format: text

text:
# Secure direct communication using entanglement

## I Introduction

What is secure direct communication? Traditionally, secure communication schemes based on quantum mechanics are *non-deterministic* : Alice, the sender, cannot determine which bit value Bob receives through the secure quantum channel. Such non-deterministic communication can be used to establish a *secret key* between Alice and Bob. Whenever an eavesdropper tries to extract information from the quantum channel, he influences the transmitted state and can be detected with some probability. If Alice and Bob are virtually sure that a certain random subsequence of bits has been transmitted secretely, Alice can use the remaining subsequence as a shared secret key to encrypt her message, send the encrypted message to Bob through a non-secret channel and then Bob uses the shared key to decrypt the message. It is a common belief that every secure quantum communication protocol should work that way.

Recently, however, a *deterministic* quantum cryptographic protocol has been presented , which I will refer to as the *BEKW protocol*. Against the paradigm of quantum cryptography, the information is sent *directly* from Alice to Bob. Alice uses a secret key to encrypt her message before sending it through a quantum channel. If she is virtually sure that no eavesdropper was in the line, Alice publishes the secret key so Bob can read the message. This is a different concept of quantum cryptography, and I will refer to it as *secure direct communication* as opposed to *quantum key distribution*. In the present paper, another deterministic cryptographic scheme is presented which has significant advantages against other schemes:

1. High quantum efficiency: 1 bit per qubit.
2. Reliable security: Detection probability $`d=1/4`$ per control qubit.
3. Deterministic: No qubits are discarded. The message is send directly.

The magic ingredient for the protocol is entanglement. Alice has to prepare and measure Bell pairs, and she must be able to store one of the entangled qubits for a certain time (some milliseconds will do). Even if it might still be difficult to prepare and to measure the Bell states, and in particular to store entangled qubits, the presented scheme contains a completely new approach to assure the security of a communication. In order to illustrate the quality of the protocol, let us compare it with other schemes. In non-deterministic protocols, Alice and Bob choose at random one of several possible bases to prepare and/or to measure the transmitted qubit. If their choices does not coincide, the qubit is discarded since the outcome is completely uncorrelated. In the BB84 protocol  every second qubit is discarded that way, so the quantum transmission rate,

$$R_q=\frac{\text{N(usable bits)}}{\text{N(qubits)}},$$
(1)
is $`R_q=0.5`$. The protocol needs an additional classical channel carrying 2 bits per transmission (the choices of basis), so the total rate

$$R_{\mathrm{tot}}=\frac{\text{N(usable bits)}}{\text{N(qubits)}+\text{N(bits)}},$$
(2)
is $`R_{\mathrm{tot}}=0.5/(1+2)=1/6`$. Since the usable bits form the shared secret key, there is still the need for a subsequent classical transfer of the same bit size carrying the message information. The same goes for the Ekert scheme . In the BEKW protocol, every transmitted qubit can directly be used for the message, but only two of them carry one message bit, so $`R_q=0.5`$. The additional classical channel carries 2 bits per transmission, so $`R_{\mathrm{tot}}=1/6`$. In the protocol presented here, two qubits and 2 bits of message information are transmitted, hence $`R_q=1`$. The classical channel transfers 2 bits, so $`R_{\mathrm{tot}}=2/(2+2)=1/2`$. No further transmission is required. All the rates given above do not include *control bits*. So let us roughly compare the security of the protocols, which depends on the detection probability $`d`$ per transmitted control qubit. The BB84 and the Ekert protocol provide $`d=1/4`$, the BEKW protocol provides $`d=1/6`$, and the protocol presented here provides $`d=1/4`$.

## II Double dense coding

Let us start with a protocol that is not designed for security but for highly efficient use of quantum resources. Afterwards we will construct from there the secure protocol.

Alice controls a device that is able to prepare two qubits in one of the Bell states

$`|0\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|00\pm |11),`$ (3)
$`|1\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|01\pm |10),`$ (4)
forming the orthogonal Bell basis $`_{\mathrm{Bell}}`$. Let us bring the Bell states in some order,

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=|0+,|\mathrm{\Psi }_1=|0,`$ (5)
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2=|1+,|\mathrm{\Psi }_3=|1.`$ (6)
Alice decides to send the value $`a\{0,1,2,3\}`$ by preparing the *initial state* $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_a_{\mathrm{Bell}}`$, which she can easily look up in Fig. 1.

