Superconducting materials: the w$hole$ story

J. E. Hirsch

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 80 references

Superconducting materials: the w$hole$ story

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 The paper claims that superconductivity is impossible without hole carriers: materials with only electron carriers cannot superconduct, so BCS theory, which permits electron superconductors, cannot be the correct theory of conventional…

desk verdict A provocative but unsupported restatement of the hole-superconductivity thesis; the key momentum-transfer premise is asserted, not derived, and conflicts with standard Bloch dynamics. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04419 v1 pith:X65JVUYL submitted 2019-08-04 cond-mat.supr-con

J. E. Hirsch This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.supr-con

keywords holesuperconductivityMeissnereffectnegativeeffectivemasssupercurrentangularmomentumBCStheorychargecarriershigh-temperaturesuperconductorsreversibility

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 argues that every superconducting material discovered or studied over the past seven decades, from intermetallics like Nb3Sn to the cuprates to thallium-doped PbTe, conducts through holes, and that this universality is not an accident but a physical requirement. The requirement follows from the Meissner effect: when a supercurrent stops, its mechanical angular momentum must be transferred to the crystal lattice without generating heat, and the paper contends that only negative-effective-mass carriers, holes, can accomplish this reversibly. If this is right, no 'electron superconductor' exists, and BCS theory cannot be the fundamental theory of conventional superconductivity because it allows superconductors with either electron or hole carriers. The wider stake is a single underlying mechanism for all superconducting materials, with concrete guidance for where to search for higher transition temperatures.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the hole, defined in band theory as a carrier with negative effective mass. The argument's quantitative anchor is the mechanical angular momentum of a supercurrent in a cylinder, $L_e = - (m_e c/2e) h R^2 H$; because no Joule heat is generated when the superconductor reverts to the normal state, that momentum must be absorbed by the lattice reversibly. In the semiclassical transport picture, a negative-effective-mass carrier accelerates opposite to the applied force because the lattice pushes on it more strongly than the external field, so momentum flows coherently to the ions without scattering; an ordinary electron has no such dissipationless channel. The frozen-flux theorem of plasma physics then supplies the Meissner-expulsion picture: magnetic field lines are carried outward by a neutral flow of electrons and holes, possible only in solids because holes can move charge one way while physical mass moves the other.

What would settle it

Find one superconducting material whose normal state is unambiguously electron-only, with a single band and negative Hall and thermopower coefficients and no hole pocket, and demonstrate that its transition is reversible; the paper predicts such a material cannot exist. Alternatively, a numerical simulation showing that a supercurrent in a purely electron-like band can stop with zero entropy production would falsify the momentum-transfer premise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that superconductivity requires hole carriers in every material, and the reason is momentum conservation. A supercurrent in a cylindrical superconductor carries a mechanical angular momentum $L_e = - (m_e c/2e) h R^2 H$; when the system makes the reversible, first-order transition to the normal state, this angular momentum has to be transferred to the lattice without dissipation, since Joule heating would violate the observed reversibility and the standard thermodynamic relations. The author argues that only carriers with negative effective mass, holes, can receive a force from the lattice that is opposite and larger than the applied force, so the lattice absorbs the supercurrent's momentum coherently and without scattering. Electrons with positive effective mass have no such dissipationless momentum-transfer channel. Therefore a material whose normal-state carriers are purely electrons could not stop its supercurrent without violating physical laws, so such 'electron superconductors' cannot exist; and since BCS theory explicitly allows superconductors with either hole or electron carriers, BCS cannot be the correct theory for the conventional superconductors it supposedly describes.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that only holes, never ordinary electrons, can hand a stopping supercurrent's angular momentum to the crystal lattice without generating heat; if any dissipationless momentum-transfer process for electron carriers exists, the conclusion that electron superconductors do not exist collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

All known classes of superconductors, including conventional elements, A15 compounds, cuprates, iron pnictides, MgB2, and doped semiconductors such as Tl-doped PbTe, are unified by hole carriers; even materials initially labeled electron-doped are hole superconductors once multi-band effects are included.
BCS electron-phonon theory cannot be the correct theory for conventional superconductors: it permits electron carriers, so it misses the essential requirement of holes, and its derivation of the Meissner effect starts from the final BCS state rather than from the normal-state initial condition.
The search for higher transition temperatures should prioritize materials in which holes conduct through closely spaced negatively charged anions, accepting that such materials are prone to lattice instability.
A material with no hole carriers, if a supercurrent were created, could not stop it reversibly; the paper's conclusion is that such a supercurrent would flow forever even at room temperature.

