Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 99 references

Microscopic mechanism of electric field-induced superconductivity suppression in metallic thin films

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives a parameter-free microscopic formula for the electric field that suppresses superconductivity in thin metallic films, predicting about 10^8 V/m for 20-nm NbN, matching experiments.

desk verdict The central dissociation formula is a single-particle ionization result applied to a two-electron Cooper pair, so the microscopic mechanism does not follow from BCS; the screening-averaged design rule is still useful empirically. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08459 v2 pith:TRCHM65U submitted 2025-02-12 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.app-ph

Alessio Zaccone , Giovanni A. Ummarino , Alessandro Braggio , Francesco Giazotto This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.app-ph MSC 82D55 PACS 74.20.Fg74.25.N74.78.-w
keywords superconductivitysuppressionthinfilmselectricfieldpenetrationCooperpairdissociationEliashbergtheorys-waveboundstatesupercurrentfield-effecttransistorNbN
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

The paper tries to establish a quantitative, parameter-free microscopic explanation for why an external DC electric field of about $10^{8}$ V/m suppresses superconductivity in 10–30-nm metallic films. A sympathetic reader should care because this is the threshold that supercurrent field-effect transistors must overcome, and until now no calculation from within Eliashberg–BCS theory had reproduced it. The paper's formula ties the required external field to four measurable quantities: the superconducting gap, the mean free path, the field penetration depth, and the film thickness. Applied to NbN, it predicts 1.45×$10^{8}$ V/m for a 20-nm film, matching experiments. If correct, the result turns gating of supercurrents into a design problem rather than an empirical one.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Cooper pair modelled as a localized s-wave bound state of energy depth $\Delta$ and spatial extent $\xi$, following Cooper and Weisskopf. The load-bearing identity is the hydrogen-like dissociation field $E_{\mathrm{cr}}=2\Delta/(e\xi)$, obtained from the Schrödinger equation in parabolic coordinates; in disordered films $\xi\approx\ell$, the mean free path. The second element is the screening profile $E(x)=E_0e^{-x/l}$, whose average over the film gives the denominator in Eq. (17). Together they convert a material's gap and disorder into a switch-off voltage.

What would settle it

Measure $E_{\mathrm{cr,ext}}$ on films where $\ell$, $L$, and $l$ are independently controlled (e.g., by varying grain size, thickness, and carrier density) and check whether $E_{\mathrm{cr,ext}}(2l/L)(1-e^{-L/(2l)})$ equals $2\Delta/(e\ell)$ with $\Delta$ from Eliashberg theory; a mismatch beyond experimental error, or observation of pair breaking at fields well below the predicted threshold, would rule out the bound-state dissociation mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the external electric field required to suppress superconductivity in a thin metallic film is given by Eq. (17), $E_{\mathrm{cr,ext}} = \frac{2\Delta/(e\ell)}{(2l/L)(1-e^{-L/(2l)})}$, where $\Delta$ is the superconducting gap from Eliashberg theory, $\ell$ is the mean free path that sets the Cooper-pair size in the diffusive limit, $l$ is the field penetration depth, and $L$ is the film thickness. The derivation combines the textbook field-ionization threshold for an s-wave bound state, $E_{\mathrm{cr}}=2\Delta/(e\xi)$, with the spatial average of an exponentially decaying field $E(x)=E_0 e^{-x/l}$ over the film half-thickness. For a 20-nm NbN film the formula gives $1.45\times10^8$ V/m, in agreement with the experimentally observed order of $10^8$ V/m, with no adjustable parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The whole estimate rests on treating a Cooper pair as a localized, hydrogen-like s-wave bound state of depth $\Delta$ and size $\xi$, so that the atomic field-ionization formula $E_{\mathrm{cr}}=2\Delta/(e\xi)$ applies directly to a superconducting film.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a 20-nm NbN film, the theory predicts $E_{\mathrm{cr,ext}}=1.45\times10^8$ V/m, landing inside the experimentally observed $1$–$8\times10^8$ V/m range.
  • Since $L\gg l$ in typical films, the exponential term is small and the critical field scales roughly inversely with film thickness, so thinner films should require weaker external fields.
  • Increasing the field penetration depth $l$ lowers the required external field, which makes low-carrier-density superconductors easier to gate.
  • Disorder enters only through the ratio $\Delta/\ell$, so controlling microstructure can tune the switch-off threshold in a predictable way.
  • The same formula extends to ultra-thin films by replacing $\Delta$ with the quantum-confinement-corrected gap $\Delta(L)$, giving a thickness-dependent threshold.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the bound-state picture is taken literally, the suppression should be strictly bipolar: the formula depends only on $|E|$, so reversing the gate polarity should shift the threshold by nothing more than the small DOS asymmetry the paper neglects; a large polarity asymmetry in a clean film would point to a different mechanism.
  • Equation (17) predicts a temperature dependence hiding in $l$: if the penetration depth grows near $T_c$, the required external field should drop sharply close to the transition, which could be tested by measuring the gate threshold as a function of temperature.
  • The same combination—a bound state of binding energy $\Delta$ and size $\xi$ exposed to a screened external field—may apply to other pair-like objects (e.g., excitons or bipolarons) in thin films, giving a transferable design rule for field-controlled dissociation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a microscopic mechanism for the suppression of superconductivity in thin metallic films by an external DC electric field. The authors compute the superconducting gap Δ for NbN through Eliashberg theory, model each Cooper pair as a localized s-wave bound state, and import the atomic-physics field-ionization formula E_cr = 2Δ/(eξ) to obtain the internal critical field. They then correct for the exponential screening of the external field inside the film, obtaining Eq. (17), and predict E_cr,ext = 1.45×10^8 V/m for a 20-nm NbN film, in order-of-magnitude agreement with experiments. The paper also discusses the bipolarity of the effect, the weak field-dependence of the normal-state resistivity, and gives material-design guidelines based on the derived formula.

