{"schemaVersion":"1.0","revision":"fa961ab24277a91737c3","article":{"id":"scwiki-a3","topicId":"scwiki-topic-a3","code":"A3","slug":"specific-heat-jump","title":"Specific heat: the jump, entropy balance and bulk evidence","summary":"Read a thermodynamic anomaly with its background, normalization and transition criterion. The BCS jump is a model benchmark, not a universal verdict.","aliases":["heat capacity","specific heat jump","entropy balance","alpha model","Sommerfeld coefficient","BNC scaling","calorimetry"],"evidenceTypes":["theory","experiment","hypothesis"],"relatedCodes":["A1","A2","A6","B1","B12"],"editorialStatus":"scoped-check","contentState":"pilot","modifiedAt":"2026-10-18T06:22:03.922022+00:00","review":{"checkedAt":"2026-10-18","scope":"Edited pinned A3 chapter; selected Johnston author-manuscript equations, Padamsee and Budko-Ni-Canfield publisher abstracts, and an independent numerical BCS entropy/jump consistency check.","limitations":["This is not full scientific validation, independent experimental replication or a microscopic proof for a material.","No sample-specific heat-capacity curves, normal backgrounds, transition temperatures or volume fractions were re-extracted.","Padamsee and Budko-Ni-Canfield checks are abstract-scoped; Johnston journal text was not compared with the cited author manuscript.","Continuous-transition entropy balance requires consistent constraints and residual-entropy assumptions; it does not apply unchanged to first-order transitions."]},"provenance":{"repository":"JackZH26/jzis-superconductivity","commit":"0a7c9d6696804ec26aa12f8eed68b55c9b3c0fcf","path":"A_phenomenology/A3_specific_heat_jump.md","sha256":"b840c2280244ab50bae87d70f7bddfba64a65a785cf848bf0b0057be956cb080","sourceId":"file-5fdd5d3001a4e89f"},"sourceMap":[{"startLine":1,"endLine":5,"targetSections":["scope"],"decision":"edited-with-scoped-evidence","note":"Definitions and sample normalization."},{"startLine":6,"endLine":19,"targetSections":["mathematical-assumptions","experimental-criteria"],"decision":"edited-with-scoped-evidence","note":"Modern BCS limit and entropy-balance assumptions; Johnston supports the exact limit instead of treating historical rounded BCS numerics as exact."},{"startLine":20,"endLine":28,"targetSections":["limits-and-disputes"],"decision":"edited-with-scoped-evidence","note":"Distinguishes alpha-model assumptions, gap structure and broadening; multiband behavior is not universally broadened."},{"startLine":29,"endLine":34,"targetSections":["experimental-criteria","limits-and-disputes"],"decision":"edited-with-scoped-evidence","note":"Empirical BNC relation stated with correct normalization and limited dataset scope."},{"startLine":35,"endLine":42,"targetSections":["experimental-criteria","discovery-implications"],"decision":"edited-with-scoped-evidence","note":"Reporting protocol retained as editorial guidance."},{"startLine":43,"endLine":49,"targetSections":["sources"],"decision":"edited-with-scoped-evidence","note":"Selected sources and additional Johnston manuscript; full Carbotte strong-coupling review not independently audited here."},{"startLine":50,"endLine":52,"targetSections":["discovery-implications"],"decision":"edited-with-scoped-evidence","note":"Single-jump limitations retained."}],"corrections":[{"id":"scwiki-a3-correction-1","description":"Clarified that coupled multiple bands do not necessarily broaden a single sharp transition; separate gap structure from inhomogeneous transition broadening.","sourceId":"source-85009580cf550887","scope":"Model interpretation; no sample values changed."},{"id":"scwiki-a3-correction-2","description":"Made the experimental BNC relation explicit as DeltaCp/Tc proportional to Tc squared, equivalently DeltaCp proportional to Tc cubed within the stated dataset.","sourceId":"source-f075b0cef0106abc","scope":"Publisher abstract and algebraic normalization; no full-curve reanalysis."}],"equationChecks":[{"targetSectionId":"mathematical-assumptions","tex":"12/(7\\zeta(3))","check":"Numerically recovered from gap equation, quasiparticle entropy and backward derivative with cutoff/step convergence, not merely evaluation of the closed-form constant."},{"targetSectionId":"mathematical-assumptions","tex":"\\int_0^{T_c}(C_s-C_n)/T\\,dT=0","check":"Thermodynamic relation assumes a continuous transition and equal residual entropies. Numerical model check verifies entropy continuity; experimental baseline not validated."}],"references":[{"id":"source-85009580cf550887","doi":"10.1088/0953-2048/26/11/115011","title":"Elaboration of the alpha-model derived from the BCS theory of superconductivity","year":2013,"url":"https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-2048/26/11/115011","publicationStatus":"journal-article","verification":{"scope":"author-manuscript-scoped-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-18","evidenceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.2275v1","note":"Author manuscript arXiv:1304.2275v1: section IV Eqs. (19)-(22), section VII Eq. (50) and following entropy caveat, and section VIII gap-anisotropy discussion and section IX summary of coupled-band model extensions (underlying papers not independently checked). Journal identity linked by arXiv metadata; publisher-version text not compared. Manuscript typeset date is not treated as a new publication date. No independent reproduction of every model or experimental dataset."}},{"id":"source-456cad7bcd596be8","doi":"10.1007/BF00654872","title":"Quasiparticle phenomenology for thermodynamics of strong-coupling superconductors","year":1973,"url":"https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00654872","publicationStatus":"journal-article","verification":{"scope":"primary-abstract-scoped-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-18","evidenceUrl":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00654872","note":"Publisher abstract: quasiparticle entropy, BCS-like normalized gap shape and adjustable gap ratio. Full paper, fitted materials and microscopic validity are not independently verified."}},{"id":"source-f075b0cef0106abc","doi":"10.1103/PhysRevB.79.220516","title":"Jump in specific heat at the superconducting transition temperature in Ba(Fe1-xCox)2As2 and Ba(Fe1-xNix)2As2 single crystals","year":2009,"url":"https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.79.220516","publicationStatus":"journal-article","verification":{"scope":"primary-abstract-scoped-check","checkedAt":"2026-10-18","evidenceUrl":"https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.79.220516","note":"Publisher abstract: named Co/Ni-substituted Ba122 series and literature samples, DeltaCp/Tc proportional to Tc squared. Full curves, uncertainty and sample-wise extraction are not reanalysed."