A survey of classical and quantum interpretations of experiments on Josephson junctions at very low temperatures
James A. Blackburn, Matteo Cirillo, Niels Grønbech-Jensen
arXiv:1602.05316 · DOI 10.1016/j.physrep.2015.10.010 · 2016-02-17 · arXiv: Superconductivity
Active bibliographic source — not scientific approval
Bibliographic access preserves source history; it does not approve extracted materials or validate reported claims. Review warnings on each occurrence separately.
Abstract
For decades following its introduction in 1968, the resistively and capacitively shunted junction (RCSJ) model, sometimes referred to as the Stewart-McCumber model, was successfully applied to study the dynamics of Josephson junctions embedded in a variety of superconducting circuits. In 1980 a theoretical conjecture by A.J. Leggett suggested a possible new and quite different behavior for Josephson junctions at very low temperatures. A number of experiments seemed to confirm this prediction and soon it was taken as a given that junctions at tens of millikelvins should be regarded as macroscopic quantum entities. As such, they would possess discrete levels in their effective potential wells, and would escape from those wells (with the appearance of a finite junction voltage) via a macroscopic quantum tunneling process. A zeal to pursue this new physics led to a virtual abandonment of the RCSJ model in this low temperature regime. In this paper we consider a selection of essentially prototypical experiments that were carried out with the intention of confirming aspects of anticipated macroscopic quantum behavior in Josephson junctions. We address two questions: (1) How successful is the non-quantum theory (RCSJ model) in replicating those experiments? (2) How strong is the evidence that data from these same experiments does indeed reflect macroscopic quantum behavior?
Source-reported materials — not catalogue approval
| Formula | Reported Tc (K) | Pressure (GPa) | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nb Archive — visibility unverified Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula. | 9.2 | Pressure not reported | unknown |
Similar papers
High resolution measurements of the switching current in a Josephson tunnel junction: Thermal activation and macroscopic quantum tunneling
similarity 0.91A. Wallraff et al. · 2002 · arXiv:cond-mat/0204527
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Fluxon pinning through interaction with the superconducting wiring of long annular Josephson junctions
similarity 0.90D. Muenter et al. · 1998 · arXiv:cond-mat/9805173
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Switching Current Distributions in Josephson Junctions at Very Low Temperatures
similarity 0.89James A. Blackburn et al. · 2014 · arXiv:1409.0066
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Visualizing supercurrents in ferromagnetic Josephson junctions with various arrangements of 0 and πsegments
similarity 0.89C. Gürlich et al. · 2009 · arXiv:0911.4831
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Coherent caloritronics in Josephson-based nanocircuits
similarity 0.89M. J. Martínez-Pérez et al. · 2013 · arXiv:1311.4470
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Josephson Vortex Qubit based on a Confocal Annular Josephson Junction
similarity 0.89Roberto Monaco et al. · 2017 · arXiv:1707.01672
Source status unknown — claims are unverified