After the state is prepared, Alice sends only the *second* qubit, which we call the *travel qubit*, and she keeps the first one, which we call the *home qubit*. Bob receives the travel qubit and performs one of the four unitary operations

$`\sigma _0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{𝟙}=|00|+|11|,`$ (7)
$`\sigma _1`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _x=|10|+|01|,`$ (8)
$`\sigma _2`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _y=i|10|i|01|,`$ (9)
$`\sigma _3`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _z=|00||11|,`$ (10)
forming the set $`𝒫`$. These matrices are unitary and hermitian at the same time, so each one is its own inverse, $`\sigma _i^2=\mathrm{𝟙}`$, and although they are *local* operations, they switch between the *non-local* Bell states in the following manner:

$`(\mathrm{𝟙}\sigma _0)|n\pm `$ $``$ $`|n\pm ,`$ (11)
$`(\mathrm{𝟙}\sigma _1)|n\pm `$ $``$ $`|m\pm ,`$ (12)
$`(\mathrm{𝟙}\sigma _2)|n\pm `$ $``$ $`|m,`$ (13)
$`(\mathrm{𝟙}\sigma _3)|n\pm `$ $``$ $`|n,`$ (14)
with $`n\{0,1\}`$ and $`m=1n`$. For the sake of simplicity, we have neglected the irrelevant global phase on the righthand side. Bob receives the travel qubit from Alice and encodes $`b\{0,1,2,3\}`$ by performing $`\sigma _b`$ on it. After that, he sends the travel qubit back to Alice. Alice then performs a Bell measurement on both qubits resulting in one of the four Bell states. Let us call this resulting state the *final state* $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_f_{\mathrm{Bell}}`$. Since she knows the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_a`$ she initially prepared, she now also knows the operation $`\sigma _b`$ Bob has performed by solving

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_f`$ $``$ $`(\mathrm{𝟙}\sigma _b)|\mathrm{\Psi }_a.`$ (15)
Since there are 4 possible operations *intentionally* performed by Bob, Alice has received 2 bits of *deterministic information* from him. If she now tells Bob via a classical channel the final Bell state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_f`$ resulting from her measurement, then Bob can calculate the initial state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_a`$ by inverting (15). Since there are 4 possible initial Bell states that Alice intentionally prepared, Bob has received 2 bits of deterministic information from her. Instead calculating, Alice and Bob can also look at the transformation table in Fig. 2 to decode the other one’s message.

The table indicates the effect of the local operations $`\sigma _b`$ to the Bell state. For example, $`\sigma _2`$ transforms $`|0+|1`$ and $`|0|1+`$. Not indicated is the effect of $`\sigma _0=\mathrm{𝟙}`$, which does nothing. The transmission scheme is depicted in Fig. 3.

The efficiency of this protocol is high: 1 qubit travels forth and back between Alice and Bob and 4 bits of information are exchanged, which makes a quantum transmission rate of 2 bits per transmitted qubit. The origin of such high efficiency is the same as in the *dense coding* protocol : entanglement. The present protocol works in a similiar manner and since it works in two directions simultaneously, let us call it a *double dense coding* protocol.

## III Eavesdropping

Say there is eavesdropper Eve having full access to the quantum channels between Alice and Bob. Whatever measurement Eve might be performing, the travel qubit carries no information about the initial state prepared by Alice, because the state of the travel qubit equals for *any* initial Bell state the complete mixture,

$`a:\rho _1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}_2\{|\mathrm{\Psi }_a\mathrm{\Psi }_a|\}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{𝟙}.`$ (16)
However, Eve can gain some information about *Bob’s* message. If Eve measures the travel qubit coming from Alice in some basis, resends it in a certain state, and then measures the state of the qubit returned by Bob, she can gain 1 bit of information about the action that was performed on the qubit. Such an attack is called *intercept-resend attack*.

But Eve is *really* smart. She captures the qubit as it travels from Alice to Bob. Then she prepares another “evil” Bell state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_e`$, sends one of its qubits as a travel qubit to Bob, who performs his operation and sends it back to Alice. But Eve also catches that qubit and performs a Bell measurement on both evil qubits. Now she knows exactly the operation $`\sigma _b`$ that Bob has performed and hence got his message. She applies the operation $`\sigma _b`$ to the captured “friendly” travel qubit and sends it back to Alice, who performs a Bell measurement resulting in the final state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_f`$. When Alice announces the final state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_f`$, Eve can calculate the initial state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_a`$ and hence got Alice’s message. Bob performs the same calculation and also obtains $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_a`$. So even if Alice and Bob would sacrifice their bits to compare them publicly, they would not notice that Eve was in the line. To Alice Eve acts like Bob and to Bob Eve acts like Alice. Such an evil thing is called a *man-in-the-middle attack* and is depicted in Fig. 4.

There is no protection against a man-in-the-middle attack except: a *public channel*. This is a channel that spreads its information content all over the world. Eve can read and write to the channel, but she cannot *manipulate* it. If even the public channel is under full control of Eve, then let us call this a *strong* man-in-the-middle attack or a *Berlusconi attack*. The protocol presented here is secure against *weak* man-in-the-middle attacks: it does not allow Eve to manipulate the public channel. A fairly good public channel is already given by an ordinary radio signal.

Apart from *active attacks* described above, there can also be *passive attacks*. Once the final state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_f`$ is published, the messages of Alice and Bob are strongly correlated via (15). An eavesdropper could try a so-called *known plaintext attack*: If there is some part of Alice’s or Bob’s message that is likely to appear in the message at a certain position (e.g. “Hi Baby” or “See you”), the eavesdropper can *immediately* decypher the other one’s part of the message at the same position. No serious cryptosystem should allow that.