Reading between the lines

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

A decisive test would be to find one superconductor whose Fermi surface is unambiguously electron-only, with a single band and negative Hall and thermopower coefficients and no hole pocket; the paper's logic predicts none exists, so a single clean counterexample would refute it.
The reversibility constraint reframes the superconductivity debate: instead of asking which interaction binds pairs, one could ask how the lattice absorbs the supercurrent's angular momentum without entropy production, and any proposed mechanism would need to pass that momentum-bookkeeping test.
One could attempt to verify the premise computationally by modeling a band with only positive-effective-mass carriers and checking whether a supercurrent can be brought to a halt without entropy increase; the paper's premise predicts it cannot.
Because the argument implies one universal mechanism, the conventional versus unconventional distinction based on pairing symmetry or phonon versus electronic glue may be less fundamental than the sign of the carrier's effective mass.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague, two things to know before you decide whether to spend time on this one. First, it is a perspective piece, not a research paper: no new derivation, no new data, no machine-checked anything. The new content is a birthday dedication to Geballe and a useful list of the materials he worked on. Second, the central claim—that 'electron superconductors' don't exist because only holes can stop a supercurrent without dissipation—is the load-bearing argument, and it is not supported in this manuscript. The premise is asserted and delegated to the author's own reference [53].

Credit where it's due: the paper states the angular-momentum puzzle of the Meissner effect clearly, and that puzzle is real and underappreciated. How a supercurrent starts and stops reversibly in a first-order transition is a question BCS textbooks typically don't confront. The survey of Hall-effect and valence-counting evidence for hole carriers across many superconductors is also a useful entry point, though it is a list of examples, not a systematic proof.

Now the soft spots, in proportion. The central dichotomy is the problem. The paper argues that carriers with negative effective mass feel a lattice force opposite to and larger than the applied force, so coherent momentum transfer occurs; positive-mass electrons have no net momentum exchange. That is not the standard picture. In Bloch dynamics, the lattice recoil comes from the change in crystal momentum of any Bloch electron, regardless of the sign of the effective mass. A positive-effective-mass electron still exchanges momentum with the ions as it accelerates. So the premise isn't merely unproven; it's at odds with textbook band theory. The paper's conclusion is therefore unsupported. This is the kind of claim that would need a real derivation, not a pointer to a prior paper.

Also, the BCS–Meissner argument is an overclaim. Saying BCS 'cannot explain' the Meissner effect because the linear-response calculation starts from the BCS state rather than the normal-to-supercooling dynamics is a legitimate philosophical objection, but it is not a proof of inconsistency. Many condensed-matter physicists would say the equilibrium response is the right thing to compute for a thermodynamic phase transition. The paper doesn't engage with that counter.

Citation pattern: heavy self-citation, and the crucial step is a self-citation. That's a flag, but not fatal by itself. The problem is that the cited work doesn't settle the question either.

Bottom line: this paper is a provocation in the best sense, but not a proof. A serious referee could engage with it and should, because the questions are worth airing. But the current manuscript would need major revision to be a credible research claim. I'd send it to peer review if it crossed my desk, and I'd also say the expected outcome would be 'rejected as a research claim, possibly resubmitted as a clearly-labeled perspective.' I would not cite it in my own work.

Best, [name]

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper, dedicated to T. H. Geballe on his 100th birthday, argues that hole carriers are a necessary condition for superconductivity in all materials. Section 2 develops a momentum-conservation argument: when a supercurrent is stopped reversibly at the superconducting-to-normal transition, the mechanical angular momentum of the current (Eq. 1) must be transferred to the lattice without dissipation; the author asserts that only carriers with negative effective mass (holes) can do this, citing ref. [53]. From this he concludes that 'electron superconductors' do not exist and that BCS theory, which does not require hole carriers, cannot be the correct theory of superconductivity. Section 3 argues that BCS does not explain the Meissner effect because linear-response calculations use only the BCS ground state and excited states, not the normal-state wavefunction. Section 4 draws an analogy with Alfvén's frozen-flux theorem in plasmas and invokes hole physics to resolve it. The paper closes with the author's hole-superconductivity theory as the universal mechanism and suggests that materials without hole carriers would support persistent currents even at room temperature.

Significance. If the central claim were established, it would overturn the conventional BCS paradigm and would be among the most consequential results in condensed-matter physics. The paper does a service by stating clearly a series of dynamical questions about the Meissner effect (Section 3, items 1–4) that are rarely addressed in textbooks, such as momentum balance, reversibility, and the role of Faraday fields. It also correctly points to the gyromagnetic effect of Pry et al. [48] as experimental evidence that supercurrents carry mechanical momentum. However, the paper's own contributions are largely assertions delegated to the author's prior publications; no independent derivation or new experimental test is offered. The central claims are therefore not supported within the manuscript itself.

major comments (4)

