Institute of Particle and Nuclear Studies,
High Energy Accelerator Research Organization,
Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-0801, Japan
What is the dual Ginzburg-Landau theory for holographic superconductors?
Abstract
Holographic superconductors are holographic duals of superconductors. Macroscopically, a superconductor should be described by the Ginzburg-Landau (GL) theory. There is ample evidence that the holographic superconductors are described by the standard GL theory, but the exact form of the dual GL theory is little known. We identify the dual GL theory for a class of bulk 5-dimensional holographic superconductors, where numerical coefficients are obtained exactly.
Keywords:
Holography and condensed matter physics (AdS/CMT), AdS-CFT Correspondence, Black HolesJuly 18, 2024
1 Introduction and summary
The AdS/CFT duality or the holographic duality Maldacena:1997re ; Witten:1998qj ; Witten:1998zw ; Gubser:1998bc is a useful tool to study the “real world.” It has been applied to the quark-gluon plasma, hadron physics, nonequilibrium physics, nonlinear physics, and condensed-matter physics (See, e.g., Refs. CasalderreySolana:2011us ; Natsuume:2014sfa ; Ammon:2015wua ; Zaanen:2015oix ; Hartnoll:2016apf ; Baggioli:2019rrs ). Among them, the holographic superconductor is one of the most studied systems Gubser:2008px ; Hartnoll:2008vx ; Hartnoll:2008kx .
The holographic superconductor is the holographic dual of superconductors. On the other hand, from the macroscopic point of view, a superconductor should be described by the Ginzburg-Landau (GL) theory. Then, one of the most basic questions should be:
“What is the dual GL theory for holographic superconductors?”
However, the answer is little known in the literature.
There is ample evidence that the holographic superconductor is described by the standard GL theory. For example, the very first paper Hartnoll:2008vx pointed out that the condensate takes the value of the mean-field critical exponent. This strongly suggests that the holographic superconductor is described by the mean-field theories (see, e.g., Ref. Maeda:2009wv ).
Identifying the dual GL theory has been initiated in Ref. Herzog:2008he which studied the GL potential terms numerically. Since then, various works appeared, but they are mostly numerical, and the exact form of the GL theory was little known. This is because a holographic superconductor is typically an Einstein-Maxwell-complex scalar system. Such a system is hard to solve in general. One often needs either a numerical computation or an approximation method.
However, in the bulk 5-dimensions, there exists a simple analytic solution at the critical point for the scalar field which saturates the Breitenlohner-Freedman (BF) bound Herzog:2010vz , and one is able to compute physical quantities analytically.222The solution is a special case of a one-parameter family of holographic Lifshitz superconductors Natsuume:2018yrg . We compute various physical quantities in the bulk theory and compare with the GL theory. In this way, we identify the dual GL theory.
A holographic superconductor is parameterized by a dimensionless parameter , where is the chemical potential and is the temperature. We fix and vary .333When, , the system is scale invariant so that there is no phase transition. Our results are summarized by the following GL free energy:
(1.1a) | ||||
(1.1b) | ||||
(1.1c) |
Our notations are explained below, but note that this takes the form of the standard GL theory. The various coefficients are determined because the holographic duality gives a “first-principle computation.” Here,
-
•
is the deviation of the chemical potential from the critical point .
-
•
is the coupling, and is the magnetic permeability due to the magnetization current or the normal current (Sec. 2.3.4). The value of depends on the boundary condition one imposes.
-
•
and are the parameters in the bulk theory (Sec. 5). The standard holographic superconductor (“minimal holographic superconductor”) corresponds to . The GL theory for the minimal holographic superconductor has been proposed in Refs. Natsuume:2018yrg ; Natsuume:2022kic .
-
•
The -dependence is shown explicitly only for the term (see Appendix A to restore dimensions).
Just like in the GL theory, this free energy should be regarded as leading terms in the effective theory expansion. There should be the term and higher, and numerical coefficients are leading ones.
The plan of this paper is as follows:
-
•
We first consider the minimal holographic superconductor in Sec. 2. The system was analyzed previously Natsuume:2018yrg ; Natsuume:2022kic , but the earlier analysis is not completely satisfactory (Sec. 2.4), so we would like to fill the gap. Also, having one paper which collects all materials would be valuable.
-
•
Having computed all physical quantities in the bulk theory, we discuss the dual GL theory in Sec. 3.
-
•
The analysis of the vortex lattice is rather involved both in the bulk theory and in the GL theory, so we discuss it in a separate section (Sec. 4 and Appendix B.1).444See, e.g., Refs. Natsuume:2022kic ; Maeda:2009vf ; Albash:2009iq ; Montull:2009fe ; Keranen:2009re ; Domenech:2010nf ; Dias:2013bwa for holographic vortices.
-
•
Then, we consider the nonminimal holographic superconductors with bulk parameters and in Sec. 5.
2 The minimal holographic superconductor
2.1 Preliminaries
We consider the bulk 5-dimensional -wave holographic superconductor:555We use upper-case Latin indices for the 5-dimensional bulk spacetime coordinates and use Greek indices for the 4-dimensional boundary coordinates. The boundary coordinates are written as .
(2.1a) | ||||
(2.1b) |
where
(2.2) |
We take the probe limit where the backreaction of the matter fields onto the geometry is ignored:
(2.3) |
where is the number of “colors” . In the probe limit, the matter fields decouple from gravity, and the background metric is given by the Schwarzschild-AdS5 (SAdS5) black hole:
(2.4a) | ||||
(2.4b) | ||||
(2.4c) |
where . For simplicity, we set the AdS radius and the horizon radius . The Hawking temperature is given by . The bulk matter equations are given by
(2.5a) | ||||
(2.5b) | ||||
(2.5c) |
In the gauge, the asymptotic behaviors of matter fields are given by
(2.6a) | ||||
(2.6b) | ||||
(2.6c) |
is the chemical potential, and represents the charge density . Similarly, is the vector potential, and represents the current density . represents the order parameter , and is the external source for the order parameter.
In this paper, we consider the scalar mass which saturates the BF bound Breitenlohner:1982bm :
(2.7) |
or the scaling dimension . Then, the asymptotic behavior of is replaced by
(2.8) |
According to the standard AdS/CFT dictionary,
(2.9a) | ||||
(2.9b) |
where one needs a standard counterterm action for the scalar field and for the Maxwell field. We set the bulk scalar charge below for simplicity.
At high temperature, the equations of motion admit a solution
(2.10) |
A holographic superconductor has 2 dimensionful quantities and , so the system is parameterized by a dimensionless parameter . We fix and vary . The solution becomes unstable at the critical point and is replaced by a solution. For , there exists a simple analytic solution at the critical point Herzog:2010vz :
(2.11) |
Below we utilize this solution to explore the system.
Counterterms:
In the bulk 5-dimensions, one needs the counterterm action for the Maxwell field to cancel the UV divergences:
(2.12) |
where is the 4-dimensional boundary metric (the 4-dimensional part of the bulk metric). Then, one obtains
(2.13) |
Note the log term takes the form if one uses . We use , so . For example, for the vector perturbation ,
(2.14) |
The holographic semiclassical equation:
We have the boundary Maxwell field , but in most holographic applications, it is not dynamical: one adds it as an external source. This is because one usually imposes the Dirichlet boundary condition on the AdS boundary. As a result, there is no Meissner effect in standard holographic superconductors. Since the Maxwell field is not dynamical, one often calls this case as the “holographic superfluild.”
