Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 27 references

Something about the Mechanism of Induction Phenomena: The forgotten work of Berta de Haas-Lorentz on diamagnetism in superconductors

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 1925 paper by Berta de Haas-Lorentz was the first to discuss perfect diamagnetism of superconductors, eight years before the Meissner effect.

desk verdict A genuinely useful translation and modern reanalysis with a priority claim that is slightly overstrong as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05227 v3 pith:2Q5MJV6V submitted 2025-05-08 physics.hist-ph cond-mat.supr-con

Giulia Venditti , Carlo Beenakker , Louk Rademaker This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.hist-phcond-mat.supr-con
keywords BertadeHaas-LorentzhistoryofsuperconductivityperfectdiamagnetismMeissnereffectLondonpenetrationdepthfluxexpulsioninductioncurrents
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

Berta de Haas-Lorentz's 1925 paper, "Iets over het mechanisme van inductieverschijnselen," was the first published discussion of perfect diamagnetism in superconductors, eight years before the Meissner-Ochsenfeld effect made the phenomenon famous. The present article translates that Dutch paper into English, reconstructs de Haas-Lorentz's life and scientific context, and argues that her work deserves recognition as an early step toward a microscopic theory of superconductivity. At the heart of her argument is an energy comparison: when the self-inductance energy of a resistanceless current loop dominates the kinetic energy of its electrons, magnetic field lines are expelled, whereas in ordinary molecular currents the kinetic energy dominates and field lines pass through. The authors show that this ratio, in modern terms, is a measure of the London penetration depth, and they note that her suggestion of an intermediate regime anticipates the mixed state of type-II superconductors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ratio $T_L/T_K$ between the magnetic self-inductance energy $T_L = \frac{1}{2}Li^2$ and the mechanical kinetic energy $T_K = \sum \frac{1}{2}m v^2$ of the current-carrying electrons. De Haas-Lorentz uses this ratio to distinguish two limits: when $T_L/T_K \gg 1$, the flux through a resistanceless ring is almost zero because induction currents screen the applied field; when $T_L/T_K \ll 1$, all field lines pass through, as she estimates for molecular currents in ordinary matter. The modern analysis in the article identifies the same ratio, up to geometry, with $a/\lambda$, the sample radius divided by the London penetration depth, and identifies the missing third energy, namely the condensation energy of the superconducting phase, as the reason her semiclassical model cannot be complete.

What would settle it

An archival search through Dutch, German, French, and English physics journals indexed before November 1925, looking for any explicit statement that magnetic field lines cannot pass through a resistanceless conductor because induction currents persist, would settle the claim. Finding such a passage would invalidate the asserted priority; finding none would support it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that G. L. de Haas-Lorentz, in a 1925 paper written in Dutch and published in Physica, was the first to address the perfect diamagnetism of superconductors. The authors read her derivation as treating a resistanceless ring current and showing, from the balance between magnetic self-energy $T_L$ and the mechanical kinetic energy $T_K$ of the electrons, that a superconductor keeps magnetic field lines out, so that the flux through it tends to zero. They emphasize that this precedes the Meissner-Ochsenfeld discovery by eight years and that she did not distinguish between perfect diamagnetism ($d\Phi/dt=0$) and true flux expulsion ($\Phi=0$), although her own subsequent step implicitly assumes the stronger condition. The paper therefore positions her contribution as possibly the first theoretical attempt at a microscopic theory of superconductivity, even though its semiclassical model omits what is now known to be the essential condensation energy.

