Reply to the Comment on 'Quantum Phase Slips and Transport in Ultra-Thin Superconducting Wires'
Andrei D. Zaikin, Dmitrii S. Golubev, Anne van Otterlo, Gergely T. Zimányi
Abstract
We reply to the recent Comment [cond-mat/9702231] by J.-M. Duan. Our point of view is markedly different on every issue raised. Much of the disagreement can be traced to a different preception of experimentally relevant length scales. i) We explain the difference between our formulation, which rests on a microscopic basis, and the phenomenological one of the author. ii) Our renormalization scheme is fundamentally right, as the "log(log)" interaction appears only in wires of astronomical lengths. iii) The tunneling barrier is profoundly reduced by the kinetic inductance. iv) We do make an appropriate comparison to the data on the thinnest available wires.
Create a lesson
Related papers
Spatial interference changes the symmetry class of a Josephson element
Takayuki Kubo
Local Suppression of Superconductivity in Niobium Films by Focused Silicon Ion Implantation
Rochelle Y. Qu, Shunsuke Nishimura, Max Proepper et al.
Driven Vortex Motion in Periodic Channel Potential Embedded in Superconducting Films
A. Al Luhaibi, A. Glatz, Michael Vogl et al.
Kink boundary-induced polarity revealed by nonreciprocal charge transport in FeTe0.7Se0.3 superconductor
Shengyao Li, Ya Deng, Han Yan et al.
Chemical-Potential-Dependent Superconducting Spectroscopy on Bi2Te3/NbSe2 Heterostructures
Pengyu Hu, Chun Yu Wan, Qiaoyan Yu et al.
Quantum Geometry and Pair Breaking in Intra- and Intervalley Superconductivity of Rhombohedral Graphene
Louis Primeau, Yang Zhang, Shi-Zeng Lin