The procedure to promote the Maxwell field to the classical dynamical field has been known Compere:2008us . Impose the Maxwell equation as the boundary condition:
(2.15) |
Here, all quantities including the coupling are the boundary ones. Namely, we impose a “mixed” boundary condition. Ref. Natsuume:2022kic shows the holographic Meissner effect analytically using the boundary condition. In other words, we add the following action to the boundary CFT:
(2.16) |
One may be unfamiliar to such a boundary condition. It may be worthwhile to consider the boundary condition from the boundary microscopic point view. For example, consider the SYM:
-
•
The pure gravity is dual to the SYM. One often uses the system to discuss QGP.
-
•
The Einstein-Maxwell theory is dual to the SYM with a background. But the Maxwell field here is added only as an external source. One would use the system to discuss QGP at a finite chemical potential.
-
•
By imposing the holographic semiclassical equation, the Einstein-Maxwell theory is dual to the SYM with a dynamical Maxwell field. One would now use the system to discuss QGP with photon.
However, we do not really have QGP in mind in this paper: instead, we consider holographic superconductors.
In the literature, one often imposes either the Dirichlet or the Neumann boundary conditions. But our boundary condition is more generic, and those boundary conditions are obtained from our boundary condition as follows:
-
•
The Dirichlet boundary condition with a fixed corresponds to the limit.
-
•
The Neumann boundary condition corresponds to the limit.
Because we impose a mixed boundary condition, one can discuss both cases simultaneously.
2.2 High-temperature phase
2.2.1 The order parameter response function
In the high-temperature phase, there does not exist a spontaneous condensate solution, but there exists a solution with the order parameter source. We consider such a solution here. Namely, we consider the response to the order parameter source and obtain the “order parameter response function.” This gives interesting physical quantities such as the correlation length and the thermodynamic susceptibility.
At high temperatures, the background solution is given by Eq. (2.10). Consider the linear perturbation from the background . We consider the perturbation of the form . When , and decouple from the -equation, and it is enough to consider the -equation:
(2.17) |
where . In the high-temperature phase, . Set , and expand as a series in :
(2.18) |
We impose the boundary conditions (1) regular at the horizon (2) no fast falloff other than . Namely, the order parameter comes only from . The leading order solution is Eq. (2.11):
(2.19) |
so the order parameter is given by . At the next order,
(2.20) |
so the asymptotic form with is given by
(2.21) |
Then, one obtains the response function , the correlation length , and the thermodynamic susceptibility :
(2.22a) | ||||
(2.22b) | ||||
(2.22c) | ||||
(2.22d) | ||||
(2.22e) |
2.2.2 The upper critical magnetic field
Under a magnetic field, superconductors are classified into Type I and Type II superconductors:
-
•
For a Type I superconductor, the superconducting state is completely broken at the thermodynamic critical magnetic field . Below , the homogeneous condensate is favorable compared with the normal state.
-
•
For a Type II superconductor, the magnetic field can partly enter the material while keeping the superconducting state even above . The magnetic field enters by forming vortices. The superconducting state is completely broken above the upper critical magnetic field .
Then, whether a superconductor is Type I or Type II depends on the value of the GL parameter :
(2.23) |
When , , and the material belongs to Type I superconductor. When , , and the material belongs to Type I superconductor. We discuss in this section, discuss and later.
We consider the solution of the form . The static bulk equations are given by
(2.24a) | ||||
(2.24b) | ||||
(2.24c) |
where we take the gauge and . In this gauge, one can set . We apply a magnetic field and approach the critical point from the high-temperature phase. The scalar field should have an inhomogeneous condensate at . Near , remains small, and one can expand matter fields as a series in :
(2.25a) | ||||
(2.25b) | ||||
(2.25c) |
At zeroth order,
(2.26) |
At first order, one solves . Using the ansatz , the equation becomes
(2.27a) | |||
(2.27b) |
where is a separation constant. The regular solution of is given by Hermite function as
(2.28) |
with the eigenvalue . takes the maximum value when which gives .
Then, the -equation becomes
(2.29) |
To obtain the upper critical magnetic field , we need the source-free solution (spontaneous condensate) for . But the equation is just Eq. (2.17) with the replacement , so the following relation holds exactly:
(2.30) |
Also, we consider the holographic superconductor with scalar mass , but the above relation holds exactly for the minimal holographic superconductor with arbitrary mass. Moreover, the relation also holds for the class of nonminimal holographic superconductors with arbitrary mass (Sec. 5).
Of course, this relation is well-known in the standard GL theory, but the bulk analysis gives the stronger statement. The standard GL theory is the leading order in the effective theory expansion, so it is unclear if the relation holds beyond the leading order.
If we express by ,
(2.31) |
2.3 Low-temperature phase
2.3.1 The background
The solution (2.11) is the one only at the critical point, and we first construct the background solution in the low-temperature phase. The construction has been discussed in Refs. Herzog:2010vz ; Natsuume:2018yrg .
Consider the solution of the form
(2.32) |
The field equations are given by
(2.33a) | ||||
(2.33b) | ||||
(2.33c) |
One can set to be real. Near the critical point, the scalar field remains small, and one can expand matter fields. Namely, we construct the low-temperature background perturbatively:
(2.34a) | ||||
(2.34b) |
We obtain the background up to . At zeroth order,
(2.35) |
The first order solution is Eq. (2.11):
(2.36) |
To proceed to higher orders in , we impose the following boundary conditions:
-
1.
: no fast falloff other than . This means that the condensate comes only from . At the horizon, we impose the regularity condition.
-
2.
: at the horizon.
Namely, we fix the fast falloff , and the chemical potential is corrected:
(2.37a) | ||||
(2.37b) |
At ,
(2.38a) | ||||
(2.38b) |
is an integration constant, but it is fixed at the next order from the source-free condition of . At ,
(2.39a) | ||||
(2.39b) |
Up to ,
(2.40a) | ||||
(2.40b) |
The source of the order parameter is given by
(2.41) |
To obtain the spontaneous condensate, set
(2.42) |
Then,
(2.43) |
This fixes the overall constant of the condensate as
(2.44) |
The higher order expressions are too cumbersome to write here, and we only give the asymptotic forms. At ,
(2.45) |
Again, is an integration constant, but it is fixed at the next order.
2.3.2 The on-shell free energy
We evaluate the on-shell free energy for the low-temperature background. The construction has been discussed in Refs. Herzog:2010vz ; Natsuume:2018yrg .
Substituting the bulk equations of motion into the bulk matter action, one obtains the matter on-shell action:
(2.46) |
We evaluate the on-shell free energy for the spontaneous condensate or the solution with , so the boundary term for vanishes.
We evaluate the difference of the on-shell free energy between the solution and the solution. at , so one has to evaluate the difference at .
For the solution, the on-shell action becomes
(2.47) |
where is the 3-dimensional spatial volume and is the periodicity of , namely the inverse temperature. One would obtain from the computation of , but its explicit form is not necessary to evaluate the on-shell action difference because the -dependence is the same both for the and the solutions.
