Comment on "Conductance fluctuations in mesoscopic normal-metal/superconductor samples"

S.G. den Hartog,B.J. van Wees

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.5023

1997-10-27

Abstract:Recently, Hecker et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1547 (1997)] experimentally studied magnetoconductance fluctuations in a mesoscopic Au wire connected to a superconducting Nb contact. They claimed to have observed an enhancement of the rms magnitude of these conductance fluctuations in the superconducting state (rms(Gns)) relative to that in the normal state (rms(Gn)) by a factor of 2.8. In this comment, we argue that the measured rms(Gns) is NOT significantly enhanced compared to rms(Gn) when we correct for the presence of an incoherent series resistance from the contacts, which is different when Nb is in the superconducting or normal state.

Mesoscale and Nanoscale Physics,Superconductivity

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The problem that this paper attempts to solve is whether the experimental results of conductance fluctuations in mesoscopic normal - metal/superconductor samples correctly reflect the enhancement factor predicted by theory.

Specifically, Hecker et al. reported in previous studies that the root - mean - square value of conductance fluctuations measured in the superconducting state, \( \text{rms}(G_{\text{NS}}) \), is approximately 2.8 times higher than that in the normal state, \( \text{rms}(G_{\text{N}}) \), which is consistent with the theoretically predicted enhancement factor \( 2\sqrt{2}\approx2.8 \). However, this review article points out that the conclusion of Hecker et al. is not valid because they did not consider the influence of the incoherent series resistance \( R_{\text{series}} \) in the Nb contact on the measurement results.

### Main problems:
1. **Failure to consider the influence of series resistance**: When calculating the root - mean - square value of conductance fluctuations, Hecker et al. did not consider the different series resistances \( R_{\text{series}} \) of the Nb contact between the superconducting state and the normal state, which led to a deviation in their calculation method.

2. **Correct calculation method**: The author believes that the correct calculation method should be to use the resistance of the phase - coherent part \( R_\phi \) to calculate the root - mean - square value of conductance fluctuations, that is:
\[
\text{rms}(G)=\frac{\text{rms}(R)}{(R - R_{\text{series}})^2}
\]
where \( \text{rms}(R) \) is the measured root - mean - square value of resistance fluctuations, \( R \) is the total measured resistance, and \( R_{\text{series}} \) is the series resistance.

3. **Revised results**: After correcting the influence of the series resistance, the author found that \( \text{rms}(G_{\text{NS}}) \) is not significantly greater than \( \text{rms}(G_{\text{N}}) \), thus questioning whether the experimental results really support the enhancement factor predicted by theory.

### Conclusion:
The author believes that the experimental results of Hecker et al. cannot prove the enhancement effect of conductance fluctuations in the superconducting state, and further experiments are needed in the future to verify this theoretical prediction.