Phinomenological Vs PDF
Phinomenological Vs PDF
Phinomenological Vs PDF
Phenomenologism vs fundamentalism:
The case of superconductivity
Towfic L. Shomar
This article argues that phenomenological treatment of physical problems is more powerful than
fundamental treatment. Developments in the field of superconductivity present us with a clear
example of such superiority. The BCS (Bardeen, Cooper and Schrieffer) was accepted as the fundamental theory of superconductivity for a long time. Nevertheless, Landau and Ginzburg phenomenological model has so far proven to be a more fruitful theoretical representation to understand
and to predict the features of superconductivity and superconductive materials.
Keywords:
GENERAL ARTICLES
parameters of the mathematical form to the properties of
the phenomena. The established relations between the parameters and the properties need, in order to adhere to
coherency, to be consistent with our previous established
pictures of the related fields. In order to do so the model
would need a descriptive body that would present a coherent picture, consistent with our previously established
models.
At this stage we have only a scattered descriptive
measures, with a set of mathematical forms and a set of
possible connections with established models in physics.
Physicists would start to present an overall model that will
account for all the known features of the studied phenomenon. If the outcome scenario succeeds in relating the
properties to the parameters, then the mathematical form
together with the descriptive body and the story would
constitute a phenomenological model.
However, the physical intuition does not mean relating the data to an existing theory already agreed to cover
the phenomenon, but possibly changing a tool from an
understood theory, in another domain, to adapt it to what
is studied. Hence, the physical intuition plays a role in
presenting a story which can relate the data and the ontological world of the phenomenon with the expected
mathematical structure. Construction of a phenomenological model is presented later in the article, showing
how the phenomenological aspects and different tools
from different fundamental theories help in this construction (note 2).
It is important to mention that knowing the mathematical structure, which might be used to illustrate the data,
will not provide enough information to build a model. I
do not accept, for example, that a phenomenological
model is merely a mathematical structure (note 3). At the
same time, it is not naked data, there is more to it. The
story which provides the basis for how to deal with the
mathematics in relation with the phenomenon, is as crucial
as finding a mathematical structure. Hence a phenomenological model in physics consists of a mathematical
structure plus a descriptive level, depending on the human
activity, that is driven by our experience and by the empirical data themselves and has two levels: the objective
description of the experimental set-up or the environmental
set-up and a kind of explanation that provides a deeper
understanding to the phenomenon. Hence, a phenomenological model is a type of theoretical explanation that departs from the description of the environmental set-up of
the phenomenon to give a structural account of its relations. However, the theoretical explanation that the phenomenological model provides is not as abstract as the
fundamental theory explanation.
It should be noted here that I am changing the term experimental set-up with environmental set-up because
phenomenological models try to capture nature within its
boundaries and not to impose purified boundaries such as
those imposed by the experimental set-up. That is to say,
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 94, NO. 10, 25 MAY 2008
the experimental set-up usually takes the natural phenomenon from its natural setting and tries to eliminate all
possible distractive elements before conducting the experiment. Phenomenological models, because of the way
they are built (i.e. from a bottom-up approach), try to
capture as much of the natural environment as possible,
regardless of the ability to understand all the used factors.
As long as the model is able to represent the overall features of the phenomenon, it would be accepted as a phenomenological model.
Although the mathematical form of the phenomenological model is similar in nature to fundamental theories,
it is usually associated with some parameters that cannot
be specified theoretically, but are found through experimentation and fed into the model at certain points during
the building process. By virtue of such parameters, the
phenomenological model might be counted as low-level
theorization. Hence, this would be a good reason to think
of the explanation provided by the phenomenological
model as a whole, as being less abstract.
Therefore, the main differences between a fundamental
theory and a phenomenological model are:
(1) Fundamental theories are constructed using a topdown approach, while phenomenological models are
constructed using a bottom-up approach.
(2) Phenomenological models tend to be more flexible.
(3) The story presented by the phenomenological model
is not as abstract as that presented in the fundamental theory.
(4) The phenomenological models need not tell us why
certain phenomena behave the way they do; it is sufficient that they give good predictions about any
phenomenon.