For the solution,
(2.48) |
In this case, only the boundary action contributes since . The on-shell action becomes
(2.49) |
Thus, the difference is
(2.50a) | ||||
(2.50b) | ||||
(2.50c) | ||||
(2.50d) |
, so the solution is favorable. It is proportional to , which implies the second-order phase transition. Namely, the free energy and its first derivative is continuous, but the second derivative is discontinuous.
2.3.3 The critical magnetic field
The on-shell free energy with is similar. One can obtain the thermodynamic critical magnetic field . In the superconducting phase, and , and it is enough to use the previous result. In the normal phase, and which does not depend on , so
(2.51a) | ||||
(2.51b) | ||||
(2.51c) | ||||
(2.51d) |
In Eq. (2.51c), the indices are raised and lowered by not . We evaluate the difference between and , so the chemical potential does not make a contribution:
(2.52) |
To cancel the UV divergence, one must add the counterterm action (2.12):
(2.53) |
where is the 3-dimensional boundary spatial metric, and the indices are raised and lowered by not in the last expression. Then, one gets the finite result:
(2.54) |
Also, we add the boundary Maxwell action (Sec. 2.1):
(2.55) |
Thus,
(2.56) | ||||
(2.57) |
Then, the net effect of these contributions is to change the magnetic permeability from the vacuum value to . Finally, for the boundary Maxwell field, a boundary term must be added to cancel the surface term:
(2.58) |
The on-shell value is negative twice of Eq. (2.56). Therefore,
(2.59) |
We compare this free energy with the free energy in the superconducting phase obtained in Sec. 2.3.2.
The critical magnetic field is obtained by the condition that the homogeneous condensate is thermodynamically favorable compared with the normal state. Then,
(2.60) |
When , , and the superconducting phase is favorable.
2.3.4 The penetration length
We discuss the Meissner effect in this section and in Sec. 4. We follow Ref. Natsuume:2022kic . Below the critical temperature, a uniform condensate is a solution, and we apply a small magnetic field there. For simplicity, we consider with .
The bulk Maxwell equation becomes
(2.61) |
We impose the boundary conditions (1) regular at the horizon (2) . For now, it looks like to impose the standard Dirichlet boundary condition, but we discuss the other boundary conditions as well. One can rewrite the equation as an integral equation:
(2.62a) | ||||
(2.62b) |
One can solve the integral equation iteratively. At the leading order,
(2.63) |
which gives
(2.64a) | ||||
(2.64b) |
where we use and the background solution (Sec. 2.3.1). Then, from the AdS/CFT dictionary (2.14), one obtains
(2.65a) | ||||
(2.65b) | ||||
(2.65c) |
Here, the -dependence is shown explicitly only for the term. The term represents the supercurrent. The term exists even in the pure Maxwell theory with . This term can be interpreted as the magnetization current due to the normal current.
As the boundary condition at the AdS boundary, we impose the holographic semiclassical equation (2.15):
(2.66a) | ||||
(2.66b) | ||||
(2.66c) | ||||
(2.66d) | ||||
(2.66e) |
Then, the net effect of the normal current is to change the magnetic permeability from the vacuum value to . For , .
We impose the semiclassical equation as the boundary condition. In the literature, one often imposes the Dirichlet boundary condition and the Neumann boundary condition:
-
•
The Dirichlet boundary condition with a fixed corresponds to the limit. In this case, is not dynamical, so one expects no Meissner effect. In fact, the magnetic permeability , and the penetration length diverges .
-
•
The Neumann boundary condition corresponds to the limit. In this case, the magnetic permeability becomes
(2.67) For , .
A few remarks are in order:
-
•
Under the Neumann boundary condition, the current , so the semiclassical Maxwell equation is absent. But the holographic superconductor has a dynamical Maxwell field even under this boundary condition. This was explained in terms of the -duality Witten:2003ya . But the interpretation is valid only for the 4-dimensional bulk theory.
There is an alternative interpretation. The current is the sum of the normal current and the supercurrent as we saw. One may regard the normal current as the induced kinetic term. Then, the dynamical Maxwell field is possible even under the boundary condition.
-
•
Previously, the normal current contribution was interpreted as the renormalization of the charge Domenech:2010nf . In the vacuum, this is the correct interpretation. However, in a medium or at a finite temperature, the Lorentz invariance is broken so that a single renormalization does not work. Instead, it is natural to introduce and the electric permittivity as in elementary electrodynamics. The medium changes these values from the vacuum values. In this sense, the procedure is a kind of “renormalization.”
2.3.5 The order parameter response function
We take the gauge and perturb around the low-temperature background:
(2.68a) | ||||
(2.68b) | ||||
(2.68c) |
where boldface letters indicate the background solution obtained in Sec. 2.3.1. We consider the perturbation of the form . First, consider the -component of the equation:
(2.69) |
The equation is real, so . Then, one can set . The rest of field equations is given by
(2.70a) | ||||
(2.70b) |
Set , and expand the fields as a series in :
(2.71a) | ||||
(2.71b) |
We impose the following boundary conditions:
-
1.
at the horizon, no slow falloff except , and .
-
2.
: regular at the horizon and the condensate comes only from .
Below we give the solution for simplicity. The solution at the leading order is given by
(2.72) |
At and ,
(2.73a) | ||||
(2.73b) | ||||
(2.73c) |
The asymptotic form is given by
(2.74a) | ||||
(2.74b) |
Then, one obtains the response function , the correlation length , and the thermodynamic susceptibility :
(2.75a) | ||||
(2.75b) | ||||
(2.75c) | ||||
(2.75d) | ||||
(2.75e) |
Here, we use .
2.3.6 The GL parameter
We define the GL parameter as666 is known as the Maki parameter maki .
(2.76) |
where we use Eq. (2.31) and Eq. (2.60). However, it is more traditional to define as
(2.77) |
where we use Eq. (2.22c) and Eq. (2.66d). Note that it is conventional to use not to define . If one would use , an appropriate definition would be
(2.78) |
where we use Eq. (2.75). Note the factor .777For example, Ref. Dias:2013bwa seems to compare and without the factor . They report the transition from Type II to Type I superconductors by changing the bulk scalar charge . The report itself may be valid, but the classification may differ if one takes into account the factor 2. It does not matter which definition one chooses because they give the same result in the standard GL theory (Sec. 3).
-
•
Our GL parameter depends both on the coupling and on which is temperature dependent. Thus, whether our system is Type I or Type II depends on the values of and . Of course, is fixed in the real world, and is almost constant in real materials. For simplicity, set . Then, , which means that the system belongs to a Type I superconductor.
-
•
For the nonminimal holographic superconductors in Sec. 5, depends on the bulk parameters and . The system approaches a more Type II superconductor like material by choosing and appropriately.
2.4 Bulk analysis: differences from previous works
The analytic solution of the minimal holographic superconductor and its dual GL theory were analyzed previously Natsuume:2018yrg ; Natsuume:2022kic , but the earlier analysis is not completely satisfactory because
-
•
Previous analysis typically imposes the Dirichlet boundary condition on the AdS boundary. As a result, the boundary Maxwell field is not dynamical, and there is no Meissner effect. We impose the “holographic semiclassical equation” to make the boundary Maxwell field dynamical. This makes it possible to discuss the penetration length, the critical magnetic fields, and the GL parameter.
