Skip to main content
Sandbox Physics
Magnetism, disorder and topological response

How vortex pairs unbind and destroy two-dimensional superfluidity

Why can warming a thin liquid film separate vortex pairs and destroy its superfluid response?

  1. Consider a two-dimensional phase field

  2. Create vortices and antivortices

  3. Compare binding with entropy

  4. Look for the stiffness change

The thermal vortex transition differs from a band Chern transition and from a three-dimensional vortex lattice.

Making a liquid two-dimensional changes the order problem

A very thin liquid has restricted motion perpendicular to its surface. One might expect that fewer directions make it easier to organize the whole sample. Instead, long-wavelength thermal fluctuations become particularly effective. For an ideal two-dimensional system with a continuous phase and appropriate short-range interactions, conventional true long-range order cannot survive at nonzero temperature. This does not forbid every two-dimensional phase transition or prevent a finite film from showing coherence.

Thin helium films nevertheless exhibit a superfluid response: they can sustain low-dissipation flow under suitable conditions, and part of the liquid responds to substrate motion differently from an ordinary viscous fluid. How can two phases differ without the usual form of long-range order? Kosterlitz and Thouless developed a theory in the early nineteen-seventies that asks whether vortices can occur freely in equilibrium. Berezinskii’s earlier related work is also part of this history, reflected in the name Berezinskii–Kosterlitz–Thouless, or BKT, transition.

Sources: [3][1]

A vortex records how many times the phase winds around a loop

Imagine a small pointer at every location indicating the phase of the quantum state. Neighboring pointers can differ slightly, usually at an energy cost. Now walk around a closed path enclosing a single core. If the pointer turns through a complete revolution before returning to its starting value, the path encloses a unit vortex. The opposite winding gives the opposite sign; two full turns give another integer winding number.

The equation adds the phase gradient along the path. With several cores inside, the integer is the sum of their signed winding numbers. Phase is measured in radians, its gradient has inverse-length units, and integration over length yields an angle. As long as the path avoids the vortex core and the vortex does not cross its boundary, a smooth local adjustment cannot turn one complete winding into half a winding. That robust information about the whole loop is the topology relevant here.

∮∇θ⋅dℓ=2πq,q∈Z\oint\nabla\theta\cdot d\boldsymbol\ell=2\pi q,\qquad q\in\mathbb Z

Sources: [3][6]

A large system makes a free vortex costly and gives it many positions

Outside a vortex core, phase changes rapidly nearby and more gradually farther away. Adding the contributions from concentric rings gives a logarithmically increasing vortex energy in the ideal two-dimensional phase model. The stiffness has units of energy and measures resistance to phase twisting. System size and core radius are lengths; their dimensionless ratio enters the logarithm. An additional core energy accounts for the inner region where this simple description fails.

The larger sample also offers more possible vortex positions. Taking one core-sized patch as a position unit, their number grows as the square of the length ratio. Its logarithm times Boltzmann’s constant gives the positional entropy. Energy and entropy therefore contain the same logarithm. Their competition is unusually sharp: at low temperature the energy cost dominates, whereas increasing temperature makes the entropy gain more important.

A scale example makes the competition concrete. If the system length is one hundred core radii, it offers roughly ten thousand core-sized positions. Increase that length by another factor of one hundred, and there are about one hundred million positions. Taking the logarithm, however, only doubles the positional entropy. The energy outside the core also doubles. Both contributions grow at the same logarithmic rate; their stiffness and temperature coefficients decide which wins.

Sources: [3][4]

The low-temperature phase can contain bound vortex pairs

A nearby vortex and antivortex cancel their far-field winding. Their disturbance need not extend across the entire film, making a bound pair less expensive than two widely separated free defects. Thermal vortex pairs can therefore exist below the transition without a finite population of free vortices destroying the long-distance response. Drawing the low-temperature state as having no vortices at all misses an essential part of the theory.

As temperature increases, the distribution of pair sizes changes and binding eventually fails on large scales. Free vortices disrupt distant phase relationships. Below the transition, correlations decay as a power law: doubling distance reduces them by a fixed factor. Above it, correlations instead decay rapidly beyond a finite correlation length. Neither phase requires every point to share one perfectly fixed phase across an infinite sample. What changes is how correlations persist and whether the system resists a phase twist.

