Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 41 references

Multiple solutions for the equilibrium populations in BCS superconductors

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Even in the symmetric textbook BCS case, there are two equilibrium solutions for the energy gap, and at zero temperature the second gap is exactly one third of the standard one.

desk verdict The finite-temperature second branch is a real extension of the author's earlier formalism, but the claim that standard symmetric BCS has a second equilibrium solution rests on a singular limit that is never justified; the Δ0/3 result is a consistency check of modified equations, not of the textbook problem. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06017 v1 pith:ED7YS4TJ submitted 2019-08-14 cond-mat.supr-con

Dragos-Victor Anghel This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con
keywords BCStheorysuperconductivityenergygapquasiparticlepopulationschemicalpotentialattractionbandmultipleequilibriumsolutionsphasetransition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the standard BCS theory of superconductivity admits more equilibrium solutions than the textbook one. Solving the self-consistent gap and quasiparticle-population equations with a chemical-potential correction, the author finds two solution branches for every temperature below the phase transition, including in the symmetric case where the attraction band is centered on the chemical potential. One branch is the usual BCS solution; the other has a smaller energy gap and nonzero quasiparticle populations even at zero temperature, where its gap equals one third of the standard value. If this is right, the textbook BCS state is not the only equilibrium state, so metastable or additional superconducting states may appear in real materials and in other BCS-type paired systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the quasiparticle energy shift produced by the chemical-potential mismatch. In Eq. (5c) the occupation is $n_\xi=[\exp(\beta(\epsilon_\xi-(\mu_R-\mu)(\xi-F)/\epsilon_\xi))+1]^{-1}$, with $F$ the ratio of two integrals over the attraction band. In the symmetric limit $\mu_R\to\mu$, the function $F_2$ diverges, but the product $M_2=(\mu_R-\mu)F_2$ tends to a finite nonzero value, so the combination $M_2/\epsilon_\xi$ survives in the exponent and creates a distinct population distribution. Equivalently, for the second branch the derivative $\partial\Delta/\partial n_{\xi i}$ diverges, so an infinitesimal chemical-potential difference can reorganize a finite number of quasiparticles; the paper uses this singular limit to obtain a second, unequal-gap equilibrium.

What would settle it

Directly integrate the self-consistent gap and population equations for a sequence of small nonzero $\mu_R-\mu$ and extrapolate to $\mu_R=\mu$: the second branch is real only if $F_2$ diverges while $M_2=(\mu_R-\mu)F_2$ tends to a finite nonzero value, and a calculation that finds no such finite limit would falsify it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the BCS equations, when quasiparticle energies carry the correction $\tilde\mu_k=(\mu_R-\mu)(\xi-F)/\epsilon_\xi$, admit two families of solutions below a phase transition temperature $T_{ph}(\mu_R-\mu)$. In the symmetric limit $\mu_R\to\mu$, the first family is the standard BCS solution with gap $\Delta_0$ at $T=0$, while the second family has a smaller gap and satisfies $\Delta_2(0)=\Delta_0/3$. The second solution is an equilibrium state in the same grand-canonical sense: it maximizes the partition function, and it has fully occupied quasiparticle states in a band around the Fermi level at zero temperature, not an empty quasiparticle distribution. Both branches vanish at the same $T_{ph}$, so the new branch does not change the critical temperature but changes the gap magnitude and the quasiparticle content.