-
•
The vortex lattice analysis in Ref. Natsuume:2022kic was not complete. We extend the analysis to the third order (Sec. 4). This is necessary to evaluate the free energy and to show that the most favorable configuration is the triangular lattice.
Ref. Maeda:2009vf analyzed the vortex lattice previously, but the reference imposes the Dirichlet boundary condition. We impose the holographic semiclassical equation instead. As a result, our free energy completely agrees with the GL theory one. Also, the analysis of Ref. Maeda:2009vf is rather involved, and we simplify the analysis considerably by incorporating the hydrodynamic limit from the beginning (Sec. 4).
3 The dual GL theory
We consider the following GL theory:
(3.1a) | ||||
(3.1b) |
In the standard GL theory, . Namey, we generalize the GL theory where the material has the magnetization current. The equations of motion are given by
(3.2a) | ||||
(3.2b) | ||||
(3.2c) |
There are 3 unknown coefficients . The coefficient is actually redundant because one can always absorb it by a scaling. Thus, there are 2 independent parameters. But it is useful to keep it to compare with the holographic result. The scaling changes the AdS/CFT dictionary such as Eq. (2.8) and Eq. (2.9). Also, we do not know the exact normalization ( is only the leading normalization).
Determining coefficients:
We determine the parameters of the dual GL theory from (1) the order parameter response function at high temperature, and (2) the spontaneous condensate.
In the high-temperature phase , there is no spontaneous condensate. When there is no Maxwell field, the linearized equation is
(3.3) |
In the momentum space where ,
(3.4) |
One obtain the response function for :
(3.5) |
and the thermodynamic susceptibility is
(3.6) |
where is the critical amplitude. The correlation length is given by
(3.7) |
From the holographic result (2.22),
(3.8) |
This fixes
(3.9) |
so
(3.10) |
In the low-temperature phase , there is a homogeneous spontaneous condensate:
(3.11) |
From the holographic result (2.44), , which fixes
(3.12) |
Thus, the dual GL theory becomes
(3.13) |
The magnetic permeability is given by
(3.14) |
One can now determine the rest of physical quantities:
-
1.
The response function at low temperature: the correlation length , the thermodynamic susceptibility , and the critical amplitude .
-
2.
The penetration length .
-
3.
The on-shell free energy and the thermodynamic critical magnetic field .
-
4.
The upper critical magnetic field .
-
5.
The GL parameter .
In order to make sure that holographic superconductoris really described by the GL theory, let us derive these quantities and compare with holographic results.
The response function (low temperature):
In the low-temperature phase, expand as . The linearized -equation is
(3.15a) | ||||
(3.15b) |
Then, the response function is given by
(3.16a) | ||||
(3.16b) | ||||
(3.16c) | ||||
(3.16d) |
which agree with the holographic results (2.75). The ratio of critical amplitudes is
(3.17) |
The penetration length:
For the homogeneous condensate, the current is
(3.18) |
so the penetration length is
(3.19) |
which agrees with the holographic result (2.66).
The on-shell free energy:
Consider the on-shell free energy. In the superconducting phase, and due to the Meissner effect, so the on-shell free energy is given by
(3.20) |
This agrees with the holographic result (2.50d).
For the Maxwell field, we would like a free energy under a fixed magnetic field. In this case, a boundary term must be added:
(3.21) |
This is the Gibbs free energy. The variation of includes the term
(3.22) |
so is appropriate to fix on the boundary. On the other hand, the variation of includes the term
(3.23) |
so is appropriate to fix on the boundary. In the normal phase, and , so
(3.24) |
where is the 3-dimensional volume.
The critical magnetic field is defined by the condition that the homogeneous condensate is thermodynamically favorable compared with the normal state . Then,
(3.25) |
which agrees with the holographic result (2.60).
The upper critical magnetic field:
The upper critical magnetic field is discussed in Appendix B.1:
(3.26) |
which agrees with the holographic result (2.31).
Note that the following relation holds:
(3.27) |
We saw this in the bulk analysis, but the bulk analysis gives a stronger statement. For the holographic superconductor, the relation is exact and holds to all orders in the perturbative expansion in . The GL theory only shows that the relation holds approximately at the leading order in .
The GL parameter:
Then, the GL parameter is given by
(3.28) |
The conventional definition gives the same result:
(3.29) |
4 The vortex lattice
So far, we consider a homogeneous condensate . In this section, we consider an inhomogeneous condensate. We consider the case where the magnetic field is near the upper critical magnetic field .
In a Type II superconductor, the magnetic field can enter the superconductors keeping the superconducting state. The magnetic field enters by forming vortices. As one increases the magnetic field further, more and more vortices are created, and the vortices form a lattice which is called the vortex lattice. Eventually, the superconducting state is completely broken at the upper critical magnetic field . Such holographic vortex lattices have been investigated in Refs. Maeda:2009vf ; Natsuume:2022kic , and we partly follow these references. In Appendix B.1, we summarize the analogous GL analysis for the reader’s convenience. Also, the bulk analysis is rather involved, so we summarize the necessary formulae one needs to evaluate in Appendix B.2.
We take the gauge and . The bulk Maxwell equations are given by
(4.1a) | ||||
(4.1b) |
where
(4.2a) | ||||
(4.2b) |
Near , the scalar field remains small, and one can expand matter fields as a series in , where is the deviation parameter from the critical point:
(4.3a) | ||||
(4.3b) | ||||
(4.3c) |
Up to , the argument is the same as the one for (Sec. 2.2.2). At zeroth order, and , so
(4.4) |
We apply an external magnetic field . At , a superconducting state just begins to form so that the magnetic induction . However, it is important to distinguish and . As one lowers the magnetic field, begins to differ from due to the Meissner effect as we see in a moment.
But this effect does not happen in holographic superconductors under the Dirichlet boundary condition. The Maxwell field is not dynamical under the boundary condition. In order to discuss the issue, we impose the semiclassical equation (2.15) as the boundary condition.
4.1 First order
At first order, the bulk scalar equation becomes
(4.5) |
Using the ansatz
(4.6) |
one obtains
(4.7a) | ||||
(4.7b) |
where is a separation constant. The regular bounded solution is given by Hermite function as
(4.8) |
with the eigenvalue . takes the maximum value when which gives , so
(4.9) |
What we obtained is the “droplet solution,” where the condensate decays exponentially. But superpositions of the droplet solution give rise to a vortex lattice solution where a single vortex is arranged periodically. See, e.g., Ref. Maeda:2009vf . So, consider the general solution
(4.10a) | ||||
(4.10b) |
One can obtain the vortex lattice solution by choosing appropriately.
The upper critical magnetic field:
is obtained by solving the -equation. The -equation becomes
(4.14) |
One can construct the solution perturbatively in just like the high-temperature phase. Set , , and expand the field as a series in :
(4.15a) | ||||
(4.15b) |
We again impose the regularity condition at the horizon and no condensate condition except .
