Skip to content

Room temperature superconductivity

Scientists at the University of Cambridge have for the first time identified a key component to unravelling the mystery of room temperature superconductivity, according to a paper published in today's edition of the scientific journal Nature.

The quest for room temperature superconductivity has gripped physics researchers since they saw the possibility more than two decades ago. Materials that could potentially transport electricity with zero loss (resistance) at room temperature hold vast potential; some of the possible applications include a magnetically levitated superfast train, efficient magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), lossless power generators, transformers, and transmission lines, powerful supercomputers, etc.

Unfortunately, scientists have been unable to decipher how copper oxide materials superconduct at extremely cold temperatures (such as that of liquid nitrogen), much less design materials that can superconduct at higher temperatures.

Materials that are known to superconduct at the highest temperatures are, unexpectedly, ceramic insulators that behave as magnets before 'doping' (the method of introducing impurities to a semiconductor to modify its electrical properties). Upon doping charge carriers (holes or electrons) into these parent magnetic insulators, they mysteriously begin to superconduct, i.e. the doped carriers form pairs that carry electricity without loss.

The essential conundrum facing researchers in this area has been: how does a magnet that cannot transport electricity transform into a superconductor that is a perfect conductor of electricity? The Cambridge team have made a significant advance in answering this question.

The researchers have discovered where the charge 'hole' carriers that play a significant role in the superconductivity originate within the electronic structure of copper-oxide superconductors. These findings are particularly important for the next step of deciphering the glue that binds the holes together and determining what enables them to superconduct.

Dr Suchitra E. Sebastian, lead author of the study, commented, "An experimental difficulty in the past has been accessing the underlying microscopics of the system once it begins to superconduct. Superconductivity throws a manner of 'veil' over the system, hiding its inner workings from experimental probes. A major advance has been our use of high magnetic fields, which punch holes through the superconducting shroud, known as vortices - regions where superconductivity is destroyed, through which the underlying electronic structure can be probed.

"We have successfully unearthed for the first time in a high temperature superconductor the location in the electronic structure where 'pockets' of doped hole carriers aggregate. Our experiments have thus made an important advance toward understanding how superconducting pairs form out of these hole pockets."

By determining exactly where the doped holes aggregate in the electronic structure of these superconductors, the researchers have been able to advance understanding in two vital areas:

(1) A direct probe revealing the location and size of pockets of holes is an essential step to determining how these particles stick together to superconduct.

(2) Their experiments have successfully accessed the region betwixt magnetism and superconductivity: when the superconducting veil is partially lifted, their experiments suggest the existence of underlying magnetism which shapes the hole pockets. Interplay between magnetism and superconductivity is therefore indicated - leading to the next question to be addressed.

Do these forms of order compete, with magnetism appearing in the vortex regions where superconductivity is killed, as they suggest? Or do they complement each other by some more intricate mechanism? One possibility they suggest for the coexistence of two very different physical phenomena is that the non-superconducting vortex cores may behave in concert, exhibiting collective magnetism while the rest of the material superconducts.

July 9, 2008

Comments

Superconductivity has bad theories

June 7, 2009 by Anonymous, 24 weeks 8 hours ago
Comment id: 37093

The main trouble in superconductivity is it's false foundation. Nobody can give obvious explanation with clear and simple mathematics why electrons move forever without dissipation.

So we see the result :)))

BCS, BEC, Cooper pairing ---->>> GO HOME!!!

Minich.
http://love.minich.ru

Cuprate super-conductivity and BCS

October 7, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 6 weeks ago
Comment id: 32290

Another viewpoint on BCS theory is to consider that the boson has an inherent energy which is lower than the fermi level. It seems reasonable to suggest that the boson will remain stable until there are a pair of available energy states in the fermion density of states(DOS) of energy equal or lower than the boson's. Thus as temperature rises the availability of empty paired states occurs further below the fermi level, until it can provide exit states for the boson's constituents.
The maths of BCS should equate to the fermi-dirac distribution for paired states.

The reason the HTSC fling BCS out the window is because the inherent energy of the boson lies inside a semi-conductor bandgap in the cuprate DOS. Thus the critical field/temp. graph for the cuprates follows BCS for the first 10K or so until there are vacant states at the top of the semi-conductor bandgap (Energy vertical on DOS diagram). After that point the only way for the boson's energy to reach the lowest exit states is by its own thermal energy.
So BCS thermal breakdown may be characterized as lower fermion exit states described by fermi-dirac statistics.
By analogy, HTSC thermal breakdown may be seen as the boson increasing its own thermal energy obeying Bose-Einstein.
Since I'm sticking my neck out here, may I suggest that room-temperature SC will be achieved with single-walled carbon nanotubes with metal inside set at low density in an insulating bulk.
sandy@zymandia.com

Long way to go to reach room-temperature superconductivity

July 9, 2008 by Fred Bortz, 1 year 19 weeks ago
Comment id: 31055

The headline on this is misleading. The fact is that since "high-temperature" superconductivity was discovered in 1986 (critical temperature 35 kelvins at first) and improved on (topping out at about 130 kelvins or a still frigid -143C), no one has been able to come up with a theory to explain the behavior.

This finding looks like an important step on the way to understanding how high-temperature superconductivity is like ordinary superconductivity (explained by "BCS" theory in 1957, or 46 years after its discovery, as an exchange of quanta of vibrational energy between paired electrons--Cooper pairs) and how it differs.

Then even if someone develops a full BCS-like theory, it is unlikely to lead to room temperature superconductivity. That will almost certainly require a new class of materials, and will, I suspect, be discovered by serendipity rather than design.

Perhaps this excerpt from my 20th-century history Physics: Decade by Decade will offer some insight in the reason we still face a long road to room-temperature superconductivity. The book discusses superconductivity in detail in the chapters on the 1910s, the 1950s, and the 1980s (from which the excerpt is drawn).

So why did Bednorz and Müller look at ceramics rather than alloys? Part of it was simple curiosity, wondering whether the BCS theory applied to other materials as well as alloys. They soon found that it didn't. One of the ceramics they were looking at had a superconducting transition temperature significantly higher than that predicted by BCS theory. Since the transition temperature was still very low, the difference measured in kelvins was tiny; but it was significant on a percentage basis. They saw that result as a hint of a different route to superconductivity beyond Cooper pairs and phonons, and they began looking for other ceramics with significantly higher transition points. In early 1986, they discovered superconductivity in a class of ceramics called perovskites. One in particular, lanthium-barium-copper oxide, was superconducting up to 35K, a 50% increase above any previously discovered superconductor. That set off a race to find ceramics that were superconducting at above the temperature of liquid nitrogen. Within months, materials scientists succeeded. Suddenly, the new goal was room temperature (roughly 300K), but progress stalled again at about 130K, not far above the maximum transition temperature that had been achieved when Bednorz and Müller accepted the 1987 Nobel Prize for physics.


Because ceramics are brittle, they are hard to form into wires, which has limited their practical applications to date. Room temperature superconductivity still seems to be an unreachable goal for two reasons. First, physicists have yet to develop a new theory or a refinement of the BCS theory to explain what is happening in these ceramics. Second, there has been no progress toward superconductivity at higher temperatures since the late 1980s. Based on the history of superconductivity, the field may well yield more Nobel Prizes if someone makes a breakthrough in either of those two areas.


(Copyright 2007, Alfred B. Bortz)

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)

Post new comment



About us

Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.