit. We have found evidence that a *quantum phase transition*, in which the symmetry of the superconducting order parameter changes, is associated, quite generally, with this type of interactions. The phase trasition may occur at weak coupling as the density is varied, making the preferred pairing channel change, or on approaching the BE limit, where rotational symmetry is always restored. The later is a consequence of very elementary energetic cosiderations, related to the fact that the two-particle bound state with $`l=0`$ always has lower energy than those with finite angular momentum quantum number. Finally, we have discussed the BE limit of the critical temperature. By neglecting preformed pairs with all but one value of $`l`$, we have been able to estimate the BE limit of $`T_c`$ for different values of the angular momentum quantum number. For $`l>0`$, we have found the surprising result that $`T_c`$ is not given by the usual, simple formula for BE condensation, but instead it is considerably suppressed due to the $`2l+1`$ degeneracy of the corresponding bound state. This may be an interesting example of the effect of internal degrees of freedom of the constitutent bosons on the properties of BE condensates, as discussed by Nozières Nozières (1995).

Our remarks may serve as preliminary steps for a systematic exploration of the possibility of rotational symmetry breaking in the possible BCS state of degenerate Fermi gases Bruun et al. (1999); Combescot (2001); Holland et al. (2001); Ohashi and Griffin , where the distance $`r_0`$ could be related to the shape of the interatomic interaction. They also provide an indication that some of the features that we have identified Quintanilla and Gyorffy (2000, 2002); Quintanilla et al. (2002) in the new, delta shell model may be relevant to a larger, and important, class of interaction potentials.

## Acknoldegments

We thank James F. Annett and Jonathan P. Wallington for many useful discussions on this topic. JQ acknowledges financial support from FAPESP (Brazil; process No. 01/1046 1-8).