At ,
(4.16) |
so the source-free condition for the order parameter gives
(4.17) |
4.2 Second order
The Maxwell equation at second order is given by
(4.18a) | ||||
(4.18b) |
where we use Eq. (4.13). In momentum space,
(4.19a) | ||||
(4.19b) | ||||
(4.19c) |
Using the bulk Green’s function , the solution is formally written as
(4.20a) | ||||
(4.20b) |
The first term is the homogeneous solution:
(4.21) |
We impose the following boundary conditions:
-
•
: (1) regular at the horizon and (2) .
-
•
: (1) regular at the horizon and (2) at .
One can rewrite the equation as an integral equation:
(4.22a) | ||||
(4.22b) |
When is small, one can solve the integral equation iteratively. At ,
(4.23a) | ||||
(4.23b) | ||||
(4.23c) |
The Green’s function is obtained from 2 independent homogeneous solutions. At , the homogeneous solutions are
(4.24a) | ||||
(4.24b) | ||||
(4.24c) |
The solution satisfies the boundary condition at the AdS boundary and satisfies the boundary condition at the horizon. Then, the Green’s function is given by
Thus,
(4.25) |
and
(4.26a) | ||||
(4.26b) |
Then, the current is given by
(4.27a) | ||||
(4.27b) | ||||
(4.27c) | ||||
(4.27d) | ||||
(4.27e) |
Here, we evaluate the integral using :
(4.28) |
The second term of Eq. (4.27d) is the supercurrent. The first term of Eq. (4.27d) exists even for the pure Maxwell theory, and it is interpreted as the magnetization current due to the normal current.
We impose the holographic semiclassical equation as the boundary condition:
(4.29a) | ||||
(4.29b) | ||||
(4.29c) | ||||
(4.29d) | ||||
(4.29e) |
is then obtained as
(4.30) |
Going back to the real space,
(4.31) |
where we add a zero mode solution . The total is given by
(4.32) |
with and . Just like in the GL theory (B.12), the magnetic induction reduces by the amount , which implies the Meissner effect. The coefficient is consistent with determined in Sec. 3.
Under the Dirichlet boundary condition , . Then, , so there is no Meissner effect. However, note that the supercurrent itself exists even under the Dirichlet boundary condition (4.27d).
The second order solution for :
To complete the second order analysis, solve the equation:
(4.33a) | ||||
(4.33b) | ||||
(4.33c) |
We impose the boundary conditions .888One could impose the semiclassical equation as the boundary condition. But it is not necessary for here: The main reason why we impose the semiclassical equation on is to study the Meissner effect. At , the solution is given by
(4.34) |
We utilize this solution below.
4.3 Third order: the orthogonality condition and the free energy
The construction so far has been discussed in Ref. Natsuume:2022kic in the context of the bulk 4-dimensional holographic superconductors. We now move on the third order. The third order is important because so far we solve the linear field equation for , so the normalization of is not fixed. In other words, any configuration of vortex lattice is possible.
To fix the normalization, we take into account a nonlinear effect. The equations are schematically written as
(4.35a) | ||||
(4.35b) |
Here,
(4.36a) | ||||
(4.36b) |
where . The solutions satisfy the orthogonality condition:
(4.37a) | ||||
(4.37b) | ||||
(4.37c) | ||||
(4.37d) |
Recall
(4.38a) | ||||
(4.38b) |
Then, the orthogonality condition is rewritten as
(4.39) |
We evaluate this orthogonality condition. The left-hand side of Eq. (4.39) is
(4.40) |
Here, and we use Eq. (4.34) for . means the spatial integral.
For the right-hand side of Eq. (4.39), is obtained in Eq. (4.20):
(4.41) |
The first term is the homogeneous solution obtained in Eq. (4.23). At , , so . The second term in Eq. (4.41) is because , so it can be ignored within our approximation:
(4.42a) | ||||
(4.42b) | ||||
(4.42c) |
Using the second-order result (4.32), is given by
(4.43a) | ||||
(4.43b) |
Thus,
(4.44) |
Then, the orthogonality condition (4.39) becomes
(4.45) |
As discussed in Appendix B.1, the analogous relation in the GL theory is
(4.46) |
They agree because and .
For the minimal holographic superconductor, the bulk scalar field has only the mass term. As is clear from the construction of the background solution, the nonlinearity comes from the backreaction of the bulk Maxwell field. The current analysis shows that the chemical potential actually plays the role of the nonlinear term .
The rest of the analysis is the same as the GL theory. From the orthogonality condition, one gets
(4.47) |
where we use
(4.48) |
Introducing the Abrikosov parameter , the orthogonality condition becomes
(4.49a) | ||||
(4.49b) |
For a Type-II superconductor, the vortex lattice is allowed when . In this case, must be positive. Namely, a Type II superconductor is allowed when .
On-shell free energy:
The on-shell action is given by
(4.50) |
The Maxwell part is
(4.51a) |
Combining with the normal current part
(4.52) |
one obtains
(4.53) |
Then,
(4.54) |
The GL on-shell free energy is also written in this form [see Eq. (B.23)]. As a result,
-
•
The rest of the analysis is the same as the GL theory.
-
•
The favorable vortex lattice configuration is the one with the minimum . As is well-known in the GL theory, the minimum is given by the triangular lattice.
5 Nonminimal holographic superconductors
Ref. Herzog:2010vz studies the analytic solution for a class of nonminimal holographic superconductors (Stückelberg holographic superconductor) based on suggestions of Refs. Franco:2009if ; Franco:2009yz :
(5.1a) | ||||
(5.1b) |
There are 2 features one can realize:
-
1.
The arbitrary values may not be allowed for and . If , may become a (unitary) ghost. If , the potential may not be bounded below. For simplicity, we set .
-
2.
The new terms appear as nonlinear terms for . For the minimal holographic superconductor, the nonlinearity comes from the backreaction of the bulk Maxwell field on at . Thus, one expects that and affect the analysis at . In the dual GL theory, the nonlinearity comes from the -potential. Thus, one expects that and affect , the coefficient of . We will see this explicitly.
The bulk equations of motion are given by
(5.2a) | ||||
(5.2b) | ||||
(5.2c) |
The goal of this section is to identify the dual GL theory for this class of nonminimal holographic superconductors.
5.1 High-temperature phase
The order parameter response function (high temperature):
We consider the linear perturbation of the form . At high temperatures, and decouple from the -equation, and it is enough to consider the -equation:
(5.3) |
where . The field equation remains the same as the minimal case. Then, one obtains the response function , the correlation length , and the thermodynamic susceptibility :
(5.4a) | ||||
(5.4b) | ||||
(5.4c) | ||||
(5.4d) |
The upper critical magnetic field :
We apply a magnetic field and approach the critical point from the high-temperature phase. Near , remains small, and one can expand matter fields as a series in :
(5.5a) | ||||
(5.5b) | ||||
(5.5c) |
At zeroth order,
(5.6) |
At first order, the bulk scalar equation for remains the same as the minimal case. Using the ansatz , the solution for is given by Hermite function, and the -equation takes the same form as Eq. (5.3) with the replacement , so we immediately conclude
(5.7) |
We consider the holographic superconductor with scalar mass , but the above relation holds exactly for this class of nonminimal holographic superconductors with arbitrary mass. Thus,
(5.8) |
5.2 Low-temperature phase
The background:
One can construct the low-temperature background as in the minimal case Herzog:2010vz :
(5.9a) | ||||
(5.9b) |
The background solution remains the same as the minimal case up to :
(5.10a) | ||||
(5.10b) | ||||
(5.10c) |
where is an integration constant, but it is fixed at the next order from the source-free condition of :
(5.11a) | ||||
(5.11b) |
The source of the order parameter is given by
(5.12) |
Then, for the spontaneous condensate ,
(5.13) |
This fixes the overall constant of the condensate:
(5.14a) | ||||
(5.14b) | ||||
(5.14c) |
The higher order expressions are too cumbersome to write here, and we only give the asymptotic forms. At ,
(5.15) |
Again, is an integration constant, but it is fixed at the next order.