}}],"materialCases":[],"claims":[{"id":"scwiki-a3-claim-scope-1","sectionId":"scope","statement":"Heat capacity probes the change of entropy with temperature. A superconducting anomaly can therefore provide a bulk thermodynamic check that complements resistance and magnetic screening. A peak alone does not identify its cause: magnetic, structural and charge-order transitions can also produce anomalies. This article separates an ideal electronic heat-capacity jump from the measured total signal and from an empirical trend across different samples.","evidenceType":"hypothesis","sourceIds":["source-85009580cf550887"],"conditions":"Editorial reporting protocol; sample, normalization, probe, temperature, field and reference-background assumptions must be stated. No particular dataset is certified.","verificationScope":"Reporting guidance adapted from the pinned A3 chapter and thermodynamic definitions; cited model motivates comparisons but does not establish every possible artifact."},{"id":"scwiki-a3-claim-scope-2","sectionId":"scope","statement":"Use $C$ on a declared basis: per mole, per unit mass, per volume or for the entire sample. The normalization of the normal-state electronic coefficient $\\gamma_n$ must match. Experiments often measure $C_p$, while a simple electronic model evaluates heat capacity with a fixed spectrum and volume. Their difference may be small for an appropriate low-temperature solid, but that approximation should be justified when quantitative precision matters.","evidenceType":"hypothesis","sourceIds":["source-85009580cf550887"],"conditions":"Editorial reporting protocol; sample, normalization, probe, temperature, field and reference-background assumptions must be stated. No particular dataset is certified.","verificationScope":"Reporting guidance adapted from the pinned A3 chapter and thermodynamic definitions; cited model motivates comparisons but does not establish every possible artifact."},{"id":"scwiki-a3-claim-mathematical-assumptions-1","sectionId":"mathematical-assumptions","statement":"For an isotropic single-band weak-coupling BCS model with a smooth density of states, define the electronic jump on cooling as $\\Delta C_e=C_{es}(T_c^-)-C_{en}(T_c^+)$. Its limiting value is","evidenceType":"theory","sourceIds":["source-85009580cf550887"],"conditions":"Single-band isotropic weak-coupling constant-DOS model for the jump; entropy integral assumes a continuous transition, consistent backgrounds and equal residual entropies. C and gamma must share normalization.","verificationScope":"Selected Johnston manuscript equations and local numerical gap/entropy convergence check; not experimental validation."},{"id":"scwiki-a3-claim-mathematical-assumptions-3","sectionId":"mathematical-assumptions","statement":"Here $C_{en}=\\gamma_nT$ in the assumed low-temperature normal state. The number is a model benchmark, not a threshold that every superconductor must pass. Johnston gives the limiting expression in Eq. (22) of the cited author manuscript.","evidenceType":"theory","sourceIds":["source-85009580cf550887"],"conditions":"Single-band isotropic weak-coupling constant-DOS model for the jump; entropy integral assumes a continuous transition, consistent backgrounds and equal residual entropies. C and gamma must share normalization.","verificationScope":"Selected Johnston manuscript equations and local numerical gap/entropy convergence check; not experimental validation."},{"id":"scwiki-a3-claim-mathematical-assumptions-4","sectionId":"mathematical-assumptions","statement":"Entropy follows from $dS=C\\,dT/T$ under the specified thermodynamic constraints. For a continuous transition with equal extrapolated zero-temperature entropies in the compared phases,","evidenceType":"theory","sourceIds":["source-85009580cf550887"],"conditions":"Single-band isotropic weak-coupling constant-DOS model for the jump; entropy integral assumes a continuous transition, consistent backgrounds and equal residual entropies. C and gamma must share normalization.","verificationScope":"Selected Johnston manuscript equations and local numerical gap/entropy convergence check; not experimental validation."},{"id":"scwiki-a3-claim-mathematical-assumptions-6","sectionId":"mathematical-assumptions","statement":"The normal curve below $T_c$ is a defined reference, not a directly accessible zero-field equilibrium phase. Background subtraction and low-temperature extrapolation therefore affect the test. A first-order transition has latent heat and requires a different treatment. Do not force this continuous-transition construction onto such a dataset.","evidenceType":"theory","sourceIds":["source-85009580cf550887"],"conditions":"Single-band isotropic weak-coupling constant-DOS model for the jump; entropy integral assumes a continuous transition, consistent backgrounds and equal residual entropies. C and gamma must share normalization.","verificationScope":"Selected Johnston manuscript equations and local numerical gap/entropy convergence check; not experimental validation."},{"id":"scwiki-a3-claim-mathematical-assumptions-7","sectionId":"mathematical-assumptions","statement":"An independent numerical check for this entry solved the constant-density-of-states gap equation, integrated the quasiparticle entropy and differentiated it near $T_c$. The normalized jump approaches 1.426 as the cutoff and numerical step are controlled; the normalized entropy reaches the normal-state value at the transition. This checks the stated model and conventions, not a material dataset. The entropy and heat-capacity relations are consistent with the selected manuscript equations.","evidenceType":"theory","sourceIds":["source-85009580cf550887"],"conditions":"Single-band isotropic weak-coupling constant-DOS model for the jump; entropy integral assumes a continuous transition, consistent backgrounds and equal residual entropies. C and gamma must share normalization.","verificationScope":"Selected Johnston manuscript equations and local numerical gap/entropy convergence check; not experimental validation."