Reply to the Comment on 'Quantum Phase Slips and Transport in Ultra-Thin Superconducting Wires'

TL;DR

This paper defends a microscopic approach to quantum phase slips in ultra-thin superconducting wires, clarifying differences with phenomenological models and addressing experimental data on the thinnest wires.

Contribution

It presents a fundamentally correct renormalization scheme and clarifies the impact of kinetic inductance on tunneling barriers in superconducting wires.

Findings

The microscopic formulation differs from phenomenological models.

The 'log(log)' interaction is relevant only for extremely long wires.

Kinetic inductance significantly reduces the tunneling barrier.

Abstract

We reply to the recent Comment [cond-mat/9702231] by J.-M. Duan. Our point of view is markedly different on every issue raised. Much of the disagreement can be traced to a different preception of experimentally relevant length scales. i) We explain the difference between our formulation, which rests on a microscopic basis, and the phenomenological one of the author. ii) Our renormalization scheme is fundamentally right, as the "log(log)" interaction appears only in wires of astronomical lengths. iii) The tunneling barrier is profoundly reduced by the kinetic inductance. iv) We do make an appropriate comparison to the data on the thinnest available wires.