Talk:Ginzburg–Landau theory

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

no resistance[edit]

tell me all about how resistance becomes zero(superconductivity)

It's don't become zero, but almost zero. There all electrons going in ground level orbits and thus there is more free electrons, which can move freely without atracting them from orbits and thus vasting energy and thermal motion of molecules disapearing and friction also and electrons can move more freely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weekwhom (talk • contribs) 15:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at BCS theory. Electrons distort the lattice of atoms they are in. Those distortions cause them to weakly attract each-other (i.e. with the distortion), forming pairs (spin-zero bosons). The bosons then form a bose condensate of sorts. As bosons, they can inter-pentrate one-another, i.e. occupy the same place at the same time; they do not need to obey the Pauli exclusion principle, and so can move about freely. This can only happen at low temperatures, where the distortion of the atomic lattice is not washed out by the thermal motion of the atoms. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Electron superfluid[edit]

I think that this does not deserve to be entered under a new heading. It should follow the first section as Ginzburg's interpretation of order parameter ψ.

And there is an error in the statement: F is not a complex function.

TomyDuby (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has been fixed. I don't see the problem any more. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetic vector potential?[edit]

In the introduction, A is defined to be the electromagnetic vector potential. But if B=curl(A), isn't A the magnetic vector potential? This seems to be the implication from the Wikipedia entry on vector potential. Wikimedes (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone already made the change. At more advanced levels, people get sloppy about what they call things, since its always obvious (to them) what is meant. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Simple interpretation" section[edit]

"The magnitude of a complex number must be non-zero number, so only ψ = 0 solves the Ginzburg–Landau equation." Should this read "non-negative" instead of "non-zero"? Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 06:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, someone fixed this already. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

temperature?[edit]

how the change of temperature appears in the equation? Klinfran (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The temperature dependence appears in the parameters alpha and beta, and someone added a phenomenological model for alpha to the article. Since these are phenomenological parameters, the theory does not predict/explain how they vary with temperature. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How does it explain higher critical field in smaller particles[edit]

Indium nitride says " the superconductivity is attributed to metallic indium chains[6] or nanoclusters, where the small size increases the critical magnetic field according to the Ginzburg–Landau theory.[8]" but its not clear here. Can it be added ? - Rod57 (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably read references [6] and [8]. The theory of superconductivity is huge, with many (hundreds?) of books on the topic. Elaborating this article to cover such a narrow statement won't happen (unless I am missing something very generic being invoked here). 67.198.37.16 (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix reference[edit]

Someone who knows how, please fix the last citation Gaiotto, Gukov, Seiberg. This should appear in the ref list and just be a cited number I would think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.71.110 (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Husumi Q[edit]

Anyone have any idea why this links to Husumi Q. Seems pretty off-topic to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.71.110 (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fluctuations in the Ginzburg–Landau model: Incomplete sentence[edit]

The first sentence in the section "Fluctuations in the Ginzburg–Landau model" seems to be incomplete. Currently, it simply states "Taking into account fluctuations." --Pengin2019 (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. It was bad grammar from the git-go, and not the result of vandalism or the removal of content. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]