[§2, near Eqs. (1)–(2) and the paragraph 'I argue that only charge carriers with negative effective mass...'] The load-bearing premise of the paper is the assertion that only carriers with negative effective mass (holes) can transfer the supercurrent's angular momentum to the lattice without dissipation, cited to ref. [53]. This premise is not derived here. Standard Bloch dynamics does not support the claimed dichotomy: when an external force changes an electron's crystal momentum, the lattice receives the equal-and-opposite momentum through the periodic potential regardless of the sign of the effective mass. The sign of m* determines the direction of the group-velocity acceleration, not whether momentum is transferred. Adiabatic Bloch oscillations in electron-like bands provide a concrete example of coherent, scattering-free momentum transfer to the lattice. Because the universal conclusion that 'electron superconductors do not exist' depends entirely on this unproven premise, the central argument fails.
[§3, paragraph beginning 'The calculation just described...' and the claim 'phase coherence cannot exist in the…] The critique of BCS identifies 'explaining the Meissner effect' with providing a dynamical description of the evolution from the normal metal to the superconductor. This demand is not logically required: the Meissner effect is a property of the equilibrium superconducting state in an external field, and the London kernel obtained by linear response of the BCS state is the standard derivation of that equilibrium property. The absence of the normal-state wavefunction in the calculation does not by itself invalidate the explanation, any more than the absence of the normal state in a zero-temperature ground-state calculation would. The additional assertion that global phase coherence cannot exist in the presence of an interior magnetic field is not proven, and for type-I field expulsion it is subtle because the field is excluded from the interior by the surface currents. Thus the paper's case that BCS cannot explain the Meissner effect is not established.
[§2 (ref. [53]) and §3 (refs. [59–63])] The argument is circular in a load-bearing way. The central premise about hole-only momentum transfer is referred to the author's own prior paper [53], and the detailed answers to the Meissner-effect questions are delegated to refs. [59–63], all self-citations. In Section 1 the author also admits that the experimental claim is 'not yet firmly established experimentally' (refs. [35–37] are again self-citations). Consequently, this manuscript offers no independent evidence or derivation for the universal claims it makes; the conclusions are supported only by appeal to the author's prior publications, which already assume the hole-superconductivity framework.
[§4, paragraph on Alfvén's theorem and holes] The resolution of the plasma analogy rests on the claim that holes can move in one direction while 'physical mass and physical mechanical momentum actually move in the opposite direction.' This is not derived in the paper; it is delegated to refs. [59–63]. Within the standard quasiparticle picture, the statement is at least nonstandard and requires a careful derivation from the band structure and wave-packet dynamics. Without such a treatment, the analogy to Alfvén's frozen-flux theorem is unsupported, and the conclusion that hole flow can expel magnetic field without charge or mass imbalance remains an assertion rather than an argument.

minor comments (4)

[§1, reference list] Reference [36] is a URL to the author's webpage rather than a peer-reviewed publication; this is not a conventional citation in a research article and should be replaced by specific published papers.
[§5, paragraph quoting 'Wikipedia's page'] Using Wikipedia as a scientific source in the body of the manuscript is inappropriate for a journal submission; a primary or secondary literature citation should be provided instead.
[Title and running header] The title appears inconsistently as 'Superconducting materials: the w$hole$ story' in the arXiv metadata and 'Superconducting materials: the w hole story' in the body text; this should be made consistent.
[§3, figures 1 and 2 captions] The figure captions are very long and include substantial portions of the argument; moving the explanatory text to the main body and keeping captions brief would improve readability.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The universal 'no electron superconductors' conclusion rests on a self-citation to a paper whose title is the same conclusion.

self citation load bearing [Section 2, 'Momentum of the supercurrent in superconductors', and reference [53]]
"I argue that only charge carriers with negative effective mass, i.e. holes, can do this [53]. ... Therefore I conclude that “electron superconductors”, meaning superconducting materials that don’t have hole carriers, don’t exist. ... 53. J. E. Hirsch, “Why only hole conductors can be superconductors”, Proc. SPIE 10105, Oxide-based Materials and Devices VIII, 101051V (2017)."

The load-bearing premise is that only holes can transfer a stopping supercurrent's angular momentum to the lattice without dissipation. That premise is exactly the paper's conclusion: if only holes can stop a supercurrent reversibly, then electron superconductors cannot exist. The only support offered in this paper for that premise is reference [53], whose title states the same proposition ('Why only hole conductors can be superconductors'). The intervening semiclassical discussion (negative effective mass means the lattice exerts a larger opposing force) is asserted, not derived. Thus the central derivation reduces to a self-citation of the very claim being proved.
self citation load bearing [Section 4, 'The key to the Meissner effect']
"How this works in detail is discussed in the references [59,60,61,53,47,62,63]."