The on-shell free energy:
The on-shell free energy has been discussed in Ref. Herzog:2010vz . For the nonminimal case, the on-shell matter action is given by
(5.16) |
For the solution, the on-shell action becomes
(5.17) |
For the solution, the on-shell action becomes
(5.18) |
Thus, the difference of the on-shell action is given by
(5.19a) | ||||
(5.19b) | ||||
(5.19c) | ||||
(5.19d) | ||||
(5.19e) |
The critical magnetic field and the GL parameter:
The bulk Maxwell action does not change from the minimal case, so the on-shell free energy when remains the same as Eq. (2.54):
(5.20a) | ||||
(5.20b) |
Then, the critical magnetic field is given by
(5.21) |
The GL parameter is then given by
(5.22) |
The penetration length:
Consider the perturbation of the form . The bulk Maxwell equation becomes
(5.23) |
Again we solve the integral equation iteratively and obtains
(5.24a) | ||||
(5.24b) | ||||
(5.24c) |
However, makes no contribution at . Then, remains the same as the minimal case when expressed in terms of :
(5.25a) | ||||
(5.25b) |
The order parameter response function (low temperature):
We take the gauge and perturb around the low-temperature background:
(5.26a) | ||||
(5.26b) | ||||
(5.26c) |
where boldface letters indicate the background. We consider the perturbation of the form . The equation is real, so . Then, one can set . Set , and expand the fields as a series in :
(5.27a) | ||||
(5.27b) |
Here, . Below we give the solution for simplicity. The -dependences appear only in the equations. Thus, the solution remains the same as the minimal case except :
(5.28) |
Up to , the asymptotic form of the solution is given by
(5.29a) | ||||
(5.29b) | ||||
(5.29c) |
Then, the order parameter response function remains the same as the minimal case when expressed in terms of :
(5.30a) | ||||
(5.30b) | ||||
(5.30c) | ||||
(5.30d) |
The vortex lattice:
As in the minimal case in Sec. 4, we expand matter fields as a series in :
(5.31a) | ||||
(5.31b) | ||||
(5.31c) |
Even for the nonminimal case, the analysis remains the same up to . The difference arises at .
At , the normalization of is not fixed, and one needs to take into account a nonlinear effect. The equations are given by
(5.32a) | ||||
(5.32b) |
The solutions satisfy the orthogonality condition:
(5.33) |
For the minimal holographic superconductor, the orthogonality condition gives
(5.34) |
For the nonminimal case, the left-hand side of the above equation is replaced by
(5.35) |
-
•
In the GL theory, this left-hand side of the analogous relation (B.19) has the coefficients , so the bulk analysis agrees with the dual GL theory.
-
•
For the minimal case, the nonlinearity comes from the backreaction of the bulk Maxwell field. As a result, plays the role of the nonlinear term . For the nonminimal case, the parameters as well as play the role of the nonlinear term .
-
•
The rest of the analysis remains the same, so the triangular lattice is the most favorable configuration.
5.3 The dual GL theory
Following the minimal holographic superconductor analysis, one obtains
(5.36) |
and the dual GL theory is given by
(5.37) |
From the GL theory, one can obtain physical quantities and they all agree with the bulk results:
(5.38a) | ||||
(5.38b) | ||||
(5.38c) | ||||
(5.38d) | ||||
(5.38e) | ||||
(5.38f) | ||||
(5.38g) | ||||
(5.38h) | ||||
(5.38i) |
Here, the arrows indicate the behaviors when (at a fixed chemical potential .) One can understand the -dependences as follows:
-
1.
The net effect of is to make larger (the coefficient of the term).
-
2.
Then, the condensate becomes smaller.
-
3.
The penetration length is the same as the minimal case when expressed by , but becomes smaller which makes larger for a fixed .
-
4.
The correlation lengths do not change, but becomes larger, which makes the GL parameter larger. Namely, the system approaches a more Type-II superconductor like material.
-
5.
This implies that becomes smaller since remains the same.
-
6.
In this analysis, only the combination appears in the dual GL theory, but there is no reason to expect that only this combination appears in general away from the critical point.
6 Discussion
In this paper, we analyze a class of holographic superconductors. We compute various physical quantities in the bulk theory, and they all agree with the GL theory. In this way, we identify the dual GL theory analytically.
-
•
The relation is well-known in the GL theory, but we find that the relation holds exactly for the holographic superconductors we consider.
-
•
However, we are not claiming that the relation is exact for real superconductors. Rather, this may come from the strong coupling limit. In the strong coupling limit, we learned that one often encounters universal relations using the holographic duality. Here, the universality does not mean the universality classes found in field theories. Some examples are
-
–
, where is the shear viscosity and is the entropy density Kovtun:2004de .
-
–
Pole-skippings: the Green’s functions are not uniquely determined at pole-skipping points in the complex momentum space, and the locations of pole-skipping points are always located at Matsubara frequencies (see, e.g., Grozdanov:2017ajz ; Blake:2018leo ; Grozdanov:2019uhi ; Blake:2019otz ; Natsuume:2019xcy ).
The relation may be another example of the universality.
-
–
-
•
Our results correspond to the strong coupling limit, so it would be interesting to take into account finite-coupling corrections and to see how the relation and various parameters change under the corrections.
The holographic duality has two couplings, ’t Hooft coupling and the number of colors . Our results correspond to the large- limit, i.e., . In the bulk theory, the -corrections correspond to higher-derivative corrections or -corrections. The -corrections correspond to string loop corrections or quantum gravity corrections.
-
•
In this paper, we focus on a class of holographic superconductors. But there exist the other analytic solutions Herzog:2009ci ; Herzog:2010vz ; Natsuume:2018yrg , and it would be interesting to carry out a similar analysis for the solutions.
-
•
Also, it is interesting to carry out numerical computations and to see how the results deviates from analytic results as the system is away from the critical point.
-
•
We take the probe limit . It is interesting to take the backreaction into account to see how our analytic results change. It is difficult to study the system analytically, so one would need a numerical analysis.
Acknowledgements.
I would like to thank Takashi Okamura for his continuous suggestions and interest throughout the work. I also would like to thank Óscar Dias, and Gary Horowitz for useful discussions. This research was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (17K05427) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan.Appendix A Restoring dimensions
In the text, we set for simplicity, but we restore dimensions in this appendix. In a scale-invariant theory, the only scale is the temperature , so one expects that and appear in the form in the boundary physical quantities, but let us check this explicitly.
The bulk action is given by
(A.1a) | ||||
(A.1b) |
Here, we choose the mass dimensions as , , and .