},{"id":"scwiki-a3-claim-experimental-criteria-1","sectionId":"experimental-criteria","statement":"Start from the measured heat capacity and report addenda, sample mass and calibration uncertainty. A fit such as $C_n/T=\\gamma_n+\\beta T^2$ assumes a linear electronic term and a low-temperature lattice contribution. It can fail if extra excitations or nearby transitions matter. State the temperature interval and uncertainty of the background, and show how another reasonable background changes the inferred anomaly.","evidenceType":"hypothesis","sourceIds":["source-85009580cf550887"],"conditions":"Editorial reporting protocol; sample, normalization, probe, temperature, field and reference-background assumptions must be stated. No particular dataset is certified.","verificationScope":"Reporting guidance adapted from the pinned A3 chapter and thermodynamic definitions; cited model motivates comparisons but does not establish every possible artifact."},{"id":"scwiki-a3-claim-experimental-criteria-2","sectionId":"experimental-criteria","statement":"A field used to suppress superconductivity is not automatically a perfect normal-state reference. Check whether it reaches the normal state over the relevant range and whether it changes magnetic or other contributions. Use the same units and sample basis in the field and zero-field curves. Show transition width, the chosen thermodynamic $T_c$ and the entropy comparison, rather than only a peak height.","evidenceType":"hypothesis","sourceIds":["source-85009580cf550887"],"conditions":"Editorial reporting protocol; sample, normalization, probe, temperature, field and reference-background assumptions must be stated. No particular dataset is certified.","verificationScope":"Reporting guidance adapted from the pinned A3 chapter and thermodynamic definitions; cited model motivates comparisons but does not establish every possible artifact."},{"id":"scwiki-a3-claim-experimental-criteria-3","sectionId":"experimental-criteria","statement":"Compare with resistance and screening on the same or demonstrably comparable specimen. A consistent anomaly with the expected field response strengthens the case for bulk superconductivity. Failure to resolve an anomaly may instead reflect sensitivity, sample size, a small superconducting fraction or an incorrect baseline. It leaves thermodynamic confirmation incomplete; it does not by itself establish absence of superconductivity. These are reporting and interpretation criteria from the pinned chapter, not independently verified measurements.","evidenceType":"hypothesis","sourceIds":["source-85009580cf550887"],"conditions":"Editorial reporting protocol; sample, normalization, probe, temperature, field and reference-background assumptions must be stated. No particular dataset is certified.","verificationScope":"Reporting guidance adapted from the pinned A3 chapter and thermodynamic definitions; cited model motivates comparisons but does not establish every possible artifact."},{"id":"scwiki-a3-claim-limits-and-disputes-1","sectionId":"limits-and-disputes","statement":"The phenomenological alpha model retains the BCS normalized gap shape while varying $\\alpha=\\Delta(0)/(k_BT_c)$ in the thermodynamic calculation. Padamsee and colleagues describe its quasiparticle construction in their abstract. A successful fit is not a microscopic derivation of the interaction.","evidenceType":"theory","sourceIds":["source-456cad7bcd596be8"],"conditions":"Phenomenological alpha-model or specified gap structure; an adjusted fit is not a microscopic mechanism proof. Distinct model assumptions cannot be interchanged.","verificationScope":"Padamsee publisher abstract and selected Johnston manuscript sections VII-IX (underlying multiband papers not independently checked); no complete fit or microscopic theory reproduction."},{"id":"scwiki-a3-claim-limits-and-disputes-2","sectionId":"limits-and-disputes","statement":"Within that model the jump scales as $1.426(\\alpha/\\alpha_{\\rm BCS})^2$. This does not mean that the entire entropy or heat-capacity curve can simply be multiplied by that factor: the occupation functions also change. Gap anisotropy or multiple coupled bands can alter the normalized jump. Multiple bands do not necessarily broaden a single sharp transition; disorder, phase mixtures and a distribution of local transition temperatures are separate issues.","evidenceType":"theory","sourceIds":["source-85009580cf550887"],"conditions":"Phenomenological alpha-model or specified gap structure; an adjusted fit is not a microscopic mechanism proof. Distinct model assumptions cannot be interchanged.","verificationScope":"Padamsee publisher abstract and selected Johnston manuscript sections VII-IX (underlying multiband papers not independently checked); no complete fit or microscopic theory reproduction."},{"id":"scwiki-a3-claim-limits-and-disputes-3","sectionId":"limits-and-disputes","statement":"Bud'ko, Ni and Canfield report an empirical relation $\\Delta C_p/T_c\\propto T_c^2$ for their substituted Ba122 series together with specified literature samples. Equivalently, the jump itself scales as $T_c^3$ within that comparison. This is a dataset-dependent observation, not a fundamental law or a stand-alone proof of a pairing mechanism. The current check covers the publisher abstract, not a reanalysis of the data.","evidenceType":"experiment","sourceIds":["source-f075b0cef0106abc"],"conditions":"Specific substituted Ba122 dataset and selected literature samples; same normalization is required. No universal law, extracted sample Tc or pairing mechanism is inferred.","verificationScope":"Publisher abstract only; DeltaCp/Tc scaling is distinguished algebraically from DeltaCp scaling. No full-curve reanalysis."},{"id":"scwiki-a3-claim-discovery-implications-1","sectionId":"discovery-implications","statement":"Use an anomaly to constrain a proposed state together with independent probes. Ask which part of the temperature dependence is reliable, how much of the sample participates, and whether competing backgrounds could produce the same result. Preserve disagreement between probes and the uncertainty in extrapolated quantities.","evidenceType":"hypothesis","sourceIds":["source-85009580cf550887"],"conditions":"Editorial reporting protocol; sample, normalization, probe, temperature, field and reference-background assumptions must be stated. No particular dataset is certified.","verificationScope":"Reporting guidance adapted from the pinned A3 chapter and thermodynamic definitions; cited model motivates comparisons but does not establish every possible artifact."