Paper detail

Correcting 100 years of misunderstanding: electric fields in superconductors, hole superconductivity, and the Meissner effect

From the outset of superconductivity research it was assumed that no electrostatic fields could exist inside superconductors, and this assumption was incorporated into conventional London electrodynamics. Yet the London brothers themselves initially (in 1935) had proposed an electrodynamic theory of superconductors that allowed for static electric fields in their interior, which they unfortunately discarded a year later. I argue that the Meissner effect in superconductors necessitates the existence of an electrostatic field in their interior, originating in the expulsion of negative charge from the interior to the surface when a metal becomes superconducting. The theory of hole superconductivity predicts this physics, and associated with it a macroscopic spin current in the ground state of superconductors ("Spin Meissner effect"), qualitatively different from what is predicted by conventional BCS-London theory. A new London-like electrodynamic description of superconductors is proposed to describe this physics. Within this theory superconductivity is driven by lowering of quantum kinetic energy, the fact that the Coulomb repulsion strongly depends on the character of the charge carriers, namely whether electron- or hole-like, and the spin-orbit interaction. The electron-phonon interaction does not play a significant role, yet the existence of an isotope effect in many superconductors is easily understood. In the strong coupling regime the theory appears to favor local charge inhomogeneity. The theory is proposed to apply to all superconducting materials, from the elements to the high $T_c$ cuprates and pnictides, is highly falsifiable, and explains a wide variety of experimental observations.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.