One of the most basic ideas in science is the controlled experiment. A single "independent" variable is changed while all others are held fixed. One then observes how the properties of the system change. Unfortunately, reality is more complicated and there are rarely any truly independent variables, particularly in materials science.
Since the discovery of cuprate superconductors one-quarter of a century ago there has been a constant struggle to tease out systematic trends that can provide insight into the underlying physics causing the superconductivity. This is a challenge because it is difficult to change only one variable. For example, a key property is how the superconductivity changes with the chemical composition of the material, particularly with regard to the doping level, i.e., the density of charge carriers. The problem is that with changes in doping, many other things change as well: the amount of disorder, the periodicity and strength of magnetic interactions, crystal structure, ...
There is a beautiful experimental paper that recently overcomes these problems.
On the electron pairing mechanism of copper-oxide high temperature superconductivity
Shane M. O’Mahony, Wangping Ren, Weijiong Chen, Yi Xue Chong, Xiaolong Liu, H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, M. H. Hamidian, and J. C. Séamus Davis
In a very clever way they can do all their measurements on a single material of fixed chemical composition, and yet vary a key parameter, the size of the energy difference between the relevant oxygen and copper electronic states, Epsilon.
In the material under study, Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+x, there are CuO5 units, as pictured below. In the crystal there is a modulation of delta, the distance at which the fifth oxygen sits above the CuO4 squares that form the square lattices that comprise the layers responsible for the superconductivity.
Due to electrostatics, the distance delta has an effect on the energy Epsilon. This in turn changes the size of the magnetic superexchange between neighbouring copper spins, as pictured below.
The yellow band in the figure above is the range of values expected from theory, including the recent paper.
Oxygen hole content, charge-transfer gap, covalency, and cuprate superconductivity
Nicolas Kowalski, Sidhartha Shankar Dash, Patrick Sémon, David Sénéchal, and André-Marie Tremblay
The theory is based on DMFT calculations for a three-band Hubbard model, following earlier work including by Weber, Haule, Kotliar, and independently by Maier.
Quanta magazine has a popular report on the experiment. The headline, "High-Temperature Superconductivity Understood at Last", overstates the significance of the experiment.
There are still issues of correlation versus causality. I would also like to see what other theories predict for the relationship between Epsilon and the pairing density. Nevertheless, it is a beautiful experiment and marks a significant advance.
You sound slightly jel
ReplyDeleteThanks for the explanation, it's quite clear.
ReplyDeleteI think there's a mistake in the text: you wrote "Due to electrostatics the size of the distance delta [...]" twice, before and after the image of the unit cell.
Thanks. Glad it was helpful. I corrected the typo.
DeleteHey Ross, can you give us your insights into the new claim of room temperature superconductivity at 1GPa https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05742-0 as I really do not know what to make of it. Like if it was any other research group it would be ground breaking but I am skeptical but at the same time it passed through the peer review process of nature after the same group had one retracted. https://physics.aps.org/articles/v16/40
ReplyDeleteI am very skeptical given the groups track record and Natures history of publishing dubious stuff and because of the discussion on Doug Natelson's blog raising a multitute of issues about the paper
ReplyDeletehttps://nanoscale.blogspot.com/2023/03/aps-march-meeting-2023-day-2.html
ReplyDeleteI was also disappointed that The New York Times considered this worthy of a story, even with including criticisms of the group and paper.
ReplyDeleteAgree and thanks for responding too
DeleteHey Ross, I am actually really suprised you responded to my dumb question hence why I did not respond earlier to this so will check more regularly in the future. It has happened again hence why I am going to your most recently tagged superconductivity post; but this time it is so much worst where someone claims they have discovered room temperature superconductivity but it has not even been peer reviewed and it is now all over social media (https://twitter.com/hashtag/superconductivity?src=hashtag_click https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/159g2k4/roomtemperature_superconductor_discovered/) and news sources https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/superconductor-breakthrough-electricity-power-paper-b2382711.html . I had a look at the two papers as you can see here https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12037 https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12037 ironically it blew up the same day as this was published https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02401-2 and my first thoughts are undoubtly it is not a room temperature superconductor and that the papers are either written by AI or poorly informed people on the subject as not only does it read poorly but some of the language like " electrons are moved by tunneling between superconducting quantum wells" is just jibberish with words forced together in the same sentence and the graphs do not look like what you would typically find for a superconducting normal state. So again if you want to devote any time to this I would be interested in hearing your thoughts either on the papers themselves, or if condensed matter physicists should communicate more with the general public to be more skeptical of such claims. On the other hand having people want to learn more about superconductivity is also a good thing I guess too.
ReplyDeleteFor more https://inews.co.uk/news/science/room-temperature-superconductors-latest-breakthrough-nonsense-2506774 and https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/breaking-superconductor-news
DeleteDias in trouble again https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03398-4
ReplyDelete