## IV The final protocol

First we abandon the “full duplex” property of the double dense coding scheme and allow only Alice to send messages to Bob. Bob uses a random number generator to choose the operation $`\sigma _b`$ he performs on the travel qubit. Bob’s random sequence of operations acts like a secret key on Alice’s message.

Next we have to make sure that Eve is detected with nonzero probability while she is trying to do active attacks. Let us introduce two modes, the *message mode* and the *control mode*. In message mode, Alice and Bob perform the double dense coding protocol, but Alice does not tell the final state she has measured. With probability $`\lambda _c`$ Bob switches from message mode to control mode. Now, instead of performing his operation, Bob randomly chooses a basis $`_i`$ out of the two bases $`_0=\{|0_0,|1_0\}`$ or $`_1=\{|0_1,|1_1\}`$, where

$`|0_0`$ $`=`$ $`|0,|1_0=|1,`$ (17)
$`|0_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|0+|1),|1_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|0|1).`$ (18)
He performs a *measurement* in the basis $`_i`$ on the travel qubit and instead returning Alice the travel qubit, Bob sends her his choice of basis and his measurement result through the public channel. Now Alice also switches to control mode and performs a measurement in the same basis on her home qubit. Then she looks if the result is correlated or anticorrelated to Bob’s result. Since she (and only she) knows the initial state $`|\psi _a`$, she sees if the correlation is wrong or right. If the correlation is wrong, she knows that someone was in the line and stops the communication. If the correlation is correct, she repeats the preceding run in message mode because the last qubit she sent has been sacrificed.

At the end of an undisturbed communication sequence, Alice sends Bob the list of final Bell states she has measured. Since Bob knows the sequence of operations he performed, he can decypher Alice’s messages by solving (15) or using Fig. 2.

Now here is the explicit algorithm realizing the protocol. Alice wants to communicate the message $`𝒂=a_1\mathrm{}a_N`$, where $`a_n\{0,1,2,3\}`$.

1. Protocol is initialized. $`n=0`$, $`𝒇=𝒃=\mathrm{}`$.
2. $`n=n+1`$. Alice prepares two qubits in the Bell state $`|\psi _{a_n}`$.
3. She keeps the first qubit, the *home qubit*, and sends the other one, the *travel qubit*, to Bob.
4. Bob receives the travel qubit. With probability $`\lambda _c`$ he switches to control mode and proceeds with c.1, else he proceeds with m.1.

1. Bob chooses at random a basis $`_i\{_0,_1\}`$.
    2. He measures the travel qubit in the basis $`_i`$ and obtains the value $`j\{0,1\}`$ with equal probability.
    3. He sends $`ij`$ through the public channel to Alice.
    4. Alice receives $`ij`$ through the public channel, switches to control mode and measures her home qubit in the basis $`_i`$ resulting in the value $`k`$.
    5. $`(|\psi _{a_n}=|0\pm jk)(|\psi _{a_n}=|1\pm j=k)`$: Eve is detected. Abort or Goto p.IV.
    Else set $`n=n1`$ and goto p.1.
    1. Bob takes a number $`b_n\{0,1,2,3\}`$ from his random number generator, appends the value $`b_n`$ to the list $`𝒃`$, applies the operation $`\sigma _{b_n}`$ to the travel qubit and sends it back to Alice.
    2. Alice receives the travel qubit and makes a Bell measurement on both qubits resulting in the *final state* $`|\psi _{f_n}_{\mathrm{Bell}}`$. She appends the value $`f_n`$ to the list $`𝒇`$.
    3. $`n<N`$: Goto p.1.
    $`n=N`$: Goto p.4.
5. Alice sends the list $`𝒇`$ to Bob.
6. For each $`(f_n,b_n)`$ Bob decodes $`a_n`$ via

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{a_n}`$ $``$ $`(\mathrm{𝟙}\sigma _{b_n})|\mathrm{\Psi }_{f_n},`$ (19)
or by looking at Fig. 2.

The published sequence $`𝒇`$ is completely uncorrelated with Alice’s message $`𝒂`$, since the sequence $`𝒃`$ of operations is a random sequence. Just like a *one-time pad* scheme, there is no way to break the cryptosystem by passive attacks, if the sequence $`𝒃`$ is truly random and used only once, which we assume here. After the qubit has arrived at Bob, with probability $`\lambda _c`$ he activates control mode, so Eve has no chance to adapt her strategy. If she has been replacing the travel qubit with another qubit, using *intercept-resend* or *man-in-the-middle* strategy, it is not entangled with Alice’s home qubit, and with probability $`1/2`$ she has forwarded a state in a basis different from Bob’s. If so, then with another probability of $`1/2`$ the measurements of Alice and Bob, which are performed in the same basis, show the wrong type of correlation, hence with total probability $`d=1/4`$ Eve is detected. The public channel is needed to synchronize Alice and Bob in control mode.