Sources: [3][4]

The transition requires the stiffness measured on large scales

Comparing one vortex’s energy with temperature times its positional entropy gives a useful estimate, but it does not justify inserting a microscopic coupling and claiming an exact transition temperature. Existing vortex pairs respond to an imposed twist and modify the effective stiffness. Near the transition, pairs at different sizes must be accounted for progressively instead of retaining one unchanged input value.

Nelson and Kosterlitz derived a testable universal-jump relation in 1977. The relevant stiffness is the long-distance equilibrium value, approached from below the transition. Dividing it by thermal energy gives about zero point six three seven. Different films can have different transition temperatures and still share this ratio. Finite size, measurement frequency and inhomogeneity round real curves, which must be analyzed with those experimental conditions.

Sources: [4]

An experiment measures the film’s response to an oscillator

One route from stiffness to an instrument uses a helium film adsorbed on a torsionally oscillating substrate. Liquid following the substrate contributes rotational inertia and changes the oscillation frequency. A superfluid response changes how part of the film follows that motion, producing characteristic frequency and dissipation signals. A calibrated apparatus model relates these changes to a superfluid mass per unit area, which can be compared with transition temperature.

Bishop and Reppy reported such two-dimensional helium-film measurements in 1978. Their analysis of superfluid mass and dissipation used the finite-frequency dynamical theory and supported the vortex-unbinding picture and jump relation. The experiment did not photograph every thermal vortex. Substrate conditions, film coverage, drive amplitude and timescale enter the inference from frequency response to the film’s physical behavior.

Sources: [5]

Defect motion changes the long-distance behavior of a film

This part of the 2016 Nobel Prize shows how collective behavior of defects can drive a transition. It does not make all two-dimensional materials equivalent. Symmetry, interaction range, thickness and coupling determine applicability. Superconducting films additionally involve electromagnetic screening, so a neutral-fluid logarithmic interaction cannot be extended unchanged to every length scale of every superconducting sample.

When vortices remain paired, their distant winding cancels and the film retains resistance to a gradual phase twist. Once free vortices proliferate, their motion changes phase relationships and opens a route for persistent flow to decay. Describing the transition through defects made a sharp distinction between phases possible even in the presence of strong two-dimensional fluctuations. Subsequent studies of helium films, planar magnets and cold atomic gases connected this idea with the particular responses, boundaries and timescales of each system.

Sources: [1][2][3]

Sources and reading notes

  1. 2016 Nobel scientific background: topology and phases of matter

    Vortex unbinding, integer-spin chains and quantized Hall topology are different theoretical results.

  2. Nobel Prize in Physics 2016: official award

    Official attribution and award year. The observation or theoretical paper may be much earlier.

  3. Kosterlitz and Thouless: Ordering, metastability and phase transitions in two-dimensional systems (1973)

    Original paper; university-hosted full text was read for defect energy, entropy, response and the effect of other pairs.

  4. Nelson and Kosterlitz: Universal Jump in the Superfluid Density of Two-Dimensional Superfluids (1977)

    Original free-to-read paper on the renormalized long-distance jump, distinct from a bare isolated-vortex estimate.

  5. Bishop and Reppy: Study of the Superfluid Transition in Two-Dimensional Helium Films (1978)

    Original oscillating-substrate experiment. The public abstract identifies superfluid mass, dissipation and finite-frequency analysis.

  6. Kosterlitz: first-person account of topological defects and phase transitions

    First-person context for vortex mapping and subsequent renormalization work. Original papers supply the technical claims.

Keep reading

What this page links to directly

Condensed matter · Reading path

Magnetism, disorder and topological response

  1. ArticleHow atomic magnets can order and still cancel
  2. ArticleHow disorder can stop a quantum wave from spreading
  3. ArticleWhy repelling electrons can turn a partly filled band into an insulator
  4. ArticleWhy apparently nonmagnetic states still respond to a field
  5. ArticleHow a quantum Hall plateau became a resistance standard
  6. ArticleHow a one-third Hall plateau led to fractional charge
  7. You are hereHow vortex pairs unbind and destroy two-dimensional superfluidity
  8. ArticleWhy integer and half-integer spin chains behave differently
  9. ArticleHow wave geometry fixes an integer Hall response
1 more group

Other articles that use the same experiments

Each experiment from this article that another series also uses, followed by the articles there.

  1. LabQuantum Gas Occupation
  2. ArticlePauli: count the states before filling the shells
Something broken, confusing, or missing on this page?Tell us
What kind of feedback?

Sent with this page’s address, its Lab ID, the site language and your device type. Please leave out personal details. Feedback is kept for up to 12 months.Privacy policy