Furthermore, with the help of different tools from the so
called fundamental theories, physicists can construct
new phenomenological models to account for any new
observed properties. It renders them with higher flexibility than fundamental theories.
This entails a deeper thesis: fundamental theories need
not play a representative role. They only serve as tools in
developing more theories that are fundamental and for
constructing phenomenological models; the latter, from a
realist point of view, can be accepted as representative of
nature.
Before indulging in the Bardeen, Cooper and Schrieffer
(BCS) vs Landau and Ginzburg (LG) discussion, it might
be useful to look at a simpler example. Let us consider
Newtons second law. If we are thinking of the Newtonian framework, then we ought to interpret the law in accordance with moving bodies in a three-dimensional
world in an infinite space and infinite time. Also, in the
fundamental level of the law we present it in the most
general possible form:
1257
GENERAL ARTICLES
F = a M ,
(1)
(2)
Superconductivity
Superconductivity was first discovered by the Dutch
physicist Onnes in 1911. He detected that metals when
cooled to a very low temperature, inside liquid helium
(under 4 K), exhibit a strange phenomenon: the total dis1258
appearance of resistance under a critical transition temperature Tc. Later, in 1933, Meissner and Ochsenfeld
discovered that the magnetic field is expelled inside the
superconductor under a certain transition magnetic field
Hc (the Meissner effect)6.
The discovered experimental constrains shaped the
theoretical understanding of superconductivity from the
beginning. In 1935, London and London7 (note 4) suggested the first theoretical explanation of superconductivity.
Using their knowledge from diamagnetism, they constructed
a phenomenological model expressed by the London
equations:
curl js + H = 0,
( js ) E = 0,
t
(3)
GENERAL ARTICLES
(2) The phase transition at the critical temperature
would transfer the electrons from a disordered bunch
to an ordered one.
(3) The thermal vibration of the atoms is the principal
cause of electrical resistance in metals at ordinary
temperature10.
(4) The energy gap.
Two schemes were developed to overcome the difficulties which the London model faces: the LG phenomenological model and the BCS fundamental theory.
LG model
In 1950, LG developed an extension of the London phenomenological model to take into account a space variation of the order parameter11. They suggested the following
equations:
+ | |2 +
j=
1
2m
2eA
i= c = 0,
ei=
e2
* A,
( * *)
2m
mc
(4)
F (; T , E )d r,
3
J =
he
e2
( * * )
* A,
4 im
mc
*
e2
* .
t
t mc 2
4 imc 2
he
(5)
1
1
g 2 + g 4 4 + ....
2 2
4
GENERAL ARTICLES
In the case of a variable magnetic field, the relation between the free energy and the order parameter is:
F = Fn + a 2 +
b 4
+C
2
2eA
B2
i =c + 8 .
(6)
4 +
1
2m
2eA
i= c
B2
.
8
(7)
It may seem that F has just been modified from eq. (6) to
eq. (7), but this is far from correct. Two features of the
construction illustrate my thesis about the use of theories
as a tool for constructing phenomenological models: first,
eq. (6) itself had been constructed using tools from different theoretical models which are not connected to superconductivity. These tools are: the phase transition, the
assumption that the free energy is a function of the order
parameter and the Gordons equations. Second, eq. (7) is
not derived from quantum mechanics, rather a nonquantum mechanical eq. (6) is reformed in eq. (7). This
illustrates a theoretical influence that functions merely as
a way to express the experimental results. Physicists see
that this construction of eq. (7), independent of any detailed theory of the superconducting state, represented a
tour de force of physical intuition14.
Now from the modification of the free energy in eq.
(7), LG set F = 0, to obtain the following equations:
+ | |2 +
j=
1
2eA
= 0,
i =
c
2m
e *i =
e *2
* A.
( * *)
2m*
m*c
(8)
GENERAL ARTICLES
the mathematical parts of the theory to the natural phenomena. A metaphor here might be a good aid: while the
story that the phenomenological model presents is
strongly associated with the empirical findings, the story
which the fundamental theory gives is like a piece of art
(a sculpture or a painting) which the artist meant to be realist but, usually, turns out to be surrealist or even abstract.
The point here is that the story given by the fundamental
theory would use accepted theoretical models that might
be justified only if we accept the underlying theoretical
concepts carried on from previous fundamental theories.