The probability for a control transfer is $`\lambda _c`$, so for $`N`$ protocol runs the number of control runs is $`N_c=\lambda _cN`$, and with Eve attacking all the time, the probability that she stays undetected reads

$$\overline{D}(N)=(1d)^{\lambda _cN}=\left(\frac{3}{4}\right)^{\lambda _cN}.$$
(20)
The above value can be made arbitrarily small by choosing an $`\lambda _c`$ and $`N`$ appropriately. Concluding, the protocol is asymptotically secure against active and passive attacks.

## V Acknowledgements

I had exciting and enlightening discussions with Timo Felbinger, Almut Beige, Luke Rallan, Jens Eisert, Martin Plenio, Sougato Bose, and others. This work is supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).


text:
# Resistive state of superconducting structures with fractal clusters of a normal phase

## I INTRODUCTION

A significant property of clusters of a normal phase embedded in a superconducting medium consists in their capability to trap a magnetic flux and hold the vortices from moving under the action of the Lorentz force. As a result, these clusters can act as effective pinning centers \- . This property is widely used in creating composite superconducting materials with high critical current values , . The morphologic characteristics of the normal phase clusters essentially affects the dynamics of trapped magnetic flux, especially if the clusters have fractal boundaries -. In the present work we consider in detail the geometric probability properties of these fractal clusters and their influence on the critical current and dynamics of trapped magnetic flux near the transition of the superconductor into a resistive state.

## II FRACTAL GEOMETRY OF NORMAL PHASE CLUSTERS AND DISTRIBUTION OF CRITICAL CURRENTS

Let us consider a superconductor containing fragments of a normal phase. Suppose that dimension of these fragments along one direction significantly exceed the other sizes. Similar columnar defects are of great interest in creating artificial pinning centers , -. If such a superconducting structure is cooled in a magnetic field directed along the axis of alignment of these defects below the critical temperature, then the distribution of magnetic flux trapped in the clusters of a normal phase will be two-dimensional. This can be done especially easily with a superconducting film where such clusters are formed near defects at the boundary with the substrate during the growth process and are directed transversely to the film plane , . Let us suppose that the film surface fraction covered by the normal phase is below the percolation threshold for the transfer of magnetic flux (i.e., less than 50% for 2D-percolation ). In this case the fraction of the superconducting phase exceeds the percolation threshold, so there is a superconducting percolation cluster that can carry a transport current in the film plane. This kind of structure provides for the effective pinning and thereby raises the critical current, for the magnetic flux is trapped in isolated clusters of the normal phase and the vortices cannot leave them without crossing the surrounding superconducting space. As the current increases, the trapped flux will remain unchanged until the vortices begin to break away from those clusters for which the pinning force is less than the Lorentz force caused by the transport current. When the magnetic flux is breaking away from the pinning centers, each vortex must cross the infinite superconducting cluster. In this case the vortices will move primarily along the weak links that connect the clusters of a normal phase to each other , -. These weak links form readily in high-temperature superconductors (HTS) characterized by a small coherence length , . Structural defects, which could act simply as scattering centers at a large coherence length, create weak links in HTS. There is a large variety of weak links in a wide range of spatial scales in HTS , -. At an atomic level weak links are created by structural point defects, primarily by oxygen vacancies , . On a mesoscopic scale weak links are efficiently formed on twin boundaries , , , . Twins can be located at a distance of several tens of nanometers from each other, therefore even a single crystal can have a fine substructure created by twins. Finally, on a macroscopic scale weak links are created by various structural defects, such as boundaries of grains and crystallites or barriers arising from the secondary degrading of a non-stoichiometric crystal into the domains with a high and low oxygen content -. Moreover, a magnetic field favors the coherence length to further decrease , so weak link formation is facilitated still more. In conventional low-temperature superconductors, which are of large coherence length, weak links are formed due to the proximity effect at sites where the distance between neighboring clusters of a normal phase is minimum.

Thus, regardless of their origin, weak links form channels for vortex transport where the pinning force is less than the Lorentz force caused by the transport current. According to their configuration each cluster of the normal phase has its own value of the depinning current that makes the contribution to the overall statistical distribution of the critical currents. When a transport current is passed through the sample, vortices will be broken away first from clusters of a smaller pinning force and, accordingly, a smaller critical current of depinning. So the change in the trapped magnetic flux will be proportional to the number of the normal phase clusters which have the critical current less than the preset value $`I`$. Therefore, the relative decrease in the flux can be expressed through the function of cumulative probability $`F=F\left(I\right)`$ for the distribution of critical currents of the clusters:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }}=F\left(I\right)$$
(1)
where

$`F\left(I\right)=\mathrm{Pr}\left\{I_j<I\right\}`$

The right-hand side of Eq. (1) is the probability that any $`j`$-th cluster has a the critical current $`I_j`$ less than the given upper bound $`I`$. On the other hand, the magnetic flux trapped in a single cluster is proportional to its area $`A`$. Therefore, the decrease in the trapped flux can be expressed through the function of cumulative probability $`W=W\left(A\right)`$ for the distribution of the areas of normal phase clusters, which is proportional to the number of clusters of area smaller than a given value of $`A`$

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }}=1W\left(A\right)$$
(2)
where

