Paper detail

Reply to the Comment on 'Quantum Phase Slips and Transport in Ultra-Thin Superconducting Wires'

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.

preprint1997arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.