Significance. If the central derivation were valid, the paper would provide a simple and useful quantitative estimate for a topical experimental problem, connecting Eliashberg calculations with measured critical fields and offering design rules for supercurrent field-effect transistors. The authors deserve credit for computing Δ from Eliashberg theory with an experimentally measured α²F(Ω) spectrum, for explicitly considering the spatial decay of the field in the film, and for clearly stating the assumptions under which their estimate applies. However, the core physical step—the use of a single-particle field-ionization formula for a two-electron Cooper pair—is not justified, and the numerical prediction is controlled by a screening length that is chosen rather than derived. These issues place the central claim, namely that the paper provides a quantitative microscopic mechanism, on unsupported ground.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, Eq. (7)] Equation (7), E_cr = 2Δ/(eξ), is obtained from Eq. (1), which is the single-particle Schrödinger equation for a particle in a fixed attractive potential u(r) under a uniform electric field. For a Cooper pair, the two-electron Hamiltonian in a uniform field is H = p_1²/2m + p_2²/2m + u(r_1−r_2) − eE·r_1 − eE·r_2. After separating center-of-mass R=(r_1+r_2)/2 and relative coordinate r=r_1−r_2, the field term becomes −2eE·R, and the relative-coordinate Hamiltonian p²/m + u(r) contains no linear field term. A uniform electric field therefore cannot tilt the relative attractive well and cannot produce the field-ionization dissociation used to derive Eq. (7). Since the screening length l ≈ 1 nm is comparable to the pair size ξ ≈ ℓ = 0.4 nm, any residual coupling is a gradient or quadrupole effect, not the linear Stark term of Eq. (1). The paper thus does not provide a microscopic BCS-based derivation of its central formula; the formula is imported from single-particle atomic field-ionization theory.
  2. [Section VI.B and Appendix A] The screening length is not predicted but selected: Section VI.B picks l = 1 nm from the empirical range 0.5–3 nm reported in Ref. [38], while Appendix A lists l = 0.4 nm for the same NbN calculation. Substituting l = 0.4 nm into Eq. (17) changes E_cr,ext from 1.45×10^8 V/m to roughly 3.4×10^8 V/m. Because the output scales as [2l/L(1 − e^{−L/2l})]^{-1}, the numerical agreement with the experimental order of magnitude is controlled by this choice. The repeated claim that the prediction contains 'no adjustable parameters' (Introduction, Section IV.B, Conclusions) is therefore not supported.
  3. [Section V, Eq. (14) and Section VI.A] The replacement ξ ≈ ℓ, leading to Eq. (14), introduces another external input: ℓ = 3.96 Å is inserted for NbN, and the final E_cr,ext scales as 1/ℓ. The paper provides no sensitivity analysis, no error bars on Δ, ℓ, or l, and no test on a second material. Given that the experimental target is a broad range of (1–8)×10^8 V/m across many materials (Ref. [29]), a single NbN point with chosen l and ℓ does not substantiate the claim of a quantitative, parameter-free microscopic prediction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section V, after Eq. (11)] The word 'leding' should be 'leading'.
  2. [Section VI.B] The symbol ℓ is used for the screening length in this section, whereas ℓ denotes the mean free path in Section V; use l consistently to avoid serious confusion between two distinct length scales.
  3. [Section V, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) is written in atomic units, but the printed form mixes dimensionless and dimensionful quantities; the scaling used for E and u(r) should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Section V, Eqs. (9)–(12)] The jump from the dimensionless tunneling probability in Eq. (9) to the critical field scale in Eq. (12) is not made explicit; please clarify how the exponential prefactor's field scale defines E_cr.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central estimate is computed from external empirical inputs and is not regressed to the target critical field.