The paper's affirmative answer to the four Meissner-effect questions listed in Section 3 is not derived here; the reader is referred to a block of seven self-authored papers, including [53], the paper whose title already asserts the hole-only conclusion. The mechanism by which hole carriers can carry current without charge or mass imbalance is therefore imported wholesale from the author's prior work rather than established in this derivation. The conclusion is forced by this self-citation chain, not by an independent first-principles argument in the paper.

full rationale

The paper contains substantial empirical content, including Hall-effect and valence-counting claims that many known superconductors have hole carriers, and those observations are not circular. However, the paper's universal necessity claim—that electron superconductors cannot exist—depends on a physical dichotomy that is never independently derived. The key sentence 'I argue that only charge carriers with negative effective mass, i.e. holes, can do this [53]' cites the author's own prior paper, whose title is the same universal proposition. The subsequent 'Therefore I conclude' is a direct restatement of that cited premise. The four Meissner-effect questions are similarly delegated to a block of self-authored references, with no calculation or external derivation supplied in this paper. Because the central derivation reduces to a self-citation chain asserting the conclusion, a score of 7 is appropriate: significant, load-bearing circularity, though not a purely definitional identity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters and no invented entities. The central claim rests on several assumptions: the standard London-theory result for supercurrent momentum, the reversibility and momentum-conservation requirements for the transition, the assertion that only negative-effective-mass carriers can transfer that momentum without dissipation, the methodological claim that a Meissner-effect explanation must start from the normal state, and the Alfven frozen-flux analogy. The most fragile of these is the third, which is supported by a self-citation rather than derived here.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The supercurrent carries mechanical angular momentum with magnitude L_e = -(m_e c / 2e) h R^2 H with the bare electron mass (Eq. 1), and this momentum must be accounted for during the transition.
The paper cites London theory and the gyromagnetic experiment (refs 47,48); this is standard background used to set up the momentum argument.
domain assumption During the superconducting-to-normal transformation, momentum is conserved and the process cannot generate irreversible heat; the current cannot stop simply by resistance.
The paper cites thermodynamic and experimental evidence (refs 49-52). This premise is required for the conclusion that the supercurrent needs a special momentum-transfer mechanism.
ad hoc to paper Only charge carriers with negative effective mass (holes) can transfer the supercurrent momentum to the lattice without dissipation.
Stated in Section 2 as 'I argue that only charge carriers with negative effective mass, i.e. holes, can do this [53]' with a self-citation; no derivation is included in this paper. This is the paper's load-bearing assumption.
ad hoc to paper A microscopic explanation of the Meissner effect must describe the reversible evolution from the normal metal to the superconducting state, not just the response of the final BCS state to a magnetic field.
This methodological criterion is the basis of the BCS critique in Section 3; it is a claim about what counts as an explanation and is not proven.
ad hoc to paper Alfven's frozen-flux theorem for a perfectly conducting charge-neutral fluid can be transferred to a solid in which electrons and holes move in the same direction with no net charge or mass flow.
The analogy in Section 4 is used to explain how field lines leave the material during the Meissner effect; its applicability to band carriers is asserted rather than demonstrated.
domain assumption Hall coefficient or valence counting identifies the carriers that are responsible for superconductivity, including in multi-band materials like electron-doped cuprates.
The paper uses Hall measurements and valence counting to assert hole carriers in all materials (Section 1); this is a standard but non-trivial interpretive step.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Superconducting materials: the w$hole$ story." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X65JVUYL

@misc{pith2026190804419,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Superconducting materials: the w$hole$ story},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X65JVUYL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04419}
}

abstract

Ted Geballe has contributed enormously to the knowledge of superconducting materials during an illustrious scientific career spanning seven decades, encompassing groundbreaking discoveries and studies of both so-called conventional and unconventional superconductors. On the year of his 100th birthday I would like to argue that all superconducting materials that Ted investigated, as well as those he did not, have one thing in common that is not generally recognized: hole carriers. This includes $PbTe$ doped with $Tl$, for which Ted has proposed that superconductivity is driven by negative-U pairing. I will discuss why hole carriers are necessary for a material to be a superconductor, and the implications of this for the understanding of the fundamental physics of superconductivity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04419 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

[53]

Why only hole conductors can be supercondu ctors

J. E. Hirsch, “Why only hole conductors can be supercondu ctors”, Proc. SPIE 10105, Oxide-based Materials and Devices VIII, 101051V (2017)

work page 2017
[48]

Gyromagnetic Eﬀect in a Superconduc- tor

R. H. Pry, A. L. Lathrop, and W. V. Houston, “Gyromagnetic Eﬀect in a Superconduc- tor”, Phys. Rev. 86, 905 (1952)

work page 1952
[1]

Superconductivity of N b3Sn

B. T. Matthias, T. H. Geballe, S. Geller, and E. Corenzwit, “Superconductivity of N b3Sn”, Phys. Rev. 95, 1435 (1954)

work page 1954
[2]

T. H. Geballe and G. W. Hull, ‘Seebeck Eﬀect in Germanium’, Phys. Rev. 94, 1134 (1954)

work page 1954
[3]

T. H. Geballe, ‘The Seebeck Eﬀect in Germanium’, Phys. Rev . 92, 857 (1953); T. H. Geballe and G. W. Hull, ‘Seebeck Eﬀect in Single Crystal Si licon’, Phys. Rev. 96, 846 (1954); ‘Seebeck Eﬀect in Silicon’, Phys. Rev. 98, 940 (1955) ; F. J. Morin and T. H. Geballe, ‘Electrical Conductivity and Seebeck Eﬀe ct in N i0. 80F e2. 20O4’, Phys. Rev. 99, 467 (1955...