Load-bearing premise

The second solution depends on a single load-bearing premise: the extra term that shifts quasiparticle energies when the chemical potential differs from the band center is the correct grand-canonical BCS thermodynamics, so that an infinitesimal difference $\mu_R-\mu$ can, through a divergent $F$, still leave a finite population shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The symmetric BCS problem is not single-valued below $T_c$: a second equilibrium branch with smaller gap and persistent quasiparticles coexists with the standard state.
  • At $T=0$ the second branch has fully occupied quasiparticle states in $\xi\in[-\Delta_0/(3\sqrt{3}),\Delta_0/(3\sqrt{3})]$, so a sample in that branch would show residual normal excitations even at absolute zero.
  • Both branches share the same phase transition temperature, so the new branch is distinguished by gap size and quasiparticle population, not by where superconductivity appears.
  • For asymmetric attraction bands, the transition can be first order and is accompanied by a jump in the total particle number when $\mu_R\neq\mu$.
  • Even the textbook symmetric limit retains the second branch, meaning that analyses which set $\mu_R=\mu$ before solving the equations will miss one equilibrium state.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next step not taken here is to test the dynamical stability of the second branch; if it is only metastable, it could be populated by fast cooling or by electromagnetic driving that tilts the effective band.
  • The exact $T=0$ ratio $\Delta_0/3$ is a concrete experimental target: tunneling spectroscopy or specific-heat measurements on conventional superconductors could look for a second gap feature at one third of the main gap.
  • The same singular-limit mechanism may appear in other BCS-type settings, such as nuclear pairing, neutron-star superfluids, or ultracold Fermi gases, where symmetric bands and grand-canonical equilibrium are common assumptions.
  • Because the second branch is invisible when one sets $\mu_R=\mu$ before solving, numerical implementations should treat the product $M=(\mu_R-\mu)F$ as an independent variable rather than dropping the correction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies the BCS gap and quasiparticle-population equations as formulated in earlier work by the author, Eqs. (4)-(5), and reports two solution branches for the energy gap below the transition temperature. The main new claim is that even for an attraction band symmetric about the chemical potential (µR = µ), a second solution exists with a smaller gap, equal to ∆0/3 at T = 0, and nonzero quasiparticle populations down to zero temperature. The second branch is obtained as a limit µR → µ in which the correction term (µR − µ)F in the quasiparticle distribution tends to a finite nonzero value M while F itself diverges.

Significance. If correct, the result would imply non-uniqueness of the BCS equilibrium in the standard symmetric case and would identify a new class of superconducting states with residual quasiparticle populations. The paper does contain a genuine algebraic consistency check at T = 0 for the modified system: filling the interval |ξ| < ∆0/(3√3) with nξ = 1 and setting ∆ = ∆0/3 makes both the gap equation and the denominator Fd vanish. However, that check verifies only the modified equations, not the equilibrium conditions of the symmetric BCS problem, and the central claim therefore remains unsupported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Discussion, Eq. (11) and Eq. (8)] At µR = µ, the equilibrium condition (11) reduces to ln((1−nξ)/nξ) − βϵξ = 0, whose unique solution is nξ = f(βϵξ). The occupations (8) with M ≠ 0 give ∂(ln Z)/∂nξ = βM/ϵξ ≠ 0, so they are not stationary points of the partition function. The statement that a divergent F with finite M makes these occupations equilibrium distributions conflates the limit of maximizers for δ ≠ 0 with the maximizer of the δ = 0 functional; because F diverges, the convergence is not uniform and the limits do not commute. Consequently the second branch is not an equilibrium distribution of the symmetric BCS model.
  2. [Methods, Eq. (5b), and Discussion after Eq. (9)] At δ = µR − µ = 0, the denominator Fd in Eq. (5b) is positive and F = 0 for the standard distribution nξ = f(βϵξ); the 0/0 limit used to define the second branch arises only along a sequence δ → 0 with Fd → 0. The additional condition Fd = 0 imposed after Eq. (9) is not part of the δ = 0 system (5). Replacing Eq. (5b) by the constraint Fd = 0 therefore defines a different model, and the paper does not show that the limiting branch solves the original δ = 0 self-consistency equations.
  3. [Methods, Eq. (4c)] The quasiparticle chemical-potential correction in Eq. (4c) is imported from Ref. [34] without derivation, and all new results depend on it through the singular combination (µR − µ)F. Because the paper claims a result for the textbook BCS problem, it must either derive Eq. (4c) from the BCS Hamiltonian or otherwise justify the singular limit; the citation to Ref. [34] is insufficient, especially in view of the uniqueness theorems for the standard symmetric gap equation cited in Refs. [40,41].
minor comments (3)
  1. [Conclusions] The text contains several grammatical slips, including 'even at µR = µ' in the Conclusions (should be 'even for µR = µ') and 'Old theoretical predictions by made N. W. Ashcroft' in the Introduction.
  2. [Fig. 2 and Eq. (6)] The caption of Fig. 2 labels the plotted quantity as N1,2 − Nµ, while the axes and Eq. (6) indicate that the plot actually shows (N1,2 − Nµ)/(2σ0); please make the caption consistent.
  3. [Fig. 3 and Eq. (7)] The notation for the limiting M is inconsistent: Eq. (7b) defines M^(0)_1,2(T), while Fig. 3(b) labels the curve M2^(0); unify the notation.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central symmetric-limit second solution is not derived from the standard μR=μ BCS equations; it is inherited from the author's own earlier μR-correction ansatz and is defined by an extra singular-limit constraint (Fd=0).