full rationale

The claimed prediction chain is not circular by construction. Delta for NbN is computed from the Eliashberg equations with the experimentally measured alpha2F(Omega) of Ref. [54] and carrier concentration, and is validated against measured Tc before being used. Equation (7) is the textbook Landau field-ionization formula Ecr = 2Delta/(e xi), applied to a model s-wave bound state, and Eq. (14) replaces xi by the dirty-limit mean free path ell. Equation (17) is then derived by averaging an exponentially screened field profile, Ecr,ext = Ecr / [2l/L (1 - exp(-L/(2l)))], and Eq. (18) evaluates it. The final number is therefore computed from Delta, ell, l, and L, not chosen to equal the experimental Ecr,ext. The screening length l is an external empirical input from Piatti et al., not fitted to the target 1e8 V/m critical-field data; the l = 0.4 nm versus 1 nm discrepancy in Appendix A is an internal-consistency and correctness issue, not evidence that Eq. (18) is equivalent to its inputs. The mapping of a Cooper pair to a localized single-particle s-wave bound state is a modeling assumption whose physical validity can be criticized, but the output is not defined in terms of the experimental target. Self-citations are present, but they supply independent experimental data, empirical screening inputs, and prior parameter-free Eliashberg comparisons, so they do not form a load-bearing circular chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central estimate rests on two imported quantities: the Cooper-pair dissociation formula from atomic physics, and an empirical screening length. The gap Delta is computed from Eliashberg theory, which gives that part independent grounding. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Screening length l = 1 nm in main text; 0.4 nm in Appendix A
    Chosen within the empirical range 0.5-3 nm from Piatti et al. [38, 80]. It directly sets E_cr,ext through Eq. (17), and the two values quoted in the paper give different predictions.
  • Mean free path ell = 3.96 Angstrom
    Used in Eq. (14) with no cited source or derivation. Together with Delta it sets the internal critical field E_cr = 1.4 times 10^7 V/m, and the paper approximates the coherence length xi as approximately equal to ell.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A Cooper pair is an s-wave bound state described by a spherical well of depth Delta and range xi, whose field-induced dissociation follows the atomic ionization formula E_cr = 2 Delta / (e xi).
    Central modeling step in Section V, Eqs. (7) and (12), imported from atomic physics via Refs. [39, 41, 36]. No derivation from the BCS wavefunction is given.
  • domain assumption Even an arbitrarily small, non-zero electric field inside the film tilts the attractive potential and can dissociate the Cooper pair.
    Section II, assumption (ii). This is needed because the exponentially screened field is small over most of the film thickness.
  • domain assumption The external static field penetrates the superconducting film with profile E(x) = E0 exp(-x/l), with l around 1 nm, and the superconductor responds to the spatial average of the field over half the film thickness.
    Section VI.A, Eqs. (15) and (16). The anomalously large penetration depth is empirical, and the averaging rule is chosen rather than derived from the coupled gap and field equations.
  • domain assumption Eliashberg theory with a symmetric density of states and Migdal's theorem applies to NbN thin films with no adjustable parameters.
    Section IV relies on this to compute Delta. The finite-thickness corrections are taken from previous work [51] rather than derived in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Microscopic mechanism of electric field-induced superconductivity suppression in metallic thin films." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TRCHM65U