work page 1953
[4]

D. W. W oodard and G. D. Cody, ‘Anomalous Resistivity of N b3Sn’, Phys. Rev. 136, A166 (1964)

work page 1964
[5]

Cornelius et al, ‘Hall coeﬃcients for A15 compounds: Nb-Sn and V-Si’, Sol

C.A. Cornelius et al, ‘Hall coeﬃcients for A15 compounds: Nb-Sn and V-Si’, Sol. St. Comm. 28, 793 (1978)

work page 1978
[6]

L Hoﬀmann, A. K. Singh, H. Takei and N. Toyota, ‘Fermi surfa ces in N b3Sn through positron annihilation’, J. Phys. F 18: Met. Phys. 18, 2605 (1988)

work page 1988

Show all 80 references

[7]

G. R. Stewart. ‘Superconductivity in the A15 structure’, Physica C 514, 28 (2015) . Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 11

2015
[8]

S. Uchida et al, ‘Transport Properties of ( La1−xAx)2Cu04, JJAP 26, L440 (1987) ; ‘Su- perconducting Properties of ( La1−xSrx)2CuO 4’, JJAP 26, L443 (1987) ; ‘Electric and Magnetic Properties of La2CuO 4’, JJAP 26, L445 (1987)

1987
[9]

V. J. Emery, ‘Theory of high-Tc superconductivity in oxid es’, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 2794 (1987)

1987
[10]

M. W. Shafer, T. Penney, and B. L. Olson, ‘Correlation of T c with hole concentration in La2−xSrxCuO 4−δ superconductors’, Phys. Rev. B 36, 4047 (1987)

1987
[11]

J. G. Bednorz and K. A. M¨ uller, ‘A Road towards High Tc Sup erconductivity’, JJAP 26, Suppl. 26-3, 1781 (1987) ; see also Rev. Mod. Phys. 60, 585 (1988)

1987
[12]

J. G. Bednorz and K. A. M¨ uller, ‘Possible high Tc superconductivity in the Ba-La-Cu-O system’, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik B64, pp 189193 (1986)

1986
[13]

Absence of an Isotope Eﬀect in Superconducting Ruthenium

T. H. Geballe, B. T. Matthias, G. W. Hull, Jr., and E. Coren zwit, “Absence of an Isotope Eﬀect in Superconducting Ruthenium”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 6, 275 (1961)

1961
[14]

T. H. Geballe, Physica C 514, 437 (2015)

2015
[15]

R. D. Fowler, J. D. G. Lindsay, R. W. White, H. H. Hill, and B . T. Matthias, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 892 (1967)

1967
[16]

Stritzker and W

B. Stritzker and W. Buckel, Zeitschrift fr Physik A 257, 1 (1972)

1972
[17]

Superconducting Materials: C onventional, Unconventional and Undetermined. Dedicated to Theodore H. Geballe on the ye ar of his 95th birthday

Physica C Special Issue, “Superconducting Materials: C onventional, Unconventional and Undetermined. Dedicated to Theodore H. Geballe on the ye ar of his 95th birthday”, ed. by J.E. Hirsch, M.B. Maple, F. Marsiglio, Vol. 514, p. 1-444 (2015)

2015
[18]

What Tc tells

T. H. Geballe, R. H. Hammond and Phillip M.W u, “What Tc tells”, Physica C 514, 9 (2015)

2015
[19]

Matsushita, P

Y. Matsushita, P. A. Wianecki, A. T. Sommer, T. H. Geballe and I. R. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 74, 134512 (2006)

2006
[20]

A. S. Erickson, J.-H. Chu, M. F. Toney, T. H. Geballe, and I . R. Fisher, ‘Enhanced superconducting pairing interaction in indium- doped tin telluride’, Phys. Rev. B 79, 024520 (2009)

2009
[21]

Bustarret, ‘Superconductivity in doped semiconduct ors’, Physica C 514, 36 (2015)

E. Bustarret, ‘Superconductivity in doped semiconduct ors’, Physica C 514, 36 (2015)

2015
[22]

Qualitative understand ing of the highest Tc cuprates

T. H. Geballe and B. Y. Moyzhes, “Qualitative understand ing of the highest Tc cuprates”, Physica C 341-348, 1821 (2000)

2000
[23]

T. H. Geballe, B. T. Matthias, E. Corenzwit, and G. W. Hull , Jr., ‘Superconductivity in Molybdenum’, Phys. Rev. Lett. 8, 313 (1962)

1962
[24]

R. A. Hein, J. W. Gibson, B. T. Matthias, T. H. Geballe, and E. Corenzwit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 8, 408 (1962)

1962
[25]

B. T. Matthias, T. H. Geballe, R. H. Willens, E. Corenzwit , and G. W. Hull, Jr., ‘Superconductivity of N b3Ge’, Phys. Rev. 139, A1501 (1965)

1965
[26]