$`W\left(A\right)=\mathrm{Pr}\left\{A_j<A\right\}`$

Generally, the distribution of cluster areas can be described by the gamma-distribution, for which the function of cumulative probability has the form

$$W(A)=\frac{\gamma (g+1,A/A_0)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(g+1)}$$
(3)
where $`\gamma (\nu ,z)`$ is the incomplete gamma function, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\nu \right)`$ is Euler gamma function, and $`A_0`$ and $`g`$ are the parameters of the gamma-distribution that determine the mean area of the normal phase cluster $`\overline{A}=(g+1)A_0`$ and its standard deviation $`\sigma _A=A_0\sqrt{g+1}`$. The distribution function of cluster areas can be found from the geometric probability analysis of electron photomicrographs of superconducting films , , . For example, in the practically important case of YBCO films with columnar defects  the exponential distribution is realized, which is a special case of the gamma-distribution of Eq. (3) with $`g=0`$.

To clarify how the transport current affects the trapped magnetic flux, it is necessary to find the relationship between the distribution of critical currents of clusters of Eq. (1) and the distribution of their areas of Eq. (2). The larger the normal phase cluster size, the more weak links rise from its perimeter bordering with the surrounding superconducting space, and therefore, the smaller is the critical current at which the magnetic flux breaks away from this cluster. Let us suppose that the weak link concentration per unit length of the perimeter is the same for all clusters and all the clusters of equal perimeters have the same pinning force. Then the critical current $`I`$ is inversely proportional to the perimeter $`P`$ of the normal phase cluster: $`I1/P`$, because the probability to find a weak link over the larger perimeter is higher. It is suggested here that the vortex, driven by the Lorentz force, passes through the weak link from one normal phase cluster to another with the probability of 100%. In this case magnetic flux is transferred through the superconducting medium by Josephson vortices. The probability to trap the vortex when it moves through the weak link under the action of the Lorentz force is negligible, inasmuch as the Josephson penetration depth in the considered materials significantly exceeds the sizes of possible irregularities along the weak link. In accordance with these assumptions, in order to find the distribution function of Eq. (1) we have to know the relationship between the perimeter and the area of a cluster. As was first established in Ref. , fractal properties of the boundaries of normal phase clusters essentially affect the dynamics of magnetic flux in superconductors. For fractal clusters the perimeter-area relation has the form

$$PA^{D/2}$$
(4)
where $`D`$ is the fractal dimension of the cluster boundary.

Relation of Eq. (4) agrees with the generalized Euclid theorem , according to that the ratios of the corresponding measures are equal when they are reduced to the same dimension. So $`P^{1/D}A^{1/2}`$, and this relation holds true both for Euclidean clusters (for which the Hausdorff–Bezikovich dimension of the perimeter is equal to the topological dimension of a line, $`D=1`$), and for fractal clusters (for which the Hausdorff–Bezikovich dimension of the boundary strictly exceeds the topological one, $`D>1`$).

Note that it is just the statistical distribution of cluster areas, rather than their perimeters, is fundamental for deriving the critical current distribution. Inasmuch as the Hausdorff–Bezikovich dimension of a fractal line exceeds unity, the perimeter of a fractal cluster is not well defined: it diverges when the precision of its measurement increases indefinitely . At the same time, the topological dimension of the cluster area coincides with the Hausdorff–Bezikovich dimension (both are equal to 2). Therefore, the area of a surface confined by the fractal curve is a finite, well-defined quantity.

Analyzing the geometric characteristics of normal phase clusters, we are considering the cross-section of extended columnar defect by the plane the transport current flows through. Therefore, though a normal phase cluster is a self-affine fractal , we can consider its geometric probability properties in the planar section only, where the boundary of cluster is statistically self-similar.

Now, using relation of Eq. (4) between the fractal perimeter and area, together with the assumption of inverse proportionality of the critical current of a cluster to its perimeter, we arrive at the following expression for critical current of the cluster: $`I=\alpha A^{D/2}`$, where $`\alpha `$ is a form factor. Taking into account our initial relations of Eqs. (1) and (2), we can find the distribution of critical currents in the general case of the gamma-distributed cluster areas:

$$F(i)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(g+1,Gi^{2/D})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(g+1)}$$
(5)
where

$`G\left({\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^\theta }{\theta ^{g+1}\left(D/2\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\theta \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }(g+1,\theta )}}\right)^{\frac{2}{D}}\text{ , }\theta g+1+{\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}`$

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu ,z)`$ is the complementary incomplete gamma function, $`iI/I_c`$ is the dimensionless electric current, and $`I_c=\alpha \left(A_0G\right)^{D/2}`$ is the critical current of the transition into a resistive state. The found function of cumulative probability of Eq. (5) provides a complete description of the effect of the transport current on the trapped magnetic flux. Using this function, we can easily derive the probability density $`f\left(i\right)=dF/di`$ for the distribution of depinning currents, which has the form

$$f(i)=\frac{2G^{g+1}}{D\mathrm{\Gamma }(g+1)}i^{\frac{2}{D}(g+1)1}\mathrm{exp}\left(Gi^{\frac{2}{D}}\right)$$
(6)
The probability density is normalized to unity over all possible positive values of the critical currents. The relative change in the trapped flux $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }`$, which can be directly found from Equation (5), also determines the density of vortices $`n`$ broken away from pinning centers by the current of a given magnitude $`i`$

$$n\left(i\right)=\frac{B}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}_0^if\left(i^{}\right)𝑑i^{}=\frac{B}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$$
(7)
where $`B`$ is the magnetic field, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0hc/\left(2e\right)`$ is the magnetic flux quantum ($`h`$ is Planck constant, $`c`$ is the velocity of light, and $`e`$ is the electron charge).

