# From BCS to BEC Superconductivity: Spectroscopic Consequences

\[

## Abstract

The evolution from BCS to BEC superconductivity in the s-wave and d-wave channels is analyzed at zero temperature for a two-dimensional superconductor. Spectroscopic quantities for s-wave and d-wave systems present fundamental differences when particle density and attraction strength are varied. A detailed analysis of single quasiparticle properties (excitation spectrum, momentum distribution, spectral function and density of states) indicates that the evolution of these spectroscopic quantities in the d-wave case is not smooth, unlike the situation encountered for the s-wave system.

\]

The problem of the evolution from BCS to BEC superconductivity is an old one  but recently it has received considerable attention in connection with high temperature superconductors,  where strong deviations from the BCS behavior have been observed experimentally in spectroscopic quantities  at low temperatures. Furthermore, the recent discovery of BEC in atomic systems  and the exciting possibility of BEC in atomic Fermi systems raises the question of the evolution from BCS to BEC in atomic Fermi systems as well. 

In this work we address the question of whether the evolution of spectroscopic quantities from a BCS to a BEC superconductor is smooth at zero temperature. For this purpose we study the single quasiparticle properties (excitation spectrum, momentum distribution, spectral function and density of states) as a function of attraction strength or particle density for the s-wave and d-wave cases. In anticipation of the main results, we must say that the evolution of spectroscopic properties in the s-wave case is smooth, while in the d-wave it is not. The main reasoning for this statement is as follows.

Quite generally the evolution from BCS to BEC superconductivity can be characterized by two parameters: the chemical potential $`\mu `$ and the Cooper pair size $`\xi _{pair}`$. The BCS limit is characterized by a positive chemical potential $`\mu =ϵ_F`$ and a large size of Cooper pairs $`(\xi _{pair}k_F^1)`$, while the BEC regime is characterized by a large and negative chemical potential $`\mu =E_b^{(\mathrm{})}`$, where $`E_b^{(\mathrm{})}`$ is the binding energy of the two-body problem in the $`\mathrm{}^{th}`$ angular momentum channel, and by a small size of pairs $`(\xi _{pair}k_F^1)`$. Here $`\mathrm{}=0`$ (or s) indicates the s-wave channel, while $`\mathrm{}=2`$ (or d) indicates the d-wave channel. The excitation spectrum at zero temperature has the form $`E_{\mathrm{}}(𝐤)=\left((ϵ_𝐤\mu )^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}(𝐤)|^2\right)^{1/2}`$, where $`ϵ_𝐤=k^2/2m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}(𝐤)=\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{}h_{\mathrm{}}(k)\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{}\varphi )`$, with $`k=|𝐤|`$. In the s-wave case the excitation spectrum $`E_s(𝐤)`$ is gapped for all $`𝐤`$, and it increases smoothly from the BCS to the BEC limit. As a result the quantities that depend directly on the excitation spectrum $`E_s(𝐤)`$ also evolve smoothly. For instance, the quasiparticle density of states $`N_s(\omega )`$ at low frequencies is always zero, since there are no available states inside the gap. Thus, contributions from single quasiparticle excitations to thermodynamic quantities are always exponentially small at low temperatures. In the d-wave case the situation is qualitatively different. For $`\mu >0`$ the superconductor is gapless at the Dirac points $`k=k_\mu =\sqrt{2m\mu }`$, $`\varphi =\pm \pi /4,\pm 3\pi /4`$, while for $`\mu <0`$ the superconductor acquires a finite gap. The line $`\mu =0`$ separates two regimes with qualitatively different behavior. This has important consequences for the momentum distribution, spectral function, and density of states. The quasiparticle density of states $`N_d(\omega )`$ changes discontinously at low frequencies from linear in $`\omega `$ for $`\mu >0`$ (where $`E_d(𝐤)`$ is linear in momentum close to the Dirac points), to a constant at $`\mu =0`$ (where $`E_d(𝐤)`$ is quadratic for small momenta), to zero for $`\mu <0`$ (where $`E_d(𝐤)|\mu |+𝒪(k^2)`$ for small $`k`$). Thus, contributions from single quasiparticle excitations to thermodynamic quantities at low temperatures also exhibit singular behavior in the vicinity of $`\mu =0`$.

