Superconductivity found at 175 degrees Kelvin?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the claim of superconductivity at 175 degrees Kelvin, examining the validity of recent reports and the data presented. Participants explore the implications of inhomogeneity in samples, the interpretation of resistivity and susceptibility data, and the potential for magnetic ordering to mimic superconducting behavior.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the reported superconductivity, citing previous instances of higher transition temperatures (Tc) that were later discredited due to noisy data.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the interpretation of resistivity and susceptibility data, with one participant suggesting that a transition to a phase with magnetic ordering could produce similar results to superconductivity.
  • Questions arise about the graphs presented, particularly why the derivatives of resistivity and susceptibility appear the same in both normal and superconducting states.
  • It is proposed that the sample may be inhomogeneous, leading to mixed states that complicate the interpretation of the resistive transition, which could appear strange if parts of the sample are normal while others are superconducting.
  • Another participant notes that the signature of the mixed state can be observed in resistance measurements, but this effect is small compared to the overall drop in resistance, suggesting that the transition should still be distinct.
  • Discussion includes the notion that susceptibility measurements, typically conducted at low fields, should yield a clear drop if the sample is homogeneous, contrasting with the noisy data observed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express skepticism about the claims of superconductivity at 175 K, with multiple competing views regarding the interpretation of the data and the implications of sample inhomogeneity. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus reached on the validity of the findings.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the potential inhomogeneity of samples affecting measurements, the dependence on the definitions of superconductivity and magnetic ordering, and unresolved questions regarding the clarity of the data presented.

Physics news on Phys.org
I am not convinced. There have been so many reports of higher Tc accompanied by noisy curves in the pase, most of them have turned out to be false.
Neither the susceptibilty data nor the resisitiviy is convincing. A transtion to a phase with magnetic ordering could -at least in principle- give the same results.
 
I don't understand either graph! Why are [itex]d\rho/dT[/itex] and [itex]d\chi/dT[/itex] the same in the normal (insulating) state and in the SC state?
 
I guess they are just trying to convince us that a part of the sample goes superconducting (i.e. it is very inhomogenous) which means you would get a curve similar to what they show. The resisitive transition in high-Tc can look quite strange if the sample is very inhomogenous with some parts being normal, some parts superconducting but with varying degrees of under/overdoping. Susceptibilty data is usually "cleaner" since it is less local but in this case it is too noisy to draw any conclusions.
It would be interesting to see the result of a scan with a SQUID magnetometer.
 
f95toli said:
The resisitive transition in high-Tc can look quite strange if the sample is very inhomogenous with some parts being normal, some parts superconducting...
But isn't this true of any type 2 SC between Tc1 and Tc2?
 
Well, yes and no. It is possible to see the "signature" of the mixed state in a measurement of the resistance; if the vortices are moving around you get a finite flux-flow resistance even after going below Tc. However, in reality this effect is tiny compared to the drop in resistance (and in order to see it clearly you need to cool the sample in a relatively large field) meaning the transition should still be very clear (the width of the transition is often used to measure the quality of a superconducting film, for e.g. a thin film of YBCO it should be about 1K).
In some cases several transitions can be seen; this happens e.g. if part of the sample has been damaged or oxygen depleted.

Morever, a susceptibility measurement is usually done at low fields with just a small AC coil meaning there shouldn't be many vortices moving around, one should therefore see a very clear vertical drop if the sample is reasonably homogenous.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
7K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
8K