As we will see, in the case of the BCS theory, it depended
on accepting ideas such as Fermi surface, the Cooper
pair, electronphonon interaction and Fermi sea. These
theoretical models are all justified only if we accept
quantum field theory as a point of departure.
Although generally physically motivated, identification
of the mathematical terms with different sorts of real entities in the superconducting phenomenon does not usually
tend to give a good description of the phenomenon, on
the theoretical level. This point is important because such
identification gives the mathematical models and tools a
physics body. In our case, BCS runs the following story.
The BCS theory depends on a group of theoretical models
that can associate superconductivity with quantum field
theory. In 1955, Cooper suggested a way to understand
the fact that the charge quanta in superconductivity are
2e. He suggested that the electrons in the superconducting state occur in correlated pairs (Cooper-pairs) a theoretical model that have the same quantum state. The
importance of this point is obvious once we recall that
electrons are fermions, which means they are unlikely to
coexist in the same quantum state. But we can model a
pair of electrons as a quasi-bosons. These pairs of electrons can be created through the electronphonon interaction a theoretical assumption which considers that
electrons interact with a lattice giving phonons. This idea
was supported when the isotopic effect was observed
materials in nature are a combination of many isotopes,
and the isotopic effect is the fact that the transition temperature depends on the isotopic nuclear mass. The idea
that electronphonon interactions are primarily responsible for superconductivity seems reasonable, because it
indicates that the vibrational motion of heavy nuclei
plays an essential role in the formation of pairs of electrons. Let us remember that the relation between thermal
vibration and conductivity was an established fact by that
time.
The BCS theory also used the two-fluid model a phenomenological model which assumes that we can imagine the superconducting material as if it consists of two
kinds of overlapping fluids, one of which is responsible
for the normal state and the other for the superconducting
state. This model can also help, in addition to the Cooper
pairs, in understanding the use of another theoretical
model, that of Fermi surface, which is an imaginary surCURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 94, NO. 10, 25 MAY 2008
face in k-space (spin-vector space) that separates the occupied energy levels from unoccupied energy levels and
will define the first empty level.
We can see that BCS used some important assumptions
(which I have underlined). These assumptions cannot be
neglected in the theory; otherwise what will be left are
merely the mathematical tools and bits and pieces from
previous fundamental theories. However, right now all of
these assumptions are being challenged.
It is important for any theory of superconductivity to
derive the relation between the current density and both
the potential and the momentum, because out of these
two equations all the other known mathematical descriptions of the properties of the superconductors can be derived.
For this derivation, using a quantum field theoretical
framework, the BCS theory needs to employ all the mentioned models and tools from fundamental theories.
They start by suggesting a Hamiltonian for the electrons in the superconducting state. Then they add the isotopic mass, Ms, and its relation to the phononelectron
interaction, to see its effect on the non-diagonalized terms
in the Hamiltonian. Then the diagonalized part is renormalized using Bloch energies. Introducing the idea of
the Fermi surface will allow them to use FermiDirac statistics on matrix elements. The story goes on using annihilation and creation operators, then HartreeFock-like
approximations, etc. They arrived in the end at a derivation for a special kind of wave function which, by defining the correct Hamiltonian and accepting a certain gauge
where A = 0, gives us a derivation for the paramagnetic
and diamagnetic current densities:
j = j p + jd ,
e 2 = 2 (2 )3/ 2
(2k + q)k
2m 2 c 2 i 0 k , q , k ,q,
iq r
( 0 (T ) | c*k + q, ck , |
a (q)e
j p (r ) =
*
i (t )) ( i (T ) | c k + q , ck , | 0 (T )) W W ,
0
i
+ complex conjugate
and
ne 2
jd (r ) =
A( r ).
mc
GENERAL ARTICLES
does not exhibit Meissner effect. (ii) The coherence length,
which is a measure of the distance within which the superconducting electron concentration cannot change drastically in a spatially-varying magnetic field16. (iii) The
energy gap. In the case of the BCS theory, it needs a series of approximations to account for each of these three
properties.