},{"id":"scwiki-a3-claim-discovery-implications-2","sectionId":"discovery-implications","statement":"A useful next experiment resolves a specific ambiguity: a field-dependent background, an uncertain phase fraction, a residual low-temperature term or an alternative gap distribution. Comparing a single normalized jump to 1.426 cannot uniquely select gap symmetry, coupling strength or a mediator. These are model-discrimination questions, not new experimental findings.","evidenceType":"hypothesis","sourceIds":["source-85009580cf550887"],"conditions":"Editorial reporting protocol; sample, normalization, probe, temperature, field and reference-background assumptions must be stated. No particular dataset is certified.","verificationScope":"Reporting guidance adapted from the pinned A3 chapter and thermodynamic definitions; cited model motivates comparisons but does not establish every possible artifact."}],"body":"## Scope\n\nHeat capacity probes the change of entropy with temperature. A superconducting anomaly can therefore provide a bulk thermodynamic check that complements resistance and magnetic screening. A peak alone does not identify its cause: magnetic, structural and charge-order transitions can also produce anomalies. This article separates an ideal electronic heat-capacity jump from the measured total signal and from an empirical trend across different samples.\n\nUse $C$ on a declared basis: per mole, per unit mass, per volume or for the entire sample. The normalization of the normal-state electronic coefficient $\\gamma_n$ must match. Experiments often measure $C_p$, while a simple electronic model evaluates heat capacity with a fixed spectrum and volume. Their difference may be small for an appropriate low-temperature solid, but that approximation should be justified when quantitative precision matters.\n\n## Mathematical assumptions\n\nFor an isotropic single-band weak-coupling BCS model with a smooth density of states, define the electronic jump on cooling as $\\Delta C_e=C_{es}(T_c^-)-C_{en}(T_c^+)$. Its limiting value is\n\n$$\n\\frac{\\Delta C_e}{\\gamma_nT_c}=\\frac{12}{7\\zeta(3)}\\simeq1.426.\n$$\n\nHere $C_{en}=\\gamma_nT$ in the assumed low-temperature normal state. The number is a model benchmark, not a threshold that every superconductor must pass. Johnston gives the limiting expression in Eq. (22) of the cited author manuscript. [R1](#ref-source-85009580cf550887)\n\nEntropy follows from $dS=C\\,dT/T$ under the specified thermodynamic constraints. For a continuous transition with equal extrapolated zero-temperature entropies in the compared phases,\n\n$$\nS_s(T_c)-S_n(T_c)=\\int_0^{T_c}\\frac{C_s(T)-C_n(T)}{T}\\,dT=0.\n$$\n\nThe normal curve below $T_c$ is a defined reference, not a directly accessible zero-field equilibrium phase. Background subtraction and low-temperature extrapolation therefore affect the test. A first-order transition has latent heat and requires a different treatment. Do not force this continuous-transition construction onto such a dataset.\n\nAn independent numerical check for this entry solved the constant-density-of-states gap equation, integrated the quasiparticle entropy and differentiated it near $T_c$. The normalized jump approaches 1.426 as the cutoff and numerical step are controlled; the normalized entropy reaches the normal-state value at the transition. This checks the stated model and conventions, not a material dataset. The entropy and heat-capacity relations are consistent with the selected manuscript equations. [R1](#ref-source-85009580cf550887)\n\n## Experimental criteria\n\nStart from the measured heat capacity and report addenda, sample mass and calibration uncertainty. A fit such as $C_n/T=\\gamma_n+\\beta T^2$ assumes a linear electronic term and a low-temperature lattice contribution. It can fail if extra excitations or nearby transitions matter. State the temperature interval and uncertainty of the background, and show how another reasonable background changes the inferred anomaly.\n\nA field used to suppress superconductivity is not automatically a perfect normal-state reference. Check whether it reaches the normal state over the relevant range and whether it changes magnetic or other contributions. Use the same units and sample basis in the field and zero-field curves. Show transition width, the chosen thermodynamic $T_c$ and the entropy comparison, rather than only a peak height.\n\nCompare with resistance and screening on the same or demonstrably comparable specimen. A consistent anomaly with the expected field response strengthens the case for bulk superconductivity. Failure to resolve an anomaly may instead reflect sensitivity, sample size, a small superconducting fraction or an incorrect baseline. It leaves thermodynamic confirmation incomplete; it does not by itself establish absence of superconductivity. These are reporting and interpretation criteria from the pinned chapter, not independently verified measurements.\n\n## Limits and disputes\n\nThe phenomenological alpha model retains the BCS normalized gap shape while varying $\\alpha=\\Delta(0)/(k_BT_c)$ in the thermodynamic calculation. Padamsee and colleagues describe its quasiparticle construction in their abstract. A successful fit is not a microscopic derivation of the interaction. [R2](#ref-source-456cad7bcd596be8)\n\nWithin that model the jump scales as $1.426(\\alpha/\\alpha_{\\rm BCS})^2$. This does not mean that the entire entropy or heat-capacity curve can simply be multiplied by that factor: the occupation functions also change. Gap anisotropy or multiple coupled bands can alter the normalized jump. Multiple bands do not necessarily broaden a single sharp transition; disorder, phase mixtures and a distribution of local transition temperatures are separate issues. [R1](#ref-source-85009580cf550887)\n\nBud'ko, Ni and Canfield report an empirical relation $\\Delta C_p/T_c\\propto T_c^2$ for their substituted Ba122 series together with specified literature samples. Equivalently, the jump itself scales as $T_c^3$ within that comparison. This is a dataset-dependent observation, not a fundamental law or a stand-alone proof of a pairing mechanism. The current check covers the publisher abstract, not a reanalysis of the data. [R3](#ref-source-f075b0cef0106abc)\n\n## Discovery implications\n\nUse an anomaly to constrain a proposed state together with independent probes. Ask which part of the temperature dependence is reliable, how much of the sample participates, and whether competing backgrounds could produce the same result. Preserve disagreement between probes and the uncertainty in extrapolated quantities.