Figure 1 shows how $`g`$-parameter of the gamma-distribution affects the distribution of the critical currents of the clusters. As an example, we have taken a value of the fractal dimension $`D=1.5`$, which is near to the value $`D=1.44\pm 0.02`$ found earlier  for the normal phase clusters in YBCO film structures. On the other hand, the value $`D=1.5`$ is intermediate between two limiting cases: $`D=1`$ for the Euclidean clusters and $`D=2`$ for the clusters of the most fractality. When the fractal dimension differs from unity so much, the fractal properties of the cluster structure of a superconductor are of great importance. In Fig. 2 the cluster area distribution is presented. The corresponding probability density has the following form

$$w\left(a\right)=\frac{\left(g+1\right)^{g+1}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(g+1\right)}a^ge^{\left(g+1\right)a}$$
(8)
where $`aA/\overline{A}`$ is the dimensionless cluster area, with $`\overline{a}=1`$ and $`\sigma _a=1/\sqrt{g+1}`$. The function of cumulative probability for the dimensionless area is related with function of Eq. (8) by the formula $`W\left(a\right)=_0^aw\left(a^{}\right)𝑑a^{}`$ and can be written as

$`W\left(a\right)={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ((g+1,(g+1)a)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(g+1\right)}}`$

As is seen from Fig. 1, when $`g`$-parameter decreases, the distribution $`f=f\left(i\right)`$ spreads to the right, spanning higher and higher range of critical currents. It might be expected that the highest current-carrying capability of the superconductor can be achieved in the limiting case of $`g=0`$, when the gamma-distribution of Eq. (8) is reduced to the exponential one $`w\left(a\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(a\right)`$. In this case the small clusters give the most contribution into the overall distribution (curve 1 in Fig. 2). For $`g=0`$ expressions of Eqs. (5) and (6) can be simplified

$$F\left(i\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\left(\frac{2+D}{2}\right)^{\frac{2}{D}+1}i^{\frac{2}{D}}\right)$$
(9)
$$f\left(i\right)=\frac{2}{D}\left(\frac{2+D}{2}\right)^{\frac{2}{D}+1}i^{\frac{2}{D}1}\mathrm{exp}\left(\left(\frac{2+D}{2}\right)^{\frac{2}{D}+1}i^{\frac{2}{D}}\right)$$
(10)
where, as above, $`iI/I_c`$, and the critical current of the resistive transition can be calculated using a simpler formula: $`I_c=\left(2/\left(2+D\right)\right)^{\left(2+D\right)/2}\alpha A_0^{D/2}`$.

Figure 3 shows how the fractal dimension of the cluster boundaries affects the distribution of the critical currents of Eq. (10). As is clearly seen from the figure, with increasing fractal dimension the critical current distribution spreads and shifts to the higher values of current. This shift can be characterized by the dependence of the mean critical current on the fractal dimension, as is shown in Fig. 4. Although the mode of the distribution mode$`f\left(i\right)=\left(2+D\right)/2`$ is linear with respect to the fractal dimension, the mathematical expectation obeys a much stronger superlinear law controlled by Euler gamma function

$$\overline{i}=\left(\frac{2+D}{2}\right)^{\frac{2+D}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1\frac{D}{2}\right)$$
(11)
Thus, the geometric probability properties of the normal phase clusters determine the statistical distribution of depinning currents. Using this distribution along with Equation (1), the relative change in the trapped flux under the action of the transport current can be found.

## III DYNAMICS OF MAGNETIC FLUX TRAPPED IN NORMAL PHASE CLUSTERS WITH FRACTAL BOUNDARIES

The effect of the transport current on the trapped magnetic flux is demonstrated in Fig. 5. The change in the trapped flux was calculated using formula of Eq. (1) for the exponential-hyperbolic critical current distribution of Eq. (9). Curves 1 and 5 in Fig. 5 correspond to the limiting cases of the Euclidean clusters ($`D=1`$) and the clusters of maximum fractality ($`D=2`$), respectively; they confine the region of changes in the trapped flux for all possible values of the fractal dimension. The function $`F=F\left(i\right)`$ reveals one important property; namely, it is very flat near the coordinate origin. It can readily be shown that all its derivatives become zero at the origin point: $`d^kF\left(0\right)/di^k=0`$ for any values of $`k`$. Therefore even the Taylor series expansion of the function in the vicinity of the origin converges to zero value but not to the quantity $`F`$ itself. This mathematical feature has a clear physical sense: such a small transport current does not affect the trapped magnetic flux, because there are no pinning centers with such small critical currents in the total statistical distribution. The decrease in the magnetic flux becomes noticeable only near the point of a resistive transition ($`i=1`$). A use of the exponential-hyperbolic distribution of critical currents of Eq. (9) excludes the uncertainty caused by truncation of non-physical negative values of the depinning currents, which may happen, e.g., in the case of the normal distribution , .

