Draft talk:Non-equilibrium quasiparticles

Draft space

@Ldm1954: wouldn't it be better to send this to WP:Draftspace? ReyHahn (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I realized I had published the wrong version of this article (I had it open on two tabs). Though there is definitely more that needs to be added and I'd be happy to do so. Electronblues (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@ReyHahn, I wondered about it. I did not have enough time, I am on travel. What do you think about the current form? Ldm1954 (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Major problems

@Electronblues, this page has major problems. I do not have time right now to check the refs, but at least some look dubious.

1. The title and text must change. Quasiparticles are standard physics, this is a very minor case.
2. I do not think the Cooper-pair image is valid. It has a local distortion and classical electrons.
3. Nobody without knowledge will understand the junction.
4. The image with fingers has no obvious relevance.
5. The gamma ray image is pretty, but not correct physics.

Ping @ReyHahn Ldm1954 (talk) 07:25, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your message and for taking the time to read the article.

To address point 1, I was also worried that the name may be too general. I considered naming it "quasiparticle poisoning", but that is a very narrow term that primarily refers to the decoherence problem in superconducting qubits. The reason I initially chose not to because these specific kinds of quasiparticles have also been studied for sensing applications like in MKID, TESs, and SNSPDs, and because non-equilibrium quasiparticles aren't noticeable for a broad number of other systems which operate at or near Tc.

I was wondering if "Non-equilibrium quasiparticles (superconductors)" or something to that effect could work. Would this name change be acceptable?

For point 2, this is a significant problem with the US Wikipedia's Cooper pair article, which uses the classical lattice distortion image and description (paragraph 2 under "description" in that article) and our coverage of BCS theory in general. I have put a note on that article that the German BCS theory article has a significantly stronger content, but as there is not yet good coverage of this topic on wikipedia in general, I kept the image to the 'lattice distortion attracts electron' image because of the existing coverage.

I have read through the sources I added. The ones I see that you may have noticed are VICE, the Chalmers website, and the Fermilab article about NEXUS since it comes from the institution itself, which I could replace with the relevant research papers on the topic. Are these what you were referring to?

As for the images, I'll remove or rewrite the image descriptions, but it will take a bit of time. Electronblues (talk) 08:08, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

At most a title could be "Nonequilibrium Bogoliubov quasiparticles". However, I am not convinced this should be a seperate article, and I suspect it should be merged into Bogoliubov quasiparticle. I also wonder whether this article is too much WP:SYNTH as some of the uses and sections look like WP:CRYSTALBALL. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

N.B., please also check #WP:OTHERSTUFFGENERAL & WP:WAX; just because other coverage of BCS needs work does not give you an escape clause. It means, more, that it would be good to improve it. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:55, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I tried to check the sources and it is mostly fine. But I wonder if we can cut the generality, this is just mixing broad terminology. I think an effort could be made to merge this in the Bogoliubov quasiparticle article, in the quasiparticle article, and in making an extra article for quasiparticle poisoning.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both for the comments. I think the best action is making this a separate article for quasiparticle poisoning specifically, and moving the more general parts to the main Bogoliubov quasiparticles article. I can also work on improving the existing Bogoliubov quasiparticles article as it is quite lacking. Electronblues (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2026 (UTC)