In order to analyze how the spectroscopic quantities change from the BCS to BEC limit, we start with the two dimensional Hamiltonian

$$H=\underset{𝐤\sigma }{}ϵ_𝐤\psi _{𝐤\sigma }^{}\psi _{𝐤\sigma }+\underset{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}𝐪}{}V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}b_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐪}}^{}b_{𝐤^{}𝐪}$$
(1)   
where $`b_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐪}}=\psi _{𝐤+𝐪/\mathrm{𝟐}}\psi _{𝐤+𝐪/\mathrm{𝟐}}`$. The interaction potential $`V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}`$ is expanded in its angular momentum components as $`V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}=_\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}V_{kk^{}}^{(\mathrm{})}\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{}\varphi _{kk^{}}),`$ where $`\varphi _{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}=\mathrm{acos}(\widehat{𝐤}\widehat{𝐤}^{})`$ is the angle betwen the vectors $`𝐤`$ and $`𝐤^{}`$ and $`V_{kk^{}}^{(\mathrm{})}=2\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rrJ_{\mathrm{}}(kr)J_{\mathrm{}}(k^{}r)V(r).`$ The index $`\mathrm{}`$ labels angular momentum states in two spatial dimensions, with $`\mathrm{}=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$, corresponding to s,p,d,…, channels respectively. A possible choice of the real space potential can be $`V(r)=V_1\mathrm{\Theta }(R_1r)V_0\mathrm{\Theta }(rR_1)\mathrm{\Theta }(R_0r),`$ which is repulsive at short distances $`r<R_1`$, attractive at intermediate distances $`R_1<r<R_0`$, and vanishes for $`r>R_0`$. Quite generally any short ranged real space potential $`V(r)`$ with range $`R_0`$ leads to a $`V_{kk^{}}^{(\mathrm{})}`$ which is separable for small momenta, provided that $`kR_01`$ or $`k^{}R_01`$. In the simpler limit when both $`kR_01`$ and $`k^{}R_01`$, $`V_{kk^{}}^{(\mathrm{})}k^{\mathrm{}}k^{\mathrm{}}(2\pi /2^2\mathrm{})_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rr^{2\mathrm{}+1}V(r),`$ where $`\mathrm{}`$ is assumed to be positive for definiteness. Notice here that $`V_{kk^{}}^{(\mathrm{})}k^{\mathrm{}}k^{\mathrm{}}`$, thus for the s-wave case $`V_{kk^{}}^{(s)}\text{const.}`$, while for the d-wave case $`V_{kk^{}}^{(d)}k^2k^2`$. In the opposite limit, $`kR_01`$ or $`k^{}R_01`$, the potential $`V_{kk^{}}^{(\mathrm{})}`$ is certainly not separable. In the simpler limit when both $`kR_01`$ and $`k^{}R_01`$, $`V_{kk^{}}^{(\mathrm{})}`$ mixes different $`𝐤`$ and $`𝐤^{}`$ and shows an oscillatory behavior which is dependent on the exact form of $`V(r)`$, with a decaying envelope proportional to $`k^{1/2}k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}`$.

Under these circumstances, quite generally it is not possible to find a separable potential in momentum space $`V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}=\lambda w^{}(𝐤)w(𝐤^{})`$, nevertheless in the spirit of ref.  we choose to study a separable potential that contains most of the general features described above. In addition, we consider only singlet superconductivity, where the s-wave and the d-wave channels are studied separately. For this purpose, we use the separable potential $`V_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}=\lambda _{\mathrm{}}w_{\mathrm{}}(𝐤)w_{\mathrm{}}(𝐤^{})`$. The interaction term $`w_{\mathrm{}}(𝐤)`$ can be written as the product of two functions, $`w_{\mathrm{}}(𝐤)=h_{\mathrm{}}(k)g_{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{𝐤}),`$ where $`h_{\mathrm{}}(k)=(k/k_1)^{\mathrm{}}/\left[1+(k/k_0)\right]^{\mathrm{}+1/2}`$ controls the range of the interaction and $`g_{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{𝐤})=\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{}\varphi )`$ is the angular dependence of the interaction. Here $`k_0R_0^1`$ and $`k_1`$ sets the scale at low momenta. At zero temperature, we assume that pairing occurs with the same total momentum $`𝐪=0`$ only. This simplifying feature leads to the following saddle point and number equations,