@misc{pith2026250208459,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Microscopic mechanism of electric field-induced superconductivity suppression in metallic thin films},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TRCHM65U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08459}
}
abstract

Supercurrent field-effect transistors made from thin metallic films are a promising option for next-generation high-performance computation platforms. Despite extensive research, there is still no complete quantitative microscopic explanation for how an external DC electric field suppresses superconductivity in thin films. This study aims to provide a quantitative description of superconductivity as a function of film thickness based on Eliashberg's theory. The calculation considers the electrostatics of the electric field, its realistic penetration depth in the film, and its effect on the Cooper pair, which is described as a standard s-wave bound state according to BCS theory. The estimation suggests that an external electric field of approximately $10^8$ V/m is required to suppress superconductivity in 10-30-nm-thick films, which aligns with experimental observations. Ultimately, the study offers "materials by design" guidelines for suppressing supercurrent when an external electric field is applied to the film surface. Furthermore, the proposed framework can be easily extended to investigate the same effects for ultrathin films.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08459 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of the potential energy profile experi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [38]

    Piatti, D

    E. Piatti, D. Daghero, G. A. Ummarino, F. Laviano, J. R. Nair, R. Cristiano, A. Casaburi, C. Portesi, A. Sola, and R. S. Gonnelli, Phys. Rev. B 95, 140501 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [29]

    Regard- ing the coherence length ξ, it should be noted that the experiments are typically in the diffusive limit for many materials

    is comparable, so are the energy gaps ∆. Regard- ing the coherence length ξ, it should be noted that the experiments are typically in the diffusive limit for many materials. Therefore, we need to consider the coherence length value obtained from Eq. (13), as the mean free path ℓ is always relatively small in real materials and of the same order of magnitu...

  3. [1]

    Mukhanov, D

    O. Mukhanov, D. Gupta, A. Kadin, and V. Semenov, Proceedings of the IEEE 92, 1564 (2004)

    2004

  4. [2]

    S. K. Tolpygo, Low Temperature Physics 42, 361 (2016), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/ltp/article- pdf/42/5/361/15685382/361 1 online.pdf

    2016

  5. [3]

    J. M. Gambetta, J. M. Chow, and M. Steffen, npj Quan- tum Information 3, 2 (2017)

    2017

  6. [4]

    De Simoni, F

    G. De Simoni, F. Paolucci, P. Solinas, E. Strambini, and F. Giazotto, Nature Nanotechnology 13, 802 (2018)

    2018

  7. [5]

    De Simoni, F

    G. De Simoni, F. Paolucci, C. Puglia, and F. Giazotto, ACS Nano. 13, 7871–7876 (2019)

    2019

  8. [6]

    Paolucci, G

    F. Paolucci, G. De Simoni, P. Solinas, E. Strambini, N. Ligato, P. Virtanen, A. Braggio, and F. Giazotto, Physical Review Applied 11, 024061 (2019)

    2019

Show all 99 references
  1. [7]

    Golokolenov, A

    I. Golokolenov, A. Guthrie, S. Kafanov, Y. A. Pashkin, and V. Tsepelin, Nature Communications 12, 2747 (2021)

    2021

  2. [8]

    Paolucci, F

    F. Paolucci, F. Vischi, G. De Simoni, C. Guarcello, P. Solinas, and F. Giazotto, Nano letters19, 6263 (2019)

    2019

  3. [9]

    T. e. a. Elalaily, Nano letters 21, 9684 (2021)

    2021

  4. [10]