Load-bearing premise

The priority claim stands or falls on the completeness of the historical record: if any earlier paper, in any language, already discussed the exclusion of magnetic field lines by a resistanceless conductor, then de Haas-Lorentz was not first.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the priority claim holds, the history of flux exclusion in superconductors begins with a 1925 theoretical paper, not with the 1933 Meissner-Ochsenfeld experiment.
  • The energy-ratio criterion gives a quantitative bridge from her semiclassical model to the London penetration depth: $T_L/T_K \sim a/\lambda$ in the flux-expelling limit.
  • Her proposal of an intermediate regime in which $T_L$ and $T_K$ are comparable is read by the authors as an early suggestion of partial field penetration, later realized as the mixed state of type-II superconductors.
  • Her implicit replacement of $d\Phi/dt=0$ by $\Phi=0$ means her model accidentally describes the Meissner condition, not merely infinite conductivity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct consequence of accepting the priority claim is that standard textbook narratives should mention that perfect diamagnetism was first discussed theoretically in 1925, though it was not experimentally confirmed until 1933.
  • The same archival search needed to test the claim might reveal other overlooked Dutch-language contributions, since publishing in Dutch was a deliberate postwar choice that reduced international visibility.
  • Her criterion could be tested quantitatively with modern superconducting microspheres: the crossover from flux expulsion to partial penetration should occur when the ratio $T_L/T_K$ is of order one, that is, when the sphere radius is of order the London penetration depth.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The authors recover, translate, and analyze the 1925 Physica paper 'Iets over het mechanisme van inductieverschijnselen' by Geertruida 'Berta' de Haas-Lorentz, providing an annotated English translation (Section 3), a biographical sketch (Section 2), a historical contextualization (Sections 4.1 and 4.2), and a modern reinterpretation in terms of Ginzburg-Landau theory (Sections 4.3 and 4.4). The headline claim, stated in the abstract and in Section 4.2, is that the 1925 paper was the first to discuss perfect diamagnetism of superconductors, eight years before the Meissner-Ochsenfeld effect, and 'possibly the first theoretical attempt towards a microscopic theory of superconductivity.' The modern analysis identifies the condensation energy as the missing third contribution of the original paper and shows that de Haas-Lorentz's energy ratio TL/TK corresponds, up to geometry, to the ratio of sample size to London penetration depth. The authors are candid about the limits of the 1925 paper, notably the 'as an example' choice of integration constant in Eq. (5) that converts flux conservation into flux expulsion.

