Recent Reviews

thx for this good article

Quran , our holy book   notes this matter

This article introduce a new mathematical index that allows to quantify the research output of a researcher. This mathematical formula is nice and simple. The h-index should be however seen as a guidline or a toy model more than a serious evaluation tool.

Strong correlated electrons?  The correlations are medium to weak, at BEST.

 I think a simple explanation for these so called anomalous properties of the PuCoGa$_5$ and PuRhGa$_5$ compounds is readily avaliable...  TO ANYONE WITH A BRANE!  You should be aware gravitational forces are HUGE between brane point particles.  I can tell you need to increase you are brain mass.

Why would you use the sympletic large-N approach, you said yourself there is a large N limit!  Honestly, how can you expect to write about SUPERconductivity when you clearly do not understand normal conductivity.

If you want help I can explain this to you, give me a ring 520.405.5258 

P.S. Where you wrote "The symmetry of the order parameter" I believe you meant to say "The antisymmetry of the same parameter" This will bring out the conduction channels to a higher "Degree" so to speak.  Welcome :D

Why would you assume that matter produces pterbation to the R-S vacuum metric?  Remember assumptions make an ASS out of U and ME.

I also have a problem with your idea of gravitational forces between point particles on the brains in a Randall-Sundrum two brain model.  I think in this type of medium you need to use proper and precise terminology and spelling, we are all scientists here so lets call a spade a spade and point particles on the brain "axons".  "Brain bending"? more like "Crazy"!

Also I think we can be relatively sure that any gravitation between brain particles will be small.  Real small.  Have you ever heard of "G = (M1 * M2)/d^2?  It is called highschool open a book you retard.

P.S. 

I believe you mean "$S^1/Y_2$ symmetry"

This mechanism is working for cuprates as well. Even for a single conduction band if formally Gamma= Cu 4s and f= Cu 3d_{x^2-y^2}, the model describes d-type superconductivity of CuO_2 plane.

The basic idea behind the article, that is using common proper data to identify possible binary stars, is sound.

Unfortunately the methods used to identify potential candidates are fatally flawed relying as they do on the ratios of the proper motions of the two components rather than on the difference between the two values.

It is believed that the author now accepts that at least 1/3rd of the pairs listed are totally spurious. 

The authors have a long experience in developing novel methods providing a better understandin of the physics contained in the simple quantum Hamiltonians that may describe generic properties of material with strong electronic correlations (Hubbard model for instance). Here they report on the application of the cellular DMFT (DMFT) method to the attractive Hubbard model (AHM) to gain new insights into the smooth crossover between BCS superconductivity and Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC). CDMFT is an improvement of DMFT that should suppress the effect of infinite dimensions on which DMFT is based.

There has been recently an application of DMFT to the BCS-BEC crossover problem which yielded some surprizes (Capone, Keller). The most interesting point (see below why) is a possible first-order phase transition at T=0 (and densitie n different from half-filling) in the normal (metastable) state between a Fermi liquid (weak coupling, U<Uc) and a insolating liquid of bosonic bound pairs for U>Uc. This transition is expected to also affect the finite temperature properties of the model, especially above Tc. Now if we recall that the AHM is one of the simplest model that is able to describe the problematic pseudogap phase of the high Tc superconductore above Tc, then we easily realize that a better understanding of the normal phase of the AHM may also be relevant in this context.

The main result of the paper is that the first-order phase transition obtained with DMFT does not survive in finite dimensions (here D=2). It is replaced by a smooth transition showing however all the expected spectral properties: a pseudogap for small U and a large gap for large Us. I regret that the authors do not discuss more deeply the origins of these properties. Indeed, their study essentially reveals the how the strong coupling gap (~ U for large Uc) becomes a pseudogap in the weak coupling and eventually vanishes in the limit U->0, yielding the metal phase. It is however accepted (Mermin-Wagner theorem) that, at least in D=2, an additional effect affects the spectral properties: the enhanced superconducting fluctuations. The interplay between these two factors contributes to the difficulties in understanding the high-Tc. Adding the effect of fluctuations to CDMFT may certainly open new perspectives in separating the "correlation contribution" (as described here, also present for D>2) from the "order parameter flucutation contribution" that plays a dominant role in D=2 only. Analyzing the pseudogap experiments under this persepective may provide a robust framework because it does not rely on any assumption about the actual mechanism leading to the pairing of the electrons (or holes).

The article of Andreas Aste and Guenter Scharf is a kind of inversion of 't Hooft's proof that gauge theories are renormalizable - presupposing that Lorentz symmetry, gauge invariance/unitary and renormalizability hold (very basic requirements), the authors show that in the case of massless fields, a gauge theory automatically emerges. They introduce the free field version of the Becchi-Rouet-Stora transformation, which has a much simpler structure than the full BRS transformation, and show that this very simple transformation contains the full information about the interacting theory. It is astonishing that these 'simple' observations have not been found in the early times of the development of gauge field theories.