\n\nA useful next experiment resolves a specific ambiguity: a field-dependent background, an uncertain phase fraction, a residual low-temperature term or an alternative gap distribution. Comparing a single normalized jump to 1.426 cannot uniquely select gap symmetry, coupling strength or a mediator. These are model-discrimination questions, not new experimental findings.\n\n## Related topics\n\nConnect heat capacity to [zero resistance](/scwiki/zero-resistance), [the Meissner effect](/scwiki/meissner-effect), [critical fields](/scwiki/critical-fields), [the BCS baseline](/scwiki/bcs-weak-coupling), and [multiband pairing](/scwiki/multiband-pairing).","revision":"5cdd22236f8ff447c033","sections":[{"id":"scope","title":"Scope","markdown":"## Scope\n\nHeat capacity probes the change of entropy with temperature. A superconducting anomaly can therefore provide a bulk thermodynamic check that complements resistance and magnetic screening. A peak alone does not identify its cause: magnetic, structural and charge-order transitions can also produce anomalies. This article separates an ideal electronic heat-capacity jump from the measured total signal and from an empirical trend across different samples.\n\nUse $C$ on a declared basis: per mole, per unit mass, per volume or for the entire sample. The normalization of the normal-state electronic coefficient $\\gamma_n$ must match. Experiments often measure $C_p$, while a simple electronic model evaluates heat capacity with a fixed spectrum and volume. Their difference may be small for an appropriate low-temperature solid, but that approximation should be justified when quantitative precision matters."},{"id":"mathematical-assumptions","title":"Mathematical assumptions","markdown":"## Mathematical assumptions\n\nFor an isotropic single-band weak-coupling BCS model with a smooth density of states, define the electronic jump on cooling as $\\Delta C_e=C_{es}(T_c^-)-C_{en}(T_c^+)$. Its limiting value is\n\n$$\n\\frac{\\Delta C_e}{\\gamma_nT_c}=\\frac{12}{7\\zeta(3)}\\simeq1.426.\n$$\n\nHere $C_{en}=\\gamma_nT$ in the assumed low-temperature normal state. The number is a model benchmark, not a threshold that every superconductor must pass. Johnston gives the limiting expression in Eq. (22) of the cited author manuscript. [R1](#ref-source-85009580cf550887)\n\nEntropy follows from $dS=C\\,dT/T$ under the specified thermodynamic constraints. For a continuous transition with equal extrapolated zero-temperature entropies in the compared phases,\n\n$$\nS_s(T_c)-S_n(T_c)=\\int_0^{T_c}\\frac{C_s(T)-C_n(T)}{T}\\,dT=0.\n$$\n\nThe normal curve below $T_c$ is a defined reference, not a directly accessible zero-field equilibrium phase. Background subtraction and low-temperature extrapolation therefore affect the test. A first-order transition has latent heat and requires a different treatment. Do not force this continuous-transition construction onto such a dataset.\n\nAn independent numerical check for this entry solved the constant-density-of-states gap equation, integrated the quasiparticle entropy and differentiated it near $T_c$. The normalized jump approaches 1.426 as the cutoff and numerical step are controlled; the normalized entropy reaches the normal-state value at the transition. This checks the stated model and conventions, not a material dataset. The entropy and heat-capacity relations are consistent with the selected manuscript equations. [R1](#ref-source-85009580cf550887)"},{"id":"experimental-criteria","title":"Experimental criteria","markdown":"## Experimental criteria\n\nStart from the measured heat capacity and report addenda, sample mass and calibration uncertainty. A fit such as $C_n/T=\\gamma_n+\\beta T^2$ assumes a linear electronic term and a low-temperature lattice contribution. It can fail if extra excitations or nearby transitions matter. State the temperature interval and uncertainty of the background, and show how another reasonable background changes the inferred anomaly.\n\nA field used to suppress superconductivity is not automatically a perfect normal-state reference. Check whether it reaches the normal state over the relevant range and whether it changes magnetic or other contributions. Use the same units and sample basis in the field and zero-field curves. Show transition width, the chosen thermodynamic $T_c$ and the entropy comparison, rather than only a peak height.\n\nCompare with resistance and screening on the same or demonstrably comparable specimen. A consistent anomaly with the expected field response strengthens the case for bulk superconductivity. Failure to resolve an anomaly may instead reflect sensitivity, sample size, a small superconducting fraction or an incorrect baseline. It leaves thermodynamic confirmation incomplete; it does not by itself establish absence of superconductivity. These are reporting and interpretation criteria from the pinned chapter, not independently verified measurements."},{"id":"limits-and-disputes","title":"Limits and disputes","markdown":"## Limits and disputes\n\nThe phenomenological alpha model retains the BCS normalized gap shape while varying $\\alpha=\\Delta(0)/(k_BT_c)$ in the thermodynamic calculation. Padamsee and colleagues describe its quasiparticle construction in their abstract. A successful fit is not a microscopic derivation of the interaction. [R2](#ref-source-456cad7bcd596be8)\n\nWithin that model the jump scales as $1.426(\\alpha/\\alpha_{\\rm BCS})^2$. This does not mean that the entire entropy or heat-capacity curve can simply be multiplied by that factor: the occupation functions also change. Gap anisotropy or multiple coupled bands can alter the normalized jump. Multiple bands do not necessarily broaden a single sharp transition; disorder, phase mixtures and a distribution of local transition temperatures are separate issues. [R1](#ref-source-85009580cf550887)\n\nBud'ko, Ni and Canfield report an empirical relation $\\Delta C_p/T_c\\propto T_c^2$ for their substituted Ba122 series together with specified literature samples. Equivalently, the jump itself scales as $T_c^3$ within that comparison. This is a dataset-dependent observation, not a fundamental law or a stand-alone proof of a pairing mechanism. The current check covers the publisher abstract, not a reanalysis of the data. [R3](#ref-source-f075b0cef0106abc)"},{"id":"discovery-implications","title":"Discovery implications","markdown":"## Discovery implications\n\nUse an anomaly to constrain a proposed state together with independent probes. Ask which part of the temperature dependence is reliable, how much of the sample participates, and whether competing backgrounds could produce the same result. Preserve disagreement between probes and the uncertainty in extrapolated quantities.