As is seen from Fig. 5, the breaking of the vortices away is observed mainly at $`i>1`$, when the sample undergoes a transition into a resistive state. Figure 5 demonstrates the practically important property of a superconducting structure with fractal normal phase clusters: the fractality favors magnetic flux trapping, and thereby increases the critical current magnitude below which the sample remains in a superconducting state. Indeed, the transport current of the value $`i=2`$ causes the 43% of the total trapped magnetic flux to break away from the usual Euclidean clusters ($`D=1`$, curve 1), whereas this value equals only to 13.5% for the fractal normal phase clusters of the greatest possible fractal dimension ($`D=2`$, curve 5). This is equivalent to the pinning increase of 218% in the latter case. The enhancement of pinning due to fractality can be characterized by the pinning gain factor

$`k_\mathrm{\Phi }20\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }\left(D=1\right)}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }\left(D\right)}}\text{,   dB}`$

which is equal to the relative decrease in the fraction of the magnetic flux broken away from the fractal clusters of dimension $`D`$ in comparison with the Euclidean ones ($`D=1`$). In Fig. 6 the dependencies of the pinning gain factor on the transport current and on the fractal dimension are presented. The maximum pinning gain is achieved when the boundaries of clusters have the greatest possible fractal dimension ($`D=2`$). Note that the pinning gain factor characterizes the properties of the superconductor in the range of transport currents corresponding to a resistive state ($`i>1`$). With smaller currents, the trapped magnetic flux virtually does not change, because there are no pinning centers with such small critical currents (Figs. 1, 3) and the breaking of the vortices away has not started yet. In the presence of a finite resistance any current flow is accompanied by energy dissipation. As for any hard superconductor (type-II, with pinning centers) the energy dissipation in a resistive state does not mean the phase coherence destruction yet. Some dissipation accompanies any motion of the magnetic flux; this effect can be observed in a hard superconductor even for small transport currents. Therefore, the critical current in such materials cannot be determined as the greatest dissipationless current. The superconducting state collapses only when the dissipation increases in an avalanche-like manner as a result of the thermo-magnetic instability.

The reason for the pinning gain caused by the fractality of the cluster boundaries lies in the fundamental properties of the statistical distribution of critical currents (see Fig. 4). In the case of Euclidean clusters the mean value of the critical current calculated in accordance with Eq. (11) is equal to $`\overline{i}\left(D=1\right)=(3/2)^{3/2}\sqrt{\pi }=3.2562`$, whereas for the clusters of the most fractality ($`D=2`$) it is infinitely high. As is seen from Fig. 3, when the fractal dimension increases, the contribution of the clusters with high depinning currents to the overall statistical distribution increases, too, which results in the enhancement of magnetic flux trapping.

In a resistive state a hard superconductor can be adequately described by its voltage-current characteristics. Using the fractal distribution of the critical currents of Eq. (6), we can find the electric field caused by magnetic flux motion after the vortices have been broken away from pinning centers. Inasmuch as each cluster of the normal phase contributes to the overall distribution of the critical currents, the voltage across the superconductor $`V=V\left(i\right)`$ is a response to the sum of effects made by contribution from each cluster. This response can be expressed as a convolution integral

$$V=R_f\underset{0}{\overset{i}{}}(ii^{})f(i^{})𝑑i^{}$$
(12)
where $`R_f`$ is the flux flow resistance. This representation for the voltage across the sample is often used to consider the pinning of bunches of vortex lines in a superconductor , as well as to analyze the critical scaling of voltage-current characteristics , i.e., in all the cases when the distribution of depinning critical currents occurs. In the following analysis we will focus on the results of the properties of the exponential-hyperbolic distribution in Eq. (10); we will not consider questions associated with the possible dependence of the flux flow resistance $`R_f`$ on the transport current.

In the simplest case, when all pinning centers have the same critical current $`i_c`$, all vortices are released simultaneously at $`i=i_c`$, and their density, in accordance with Eq. (7), has the form

$`n={\displaystyle \frac{B}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}}{\displaystyle _0^i}\delta \left(i^{}i_c\right)𝑑i^{}={\displaystyle \frac{B}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}}h\left(ii_c\right)`$

where $`\delta \left(i\right)`$ is the Dirac delta function, and $`h\left(i\right)\{\begin{array}{cc}1& \text{ for }i0\\ 0& \text{ for }i<0\end{array}`$ is the Heaviside function. The trapped flux would change at once by 100% in this case: $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }=h\left(ii_c\right)`$.

