Scaling critical behavior of superconductors at zero magnetic field

We consider the scaling behavior in the critical domain of superconductors at zero external magnetic field. The first part of the paper is concerned with the Ginzburg-Landau model in the zero magnetic field Meissner phase. We discuss the scaling behavior of the superfluid density and we give an alternative proof of Josephson's relation for a charged superfluid. This proof is obtained as a consequence of an exact renormalization group equation for the photon mass. We obtain Josephson's relation directly in the form $\rho_{s}\sim t^{\nu}$, that is, we do not need to assume that the hyperscaling relation holds. Next, we give an interpretation of a recent experiment performed in thin films of $YBa_{2}Cu_{3}O_{7-\delta}$. We argue that the measured mean field like behavior of the penetration depth exponent $\nu'$ is possibly associated with a non-trivial critical behavior and we predict the exponents $\nu=1$ and $\alpha=-1$ for the correlation lenght and specific heat, respectively. In the second part of the paper we discuss the scaling behavior in the continuum dual Ginzburg-Landau model. After reviewing lattice duality in the Ginzburg-Landau model, we discuss the continuum dual version by considering a family of scalings characterized by a parameter $\zeta$ introduced such that $m_{h,0}^2\sim t^{\zeta}$, where $m_{h,0}$ is the bare mass of the magnetic induction field. We discuss the difficulties in identifying the renormalized magnetic induction mass with the photon mass. We show that the only way to have a critical regime with $\nu'=\nu\approx 2/3$ is having $\zeta\approx 4/3$, that is, with $m_{h,0}$ having the scaling behavior of the renormalized photon mass.Comment: RevTex, 15 pages, no figures; the subsection III-C has been removed due to a mistak

Editorial Statement About JCCAP’s 2023 Special Issue on Informant Discrepancies in Youth Mental Health Assessments: Observations, Guidelines, and Future Directions Grounded in 60 Years of Research

Issue 1 of the 2011 Volume of the Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology (JCCAP) included a Special Section about the use of multi-informant approaches to measure child and adolescent (i.e., hereafter referred to collectively as “youth”) mental health (De Los Reyes, 2011). Researchers collect reports from multiple informants or sources (e.g., parent and peer, youth and teacher) to estimate a given youth’s mental health. The 2011 JCCAP Special Section focused on the most common outcome of these approaches, namely the significant discrepancies that arise when comparing estimates from any two informant’s reports (i.e., informant discrepancies). These discrepancies appear in assessments conducted across the lifespan (Achenbach, 2020). That said, JCCAP dedicated space to understanding informant discrepancies, because they have been a focus of scholarship in youth mental health for over 60 years (e.g., Achenbach et al., 1987; De Los Reyes & Kazdin, 2005; Glennon & Weisz, 1978; Kazdin et al., 1983; Kraemer et al., 2003; Lapouse & Monk, 1958; Quay et al., 1966; Richters, 1992; Rutter et al., 1970; van der Ende et al., 2012). Thus, we have a thorough understanding of the areas of research for which they reliably appear when clinically assessing youth. For instance, intervention researchers observe informant discrepancies in estimates of intervention effects within randomized controlled trials (e.g., Casey & Berman, 1985; Weisz et al., 2017). Service providers observe informant discrepancies when working with individual clients, most notably when making decisions about treatment planning (e.g., Hawley & Weisz, 2003; Hoffman & Chu, 2015). Scholars in developmental psychopathology observe these discrepancies when seeking to understand risk and protective factors linked to youth mental health concerns (e.g., Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Hou et al., 2020; Ivanova et al., 2022). Thus, the 2011 JCCAP Special Section posed a question: Might these informant discrepancies contain data relevant to understanding youth mental health? Suppose none of the work in youth mental health is immune from these discrepancies. In that case, the answer to this question strikes at the core of what we produce―from the interventions we develop and implement, to the developmental psychopathology research that informs intervention development

Atmospheric composition and climate on the early Earth

Oxygen isotope data from ancient sedimentary rocks appear to suggest that the early Earth was significantly warmer than today, with estimates of surface temperatures between 45 and 85°C. We argue, following others, that this interpretation is incorrect—the same data can be explained via a change in isotopic composition of seawater with time. These changes in the isotopic composition could result from an increase in mean depth of the mid-ocean ridges caused by a decrease in geothermal heat flow with time. All this implies that the early Earth was warm, not hot. A more temperate early Earth is also easier to reconcile with the long-term glacial record. However, what triggered these early glaciations is still under debate. The Paleoproterozoic glaciations at approximately 2.4 Ga were probably caused by the rise of atmospheric O(2) and a concomitant decrease in greenhouse warming by CH(4). Glaciation might have occurred in the Mid-Archaean as well, at approximately 2.9 Ga, perhaps as a consequence of anti-greenhouse cooling by hydrocarbon haze. Both glaciations are linked to decreases in the magnitude of mass-independent sulphur isotope fractionation in ancient rocks. Studying both the oxygen and sulphur isotopic records has thus proved useful in probing the composition of the early atmosphere