\n\nA useful next experiment resolves a specific ambiguity: a field-dependent background, an uncertain phase fraction, a residual low-temperature term or an alternative gap distribution. Comparing a single normalized jump to 1.426 cannot uniquely select gap symmetry, coupling strength or a mediator. These are model-discrimination questions, not new experimental findings."},{"id":"related-topics","title":"Related topics","markdown":"## Related topics\n\nConnect heat capacity to [zero resistance](/scwiki/zero-resistance), [the Meissner effect](/scwiki/meissner-effect), [critical fields](/scwiki/critical-fields), [the BCS baseline](/scwiki/bcs-weak-coupling), and [multiband pairing](/scwiki/multiband-pairing)."},{"id":"material-cases","title":"Material cases","markdown":"## Material cases\n\nNo sample-specific material records are included in this article. Model results are not experimental transition temperatures."}],"markdown":"# Specific heat: the jump, entropy balance and bulk evidence\n\nRead a thermodynamic anomaly with its background, normalization and transition criterion. The BCS jump is a model benchmark, not a universal verdict.\n\n## Scope\n\nHeat capacity probes the change of entropy with temperature. A superconducting anomaly can therefore provide a bulk thermodynamic check that complements resistance and magnetic screening. A peak alone does not identify its cause: magnetic, structural and charge-order transitions can also produce anomalies. This article separates an ideal electronic heat-capacity jump from the measured total signal and from an empirical trend across different samples.\n\nUse $C$ on a declared basis: per mole, per unit mass, per volume or for the entire sample. The normalization of the normal-state electronic coefficient $\\gamma_n$ must match. Experiments often measure $C_p$, while a simple electronic model evaluates heat capacity with a fixed spectrum and volume. Their difference may be small for an appropriate low-temperature solid, but that approximation should be justified when quantitative precision matters.\n\n## Mathematical assumptions\n\nFor an isotropic single-band weak-coupling BCS model with a smooth density of states, define the electronic jump on cooling as $\\Delta C_e=C_{es}(T_c^-)-C_{en}(T_c^+)$. Its limiting value is\n\n$$\n\\frac{\\Delta C_e}{\\gamma_nT_c}=\\frac{12}{7\\zeta(3)}\\simeq1.426.\n$$\n\nHere $C_{en}=\\gamma_nT$ in the assumed low-temperature normal state. The number is a model benchmark, not a threshold that every superconductor must pass. Johnston gives the limiting expression in Eq. (22) of the cited author manuscript. [R1](#ref-source-85009580cf550887)\n\nEntropy follows from $dS=C\\,dT/T$ under the specified thermodynamic constraints. For a continuous transition with equal extrapolated zero-temperature entropies in the compared phases,\n\n$$\nS_s(T_c)-S_n(T_c)=\\int_0^{T_c}\\frac{C_s(T)-C_n(T)}{T}\\,dT=0.\n$$\n\nThe normal curve below $T_c$ is a defined reference, not a directly accessible zero-field equilibrium phase. Background subtraction and low-temperature extrapolation therefore affect the test. A first-order transition has latent heat and requires a different treatment. Do not force this continuous-transition construction onto such a dataset.\n\nAn independent numerical check for this entry solved the constant-density-of-states gap equation, integrated the quasiparticle entropy and differentiated it near $T_c$. The normalized jump approaches 1.426 as the cutoff and numerical step are controlled; the normalized entropy reaches the normal-state value at the transition. This checks the stated model and conventions, not a material dataset. The entropy and heat-capacity relations are consistent with the selected manuscript equations. [R1](#ref-source-85009580cf550887)\n\n## Experimental criteria\n\nStart from the measured heat capacity and report addenda, sample mass and calibration uncertainty. A fit such as $C_n/T=\\gamma_n+\\beta T^2$ assumes a linear electronic term and a low-temperature lattice contribution. It can fail if extra excitations or nearby transitions matter. State the temperature interval and uncertainty of the background, and show how another reasonable background changes the inferred anomaly.\n\nA field used to suppress superconductivity is not automatically a perfect normal-state reference. Check whether it reaches the normal state over the relevant range and whether it changes magnetic or other contributions. Use the same units and sample basis in the field and zero-field curves. Show transition width, the chosen thermodynamic $T_c$ and the entropy comparison, rather than only a peak height.\n\nCompare with resistance and screening on the same or demonstrably comparable specimen. A consistent anomaly with the expected field response strengthens the case for bulk superconductivity. Failure to resolve an anomaly may instead reflect sensitivity, sample size, a small superconducting fraction or an incorrect baseline. It leaves thermodynamic confirmation incomplete; it does not by itself establish absence of superconductivity. These are reporting and interpretation criteria from the pinned chapter, not independently verified measurements.\n\n## Limits and disputes\n\nThe phenomenological alpha model retains the BCS normalized gap shape while varying $\\alpha=\\Delta(0)/(k_BT_c)$ in the thermodynamic calculation. Padamsee and colleagues describe its quasiparticle construction in their abstract. A successful fit is not a microscopic derivation of the interaction. [R2](#ref-source-456cad7bcd596be8)\n\nWithin that model the jump scales as $1.426(\\alpha/\\alpha_{\\rm BCS})^2$. This does not mean that the entire entropy or heat-capacity curve can simply be multiplied by that factor: the occupation functions also change. Gap anisotropy or multiple coupled bands can alter the normalized jump. Multiple bands do not necessarily broaden a single sharp transition; disorder, phase mixtures and a distribution of local transition temperatures are separate issues. [R1](#ref-source-85009580cf550887)\n\nBud'ko, Ni and Canfield report an empirical relation $\\Delta C_p/T_c\\propto T_c^2$ for their substituted Ba122 series together with specified literature samples. Equivalently, the jump itself scales as $T_c^3$ within that comparison. This is a dataset-dependent observation, not a fundamental law or a stand-alone proof of a pairing mechanism. The current check covers the publisher abstract, not a reanalysis of the data. [R3](#ref-source-f075b0cef0106abc)\n\n## Discovery implications\n\nUse an anomaly to constrain a proposed state together with independent probes. Ask which part of the temperature dependence is reliable, how much of the sample participates, and whether competing backgrounds could produce the same result. Preserve disagreement between probes and the uncertainty in extrapolated quantities.