    Rocci, G

    M. Rocci, G. De Simoni, C. Puglia, D. D. Esposti, E. Strambini, V. Zannier, L. Sorba, and F. Giazotto, ACS nano 14, 12621 (2020)

    2020

  5. [11]

    Basset, O

    J. Basset, O. Stanisavljevi´ c, M. Kuzmanovi´ c, J. Gabelli, C. Quay, J. Est` eve, and M. Aprili, Physical Review Re- search 3, 043169 (2021)

    2021

  6. [12]

    L. D. Alegria, C. G. Bøttcher, A. K. Saydjari, A. T. Pierce, S. H. Lee, S. P. Harvey, U. Vool, and A. Yacoby, Nature Nanotechnology 16, 404 (2021)

    2021

  7. [13]

    Bours, M

    L. Bours, M. T. Mercaldo, M. Cuoco, E. Strambini, and F. Giazotto, Physical Review Research 2, 033353 (2020)

    2020

  8. [14]

    Rocci, D

    M. Rocci, D. Suri, A. Kamra, G. Vilela, Y. Takamura, N. M. Nemes, J. L. Martinez, M. G. Hernandez, and J. S. Moodera, Nano letters 21, 216 (2020)

    2020

  9. [15]

    M. F. Ritter, A. Fuhrer, D. Z. Haxell, S. Hart, P. Gu- mann, H. Riel, and F. Nichele, Nature communications 12, 1266 (2021)

    2021

  10. [16]

    Paolucci, G

    F. Paolucci, G. De Simoni, P. Solinas, E. Strambini, C. Puglia, N. Ligato, and F. Giazotto, A VS Quantum Science 1 (2019)

    2019

  11. [17]

    Catto, W

    G. Catto, W. Liu, S. Kundu, V. Lahtinen, V. Vesterinen, and M. M¨ ott¨ onen, Scientific Reports12, 6822 (2022)

    2022

  12. [18]

    De Simoni, F

    G. De Simoni, F. Paolucci, C. Puglia, and F. Giazotto, ACS nano 13, 7871 (2019)

    2019

  13. [19]

    S. Yu, L. Chen, Y. Pan, Y. Wang, D. Zhang, G. Wu, X. Fan, X. Liu, L. Wu, L. Zhang, et al., Nano Letters 23, 8043 (2023)

    2023

  14. [20]

    De Simoni, C

    G. De Simoni, C. Puglia, and F. Giazotto, Applied Physics Letters 116 (2020)

    2020

  15. [21]

    H. Du, Z. Xu, Z. Wei, D. Li, S. Chen, W. Tian, P. Zhang, Y.-Y. Lyu, H. Sun, Y.-L. Wang, et al., Superconductor Science and Technology 36, 095005 (2023)

    2023

  16. [22]

    Puglia, G

    C. Puglia, G. De Simoni, and F. Giazotto, Physical Re- view Applied 13, 054026 (2020)

    2020

  17. [23]

    T. e. a. Elalaily, ACS nano 17, 5528 (2023)

    2023

  18. [24]

    Paolucci, G

    F. Paolucci, G. De Simoni, and F. Giazotto, Applied Physics Letters 122 (2023)

    2023

  19. [25]

    L. Ruf, T. Elalaily, C. Puglia, Y. P. Ivanov, F. Joint, M. Berke, A. Iorio, P. Makk, G. De Simoni, S. Gas- parinetti, et al., APL Materials 11 (2023)

    2023

  20. [26]

    L. Ruf, E. Scheer, and A. Di Bernardo, ACS nano 18, 20600 (2024)

    2024

  21. [27]

    Or´ us, V

    P. Or´ us, V. M. Fomin, J. M. De Teresa, and R. C´ ordoba, Scientific Reports 11, 17698 (2021)

    2021

  22. [28]

    J. Koch, C. Cirillo, S. Battisti, L. Ruf, Z. M. Kakhaki, A. Paghi, A. Gulian, S. Teknowijoyo, G. De Simoni, F. Giazotto, et al., Nano Research , 1 (2024)

    2024

  23. [30]

    Solinas, A

    P. Solinas, A. Amoretti, and F. Giazotto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 117001 (2021)

    2021

  24. [31]

    L. Ruf, C. Puglia, T. Elalaily, G. De Simoni, F. Joint, M. Berke, J. Koch, A. Iorio, S. Khor- shidian, P. Makk, S. Gasparinetti, S. Csonka, W. Belzig, M. Cuoco, F. Giazotto, E. Scheer, and A. Di Bernardo, Applied Physics Reviews 11, 041314 (2024), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apr/...