  1. self citation load bearing [Methods, Eqs. (4b)-(4c)]
    "the quasiparticle populations are given by [34] nki≡⟨γ†kiγki⟩ = 1/(eβ(ϵk−˜μk) + 1), i = 0, 1, (4b) where ˜μk≡ (μR−μ)/ϵk [ξk− (Σk (1−nk0−nk1)ξkϵ−3k)/(Σk (1−nk0−nk1)ϵ−3k)] (4c) is a correction to the quasiparticle energy and μR is the chemical potential. Solving self-consistently the set of Eqs. (4), one obtains the energy gap and the quasiparticle populations, as exemplified in [34, 35]."

    The load-bearing premise of the paper is the quasiparticle-energy correction (4c), which is the only term that can generate a nonzero M(0) in the symmetric limit and hence the second solution. This term is not derived in the present paper; it is imported from the same author's Refs. [34,35]. The central claim that the textbook μR=μ BCS problem has a second equilibrium branch is therefore not derived from the BCS Hamiltonian here, but is inherited from a self-citation. Because the cited prior work is not externally reproduced or independently verified in this manuscript, the support for the central premise reduces to the author's own earlier result.

  2. self definitional [Discussion, after Eq. (9b), paragraph defining M(0)2(T)]
    "The curve M(0)2(T) may be either calculated as the limit of M2(μR−μ,T), as μR converges to μ (as it was done in Fig. 3b) or by solving the self-consistent set formed by the Eqs (5a), (8), and Fd 2(0,T) = 0 (from Eq. 9b)."

    At μR=μ, Eq. (5c) has no correction term and the paper itself notes (citing Refs. [40,41]) that the standard set has only one solution. The second solution is not obtained by solving the δ=0 self-consistency equations; it is obtained by imposing the additional constraint Fd2(0,T)=0, which comes from demanding that the singular limit of M=(μR−μ)F stays nonzero even though the prefactor vanishes. This constraint is not part of the symmetric BCS gap equations. Thus the claimed second solution at the symmetric AB is defined into existence by an extra limiting condition, rather than being a solution of the textbook μR=μ problem. The T=0 result Δ0/3 is an algebraic property of this modified system, not an independent prediction of the standard BCS equations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain starts from the BCS Hamiltonian but immediately imports the quasiparticle chemical-potential correction Eq. (4c) from the author's own Refs. [34,35]. No derivation of this correction is given in the present paper, and no independent numerical or external check is supplied. The second solution at finite asymmetry is a property of those imported equations, so that part is a self-consistent extension rather than a fitting. However, the paper's headline claim goes further: it asserts that the symmetric, textbook BCS problem (μR=μ) admits two solutions. The justification of this claim is explicitly a singular limit in which F diverges so that M=(μR−μ)F remains nonzero. The paper acknowledges that at μR=μ the correction term vanishes and that the standard equations have a unique solution; the second branch is then defined by solving Eqs. (5a), (8), and the extra constraint Fd2(0,T)=0. That extra constraint is not present in the δ=0 form of the original equations; it is an auxiliary condition imported from the singular limit of the author's earlier model. Consequently, the symmetric-limit second solution is not a derivation from the textbook BCS problem but rather a property of the author's modified equations plus an added constraint. There is no fitted parameter and the zero-temperature Δ0/3 value is obtained by a consistent algebraic calculation, so the circularity is not total. But the central claim reduces, by construction, to the self-cited μR-correction ansatz and the imposed Fd=0 condition. This warrants a partial-circularity score of 6 rather than a higher score, because the equations are explicit and the singular limit is mathematically described rather than hidden.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted in this paper; the two branches are solutions of a fixed integral system. The load-bearing content is the nonstandard population-dependent chemical-potential correction and the singular limit that makes it survive at μR=μ.

assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper The grand canonical BCS free energy must be extremized with respect to quasiparticle populations nξi while keeping the gap Δ self-consistent, leading to the chemical-potential correction term in Eq. (4c).
    This correction is imported from the author's prior work (Ref. [34]) and is not part of the textbook BCS derivation; the present paper does not re-derive it. All subsequent claims of multiple solutions depend on it.
  • domain assumption The continuum limit with constant density of states σ0 and sharp attraction band |ξ|≤ħωc is a faithful representation of the BCS model.
    Standard BCS approximation used in Eqs. (5); it is not the source of the main controversy.
  • domain assumption In the singular limit μR→μ, the product M=(μR−μ)F can remain finite because F diverges, even though the bare Hamiltonian has μR=μ.
    This is the mathematical mechanism invoked in the Discussion to define the second solution at μR=μ. It assumes a singular perturbation limit is physically admissible; if not, the symmetric-limit second solution disappears.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multiple solutions for the equilibrium populations in BCS superconductors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ED7YS4TJ

@misc{pith2026190806017,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multiple solutions for the equilibrium populations in BCS superconductors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ED7YS4TJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06017}
}
read the original abstract

It was recently shown that the BCS formalism leads to several solutions for the energy gap and the equilibrium quasiparticle distribution, with a phase transition temperature which depends on the position of the chemical potential within the attraction band (the attraction band AB is defined as the single-particle energy interval in which the pairing interaction is manifested). Moreover, in some cases, the phase transition may be of the first, not of the second order. Here I will find two sets of solutions for any temperature below the phase transition temperature. I will also show that, when the AB is symmetric with respect to the chemical potential (the textbook BCS problem) there are still two solutions, with different energy gaps: one solution is the typical (textbook) BCS solution, whereas the other one has a smaller energy gap and non-zero quasiparticle populations down to zero temperature. At zero temperature, the energy gap corresponding to the second solution is one third of the typical BCS solution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06017 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The two solutions for the energy gap. In (a) and (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    D. V. Anghel and G. A. Nemnes. The role of the chemical potential in the bcs theory. Physica A, 464:74, 2016

    work page 2016

  2. [35]

    D. V. Anghel. New phenomenology from an old theory – the bcs theory of superconductivity revisited. Physica A, 531:121804, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [1]

    K. H. Onnes. Further experiments with liquid he- lium. c. on the change of electric resistance of pure metals at very low temperatures, etc. iv. the re- sistance of pure mercury at helium temperatures. Comm. Phys. Lab. Univ. Leiden , (120b), 1911. (source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heike Kamerlingh Onnes)

    work page 1911

  4. [2]

    K. H. Onnes. Further experiments with liquid he- lium. d. on the change of electric resistance of pure metals at very low temperatures, etc. v. the dis- appearance of the resistance of mercury. Comm. Phys. Lab. Univ. Leiden , (122b), 1911. (source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heike Kamerlingh Onnes)

    work page 1911

  5. [3]

    K. H. Onnes. Further experiments with liquid he- lium. g. on the electrical resistance of pure met- als, etc. vi. on the sudden change in the rate at which the resistance of mercury disappears. Comm. Phys. Lab. Univ. Leiden , (124c), 1911. (source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heike Kamerlingh Onnes)

    work page 1911

  6. [4]

    J. G. Bednorz and K. A. M¨ uller. Possible hightc super- conductivity in the balacuo system. Z. Phys. B , 64:189, 1986

    work page 1986

  7. [5]

    A. A. Schilling, M. Cantoni, J. D. Guo, and H. R. Ott. Superconductivity above 130 K in the HgBaCaCuO sys- tem. Nature, 363:56, 1993

    work page 1993

  8. [6]

    L. Gao, Y. Y. Xue, F. Chen, Q. Xiong, R. L. Mend, D. Ramirez, C. W. Chu, J. H. Eggert, and H. K. Mao. Superconductivity up to 164 K in HgBa2Cam−1CumO2m+2+δ (m=1, 2, and 3) under quasi- hydrostatic pressures. Phys. Rev. B, 50:4260–4263, 1994

    work page 1994

Show all 41 references
  1. [7]

    Kamihara, H

    Y. Kamihara, H. Hiramatsu, M. Hirano, R. Kawamura, H. Yanagi, T. Kamiya, and H. Hosono. Iron-based layered superconductor: LaOFeP. J. Am. Chem. Soc. , 128:10012, 2006

    2006

  2. [8]

    Kamihara, T

    Y. Kamihara, T. Watanabe, M. Hirano, and H. Hosono. Iron-based layered superconductor La[O1−xFx]FeAs (x = 0.05−0.12) withTc = 26 K. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 130:3296, 2008