N. B. Hannay, T. H. Geballe, B. T. Matthias, K. Andres, P. S chmidt, and D. MacNair, ‘Superconductivity in Graphitic Compounds’,
[27]

T. R. R. McDonald, E. Gregory, G. S. Barberich, D. B. McWha n, T. H. Geballe and G. W. Hull Jr., ‘Superconductivity of antimony’, Phys. Lett. 14, 16 (1965)

1965
[28]

A. R. Sweedler, J. K. Hulm, B. T. Matthias and T. H. Geballe , “Superconductivity of barium tungsten bronze’, Phys. Lett. 19, 82 (1965)

1965
[29]

F. J. Di Salvo, R. Schwall, T. H. Geballe, F. R. Gamble, and J. H. Osiecki, ‘Superconductivity in Layered Compounds with Var iable Interlayer Spacings’, Phys. Rev. Lett. 27, 310 (1971)

1971
[30]

J. M. Tarascon, L. H. Greene, W. R. McKinnon, G. W. Hull and T. H. Geballe, ‘Superconductivity at 40 K in the Oxygen-Defect Perovskite s La2−xSrxCuO 4−y’, Science 235, 1373 (1987)

1987
[31]

T. H. Geballe and B. Y. Moyzhes, ‘Model for superconducti vity in optimally doped electron cuprates’, Low Temperature Physics 27, 777 (2001)

2001
[32]

Tokura, H

Y. Tokura, H. Takagi, and S. Uchida, ‘A superconducting c opper oxide compound with electrons as the charge carriers’, Nature (London) 377, 345 (1989)

1989
[33]

Dagan and R.L

Y. Dagan and R.L. Greene, ‘Hole superconductivity in the electron-doped superconduc- tor P r2−xCe xCuO 4, Phys. Rev. B 76, 024506 (2007)

2007
[34]

Tabis, Y

Yangmu Li, W. Tabis, Y. Tang, G. Yu, J. Jaroszynski, N. Bar isic and M. Greven, ‘Hole- pocket-driven superconductivity and its universal featur es in the electron-doped cuprates’, Science Advances 5, eaap7349 (2019)

2019
[35]

J. E. Hirsch, ‘Hole superconductivity’, Phys. Lett. A 134, 451 1989. 12 J. E. Hirsch

1989
[36]

See https://jorge.physics.ucsd.edu/hole.html for a list of references
[37]

J. E. Hirsch, ‘La superconductividad bien entendida emp ieza con H’, Editorial Revert´ e, Barcelona, 2019, 1-264

2019
[38]

I. M. Chapnik, ‘On A Possible Criterion for Superconduct ivity’, Sov. Phys. Dokl. 6, 988 (1962); ‘On the empirical correlation between the super conducting Tc and the Hall coeﬃcient’, Phys. Lett. A 72, (1979)

1962
[39]

Royall Cox, D

W. Royall Cox, D. J. Hayes, and F. R. Brotzen, Phys. Rev. B 7, 3580 (1973)

1973
[40]

W. E. Pickett, K. M. Ho, and M. L. Cohen, ‘Electronic prope rties of N b3Ge and N b3Al from self-consistent pseudopotentials. I. Band structure and density of states’, Phys. Rev. B 19, 1734 (1979)

1979
[41]

D. J. Huntley and R. F. Frindt, Canadian Journal of Physics 52, 861-867 (1974)

1974
[42]

Uchida et al, Jpn

S. Uchida et al, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 26 L440 (1987)

1987
[43]

Pellegrin, J

E. Pellegrin, J. Fink, C. T. Chen, Q. Xiong, Q. M. Lin, and C . W. Chu, Phys. Rev. B 53, 2767 (1996)

1996
[44]

Kang et al, Hole carrier in M gB2 characterized by Hall measurements , Appl

W.N. Kang et al, Hole carrier in M gB2 characterized by Hall measurements , Appl. Phys. Lett. 79, 982 (2001)

2001
[45]

Scott C Riggs et al, ‘Doping dependent nonlinear Hall eﬀe ct in SmF eAsO1−xFx’, J. Phys. Cond. Matt. 21, 412201 (2009)

2009
[46]

Caglieris et al, ‘Quantum oscillations in the SmFeAsO parent compound and super- conducting SmFeAs(O,F)’, Phys

F. Caglieris et al, ‘Quantum oscillations in the SmFeAsO parent compound and super- conducting SmFeAs(O,F)’, Phys. Rev. B 96, 104508 (2017)

2017
[47]

Momentum of superconducting electrons an d the explanation of the Meiss- ner eﬀect

J. E. Hirsch, “Momentum of superconducting electrons an d the explanation of the Meiss- ner eﬀect”, Phys. Rev. B 95, 014503 (2017)

2017
[49]

Superconductivity

W. H. Keesom and J. A. Kok, Physica 1, 503 (1934) ; Physica 1, 595 (1934) ; W.H. Kee- som and P.H. van Laer, Physica 4, 487 (1937) ; Physica 5, 193 (1938) ; P.H. van Laer and W.H. Keesom, Physica 5, 993 (1938) ; D. E. Mapother, Phys. Rev. 126, 2021 (1962) ; D. Shoenberg, “Supe...