Dictionary:
In the coordinate , the metric is given by
(A.2a) | ||||
(A.2b) |
The asymptotic behaviors of matter fields are given by
(A.3a) | ||||
(A.3b) |
Using the standard procedure, one obtains
(A.4a) | ||||
(A.4b) | ||||
(A.4c) | ||||
(A.4d) |
The coordinate is related to by
(A.5) |
Then, in the -coordinate, e.g.,
(A.6a) | ||||
(A.6b) |
so that
(A.7a) | ||||
(A.7b) | ||||
(A.7c) | ||||
(A.7d) |
The counterterm is given by
(A.8) |
where is the 4-dimensional boundary metric. The log term is rewritten as
(A.9) |
Dimensions:
One can restore and from the scaling analysis and the dimensional analysis. The pure AdS geometry is invariant under the scaling
(A.10) |
This gives the scaling dimensions as
(A.11) |
On the other hand, the mass dimensions are
(A.12) |
Note that the scaling dimensions and the mass dimensions differ for and . The temperature has the following dimensions:
(A.13) |
From the bulk point of view, the scaling is just a coordinate transformation. The bulk Maxwell field is a one-form, and is a scalar, so they transform as
(A.14) |
Namely, the scaling dimensions are and . Then, one obtains
(A.15a) | |||
(A.15b) |
The mass dimensions are
(A.16a) | |||
(A.16b) |
Namely, the mass dimensions coincide with the scaling dimensions.
Then, for example
-
•
The critical point has the scaling dimension 1 and the mass dimension 1, so
(A.17) -
•
The condensate has the scaling dimension 2 and the mass dimension 2, so
(A.18) -
•
The correlation length has the scaling dimension and the mass dimension , so
(A.19) A similar result applies to the penetration length . However, one has the UV divergence and needs the holographic renormalization for , so the scaling is broken by the term.
Bulk equations:
Let us restore dimensions explicitly. In the -coordinate, the metric is given by
(A.20) |
The field equations are given by
(A.21a) | ||||
(A.21b) | ||||
(A.21c) |
In the bulk equations, and appear in the combination
(A.22) |
The“” variables are all dimensionless (the scaling dimensions and the mass dimensions). In the“” variables, the bulk equations reduce to the ones with . Then, all our results in the text are valid in the “” variables. In the “” variables , the AdS/CFT dictionary becomes
(A.23a) | ||||
(A.23b) | ||||
(A.23c) | ||||
(A.23d) |
For example,
-
•
The critical point is given by
(A.24) -
•
The condensate is given by
(A.25) -
•
The correlation length at high temperature is given by
(A.26a) (A.26b)
The dual GL theory:
The bulk results are written by dimensionless quantities, so the dual GL theory should be written by dimensionless quantities as well:
(A.27) |
Here,
(A.28a) | ||||
(A.28b) |
For example, which is consistent with the bulk result. In terms of the variables without “‘”,
(A.29) |
Finally, redefine as
(A.30) |
so that has the canonical mass dimension 1 and the canonical normalization:
(A.31) |
where and .
Appendix B Supplementary information of the vortex lattice
B.1 GL analysis
Here, we summarize the conventional GL analysis near for the reader’s convenience. The field equations are given by
(B.1a) | ||||
(B.1b) | ||||
(B.1c) |
Near the upper critical magnetic field , remains small, and one can expand matter fields as a power series:
(B.2a) | ||||
(B.2b) |
At zeroth order, the Maxwell equation is so one has a homogeneous magnetic field At first order, the order parameter field obeys
(B.3) |
Using the ansatz the first-order equation becomes
(B.4) |
This is the Landau problem, and the solution is given by the Hermite function as
(B.5) |
The eigenvalue is given by
(B.6) |
takes the maximum value when . This gives the upper critical magnetic field .
The general solution is written as
(B.7) |
The first order solution (B.7) satisfies
(B.8) |
so
(B.9a) | ||||
(B.9b) |
or
(B.10) |
where the Latin indices run though and , and . Then, at second order, one can integrate the equation:
(B.11a) | ||||
(B.11b) | ||||
(B.11c) |
Asymptotically, , so . Then,
(B.12) |
Thus, the magnetic induction reduces by the amount which implies the Meissner effect.
So far we solve the linear field equation for , so the normalization of is not fixed. To fix the normalization, we take into account a nonlinear effect. The equations are given by
(B.13a) | ||||
(B.13b) | ||||
(B.13c) |
The solutions satisfy the orthogonality condition:
(B.14a) | ||||
(B.14b) | ||||
(B.14c) |
Here,
(B.15) |
The first term is written as
(B.16a) | |||
(B.16b) | |||
(B.16c) |
so that
(B.17) |
where means the spatial integral.
is written as
(B.18a) | ||||
(B.18b) |
Recall . Then,
(B.19a) | ||||
(B.19b) | ||||
(B.19c) |
One then obtains
(B.20) |
where we use
(B.21) |
Introducing the Abrikosov parameter as
(B.22a) | ||||
(B.22b) |
For a Type-II superconductor, the vortex lattice is allowed when . In this case, must be positive. Namely, a Type II superconductor is allowed when .
The on-shell free energy is given by
(B.23) |
using the orthogonality condition, and this agrees with the bulk result.
B.2 Summary of the bulk analysis
The analysis of the vortex lattice is rather involved, so we collect the necessary formulae one needs to evaluate. We slightly generalize the argument under the following assumptions:
-
1.
We consider the minimal holographic superconductor in a SAdS5-like background.
-
2.
But we do not use the explicit form of .
-
3.
We assume that the bulk Maxwell equations take the same form as the SAdS5 case.
Then, the vortex lattice analysis reduces to evaluate several integrals.
We expand
(B.24a) | ||||
(B.24b) | ||||
(B.24c) |
At the zeroth order,
(B.25) |
For the first order solution, one can use separation of variables:
(B.26) |
The second order solution for :
The Maxwell equation at second order is given by
(B.27a) | ||||
(B.27b) | ||||
(B.27c) |
Using the bulk Green’s function , the solution is formally written as
(B.28) |
The first term is the homogeneous solution. Obtain 2 independent homogeneous solutions at . The solution satisfies the boundary condition at the AdS boundary and satisfies the boundary condition at the horizon.
(B.29) |
Then,
(B.30a) | ||||
(B.30b) | ||||
(B.30c) |
If the current is given by the standard AdS/CFT dictionary, the supercurrent becomes
(B.31a) | ||||
(B.31b) | ||||
(B.31c) |
The homogeneous solution represents the normal current but needs the holographic renormalization. The counterterm is
(B.32) | ||||
(B.33) |
where we use the gauge . Then, the normal current is
(B.34a) | ||||
(B.34b) | ||||
(B.34c) | ||||
(B.34d) |
The holographic semiclassical equation then gives
(B.35a) | ||||
(B.35b) | ||||
(B.35c) | ||||
(B.35d) |
, and the total is given by
(B.36) |
The above relation should reduce to the analogous relation in the GL theory:
(B.37) |
Namely, the magnetic induction reduces by the amount , which implies the Meissner effect.