$$\frac{1}{\lambda _{\mathrm{}}}=\underset{𝐤}{}\frac{|w_{\mathrm{}}(𝐤)|^2}{2E_{\mathrm{}}(𝐤)},$$
(2)   
$$n=2\underset{𝐤}{}n_{\mathrm{}}(𝐤),$$
(3)   
where $`n_{\mathrm{}}(𝐤)=\left[1(ϵ_𝐤\mu )/E_{\mathrm{}}(𝐤)\right]/2`$ is the momentum distribution, $`E_{\mathrm{}}(𝐤)=\left((ϵ_𝐤\mu )^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}(𝐤)|^2\right)^{1/2},`$ is the single particle excitation energy, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}(𝐤)=\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{}w_{\mathrm{}}(𝐤).`$ is the order paremeter. For a given interaction range $`R_0k_0^1`$, the transition from the BCS limit (largely overlaping pairs) to the BEC limit of (weakly overlaping pairs) may occur either by changing the attraction strength $`\lambda _{\mathrm{}}`$ or the density $`n`$. In either case, this evolution can be safely analyzed with the approximations used here provided that the system is dilute enough, i.e., $`nk_0^2`$. This means that below a maximum density $`n_{max}k_{F}^{}{}_{max}{}^{2}`$, the interaction range $`R_0`$ is much smaller than the interparticle spacing $`k_{F}^{}{}_{max}{}^{1}`$, $`R_0k_{F}^{}{}_{max}{}^{1}`$, or equivalently $`k_0/k_{F}^{}{}_{max}{}^{}1`$. Thus we choose to scale all energies with respect to the maximal Fermi energy $`ϵ_{F}^{}{}_{max}{}^{}`$, which fixes the maximum density $`n=n_{max}=2\rho ϵ_{F}^{}{}_{max}{}^{}`$, and all momenta with respect to $`k_{F}^{}{}_{max}{}^{}=\sqrt{2mϵ_{F}^{}{}_{max}{}^{}}`$. The coupling constant is scaled with respect to the two-dimensional density of states $`\rho `$. From now on we use this scaling. The numerical solutions for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mu `$, when $`k_1=k_0=10`$ are shown in Fig. 1, for fixed density $`n=1`$, and changing $`\lambda _{\mathrm{}}`$. Similar plots can also be made for fixed interaction and varying density $`n`$.

In the BCS limit the amplitude of the order parameter ($`\varphi =0`$) is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}(k_\mu )\mathrm{exp}\left[2(\lambda _0\mathrm{}^1(k_\mu )\lambda _{\mathrm{}}^1)/h_{\mathrm{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(k_\mu )\right].$$

With our choice of $`h_{\mathrm{}}(k)`$, $`\lambda _{0d}(k_\mu )8+\mu /24ϵ_1+𝒪(\left[\mu /ϵ_1\right]^2)`$, valid for $`\mu /ϵ_11`$, where $`ϵ_1=k_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$. The ratios between $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}(k_\mu )`$, and the critical temperature $`T_c\mathrm{}`$ satisfy the usual relations $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s(k_\mu )/T_{cs}=1.76`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d(k_\mu )/T_{cd}=2.14`$. In Fig. 1 $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{0d}`$ and $`\mu `$ have a second order discontinuity as a function of $`\lambda _d`$. This discontinuity occurs when $`\mu =0`$ in both $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{0d}`$ and $`\mu `$, for varying interaction $`\lambda _d`$ or varying density $`n`$. The line $`\mu =0`$ for a d-wave system is very special as it will be seen in the following discussion of spectroscopic quantities.

The first spectroscopic quantity to be analyzed is the single quasiparticle excitation spectrum $`E_{\mathrm{}}(𝐤)`$. Let us discuss first the s-wave case in the zero range interaction limit $`k_0\mathrm{}`$. For $`\mu >0`$ the excitation spectrum has an isotropic gap at $`k=k_\mu `$, $`E_g(k_\mu )=|\mathrm{\Delta }_s(k_\mu )|`$. This gap is completely isotropic in the vicinity of $`k_\mu `$. At the intermediate regime, when $`\mu =0`$, the gap takes the value $`E_g(0)=|\mathrm{\Delta }_s(0)|`$, when the chemical potential becomes negative towards the BEC limit, the minimum of the energy gap remains at $`𝐤=0`$, $`E_g(0)=\left(\mu ^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }_s(0)|^2\right)^{1/2}`$. When $`k_0`$ is finite the position of the minimum gap changes, but the excitation spectrum is always gapped.

