# REFERENCES

Comment on ”Orbital Paramagnetism of   
Electrons in Proximity to a Superconductor” 

In a recent letter, Bruder and Imry (BI)  address the fascinating reentrance effect in proximity coupled normal-metal coated superconducting cylinders discovered by Mota and co-workers and challenging theoretical understanding to date. At stake is the explanation of a low-temperature paramagnetic reentrance of order unity. While the authors refrain from an explanation of the experimental results, they claim to find a ‘significant paramagnetic effect’ which they strongly relate to the layout and findings of the experiment. Here, we show that the straightforward calculation of the paramagnetic change in the susceptibility $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi /\chi `$ along the lines of their analysis is by several orders of magnitude smaller than experimentally observed.

Consider a superconducting cylinder (radius $`R`$) coated with a normal-metal layer of thickness $`dR`$ in an axial field $`B_z=_xA`$. The task is to determine the current-field relation in the normal layer $`j(x)=𝑑x^{}K(xx^{})A(x^{})`$ ($`x=`$ radial coordinate, $`j`$ is the azimuthal current density) and combine it with Maxwell’s equation to find a self-consistent solution of the screening problem. The discussion of screening requires the knowledge of the dispersive response function $`K(q)`$: while in a London superconductor the response is local , $`K(q)=K_0=c/4\pi \lambda _\mathrm{L}^2`$ ($`\lambda _\mathrm{L}=`$ penetration depth), in a Pippard superconductor  with $`K(q)K_0/(1+q\xi _0)`$ and in proximity induced superconductivity of a clean normal metal  with $`K(q)=K_0\delta (q)`$ the response is non-local in general.

Bruder and Imry define the two quasi-particle populations of Andreev- and glancing states. They assume that the Andreev states carry only diamagnetic currents, while the glancing states additionally give a paramagnetic correction. Rather than deriving the $`q`$-dependent response of the two populations, BI restrict their analysis to the $`q=0`$ mode and present the total currents $`I_D`$ and $`I_P`$ as a function of the total flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }2\pi RA(q=0)`$ through the cylinder. Invoking a perturbative analysis of screening under the assumption of local response with $`K(q)=K(0)`$ (notably not a straightforward assumption in the context of proximity), BI arrive at the final result $`I_P^s/I_M0.1\sqrt{d/R}`$, where the currents $`I_P^s`$ and $`I_M`$ denote the para- and diamagnetic currents after screening ($`\lambda _{\text{e}ff}\lambda _L`$ for local response). This result suggests a ‘significant correction to the Meissner effect’ which is small only by the geometric parameter $`\sqrt{d/R}`$.

However, the ratio $`I_P^s/I_M`$ is not a measurable quantity. Rather, we have to calculate the correction in the diamagnetic susceptibility due to the paramagnetic response of the glancing states. This is easily accomplished within the local description of BI without making any further assumptions than those made in . We go over to the current densities $`j_D`$ and $`j_P`$ and obtain the constitutive relation $`j(x)=j_D+j_P(c/4\pi \lambda _\mathrm{L}^2)(10.1\sqrt{d/R})A(x)`$. The glancing states then produce the slightly larger screening length $`\lambda \lambda _\mathrm{L}(1+0.05\sqrt{d/R})`$, while the total current $`I=L_z𝑑x(j_D+j_P)=I_M`$ remains unchanged (there is no paramagnetic correction to the Meissner current). Accounting for the finite penetration depth, the suceptibility $`4\pi \chi =1+2\lambda _\mathrm{L}/R`$ changes by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi /\chi 0.1(\lambda _\mathrm{L}/R)\sqrt{d/R}`$ when the paramagnetic response of the glancing states is accounted for. This result is parametrically small by the microscopic ratio $`\lambda _\mathrm{L}/R`$ and at best amounts to a relative change $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi /\chi 10^4`$ when using parameters appropriate to the experiments ($`\lambda _\mathrm{L}=(mc^2/4\pi ne^2)^{1/2}=200\mathrm{\AA }`$, $`R=20\mu \mathrm{m}`$, $`d=5\mu \mathrm{m}`$) , a result far from the experimental finding $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi /\chi 1`$.

We would like to point out that the separation of the quasi-particles into Andreev- and glancing states has been used before by Belzig , who, using quasi-classical techniques and accounting for the finite-$`q`$ paramagnetic response of the Andreev states, found a significant paramagnetic effect (of order $`10^1`$, depending on geometry) in very clean material. The work of Belzig fails to explain the experiments as it cannot produce the non-monotonic temperature dependence crucial to the reentrance effect. In this context, BI’s reference to the temperature dependence of persistent currents does not account for two facts: This temperature dependence is specific to the quantum coherence of the persistent current states and cannot be trivially generalized to the classical glancing states. Second, not only is the number of persistent current states parametrically small as compared to the number of glancing states, the response of the persistent current states also is sample dependent and may be dia- or paramagnetic.

In conclusion, the work of Bruder and Imry does not address the salient points of the paramagnetic reentrance effect, which are its puzzling magnitude and non-monotonic temperature dependence — the experiment still waits for an explanation.   

A. Fauchère, V. Geshkenbein, and G. Blatter   
Theoretische Physik, ETH Hönggerberg,   
CH-8093 Zürich