    2008

  3. [9]

    Takahashi, K

    H. Takahashi, K. Igawa, K. Arii, Y. Kamihara, M. Hi- rano, and H. Hosono. Superconductivity at 43 K in an iron-based layered compound LaO 1−xFxFeAs. Nature, 453:376, 2008

    2008

  4. [10]

    Q.-Y. Wang, Z. Li, W.-H. Zhang, Z.-C. Zhang, J.-S. Zhang, W. Li, H. Ding, Y.-B. Ou, P. Deng, K. Chang, J. Wen, C.-L. Song, K. He, J.-F. Jia, S.-H. Ji, Y.-Y. Wang, L.-L. Wang, X. Chen, X.-C. Ma, and Q.-K. Xue. Interface-induced high-temperature superconductivity in single unit-...

    2012

  5. [11]

    D. Liu, W. Zhang, D. Mou, J. He, Y.-B. Ou, Q.-Y. Wang, Z. Li, L. Wang, L. Zhao, S. He, Y. Peng, X. Liu, C. Chen, L. Yu, G. Liu, X. Dong, J. Zhang, C. Chen, Z. Xu, J. Hu, X. Chen, X. Ma, Q. Xue, and X.J. Zhou. Electronic origin of high-temperature superconductivity in single- l...

    2012

  6. [12]

    S. He, J. He, W. Zhang, L. Zhao, D. Liu, Xu. Liu, D. Mou, Y.-B. Ou, Q.-Y. Wang, Z. Li, L. Wang, Y. Peng, Y. Liu, C. Chen, Li. Yu, G. Liu, X. Dong, J. Zhang, C. Chen, Z. Xu, X. Chen, X. Ma, and X. J. Xue, Q. Zhou. Phase diagram and electronic indication of high-temperature supe...

    2013

  7. [13]

    Ge, Z.-L

    J.-F. Ge, Z.-L. Liu, C. Liu, C.-L. Gao, D. Qian, Q.-K. Xue, Y. Liu, and J.-F. Jia. Superconductivity above 100 K in single-layer FeSe films on doped SrTiO 3. Nat. Mat., 2015

    2015

  8. [14]

    Fausti, R

    D. Fausti, R. Tobey, N. Dean, S. Kaiser, A. Dienst, M. Hoffmann, S. Pyon, T. Takayama, H. Takagi, and A. Cavalleri. Light-induced superconductivity in a stripe- ordered cuprate. Science, 331:189, 2011

    2011

  9. [15]

    W. Hu, S. Kaiser, D. Nicoletti, C. R. Hunt, I. Gierz, M. C. Hoffmann, M. Le Tacon, T. Loew, B. Keimer, and A. Cavalleri. Optically enhanced coherent transport in yba2cu3o6.5 by ultrafast redistribution of interlayer cou- pling. Nat. Mater., 13, 2014

    2014

  10. [16]

    Kaiser, C

    S. Kaiser, C. R. Hunt, D. Nicoletti, W. Hu, I. Gierz, H. Y. Liu, M. Le Tacon, T. Loew, D. Haug, B. Keimer, and A. Cavalleri. Optically induced coherent transport far above Tc in underdoped yba 2cu3o6+δ. Phys. Rev. B , 89:184516, 2014

    2014

  11. [17]

    Mitrano, A

    M. Mitrano, A. Cantaluppi, D. Nicoletti, S. Kaiser, A. Perucchi, S. Lupi, P. Di Pietro, D. Pontiroli, M. Ricc` o, S. R. Clark, D. Jaksch, and A. Cavalleri. Possible light- induced superconductivity in K3C60 at high temperature. Nature (London)

  12. [18]

    Secchi and M

    A. Secchi and M. Polini. Adiabatic perturbation theory of nonequilibrium light-controlled superconductivity. Phys. 6 Rev. B, 98:144513, 2018

    2018

  13. [19]

    N. W. Ashcroft. Metallic hydrogen: A high-temperature superconductor? Phys. Rev. Lett., 21:1748, 1968

    1968

  14. [20]

    N. W. Ashcroft. Hydrogen dominant metallic alloys: High temperature superconductors? Phys. Rev. Lett. , 92:187002, 2004

    2004

  15. [21]