In the d-wave case the situation is qualitatively different. For $`\mu >0`$, including the BCS limit, the excitation spectrum is gapless at $`k_\mu `$ along the special directions $`\varphi =\pm \pi /4,\pm 3\pi /4`$, near which the excitation spectrum disperses linearly with momentum. The energy gap at $`k=k_\mu `$ and $`\varphi =0`$, $`E_g(k_\mu )=|\mathrm{\Delta }_d(k_\mu )|`$ is a nonmonotonic function of $`k_\mu `$ for fixed density, and thus a nonmonotonic function of $`\lambda _d`$. The maximum $`E_g(k_\mu )`$ is reached at intermediate values of $`\mu >0`$. At $`\mu =0`$, the minimal gap is $`E_g(0)=|\mathrm{\Delta }_d(0)|=0`$, and occurs at the single point $`𝐤=0`$. In this case the excitation spectrum is $`E_d(𝐤)=\left(ϵ_𝐤^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }_d(𝐤)|^2\right)^{1/2}`$, which behaves quadratically for small momenta at any given angle $`\varphi `$, since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d(𝐤)k^2\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )`$ and $`ϵ_𝐤=k^2/2m`$. The shrinking of the energy gap to zero at $`𝐤=0`$ is a consequence of the diminishing pairing interaction $`h_d(k_\mu )`$ for $`\mu 0`$. As soon as $`\mu <0`$, including the BEC limit, a full gap in the excitation spectrum appears, but the minimal gap remains at $`𝐤=0`$ with value $`E_g(0)=|\mu |`$ since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d(0)=0`$. Thus, the $`\mu =0`$ line separates a gapless d-wave superconductor ($`\mu >0`$) from a fully gapped d-wave superconductor ($`\mu <0`$). Fig. 2 shows the lines where $`\mu =0`$ on the graph of $`n`$ vs. $`\lambda _{\mathrm{}}`$. Notice in Fig. 2 that the low density limit of the s-wave system is always Bose-like, i.e., a two-body bound state appears at arbitrarily small $`\lambda _s`$. On the other hand, the d-wave system is qualitatively different: it is BCS-like for $`\lambda _d<\lambda _{cd}`$ and Bose-like for $`\lambda _d>\lambda _{cd}`$, where the critical coupling $`\lambda _c`$ separating the two regimes is finite, i.e., the appearance of a two-body bound state in the d-wave case requires finite $`\lambda _d`$.

The behavior of the excitation spectrum as a function of $`\mu `$ has important consequences on the momentum distribution $`n_{\mathrm{}}(𝐤)`$ at zero temperature. In the s-wave case the momentum distribution is isotropic in momentum space. Here we discuss briefly the behavior at low momenta for three different regimes: $`\mu >0`$, $`\mu =0`$, and $`\mu <0`$. Let us start with $`\mu >0`$. In the vicinity of $`k_\mu `$ the momentum distribution is $`n_s(k_\mu +\delta k)\left[12k_\mu \delta k/\mathrm{\Delta }_s(k_\mu )\right]/2`$. At low $`k`$ it behaves as $`n_s(k)\left[1+\gamma _p(1+\alpha k/2k_0)\right]/2`$, where $`\gamma _p=\mu /\sqrt{\mu ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{0s}^2}`$, and $`\alpha =\mathrm{\Delta }_s^2/(\mu ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{0s}^2).`$ When $`\mu =0`$, the momentum distribution at small momenta is $`n_s(k)\left(1k^2/\mathrm{\Delta }_{0s}\right)/2`$. For negative $`\mu `$, $`n_s(k)=\left[1\gamma _n(1+\alpha k/2k_0)\right]/2`$ for small $`k`$, with $`\gamma _n=|\mu |/\sqrt{\mu ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{0s}^2}`$. Notice that $`n_s(0)`$ is a continuous function of $`\mu `$. In fact $`n_s(k)`$ is a smooth function of $`\mu `$ for all momenta. This is not the case for a d-wave system, which shall be discussed next.