Thus, accordingly with Equation (12), for the $`\delta `$-like distribution of the critical currents in the regime of viscous flow of the magnetic flux the voltage across the superconductor is controlled by a simple linear dependence $`V=R_f\left(ii_c\right)h\left(ii_c\right)`$. The corresponding voltage-current characteristic is shown in Fig. 7 by the dashed line $`a`$. In the same figure the voltage-current characteristics of the superconductor in a still simpler approximation of the critical state model is represented, too (the dashed curve $`b`$). In this case the response on any external action, which results in the appearance of an electric field in a hard superconductor, is the flow of the current that is equal to the critical one $`i=i_c`$, regardless of the value of the voltage across the sample. (The dimensionless critical current is equal to unity due to the normalization chosen above, $`iI/I_c`$)

For the fractal distribution of the critical currents the situation changes radically, because now the vortices are being broken away in a wide range of transport currents. We shall consider the case of the exponential distribution of the cluster areas ($`g=0`$), where the current-carrying capability of the superconductor is maximum. After substitution of the distribution of Eq. (10) into Eq. (12) followed by integration, the voltage across the sample can be expressed through the function of cumulative probability of Eq. (9)

$`V=R_f{\displaystyle _0^i}F\left(i^{}\right)𝑑i^{}`$

Upon integration we get

$$V=R_f\left[i\mathrm{exp}\left(\left(\frac{2+D}{2}\right)^{\frac{2}{D}+1}i^{\frac{2}{D}}\right)\left(\frac{2+D}{2}\right)^{\frac{2+D}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\frac{D}{2},\left(\frac{2+D}{2}\right)^{\frac{2}{D}+1}i^{\frac{2}{D}})\right]$$
(13)
In the limiting cases of $`D=1`$ and $`D=2`$, Equation (13) can be simplified.

For Euclidean clusters ($`D=1`$) the voltage across the superconductor has the form

$$V=R_f\left[i\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{3.375}{i^2}\right)\sqrt{3.375\pi }\text{erfc}\left(\frac{\sqrt{3.375}}{i}\right)\right]$$
(14)
where the complementary incomplete gamma function is expressed through the complementary error function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2,z)=\sqrt{\pi }`$erfc$`\left(\sqrt{z}\right)`$.

For clusters of maximum fractality ($`D=2`$), after substitution of the representation for the complementary incomplete gamma function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,z)=Ei\left(z\right)`$, Equation (13) for the voltage takes its final form

$$V=R_f\left[i\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{4}{i}\right)+4Ei\left(\frac{4}{i}\right)\right]$$
(15)
where $`Ei\left(z\right)`$ is the exponential integral function.

In Fig. 7 there are shown the voltage-current characteristics of a superconductor containing fractal clusters of a normal phase. For all values of the fractal dimension there is a noticeable voltage drop starting from the transport current of $`i=1`$ that coincides with the value found earlier from the critical current distribution of Eqs. (5) and (9) for the resistive transition current. Equations (14) and (15) describe the dependencies of the voltage on the transport current for the limiting values of the fractal dimension. Whatever the geometric probability properties of the normal phase clusters may be, the voltage-current characteristics of a superconductor with these clusters will lie in the region confined by these dependencies (curves 1 and 5 in Fig. 7). As is seen from the figure, the fractality significantly reduces the electric field induced by magnetic flux motion. In Fig. 8 the dependencies of the attenuation factor of dissipation

$`k_V20\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{V\left(D=1\right)}{V\left(D\right)}}\text{,   dB}`$

on the transport current at various values of the fractal dimension are presented. The decrease in the electric field with increasing fractal dimension is especially appreciable in the range of currents $`1<i<3`$, where the pinning gain also has a maximum (Fig. 6). Both of these effects have the same nature, since their reason lies in the peculiarities of the fractal distribution of the depinning currents. As is seen from Figs. 3 and 4, an increase in the fractal dimension leads to considerable spreading of the tail of the distribution $`f=f\left(i\right)`$. This means that more and more clusters of small sizes, which can best trap the magnetic flux, are being involved in the game. As a result, the density of vortices broken away from pinning centers by the Lorentz force decreases, so the smaller part of magnetic flux can flow creating a lower electric field. In turn, the smaller the electric field, the smaller energy is dissipated when the transport current passes through the sample. So the decrease in heat evolution, which could cause a transition into a normal state, leads to an increase in the current-carrying capability of the superconductor containing such fractal clusters.

Thus, Figs. 5-8 clearly demonstrate the most important result: the fractality of the normal phase clusters prevents destruction of the superconductivity by the transport current, and thereby enhances the current-carrying capability of the superconductor. The fractal clusters essentially affect the dynamics of the magnetic flux trapped in the superconductor. The crucial change of the depinning current distribution caused by increasing the fractal dimension of the clustes is the reason of this effect. The fractality of the boundaries of the normal phase clusters intensifies pinning and slows down destruction of the superconductivity by the transport current. This point provides principally new possibilities for increasing the critical currents of composite superconductors by optimizing their geometric morphological properties.

This work is partially supported by Russian Foundation of Fundamental Researchs (Grant No 02-02-17667).