Hence, the BCS theory fulfils the criterion suggested
earlier in the article. It is consistent with and derivable
from previous fundamental theory (quantum field theory),
gives a coherent story about type-one superconductors,
and can explain existing empirical findings.
Discussion
The previous sections showed that the LG model was
built using a bottom-up approach, while the BCS theory
was built using a top-bottom approach. Hence, the standpoint of the LG model was experimental evidence and that
of the BCS model was quantum field theory. Let me discuss the differences between these two approaches. Bardeen11 stated, way back in 1956, that:
Anything approaching a rigorous deduction of superconductivity from the basic equations of quantum
theory is a truly formidable task. The energy difference between normal and superconducting phases at
absolute zero is only of the order of 108 eV per atom.
This is far smaller than errors involved in the most
exacting calculations of the energy of either phase.
One must neglect terms or make approximations
which introduce errors which are many orders of
magnitude larger than the small energy difference one
is looking for. One can only hope to isolate the physically
significant factors which distinguish the two phases.
For this, considerable reliance must be placed on experimental findings and the inductive approach.
So Bardeen, with whom Cooper and Schrieffer put
forward the BCS theory of superconductivity, himself
admits that any theory that departs from the quantum theory would need to neglect terms or make approximations
which introduce errors which are many orders of magnitude larger than the quantities one is looking for. The
BCS theory needs exactly these approximations to account for practical situations.
On the contrary, the LG model relays on experimental
findings and the inductive approach and is able to present a mathematical structure that can be consistent with
a representation of the phenomenon, trying to relate different bits and pieces from the shattered information provided through years of experimentation.
The BCS theory was accepted for a long time as the
fundamental theory of superconductivity. There were different factors that contributed toward calling it fundamental, the most one being its use of quantum field
1262
theoretical grounds, i.e. a microscopic base for understanding a macroscopic phenomenon. The LG model also
depended partly on microscopic factors the Gordons
formula and LG employed their knowledge about fundamental theories to construct their model; yet nobody
considered their model as fundamental. That was because
their derivation did not give a clear reason for taking the
order parameter to be a wave function; and because their
derivation was not considered as a straightforward one
from a previous fundamental theory.
Interestingly, the LG model has proved to be capable
of adapting to new properties of superconductivity,
whereas the BCS model failed to be modified to account
for these new discoveries, as we shall see next. In this
sense, LG can give an example of the way phenomenological models can prove more fruitful than fundamental
theories.
Nevertheless, why did the BCS theory, in spite of all
its success, fail to maintain its position as the fundamental theory of superconductivity? Up to a certain point, the
BCS theory is reliable in giving an understanding of superconductivity. This is especially so if we are dealing
with type-one superconductors. The BCS theory also
managed, using further assumptions, to account for typetwo superconductors. However, other kinds of superconductors, especially high-temperature superconductors which
were discovered in 1986 by Bednorz and Mller, prove
more problematic. It is important to mention here that in
all the interpretations of the BCS theory concerning the
critical temperature, the most optimistic one suggests
30 K to be the highest possible critical temperature. Now
we have superconductors with (125 K) Tc (note 8). So the
BCS theory cannot be seen as valid for all kinds of superconductivity.
In a discussion between Anderson and Schrieffer19 on
the difficulties facing a theory for high-temperature
superconductivity, Anderson mentions: I think few people
realize that we now know of at least six different classes
of electron superconductors, and two other BCS fluids as
well. Out of these only one obeys the so-called conventional theory that is, BCS with phonons that fit unmodified versions of Eliashbergs equations.
Anderson continues by stating that it is crazy to think
that the new high-temperature superconductors can fit the
BCS theory, since even most of the simpler ones do not.
He states that: Back in the 1960s we may have created
the abomination, a theory that has become nonfalsifiable in the Popperian sense in that people insist on inventing more and more ingenious ways to make it fit any
anomaly!.