    H. Wang, J. S. Tse, K. Tanaka, T. Iitaka, and Y. Ma. Superconductive sodalite-like clathrate calcium hydride at high pressures. 109:6463, 2012

    2012

  16. [22]

    A. P. Drozdov, M. I. Eremets, I. A. Troyan, V. Kseno- fontov, and S. I. Shylin. Conventional superconductivity at 203 kelvin at high pressures in the sulfur hydride sys- tem. Nature, 525:73, 2015

    2015

  17. [23]

    H. Liu, I. I. Naumov, R. Hoffmann, N. W. Ashcroft, and R. J. Hemley. Potential high-tc superconducting lan- thanum and yttrium hydrides at high pressure. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA , 114:6990, 2017

    2017

  18. [24]

    F. Peng, Y. Sun, C. J. Pickard, R. J. Needs, Q. Wu, and Y. Ma. Hydrogen clathrate structures in rare earth hydrides at high pressures: Possible route to room-temperature superconductivity. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 119:107001, 2017

    2017

  19. [25]

    H. Liu, I. I. Naumov, Z. M. Geballe, M. Somayazulu, J. S. Tse, and R. J. Hemley. Dynamics and superconductivity in compressed lanthanum superhydride. Phys. Rev. B , 98:100102(R), 2018

    2018

  20. [26]

    L. Liu, C. Wang, S. Yi, K. W. Kim, J. Kim, and J. H. Cho. Microscopic mechanism of room-temperature su- perconductivity in compressed lah 10. Phys. Rev. B , 99:140501(R), 2019

    2019

  21. [27]

    Somayazulu, M

    M. Somayazulu, M. Ahart, A. K. Mishra, Z. M. Geballe, M. Baldini, Y. Meng, V. V. Struzhkin, and R. J. Hem- ley. Evidence for superconductivity above 260 k in lan- thanum superhydride at megabar pressures. Phys. Rev. Lett., 122:027001, 2019

    2019

  22. [28]

    Y. Xia, Bo. Yang, F. Jin, Y. Ma, X. Liu, and M. Zhao. Hydrogen confined in a single wall carbon nanotube be- comes a metallic and superconductive nanowire under high pressure. Nano Lett., 19:2537, 2019

    2019

  23. [29]

    A. P. Drozdov, P. P. Kong, V. S. Minkov, S. P. Besedin, M. A. Kuzovnikov, S. Mozaffari, L. Balicas, F. F. Bal- akirev, D. E. Graf, V. B. Prakapenka, E. Greenberg, D. A. Knyazev, M. Tkacz, and M. I. Eremets. Super- conductivity at 250 k in lanthanum hydride under high pressures....

    2019

  24. [30]

    Loubeyre, F

    P. Loubeyre, F. Occelli, and P. Dumas. Observation of a first order phase transition to metal hydrogen near 425 GPa. arXiv:1906.05634

    1906 arXiv

  25. [31]

    A. Bohr, B. R. Mottelson, and D. Pines. Possible anal- ogy between the excitation spectra of nuclei and those of the superconducting metallic state. Phys. Rev., 110:936, 1958

    1958

  26. [32]

    D. J. Dean and M. Hjorth-Jensen. Pairing in nuclear systems: from neutron stars to finite nuclei. Rev. Mod. Phys., 75:607, 2003

    2003

  27. [33]

    N. Chamel. Superfluidity and superconductivity in neu- tron stars. J. Astrophys. Astr. , 38:43, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Introduction to Superconductivity

    Michael Tinkham. Introduction to Superconductivity . McGraw Hill, Inc., 2 edition, 1996

    1996

  29. [37]

    Bardeen, L

    J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer. Phys. Rev., 108:1175, 1957

    1957

  30. [38]

    J. G. Valatin. Comments on the theory of superconduc- tivity. Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965) , 7:843, 1958

    1955

  31. [39]

    N. N. Bogoljubov. On a new method in the theory of superconductivity. Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965), 7:794, 1958

    1955

  32. [40]

    Watanabe

    S. Watanabe. The solution to the BCS gap equation and the second-order phase transition in superconductivity. J. Math. Anal. Appl. , 383:353, 2011

    2011

  33. [41]

    Watanabe

    S. Watanabe. The solution to the BCS gap equation for superconductivity and its temperature dependence. Abstr. Appl. Anal. , 2013:932085, 2013

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.