    2024 doi

  25. [32]

    Virtanen, A

    P. Virtanen, A. Braggio, and F. Giazotto, Physical Re- view B 100, 224506 (2019)

    2019

  26. [33]

    M. T. Mercaldo, P. Solinas, F. Giazotto, and M. Cuoco, Physical Review Applied 14, 034041 (2020)

    2020

  27. [34]

    M. T. Mercaldo, F. Giazotto, and M. Cuoco, Physical Review Research 3, 043042 (2021)

    2021

  28. [35]

    Chirolli, T

    L. Chirolli, T. Cea, and F. Giazotto, Physical Review Research 3, 023135 (2021)

    2021

  29. [36]

    V. M. Fomin, Self-rolled Micro- and Nanoarchitectures (De Gruyter, Berlin, Boston, 2021)

    2021

  30. [37]

    Amoretti, D

    A. Amoretti, D. K. Brattan, N. Magnoli, L. Martinoia, I. Matthaiakakis, and P. Solinas, Physical Review Re- search 4, 033211 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Chakraborty, D

    S. Chakraborty, D. Nikoli´ c, J. C. Cuevas, F. Giazotto, A. Di Bernardo, E. Scheer, M. Cuoco, and W. Belzig, Physical Review B 108, 184508 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    L. N. Cooper, Phys. Rev. 104, 1189 (1956)

    1956

  33. [41]

    E. M. L. L. D. Landau, Quantum Mechanics: Non- Relativistic Theory (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1981)

    1981

  34. [42]

    Bardeen, L

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

    1957

  35. [43]

    V. F. Weisskopf, Contemporary Physics 22, 375 (1981), https://doi.org/10.1080/00107518108231541

    1981 doi

  36. [44]

    J. P. Carbotte, Rev. Mod. Phys. 62, 1027 (1990)

    1990

  37. [45]

    G. A. Ummarino and R. S. Gonnelli, Phys. Rev. B 56, R14279 (1997)

    1997

  38. [46]

    P. B. Allen and B. Mitrovi´ c, Theory of superconducting tc (Academic Press, 1983) pp. 1–92

    1983

  39. [47]

    Marsiglio and J

    F. Marsiglio and J. P. Carbotte, Electron-phonon su- perconductivity, in Superconductivity: Conventional and 10 Unconventional Superconductors, edited by K. H. Benne- mann and J. B. Ketterson (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008) pp. 73–162

    2008

  40. [48]

    Marsiglio, Journal of Low Temperature Physics 87, 659 (1992)

    F. Marsiglio, Journal of Low Temperature Physics 87, 659 (1992)

    1992

  41. [49]

    R. D. Parks (ed.), Superconductivity, vol. 1 (Marcel Dekker, New York, 1969) p. 67

    1969

  42. [50]

    E. R. Margine and F. Giustino, Phys. Rev. B 87, 024505 (2013)

    2013

  43. [51]

    Ummarino, Eliashberg theory, in Emergent Phenom- ena in Correlated Matter, edited by E

    G. Ummarino, Eliashberg theory, in Emergent Phenom- ena in Correlated Matter, edited by E. Pavarini, E. Koch, and U. Schollwoeck (Forschungszentrum Julich GmbH and Institute for Advanced Simulations, Julich, 2013) pp. 13.1–13.36

    2013

  44. [52]

    Schachinger and J

    E. Schachinger and J. P. Carbotte, Journal of Physics F: Metal Physics 13, 2615 (1983)

    1983

  45. [53]

    G. A. Ummarino and A. Zaccone, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 37, 065703 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    K. E. Kihlstrom, R. W. Simon, and S. A. Wolf, Phys. Rev. B 32, 1843 (1985)

    1985

  47. [55]