\n\nA useful next experiment resolves a specific ambiguity: a field-dependent background, an uncertain phase fraction, a residual low-temperature term or an alternative gap distribution. Comparing a single normalized jump to 1.426 cannot uniquely select gap symmetry, coupling strength or a mediator. These are model-discrimination questions, not new experimental findings.\n\n## Related topics\n\nConnect heat capacity to [zero resistance](/scwiki/zero-resistance), [the Meissner effect](/scwiki/meissner-effect), [critical fields](/scwiki/critical-fields), [the BCS baseline](/scwiki/bcs-weak-coupling), and [multiband pairing](/scwiki/multiband-pairing).\n\n## Material cases\n\nNo sample-specific material records are included in this article. Model results are not experimental transition temperatures.\n\n## Sources\n\n### Ref source-85009580cf550887\n\n[R1] Elaboration of the alpha-model derived from the BCS theory of superconductivity (2013). [DOI 10.1088/0953-2048/26/11/115011](https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-2048/26/11/115011). Publication: journal-article. Check: author-manuscript-scoped-check. Checked: 2026-10-18. Author manuscript arXiv:1304.2275v1: section IV Eqs. (19)-(22), section VII Eq. (50) and following entropy caveat, and section VIII gap-anisotropy discussion and section IX summary of coupled-band model extensions (underlying papers not independently checked). Journal identity linked by arXiv metadata; publisher-version text not compared. Manuscript typeset date is not treated as a new publication date. No independent reproduction of every model or experimental dataset.\n### Ref source-456cad7bcd596be8\n\n[R2] Quasiparticle phenomenology for thermodynamics of strong-coupling superconductors (1973). [DOI 10.1007/BF00654872](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00654872). Publication: journal-article. Check: primary-abstract-scoped-check. Checked: 2026-10-18. Publisher abstract: quasiparticle entropy, BCS-like normalized gap shape and adjustable gap ratio. Full paper, fitted materials and microscopic validity are not independently verified.\n### Ref source-f075b0cef0106abc\n\n[R3] Jump in specific heat at the superconducting transition temperature in Ba(Fe1-xCox)2As2 and Ba(Fe1-xNix)2As2 single crystals (2009). [DOI 10.1103/PhysRevB.79.220516](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.79.220516). Publication: journal-article. Check: primary-abstract-scoped-check. Checked: 2026-10-18. Publisher abstract: named Co/Ni-substituted Ba122 series and literature samples, DeltaCp/Tc proportional to Tc squared. Full curves, uncertainty and sample-wise extraction are not reanalysed.\n\n## Claim evidence and conditions\n\n### scwiki-a3-claim-scope-1\n\nHeat capacity probes the change of entropy with temperature. A superconducting anomaly can therefore provide a bulk thermodynamic check that complements resistance and magnetic screening. A peak alone does not identify its cause: magnetic, structural and charge-order transitions can also produce anomalies. This article separates an ideal electronic heat-capacity jump from the measured total signal and from an empirical trend across different samples.\n\nEvidence: hypothesis. Sources: source-85009580cf550887.\n\nConditions: Editorial reporting protocol; sample, normalization, probe, temperature, field and reference-background assumptions must be stated. No particular dataset is certified.\n\nVerification scope: Reporting guidance adapted from the pinned A3 chapter and thermodynamic definitions; cited model motivates comparisons but does not establish every possible artifact.\n\n### scwiki-a3-claim-scope-2\n\nUse $C$ on a declared basis: per mole, per unit mass, per volume or for the entire sample. The normalization of the normal-state electronic coefficient $\\gamma_n$ must match. Experiments often measure $C_p$, while a simple electronic model evaluates heat capacity with a fixed spectrum and volume. Their difference may be small for an appropriate low-temperature solid, but that approximation should be justified when quantitative precision matters.\n\nEvidence: hypothesis. Sources: source-85009580cf550887.\n\nConditions: Editorial reporting protocol; sample, normalization, probe, temperature, field and reference-background assumptions must be stated. No particular dataset is certified.\n\nVerification scope: Reporting guidance adapted from the pinned A3 chapter and thermodynamic definitions; cited model motivates comparisons but does not establish every possible artifact.\n\n### scwiki-a3-claim-mathematical-assumptions-1\n\nFor an isotropic single-band weak-coupling BCS model with a smooth density of states, define the electronic jump on cooling as $\\Delta C_e=C_{es}(T_c^-)-C_{en}(T_c^+)$. Its limiting value is\n\nEvidence: theory. Sources: source-85009580cf550887.\n\nConditions: Single-band isotropic weak-coupling constant-DOS model for the jump; entropy integral assumes a continuous transition, consistent backgrounds and equal residual entropies. C and gamma must share normalization.\n\nVerification scope: Selected Johnston manuscript equations and local numerical gap/entropy convergence check; not experimental validation.\n\n### scwiki-a3-claim-mathematical-assumptions-3\n\nHere $C_{en}=\\gamma_nT$ in the assumed low-temperature normal state. The number is a model benchmark, not a threshold that every superconductor must pass. Johnston gives the limiting expression in Eq. (22) of the cited author manuscript.\n\nEvidence: theory. Sources: source-85009580cf550887.\n\nConditions: Single-band isotropic weak-coupling constant-DOS model for the jump; entropy integral assumes a continuous transition, consistent backgrounds and equal residual entropies. C and gamma must share normalization.\n\nVerification scope: Selected Johnston manuscript equations and local numerical gap/entropy convergence check; not experimental validation.