1934
[50]

On supraconductivity I

C. J. Gorter and H. Casimir, “On supraconductivity I”, Physica 1, 306 (1934)

1934
[51]

Bardeen, L.N

J. Bardeen, L.N. Cooper and J.R. Schrieﬀer, ‘Theory of Su perconductivity’, Phys. Rev. 108, 1175 (1957)

1957
[52]

Note on supraconductivity

A. J. Rutgers, “Note on supraconductivity”, Physica 1, 1055 (1934) and references therein

1934
[54]

P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. 110, 827 (1958) ; G. Rickayzen, Phys. Rev. 111, 817 (1958) ; Phys. Rev. Lett. 2, 90 (1959) ; Phys. Rev. 115, 795 (1959) ; G. W entzel, Phys. Rev. 111, 1488 (1958) ; Phys. Rev. Lett. 2, 33 (1959) ; D. Pines and J. R. Schrieﬀer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 1, 407...

1958
[55]

Flux Dynamics and the Growth of the Supercon- ducting Phase

H. Frahm, S. Ullah and A. T. Dorsey, “Flux Dynamics and the Growth of the Supercon- ducting Phase”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 3067 (1991) ; A. T. Dorsey, “Dynamics of interfaces in superconductors”, Ann. of Phys. 233, 248 (1994)

1991
[56]

Kinetics of the Su perconducting Transition

F. Liu, M. Mondello and N. Goldenfeld, “Kinetics of the Su perconducting Transition”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 3071 (1991)

1991
[57]

A Time Dependent Ginzburg-Landau Equation a nd its Application to the Problem of Resistivity in the Mixed State

A. Schmid, “A Time Dependent Ginzburg-Landau Equation a nd its Application to the Problem of Resistivity in the Mixed State”, Phys. Kondens. Mater. 5, 302 (1966) ; E. Abrahams and T. Tsuneto, “Time Variation of the Ginzburg-La ndau Order Parameter”, Phys. Rev. 152, 416 (1966) ...

1966
[58]

Resistance in su perconductors

B. I. Halperin, G. Refael and E. Demler, “Resistance in su perconductors”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 24, 4039 (2010) and references therein

2010
[59]

On the dynamics of the Meissner eﬀect

J. E. Hirsch, “On the dynamics of the Meissner eﬀect”, Physica Scripta 91, 035801 (2016)

2016
[60]

The disappearing momentum of the supercur rent in the superconductor to normal phase transformation

J. E. Hirsch, “The disappearing momentum of the supercur rent in the superconductor to normal phase transformation”, Europhys. Lett. 114, 57001 (2016) . Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 13

2016
[61]

On the reversibitity of the Meissner eﬀect and the angular momentum puzzle

J. E. Hirsch, “On the reversibitity of the Meissner eﬀect and the angular momentum puzzle”, Annals of Physics 373, 230 (2016)

2016
[62]

Entropy generation and momentum transfer in the superconductor to normal phase transformation and the consistency of the conv entional theory of supercon- ductivity

J.E. Hirsch, “Entropy generation and momentum transfer in the superconductor to normal phase transformation and the consistency of the conv entional theory of supercon- ductivity”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 32, 1850158 (2018)

2018
[63]

Hirsch, ‘Alfven-like waves along normal-supercon ductor phase boundaries’, Physica C 564, 42 (2019)

J.E. Hirsch, ‘Alfven-like waves along normal-supercon ductor phase boundaries’, Physica C 564, 42 (2019)

2019
[64]

Superconducti vity in the elements, alloys and simple compounds

G. W. W ebb, F. Marsiglio and J. E. Hirsch, “Superconducti vity in the elements, alloys and simple compounds”, Physica C 514, 17 (2015)

2015
[65]

Hirsch and F

J.E. Hirsch and F. Marsiglio, ‘Superconducting state in an oxygen hole metal’, Phys. Rev. B 39, 11515-11525 (1989)

1989
[66]

Marsiglio and J.E

F. Marsiglio and J.E. Hirsch, ‘Hole Superconductivity a nd the High-T c Oxides’, Phys. Rev. B41, 6435-6456 (1990)

1990
[67]

Hole superconductivity i n oxides: A two-band model

J.E. Hirsch and F. Marsiglio, “Hole superconductivity i n oxides: A two-band model”, Phys.Rev. B 43, 424 (1991)

1991
[68]

Hirsch, ‘Bond-charge repulsion and hole supercond uctivity’, Physica C 158, 326 (1989) ; ‘Coulomb attraction between Bloch electrons ’, Phys.Lett

J.E. Hirsch, ‘Bond-charge repulsion and hole supercond uctivity’, Physica C 158, 326 (1989) ; ‘Coulomb attraction between Bloch electrons ’, Phys.Lett. A 138, 83 (1989)