    W. E. Pickett, Phys. Rev. B 21, 3897 (1980)

    1980

  48. [56]

    Zaccone and V

    A. Zaccone and V. M. Fomin, Phys. Rev. B 109, 144520 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Zhang, H

    Q. Zhang, H. Wang, X. Tang, W. Peng, and Z. Wang, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 29, 1 (2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    E. J. Nicol and J. P. Carbotte, Phys. Rev. B 43, 10210 (1991)

    1991

  51. [59]

    E. J. Pati˜ no and D. Lozano-G´ omez, Scientific Reports 11, 9050 (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    Sidorova, A

    M. Sidorova, A. Semenov, H.-W. H¨ ubers, K. Ilin, M. Siegel, I. Charaev, M. Moshkova, N. Kaurova, G. N. Goltsman, X. Zhang, and A. Schilling, Phys. Rev. B102, 054501 (2020)

    2020

  53. [61]

    P. G. de Gennes, Superconductivity Of Metals And Alloys (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1999)

    1999

  54. [62]

    Dressel and G

    M. Dressel and G. Gr¨ uner, Electrodynamics of Solids: Optical Properties of Electrons in Matter (Cambridge University Press, 2002)

    2002

  55. [63]

    J. R. Waldram, Superconductivity of Metals and Cuprates (cRC Press, Boca Raton, 1996)

    1996

  56. [64]

    J. E. Hirsch, Phys. Rev. B 69, 214515 (2004)

    2004

  57. [65]

    A. Y. Mironov, D. M. Silevitch, S. V. Postolova, M. V. Burdastyh, T. Proslier, T. I. Baturina, T. F. Rosenbaum, and V. M. Vinokur, Scientific Reports 11, 16181 (2021)

    2021

  58. [66]

    Salasnich, Entropy 26, 10.3390/e26010069 (2024)

    L. Salasnich, Entropy 26, 10.3390/e26010069 (2024)

    2024 doi

  59. [67]

    Tajmar, Physics Letters A 372, 3289 (2008)

    M. Tajmar, Physics Letters A 372, 3289 (2008)

    2008

  60. [68]

    M. L. Yu and J. E. Mercereau, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 1117 (1972)

    1972

  61. [69]

    M. C. Diamantini, S. V. Postolova, A. Y. Mironov, L. Gammaitoni, C. Strunk, C. A. Trugenberger, and V. M. Vinokur, Communications Physics 3, 142 (2020)

    2020

  62. [70]

    R. Tao, X. Xu, Y. Lan, and Y. Shiroyanagi, Physica C: Superconductivity 377, 357 (2002)

    2002

  63. [71]

    W. G. Jenks and L. R. Testardi, Phys. Rev. B 48, 12993 (1993)

    1993

  64. [72]

    van Otterlo, M

    A. van Otterlo, M. Feigel’man, V. Geshkenbein, and G. Blatter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3736 (1995)

    1995

  65. [73]

    Lipavsk´ y, J

    P. Lipavsk´ y, J. Kol´ aˇ cek, K. Morawetz, and E. H. Brandt, Phys. Rev. B 65, 144511 (2002)

    2002

  66. [74]

    Chirolli, T

    L. Chirolli, T. Cea, and F. Giazotto, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 023135 (2021)

    2021

  67. [75]

    Virtanen, A

    P. Virtanen, A. Braggio, and F. Giazotto, Phys. Rev. B 100, 224506 (2019)

    2019

  68. [76]

    H. Y. Ku and F. G. Ullman, Journal of Applied Physics 35, 265 (1964), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article- pdf/35/2/265/18331081/265 1 online.pdf

    1964

  69. [77]

    Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd Edition(John Wiley and Sons., Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 1998)

    J. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd Edition(John Wiley and Sons., Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 1998)

    1998

  70. [78]

    V. E. Kenner, R. E. Allen, and W. M. Saslow, Phys. Rev. B 8, 576 (1973)

    1973

  71. [79]

    Black and J

    C. Black and J. Welser, IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices 46, 776 (1999)

    1999

  72. [80]

