In our recent paper, the description of microscopic aspects was based on the ordinary dirty limit for twodimensional (2D) case, and the interplay between the electron–electron repulsive interaction and the microscopic disorder, particularly important in explaining the thickness (d)-dependence of observations in real quasi 2D disordered thin films, could be incorporated perturbatively. However, the extension in the ordinary dirty limit (with no repulsive interaction included) to the quasi 2D case was not described adequately there. Below, this extension will be explained because it enables one to quantitatively examine resistance data, suggesting a field-tuned superconductor-insulator quantum transition, in systems showing a superconductivity with conventional s-wave pairing. Main results in ref. 1 and the companion paper, ref. 2, remain unchanged through the modifications shown below. The quasi 2D case corresponds to assuming 3D-like behaviors on a single quasiparticle level while the bosonic modes, such as the pair-field fluctuation and diffusion propagators carrying low wavevectors, to be 2D-like. Among the ‘‘GL parameters’’, ð0Þ, , U4, and Up defined in refs. 1 and 2, only U4 and Up in O(ð 1Þ) are modified through this extension to quasi 2D case. First, ðNð0ÞÞ 1 appearing in them is replaced by the corresponding 3D expression =ðkFNð0ÞÞ. Next, the r.h.s. of the replicated action (2.3) is multiplied by an overall factor d. After the scale transformation, d ð Þ 0 ! ð Þ 0 , both U4 and Up are divided by d. Further, since the dominant diagrams contributing to Up commonly include, even without the repulsive interaction, additional diffusion propagators carrying a low wavenumber q, an extra factor d 1 appears in Up through the quasi 2D q-integral. By combining them altogether, U4 of eq. (2.28) and Up of eq. (2.33) are replaced in quasi 2D case of O(ð 1Þ) by U4=ðkFdÞ and Up=ðkFdÞ, respectively. Consequently, the key result eq. (2.34) [as well as eq. (3.13) in ref. 2], leading to the statement that GvgðB 1⁄4 B vg;TÞ in O(ð 1Þ ) is a universal constant value, remains unchanged. Further, the parameter ðEF Þ 1 appearing in the text and corresponding to U4=ðr B Þ or U p =rB is replaced by Rr=ð3RQÞ, and hence, eq. (3.5) can be rewritten as GðRÞ s ðT 1⁄4 0Þ 1⁄4 R 1 r j ð0Þj 1⁄4 Gnj ð0Þj. Therefore, by also taking account of the identification 1 1⁄4 Rr=ð8 RQÞ of the repulsive interaction constant, a material dependence of dirty s-wave thin films in T < T cr seems to be largely due to a difference in the Rr=RQ-value. In addition, there are a couple of minor errors in the text of ref. 1. First, the 2 in the expression defining x4 just below eq. (2.9) is a misprint and should be replaced by . Second, vg in the paragraph (starting with ‘‘On the other hand, ’’) prior to eq. (3.2) should be replaced by vg because the classical (or, thermal) VG fluctuation was assumed there to be in the Gaussian region. In this connection, the expression Uðx ! 1Þ ! ðxþ 1Þ z in the text below eq. (3.3) should be also replaced by Uðx ! 1Þ ! ðxþ 1Þ , while other z ’s appearing in the same paragraph remain unchanged. Finally, a minor error is also present in ! 1⁄4 0 terms of eq. (3.1) of ref. 1, and the correct expression replacing eq. (3.1) is
Read full abstract