Significance. Even setting the priority question aside, the paper is a valuable contribution to the history of superconductivity and of women in physics. The translation is careful and documented: the authors flag the 'drie'/'two parts' discrepancy, explain the rendering of 'krachtlijnen' and 'b.v.,' and keep the 1925 derivations intact. The Ginzburg-Landau reinterpretation in Section 4.3 is standard textbook material (Ref. [21]), correctly reproduced with no fitted parameters, and the identification in Eq. (34) of the energy ratio with a/λ is a genuine and instructive connection between the historical argument and modern theory. The biographical section is well sourced and adds useful context. If the priority claim survives closer scrutiny, the paper constitutes an important historiographical correction; if it must be hedged, the translation, biography, and analysis still justify publication.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; §4.2 (London quotation)] The abstract's claim that the 1925 paper 'was the first to discuss perfect diamagnetism of superconductors' is stated without qualification, but the manuscript's own evidence does not establish firstness. In Section 4.2 the authors quote London (Ref. [19]) to the effect that an equation of the type dΦ/dt=0 'has been proposed several times as basis of a macroscopic electrodynamics of superconductivity,' yet they neither identify nor date the other proposals; if any of them predates November 1925, the priority claim fails. The cited references [15,16,17] support the narrower point that the paper was later cited in connection with the London penetration depth, not that it was the first treatment of perfect diamagnetism. The authors should either conduct and report a search of the pre-1925 literature in the relevant languages or reformulate the claim in hedged terms (for example, 'the earliest treatment that we have been able to identify'), and the abstract should match whatever level of confidence is adopted in Section 4.2.
  2. [§3, Eqs. (4)–(9); §4.2; Conclusion] The translation and analysis support a qualified version of the perfect-diamagnetism claim, but not the unhedged version in the abstract and conclusion. As the authors themselves note in Section 4.2, the derivation of Eqs. (4)-(9) yields flux conservation, and the specific Φ=0 result that gives flux expulsion follows only from setting the integration constant to zero 'as an example' in Eq. (5), for which the authors find no physical argument in the original paper; flux exclusion is additionally asserted in the opening paragraph and in case I of Eq. (9). This means that 'discussed perfect diamagnetism' is a historically reasonable reconstruction rather than the paper's explicit result, and the caveats that appear in Section 4.2 ('the restriction ... is addressed in the De Haas-Lorentz paper, although the underlying physical intuition remains uncertain') should be carried through the abstract and the conclusion. The conclusion also drops the 'possibly' hedge that Section 4.2 attaches to the claim of being the first microscopic theory; the degree of confidence should be uniform across these sections.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.3, Eq. (29)] In Eq. (29) the condensation free energy is written as ∫d³x (−α|ψ|² + ½β|ψ|²); the standard Ginzburg-Landau expression has β|ψ|⁴, so as printed the two terms scale identically with |ψ|. This is a typographical slip that does not affect the subsequent argument.
  2. [§3, Eq. (19)] In the translated Eq. (19), the factor 6πα/β with α=2/5.7 and β=1/5 evaluates to approximately 33, not the printed 5. The inconsistency appears to come from the 1925 original; since the authors add editorial notes elsewhere (the 'three parts' and the 'b.v.' abbreviation), a note here would help the reader verify the order-of-magnitude estimate in Eq. (20).
  3. [§2.2] The statement that de Haas-Lorentz 'anticipated the Johnson-Nyquist noise' is stronger than the immediately cited secondary source (Ref. [6]) supports on its own; a sentence clarifying the specific sense in which her dissertation on Brownian motion of electrons constitutes an anticipation would be useful.
  4. [§4.3, Eq. (34)] The sentence in Section 4.3 that 'the ratio TL/TK is a direct measure of the London penetration depth' is imprecise: Eq. (34) shows that the ratio measures a/λ up to a geometry factor, so λ is determined only when the sample size and geometry are known.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the historical analysis and modern reinterpretation are self-contained and do not reduce any claim to its own inputs.

full rationale

This paper is a historical study plus translation, not a derivation that fits parameters and then predicts them. The central modern calculation in Section 4.3 uses standard Ginzburg-Landau expressions from Tinkham (Ref. [21]) to obtain FK and FB for a superconducting sphere, and the resulting ratio FB/FK ≈ a/λ is an interpretation of de Haas-Lorentz's TL/TK ratio, not a fitted result. No parameter is adjusted to data, and no 'prediction' is statistically forced by a prior fit. The authors explicitly flag the historical ambiguity: in Section 4.2 they note that de Haas-Lorentz rewrites dΦ/dt = 0 'as an example' with 'no physical argument' for setting the constant to zero, and in Section 4.3 they state that 'unfortunately the role of the screening currents would remain unknown for another ten years.' These are honest limitations, not circular steps. The priority claim that the 1925 paper 'was the first to discuss perfect diamagnetism of superconductors' depends on the completeness of the historical record, and the paper's own quotation from London says an equation of the type dΦ/dt = 0 'has been proposed several times' without identifying or dating all the other proposals. That is a correctness or evidential-support concern about an external historical fact, not a circularity in the paper's derivation chain: the conclusion is not equivalent to an input by definition, nor is it justified solely by a self-citation. The reference list contains no load-bearing self-citations by the present authors, and the cited prior work (London, Becker-Heller-Sauter, Tinkham) is independent, published, and not constructed to imply the paper's historical conclusion. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