In fact, that was quite right on the theoretical level; even
a great physicist like Pippard mentioned in 1964 about
the success of the BCS theory: This success is so remarkable that I almost believe you would forgive me if I
were to say there now remain no problems in superconductivity18. Nevertheless, most physicists were reluctant
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 94, NO. 10, 25 MAY 2008
GENERAL ARTICLES
to continue using the BCS techniques, especially after
they found that the LG model could give them the same
predictions with simpler mathematics. A survey of the
textbooks on superconductivity can tell us about the role
of the BCS theory. One of the most widely read textbooks
was Michael Tinkhams Introduction to Superconductivity20, where he writes: The emphasis is on the rich array
of phenomena and how they may be understood in the
simplest possible way. Consequently, the use of thermal
Green Functions has been completely avoided, despite
their fashionability and undeniable power in the hands of
skilled theorists. Rather the power of phenomenological
theory in giving insight is emphasized, and microscopic
theory is often narrowly directed to the task of computing
the coefficients in phenomenological equations.
The BCS theory, as already stated, cannot be accepted
as a genuine theory unless certain assumptions are associated with it. The new theoretical work is questioning
each of these assumptions. In addition, the BCS theory
(note 9) does not speak about important factors in hightemperature superconductivity, like the chemical structure
of the materials and their normal state. Another reason for
not accepting the BCS theory is its disagreement with
new experimental outcomes: the highest critical temperature
predicted by BCS is 30 K; the value of the energy gap
that the BCS accepts is less than 3.5 kTc, while the new
superconductors exceed that limit to twice the value, etc.
Hence, while the fundamental theory of superconductivity failed to accommodate high-temperature superconductors and other kinds of superconductors, the LG
phenomenological model of superconductivity proved to
be more fruitful in representing all kinds of superconductors. The main difference between the BCS theory and
the LGs model was the point of departure. Both of them
used tools from previous fundamental theories. Both of
them need a story to relate the mathematics with the
properties of the phenomenon. Moreover, both of them
hold a theoretical explanation. However, LG departs from
the experimental level, while the BCS theory departs
from the quantum field theory.
This important difference plays a major role in the type
of story associated with the theoretical explanation. We
saw that the BCS story needs certain assumptions to be
consistent with the quantum field theory and to be able to
derive the needed mathematical form. As shown above,
all these assumptions are being challenged. The LG story
depends on a well-tested set of assumptions, related to the
empirical findings only. This gives the model the advantage of being attached to experimental evidence.
The association of the phenomenological model with
experimental evidence, and the liberty which the model
provides to some parameters to be measured experimentally, gives it a better stand toward representing new kinds
of superconductors. Hence, the phenomenological model
proved to be more fruitful than the fundamental theory of
superconductivity.
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 94, NO. 10, 25 MAY 2008
GENERAL ARTICLES
ory in the domain of low velocities and small masses.
Hence, the predictions of the new theory should not be in
contradiction with the well-confirmed predictions of the
previous theories. So this option will require a whole new
theoretical approach, not just for superconductivity, but
for other domains as well.
The other option is to consider that there is more than
one fundamental theory for superconductivity: one each
for conventional superconductors, high-temperature superconductors, organic superconductors, etc. This option
might work, though it would end up by contradicting the
unification assumption of fundamental theories, i.e. fundamental theories are compatible with each other and
there will be a way in which all these theories can be unified in a theory of everything.
None of these two options is necessary. If we accept
that phenomenological models are representative of nature, then our theories will eventually be merely tools to
help us in constructing new theoretical tools and new
phenomenological models. Science and scientists will
have more freedom by doing that, and this will help them
to go beyond the theoretical limitations. After all, if all
the physicists had accepted the BCS theory, we would
have never been able to discover high-temperature superconductors.
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1264
8.
9.
varying as exp(T0/T) near T = 0 K and other evidence for an energy gap for individual particle-like excitations, (3) the Meissner
Ochsenfeld effect (B = 0), (4) effects associated with infinite conductivity (E = 0), and (5) the dependence of Tc on isotopic mass,
TcvM = const15.
For a historical account of the developments in the field of superconductivity see Schechter17 and Vidali18.
The BCS theory was accepted as a fundamental theory because of
its ability, according to the known features of superconductivity at
the time, to represent a coherent explanation of the phenomenon.
Nonetheless, it failed to account for many elements and was not
able to explain new features of superconductivity. In this regard,
although the LG model does not have a rigorous derivational origin, it was open to changes and was able to account for the newly
discovered high-temperature superconductors.