    Piatti, D

    E. Piatti, D. Romanin, R. S. Gonnelli, and D. Daghero, Applied Surface Science 461, 17 (2018), 5th Progress in Applied Surface, Interface and Thin Film Science and Solar Renewable Energy News

    2018

  73. [81]

    Amoretti, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2531, 012001 (2023)

    A. Amoretti, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2531, 012001 (2023)

    2023

  74. [82]

    G. A. Ummarino, Condensed Matter 8, 10.3390/cond- mat8020045 (2023)

    2023 doi

  75. [83]

    Glover III and M

    R. Glover III and M. Sherrill, Physical Review Letters 5, 248 (1960)

    1960

  76. [84]

    G. A. Ummarino and D. Romanin, Physica Status Solidi B Basic Research 257, 1900651 (2020)

    2020

  77. [85]

    Ummarino, Physica C: Superconductivity and its Ap- plications 568, 1353566 (2020)

    G. Ummarino, Physica C: Superconductivity and its Ap- plications 568, 1353566 (2020)

    2020

  78. [86]

    Ummarino and D

    G. Ummarino and D. Romanin, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter 31, 024001 (2018)

    2018

  79. [87]

    I. Y. Sklyadneva, Physical Review B 96, 064509 (2017)

    2017

  80. [88]

    Deutscher, H

    G. Deutscher, H. Fenichel, M. Gershenson, E. Gr¨ unbaum, and Z. Ovadyahu, Journal of Low Temperature Physics 10, 231 (1973)

    1973

  81. [89]

    Allen, Physical Review B 17, 3725 (1978)

    P. Allen, Physical Review B 17, 3725 (1978)

    1978

  82. [90]

    Multimech

    the following relations: EF = C 2EF,bulk (A1) N (EF ) = CN (EF,bulk) = CN (0) (A2) N (EF,bulk) = V (2m)3/2 2π2ℏ3 p EF,bulk. (A3) In the second confinement regime, L < Lc, the DOS has a new, linear dependence on the energy, in contrast with the standard square-root dependence [...

    2020

  83. [91]

    Baggioli, C

    M. Baggioli, C. Setty, and A. Zaccone, Phys. Rev. B 101, 214502 (2020)

    2020

  84. [92]

    Travaglino and A

    R. Travaglino and A. Zaccone, Journal of Applied Physics 133, 033901 (2023)

    2023

  85. [93]

    G. A. Ummarino and A. Zaccone, Phys. Rev. Mater. 8, L101801 (2024)

    2024

  86. [94]

    Deshpande, J

    A. Deshpande, J. Pusskeiler, C. Prange, U. Rogge, M. Dressel, and M. Scheffler, Journal of Applied Physics 137, 013902 (2025), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0250146/20325922/013902 1 5.0250146.pdf

    2025 doi

  87. [95]

    K. Y. Arutyunov, E. A. Sedov, I. A. Golokolenov, V. V. Zav’yalov, G. Konstantinidis, A. Stavrinidis, G. Stavrini- dis, I. Vasiliadis, T. Kekhagias, G. P. Dimitrakopulos, F. Komninu, M. D. Kroitoru, and A. A. Shanenko, Physics of the Solid State 61, 1559 (2019)

    2019

  88. [96]

    L´ opez-N´ u˜ nez, Q

    D. L´ opez-N´ u˜ nez, Q. P. Montserrat, G. Rius, E. Bertoldo, A. Torras-Coloma, M. Mart ´ ınez, and P. Forn-D ´ ıaz, Mag- netic penetration depth of aluminum thin films (2023), arXiv:2311.14119 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    2023

  89. [97]

    S. Qin, J. Kim, Q. Niu, and C.-K. Shih, Science 324, 1314 (2009)

    2009

  90. [98]

    W. M. van Weerdenburg, A. Kamlapure, E. H. Fyhn, X. Huang, N. P. van Mullekom, M. Stein- brecher, P. Krogstrup, J. Linder, and A. A. Kha- jetoorians, Science Advances 9, eadf5500 (2023), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.adf5500

    2023 doi

  91. [99]

    P. B. Allen and R. C. Dynes, Phys. Rev. B12, 905 (1975)

    1975

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.