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

The central historical claim rests on three unverified premises: the completeness of the pre-1925 literature, the accuracy of the translation, and the validity of applying modern G-L theory as an interpretive framework. No free parameters are fitted in the paper's own analysis, and no new physical entities are postulated.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The historical record prior to 1925 contains no earlier discussion of perfect diamagnetism in superconductors.
    The priority claim in the abstract and Section 4.2 depends on this completeness assumption. The authors rely on secondary citations [15,16,17] and London's 1948 remark, not on an exhaustive archival search.
  • domain assumption The English translation is faithful to the Dutch original of de Haas-Lorentz's 1925 paper.
    The entire analysis rests on the translation presented in Section 3. The authors provide editorial notes but no independent verification of translation fidelity by a third party.
  • domain assumption The Ginzburg-Landau framework is a valid modern lens for interpreting the 1925 energy comparison.
    Section 4.3 maps de Haas-Lorentz's TL and TK onto GL kinetic and magnetic energies. This is a modern reinterpretation imposed on the historical text, not a concept present in the original paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Something about the Mechanism of Induction Phenomena: The forgotten work of Berta de Haas-Lorentz on diamagnetism in superconductors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2Q5MJV6V

@misc{pith2026250505227,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Something about the Mechanism of Induction Phenomena: The forgotten work of Berta de Haas-Lorentz on diamagnetism in superconductors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2Q5MJV6V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05227}
}
read the original abstract

In 1925, Dr. Geertruida Luberta "Berta" de Haas-Lorentz published the paper "Iets over het mechanisme van inductieverschijnselen" in the journal Physica. Her paper was the first to discuss perfect diamagnetism of superconductors, eight years before the discovery of the Meissner effect, when the essential difference between the two phenomena was not understood. Unfortunately, her work was almost forgotten by the scientific community. To counter this, we translate her seminal 1925 paper from Dutch into English. We provide an overview of the life of Dr. De Haas-Lorentz, and comment on her pioneering contribution to the theory of superconductivity.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [21]

    Tinkham, Introduction to Superconductivity (Dover Publications, 2004)

    M. Tinkham, Introduction to Superconductivity (Dover Publications, 2004)

    2004

  2. [19]

    London, On the problem of the molecular theory of superconductivity, Phys

    F. London, On the problem of the molecular theory of superconductivity, Phys. Rev. 74 (1948) 562–573. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.74.562

    doi:10.1103/physrev.74.562 1948

  3. [1]

    G. L. De Haas-Lorentz, Iets over het mechanisme van inductieverschi- jnselen, Physica 5 (8) (1925) 384–388

    work page 1925

  4. [2]

    Berends, D

    F. Berends, D. van Delft, Lorentz: gevierd fysicus, geboren verzoener (Prometheus, Amsterdam, 2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [3]

    W. J. de Haas, Metingen over de compressibiliteit van waterstof, in het bijzonder van waterstofdamp bij en beneden het kookpunt (Ph.D. thesis, Leiden University, 1912)

    work page 1912

  6. [4]

    G. L. De Haas-Lorentz, Over de theorie van de Brown’sche beweging en daarmede verwante verschijnselen (Ph.D. thesis, Leiden University, 1912)

    work page 1912

  7. [5]

    A. Einstein, ¨Uber die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der W¨ arme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Fl¨ ussigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen, Annalen der Physik 322 (8) (1905) 549–560. doi:10.1002/ andp.19053220806

    work page 1905

  8. [6]

    D ¨orfel, The early history of thermal noise: The long way to paradigm change, Annalen der Physik 524 (8) (2012) 117–121

    G. D ¨orfel, The early history of thermal noise: The long way to paradigm change, Annalen der Physik 524 (8) (2012) 117–121. doi:10.1002/ andp.201200736

    work page 2012

Show all 27 references
  1. [7]

    Nyquist, Thermal agitation of electric charge in conductors , Phys

    H. Nyquist, Thermal agitation of electric charge in conductors , Phys. Rev. 32 (1928) 110–113. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.32.110

    1928 doi

  2. [8]

    J. B. Johnson, Thermal agitation of electricity in conductors , Phys. Rev. 32 (1928) 97–109. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.32.97