1989
[69]

Hirsch and F

J.E. Hirsch and F. Marsiglio, ‘Where is 99% of the condens ation energy of T l2Ba2CuO y coming from?’, Physica C 331, 180 (2000)

2000
[70]

Hole superconductivity from kinetic ener gy gain

J.E. Hirsch, “ Hole superconductivity from kinetic ener gy gain ”, Physica C 341-348, 213 (2000)

2000
[71]

Marsiglio and J

F. Marsiglio and J. E. Hirsch, ‘Tunneling asymmetry: A te st of superconductivity mech- anisms’, Physica C 159, 157 (1989)

1989
[72]

Hirsch and F

J.E. Hirsch and F. Marsiglio, ‘Optical sum rule violatio n, superﬂuid weight, and con- densation energy in the cuprates’, Phys. Rev. B 62, 15131 (2000)

2000
[73]

J. E. Hirsch and F. Marsiglio, ‘Understanding electron- doped cuprate superconductors as hole superconductors’, Physica C 564, 29 (2019)

2019
[74]

Hirsch, ‘Materials and mechanisms of hole supercon ductivity’, Physica C 472, 78 (2012) and references therein

J.E. Hirsch, ‘Materials and mechanisms of hole supercon ductivity’, Physica C 472, 78 (2012) and references therein

2012
[75]

Matthias, ‘Empirical relation between supercondu ctivity and the number of valence electrons per atom’, Phys

B.T. Matthias, ‘Empirical relation between supercondu ctivity and the number of valence electrons per atom’, Phys. Rev. 97, 74 (1955)

1955
[76]

T ′ cs− The high and low of it

B. T. Matthias, “ T ′ cs− The high and low of it”, in “Science and Technology of Superco n- ductivity, Volume 1”, ed. by W.D. Gregory, W.N. Mathews and E .A. Edelsack, Plenum, New York: 263-288, 1973, and references therein

1973
[77]

BCS theory of superconductivity: it is tim e to question its validity

J. E. Hirsch, “BCS theory of superconductivity: it is tim e to question its validity”, Phys. Scripta 80, 035702 (2009)

2009
[78]

B. T. Matthias, ‘Criteria for superconducting transiti on temperatures’, Physica 69, 54 (1973)

1973
[79]

T. H. Geballe et al, ‘High temperature SP-band supercond uctors’, Physics Physique Fizika 2, 293 (1966)

1966
[80]

T. F. Smith and T. R. Finlayson, ‘Superconductivity and l attice instability’, Contemp. Phys. 21, 265 (1980)

1980

Pith tools

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

[1] [53]

Why only hole conductors can be supercondu ctors

J. E. Hirsch, “Why only hole conductors can be supercondu ctors”, Proc. SPIE 10105, Oxide-based Materials and Devices VIII, 101051V (2017)

work page 2017

[2] [48]

Gyromagnetic Eﬀect in a Superconduc- tor

R. H. Pry, A. L. Lathrop, and W. V. Houston, “Gyromagnetic Eﬀect in a Superconduc- tor”, Phys. Rev. 86, 905 (1952)

work page 1952

[3] [1]

Superconductivity of N b3Sn

B. T. Matthias, T. H. Geballe, S. Geller, and E. Corenzwit, “Superconductivity of N b3Sn”, Phys. Rev. 95, 1435 (1954)

work page 1954

[4] [2]

T. H. Geballe and G. W. Hull, ‘Seebeck Eﬀect in Germanium’, Phys. Rev. 94, 1134 (1954)

work page 1954

[5] [3]

T. H. Geballe, ‘The Seebeck Eﬀect in Germanium’, Phys. Rev . 92, 857 (1953); T. H. Geballe and G. W. Hull, ‘Seebeck Eﬀect in Single Crystal Si licon’, Phys. Rev. 96, 846 (1954); ‘Seebeck Eﬀect in Silicon’, Phys. Rev. 98, 940 (1955) ; F. J. Morin and T. H. Geballe, ‘Electrical Conductivity and Seebeck Eﬀe ct in N i0. 80F e2. 20O4’, Phys. Rev. 99, 467 (1955...

work page 1953

[6] [4]

D. W. W oodard and G. D. Cody, ‘Anomalous Resistivity of N b3Sn’, Phys. Rev. 136, A166 (1964)

work page 1964

[7] [5]

Cornelius et al, ‘Hall coeﬃcients for A15 compounds: Nb-Sn and V-Si’, Sol

C.A. Cornelius et al, ‘Hall coeﬃcients for A15 compounds: Nb-Sn and V-Si’, Sol. St. Comm. 28, 793 (1978)

work page 1978

[8] [6]

L Hoﬀmann, A. K. Singh, H. Takei and N. Toyota, ‘Fermi surfa ces in N b3Sn through positron annihilation’, J. Phys. F 18: Met. Phys. 18, 2605 (1988)

work page 1988