The second order solution for :
Similarly, solve the equation:
(B.38a) | ||||
(B.38b) | ||||
(B.38c) |
The solution is formally written as
(B.39) |
Two independent homogeneous solutions at are
(B.40a) | ||||
(B.40b) |
Then,
(B.41a) | ||||
(B.41b) | ||||
(B.41c) |
Third order:
The orthogonality condition is given by
(B.42a) | ||||
(B.42b) | ||||
(B.42c) |
Using the result
(B.43a) | ||||
(B.43b) |
the orthogonality condition becomes
(B.44) |
The above orthogonality condition should reduce to the analogous relation in the GL theory:
(B.45) |
The rest of the analysis is the same as the GL theory, and the favorable vortex lattice configuration is the triangular lattice.
To summarize, what one needs to evaluate are 4 integrals:
(B.46) |
References
- (1) J. M. Maldacena, “The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. 38 (1999) 1113 [Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 231] [hep-th/9711200].
- (2) E. Witten, “Anti-de Sitter space and holography,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 253 [hep-th/9802150].
- (3) E. Witten, “Anti-de Sitter space, thermal phase transition, and confinement in gauge theories,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 505 [hep-th/9803131].
- (4) S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov and A. M. Polyakov, “Gauge theory correlators from noncritical string theory,” Phys. Lett. B 428 (1998) 105 [hep-th/9802109].
- (5) J. Casalderrey-Solana, H. Liu, D. Mateos, K. Rajagopal and U. A. Wiedemann, Gauge/String Duality, Hot QCD and Heavy Ion Collisions (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014) [arXiv:1101.0618 [hep-th]].
- (6) M. Natsuume, AdS/CFT Duality User Guide, Lecture Notes in Physics Vol. 903 (Springer Japan, Tokyo, 2015) [arXiv:1409.3575 [hep-th]].
- (7) M. Ammon and J. Erdmenger, Gauge/gravity duality : Foundations and applications (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015).
- (8) J. Zaanen, Y. W. Sun, Y. Liu and K. Schalm, Holographic Duality in Condensed Matter Physics (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015).
- (9) S. A. Hartnoll, A. Lucas and S. Sachdev, Holographic quantum matter (The MIT Press, 2018) [arXiv:1612.07324 [hep-th]].
- (10) M. Baggioli, Applied Holography: A Practical Mini-Course, SpringerBriefs in Physics (Springer, 2019) [arXiv:1908.02667 [hep-th]].
- (11) S. S. Gubser, “Breaking an Abelian gauge symmetry near a black hole horizon,” Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008), 065034 [arXiv:0801.2977 [hep-th]].
- (12) S. A. Hartnoll, C. P. Herzog and G. T. Horowitz, “Building a Holographic Superconductor,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008), 031601 [arXiv:0803.3295 [hep-th]].
- (13) S. A. Hartnoll, C. P. Herzog and G. T. Horowitz, “Holographic Superconductors,” JHEP 12 (2008), 015 [arXiv:0810.1563 [hep-th]].
- (14) K. Maeda, M. Natsuume and T. Okamura, “Universality class of holographic superconductors,” Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009), 126004 [arXiv:0904.1914 [hep-th]].
- (15) C. P. Herzog, P. K. Kovtun and D. T. Son, “Holographic model of superfluidity,” Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009), 066002 [arXiv:0809.4870 [hep-th]].
- (16) C. P. Herzog, “An Analytic Holographic Superconductor,” Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 126009 [arXiv:1003.3278 [hep-th]].
- (17) M. Natsuume and T. Okamura, “Holographic Lifshitz superconductors: Analytic solution,” Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no.6, 066016 [arXiv:1801.03154 [hep-th]].
- (18) M. Natsuume and T. Okamura, “Holographic Meissner effect,” Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) no.8, 086005 [arXiv:2207.07182 [hep-th]].
- (19) K. Maeda, M. Natsuume and T. Okamura, “Vortex lattice for a holographic superconductor,” Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010), 026002 [arXiv:0910.4475 [hep-th]].
- (20) T. Albash and C. V. Johnson, “Vortex and Droplet Engineering in Holographic Superconductors,” Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009), 126009 [arXiv:0906.1795 [hep-th]].
- (21) M. Montull, A. Pomarol and P. J. Silva, “The Holographic Superconductor Vortex,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009), 091601 [arXiv:0906.2396 [hep-th]].
- (22) V. Keranen, E. Keski-Vakkuri, S. Nowling and K. P. Yogendran, “Inhomogeneous Structures in Holographic Superfluids: II. Vortices,” Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010), 126012 [arXiv:0912.4280 [hep-th]].
- (23) Ó. J. C. Dias, G. T. Horowitz, N. Iqbal and J. E. Santos, “Vortices in holographic superfluids and superconductors as conformal defects,” JHEP 04 (2014), 096 [arXiv:1311.3673 [hep-th]].
- (24) O. Domenech, M. Montull, A. Pomarol, A. Salvio and P. J. Silva, “Emergent Gauge Fields in Holographic Superconductors,” JHEP 08 (2010), 033 [arXiv:1005.1776 [hep-th]].
- (25) P. Breitenlohner and D. Z. Freedman, “Positive Energy in anti-De Sitter Backgrounds and Gauged Extended Supergravity,” Phys. Lett. 115B (1982) 197.
- (26) G. Compere and D. Marolf, “Setting the boundary free in AdS/CFT,” Class. Quant. Grav. 25 (2008), 195014 [arXiv:0805.1902 [hep-th]].
- (27) E. Witten, “SL(2,Z) action on three-dimensional conformal field theories with Abelian symmetry,” [arXiv:hep-th/0307041 [hep-th]].
- (28) K. Maki, “The magnetic properties of superconducting alloys I,” Physics 1 (1964) 21.
- (29) S. Franco, A. M. Garcia-Garcia and D. Rodriguez-Gomez, “A Holographic approach to phase transitions,” Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010), 041901 [arXiv:0911.1354 [hep-th]].
- (30) S. Franco, A. Garcia-Garcia and D. Rodriguez-Gomez, “A General class of holographic superconductors,” JHEP 04 (2010), 092 [arXiv:0906.1214 [hep-th]].
- (31) P. Kovtun, D. T. Son and A. O. Starinets, “Viscosity in strongly interacting quantum field theories from black hole physics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005), 111601 [arXiv:hep-th/0405231 [hep-th]].
- (32) S. Grozdanov, K. Schalm and V. Scopelliti, “Black hole scrambling from hydrodynamics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) no.23, 231601 [arXiv:1710.00921 [hep-th]].
- (33) M. Blake, R. A. Davison, S. Grozdanov and H. Liu, “Many-body chaos and energy dynamics in holography,” JHEP 1810 (2018) 035 [arXiv:1809.01169 [hep-th]].
- (34) S. Grozdanov, P. K. Kovtun, A. O. Starinets and P. Tadić, “The complex life of hydrodynamic modes,” JHEP 11 (2019), 097 [arXiv:1904.12862 [hep-th]].
- (35) M. Blake, R. A. Davison and D. Vegh, “Horizon constraints on holographic Green’s functions,” JHEP 01 (2020), 077 [arXiv:1904.12883 [hep-th]].
- (36) M. Natsuume and T. Okamura, “Nonuniqueness of Green’s functions at special points,” JHEP 1912 (2019) 139 [arXiv:1905.12015 [hep-th]].
- (37) C. P. Herzog and S. S. Pufu, “The Second Sound of SU(2),” JHEP 04 (2009), 126 [arXiv:0902.0409 [hep-th]].