    1928 doi

  3. [9]

    Einstein, W

    A. Einstein, W. de Haas, Experimental proof of the existence of Amp` ere’s molecular currents, Proceedings KNAW, 18-I (1915) 696–711

    1915

  4. [10]

    de Haas, G

    W. de Haas, G. de Haas-Lorentz, An experiment of Maxwell and Amp` ere molecular currents, Proceedings KNAW, 19-I (1917) 248–255

    1917

  5. [11]

    Abraham, Prinzipien der Dynamik des Elektrons., Annalen der Physik 10 (1903) 105–179

    M. Abraham, Prinzipien der Dynamik des Elektrons., Annalen der Physik 10 (1903) 105–179. doi:10.1002/andp.19023150105

    1903 doi

  6. [12]

    P. W. Anderson, Theory of dirty superconductors , Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 11 (1) (1959) 26–30. doi:10.1016/ 0022-3697(59)90036-8

    1959

  7. [13]

    Meissner, R

    W. Meissner, R. Ochsenfeld, Ein neuer E ffekt bei Eintritt der Supraleitf¨ ahigkeit, Naturwissenschaften 21 (44) (1933) 787–788. doi: 10.1007/BF01504252

    1933 doi

  8. [14]

    London, H

    F. London, H. London, The electromagnetic equations of the supracon- ductor, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A 149 (866) (1935) 71–88

    1935

  9. [15]

    Bremmer, W

    H. Bremmer, W. de Haas, On the heat conductivity of superconductive alloys, Physica 3 (7) (1936) 692–704. doi:10.1016/S0031-8914(36) 80376-0

    1936 doi

  10. [16]

    Hoddeson, G

    L. Hoddeson, G. Baym, M. Eckert, The development of the quantum- mechanical electron theory of metals: 1928–1933 , Rev. Mod. Phys. 59 (1987) 287–327. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.59.287

    1987 doi

  11. [17]

    Fossheim and A

    K. Fossheim and A. Sudbø, Superconductivity: Physics and Applications, (John Wiley & Sons, 2004)

    2004

  12. [18]

    Becker, G

    R. Becker, G. Heller, F. Sauter, ¨Uber die Stromverteilung in einer supraleitenden Kugel, Zeitschrift f ¨ur Physik 85 (11) (1933) 772–787. doi:10.1007/BF01330324

    1933 doi

  13. [20]

    V . L. Ginzburg, L. D. Landau, On the Theory of superconductiv- ity, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 20 (1950) 1064–1082. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-540-68008-6_4

    1950

  14. [22]

    A. A. Abrikosov, The magnetic properties of superconducting alloys , Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 2 (3) (1957) 199–208. doi: 10.1016/0022-3697(57)90083-5

    1957 doi

  15. [23]

    J. N. Rjabinin, L. Shubnikow, Magnetic properties and critical currents of supra-conducting alloys , Nature 135 (3415) (1935) 581–582. doi: 10.1038/135581a0. 6

    1935 doi

  16. [24]

    Bardeen, Theory of the Meissner effect in superconductors, Phys

    J. Bardeen, Theory of the Meissner effect in superconductors, Phys. Rev. 97 (1955) 1724–1725. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.97.1724

    1955 doi

  17. [25]

    L. N. Cooper, Bound electron pairs in a degenerate fermi gas, Phys. Rev. 104 (1956) 1189–1190. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.104.1189

    1956 doi

  18. [26]

    Bardeen, L

    J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, J. R. Schrie ffer, Microscopic theory of super- conductivity, Phys. Rev. 106 (1957) 162–164. doi:10.1103/PhysRev. 106.162

    1957 doi

  19. [27]

    Bardeen, L

    J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, J. R. Schrie ffer, Theory of superconductivity, Phys. Rev. 108 (1957) 1175–1204. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.108.1175. 7

    1957 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.