The momentum distribution in in the d-wave case is anisotropic, having the form $`n_d(k)=\left[1\mathrm{sgn}(k^2\mu )\right]`$ along the direction of the nodes ($`\varphi =\pm \pi /4,\pm 3\pi /4`$). This behavior already signals discontinuity of $`n_d(k)`$ as a function of $`\mu `$ at $`k=0`$, a suspicion further confirmed by analyzing the more interesting direction $`\varphi =0`$ and its equivalents $`\varphi =\pm \pi /2,\pi `$. Near $`k_\mu `$ the momentum distribution is $`n_d(k_\mu +\delta k)\left(12k_\mu \delta k/\mathrm{\Delta }_d(k_\mu )\right)/2`$. On the other hand, the momentum distribution behaves as $`n_d(k)1(\mathrm{\Delta }_{0d}^2/\mu ^2)(k^4/4k_1^4)`$ for small momenta. When $`\mu =0`$ the momentum distribution at $`k=0`$ is $`n_d(0)\left(1\kappa \right)/2`$, where $`\kappa =(1+\mathrm{\Delta }_{0d}^2/k_1^4)^{1/2}`$. When $`\mu <0`$, then $`n_d(k)(\mathrm{\Delta }_{0d}^2/\mu ^2)(k^4/4k_1^4)`$ for small $`k`$. Notice the discontinuity of the momentum distribution at low $`k`$, when chemical potential crosses zero. This discontinuity, which is illustrated in Fig. 3, coincides with the collapse of the four Dirac points to a single point at $`k_\mu =0`$, and with the appearance of a full gap as soon as $`\mu <0`$.

The qualitative changes in $`E_{\mathrm{}}(𝐤)`$ and $`n_{\mathrm{}}(𝐤)`$, as a function of $`\mu `$, affect substantially the quasiparticle density of states $`N_{\mathrm{}}(\omega )=N_{\mathrm{}}^{(+)}(\omega )+N_{\mathrm{}}^{()}(\omega )`$, where

$$N_{\mathrm{}}^{(+)}(\omega )=\left[2\pi \right]^1d^2𝐤\left[1n_{\mathrm{}}(𝐤)\right]\delta (\omega E_{\mathrm{}}(𝐤)),$$
(4)   
corresponds to adding a quasiparticle, and 

$$N_{\mathrm{}}^{()}(\omega )=\left[2\pi \right]^1d^2𝐤n_{\mathrm{}}(𝐤)\delta (\omega +E_{\mathrm{}}(𝐤)),$$
(5)   
corresponds to removing a quasiparticle. In the s-wave case $`N_s(\omega )`$ is always zero at low frequencies, since the excitation spectrum is gapped for all $`\mu `$. On the other hand, $`N_d(\omega )`$ changes discontinously at low frequencies, from linear in $`\omega `$ for $`\mu >0`$, where $`E_d(𝐤)`$ is linear in momentum close to the nodes, to a constant at $`\mu =0`$ (where $`E_d(𝐤)k^2`$ at low $`k`$), to zero for $`\mu <0`$ (where $`E_d(𝐤)|\mu |+𝒪(k^2)`$ for small $`k`$), as can be seen in Fig. 4.

Lastly, it is important to point out qualitative differences in thermodynamic quantities, e.g. specific heat $`C`$ and spin susceptibility $`\chi `$, during the evolution from BCS to BEC superconductivity at low temperatures. The contributions from quasiparticles to $`C`$ and $`\chi `$ are exponentially small at low temperatures in the s-wave case for all $`\mu `$, given that the excitation spectrum is always gapped. The situation is qualitatively different in the d-wave case where $`CT^2`$, and $`\chi T`$ for $`\mu >0`$; $`CT`$, and $`\chi \mathrm{const}.`$ for $`\mu =0`$; $`CT^1\mathrm{exp}(|\mu |/T)`$, and $`\chi \mathrm{exp}(|\mu |/T)`$ for $`\mu <0`$.

In summary we studied the low temperature evolution from BCS to BEC superconductivity for varying density and interaction strength in both s-wave and d-wave channels. In the s-wave case the excitation spectrum is always gapped, and the momentum distribution is a continuous function of $`\mu `$. However, in the d-wave case the excitation spectrum is gapless for $`\mu >0`$ and acquires a full gap for $`\mu <0`$. Furthermore, the momentum distribution is discontinuous at low $`k`$, as $`\mu `$ crosses zero. As a result, the changes in spectroscopic and thermodynamic properties near $`\mu =0`$ are dramatic at low temperatures.  The line $`\mu =0`$ in the $`n`$ vs. $`\lambda _d`$ plane seems to correspond to a quantum critical line.

We are grateful to A.J. Leggett and E. Abrahams for discussions. We would like to thank the Georgia Institute of Technology for financial support. Part of the numerical calculations were performed on the Cray J916 at the Poznań Supercomputer Center.

Permanent address: Institute of Physics, A. Mickiewicz University, Umultowska 85, 61-614 Poznań, Poland.