\n\n### scwiki-a3-claim-mathematical-assumptions-4\n\nEntropy follows from $dS=C\\,dT/T$ under the specified thermodynamic constraints. For a continuous transition with equal extrapolated zero-temperature entropies in the compared phases,\n\nEvidence: theory. Sources: source-85009580cf550887.\n\nConditions: Single-band isotropic weak-coupling constant-DOS model for the jump; entropy integral assumes a continuous transition, consistent backgrounds and equal residual entropies. C and gamma must share normalization.\n\nVerification scope: Selected Johnston manuscript equations and local numerical gap/entropy convergence check; not experimental validation.\n\n### scwiki-a3-claim-mathematical-assumptions-6\n\nThe normal curve below $T_c$ is a defined reference, not a directly accessible zero-field equilibrium phase. Background subtraction and low-temperature extrapolation therefore affect the test. A first-order transition has latent heat and requires a different treatment. Do not force this continuous-transition construction onto such a dataset.\n\nEvidence: theory. Sources: source-85009580cf550887.\n\nConditions: Single-band isotropic weak-coupling constant-DOS model for the jump; entropy integral assumes a continuous transition, consistent backgrounds and equal residual entropies. C and gamma must share normalization.\n\nVerification scope: Selected Johnston manuscript equations and local numerical gap/entropy convergence check; not experimental validation.\n\n### scwiki-a3-claim-mathematical-assumptions-7\n\nAn independent numerical check for this entry solved the constant-density-of-states gap equation, integrated the quasiparticle entropy and differentiated it near $T_c$. The normalized jump approaches 1.426 as the cutoff and numerical step are controlled; the normalized entropy reaches the normal-state value at the transition. This checks the stated model and conventions, not a material dataset. The entropy and heat-capacity relations are consistent with the selected manuscript equations.\n\nEvidence: theory. Sources: source-85009580cf550887.\n\nConditions: Single-band isotropic weak-coupling constant-DOS model for the jump; entropy integral assumes a continuous transition, consistent backgrounds and equal residual entropies. C and gamma must share normalization.\n\nVerification scope: Selected Johnston manuscript equations and local numerical gap/entropy convergence check; not experimental validation.\n\n### scwiki-a3-claim-experimental-criteria-1\n\nStart from the measured heat capacity and report addenda, sample mass and calibration uncertainty. A fit such as $C_n/T=\\gamma_n+\\beta T^2$ assumes a linear electronic term and a low-temperature lattice contribution. It can fail if extra excitations or nearby transitions matter. State the temperature interval and uncertainty of the background, and show how another reasonable background changes the inferred anomaly.\n\nEvidence: hypothesis. Sources: source-85009580cf550887.\n\nConditions: Editorial reporting protocol; sample, normalization, probe, temperature, field and reference-background assumptions must be stated. No particular dataset is certified.\n\nVerification scope: Reporting guidance adapted from the pinned A3 chapter and thermodynamic definitions; cited model motivates comparisons but does not establish every possible artifact.\n\n### scwiki-a3-claim-experimental-criteria-2\n\nA field used to suppress superconductivity is not automatically a perfect normal-state reference. Check whether it reaches the normal state over the relevant range and whether it changes magnetic or other contributions. Use the same units and sample basis in the field and zero-field curves. Show transition width, the chosen thermodynamic $T_c$ and the entropy comparison, rather than only a peak height.\n\nEvidence: hypothesis. Sources: source-85009580cf550887.\n\nConditions: Editorial reporting protocol; sample, normalization, probe, temperature, field and reference-background assumptions must be stated. No particular dataset is certified.\n\nVerification scope: Reporting guidance adapted from the pinned A3 chapter and thermodynamic definitions; cited model motivates comparisons but does not establish every possible artifact.\n\n### scwiki-a3-claim-experimental-criteria-3\n\nCompare with resistance and screening on the same or demonstrably comparable specimen. A consistent anomaly with the expected field response strengthens the case for bulk superconductivity. Failure to resolve an anomaly may instead reflect sensitivity, sample size, a small superconducting fraction or an incorrect baseline. It leaves thermodynamic confirmation incomplete; it does not by itself establish absence of superconductivity. These are reporting and interpretation criteria from the pinned chapter, not independently verified measurements.\n\nEvidence: hypothesis. Sources: source-85009580cf550887.\n\nConditions: Editorial reporting protocol; sample, normalization, probe, temperature, field and reference-background assumptions must be stated. No particular dataset is certified.\n\nVerification scope: Reporting guidance adapted from the pinned A3 chapter and thermodynamic definitions; cited model motivates comparisons but does not establish every possible artifact.\n\n### scwiki-a3-claim-limits-and-disputes-1\n\nThe phenomenological alpha model retains the BCS normalized gap shape while varying $\\alpha=\\Delta(0)/(k_BT_c)$ in the thermodynamic calculation. Padamsee and colleagues describe its quasiparticle construction in their abstract. A successful fit is not a microscopic derivation of the interaction.\n\nEvidence: theory. Sources: source-456cad7bcd596be8.\n\nConditions: Phenomenological alpha-model or specified gap structure; an adjusted fit is not a microscopic mechanism proof. Distinct model assumptions cannot be interchanged.\n\nVerification scope: Padamsee publisher abstract and selected Johnston manuscript sections VII-IX (underlying multiband papers not independently checked); no complete fit or microscopic theory reproduction.\n\n### scwiki-a3-claim-limits-and-disputes-2\n\nWithin that model the jump scales as $1.426(\\alpha/\\alpha_{\\rm BCS})^2$. This does not mean that the entire entropy or heat-capacity curve can simply be multiplied by that factor: the occupation functions also change. Gap anisotropy or multiple coupled bands can alter the normalized jump. Multiple bands do not necessarily broaden a single sharp transition; disorder, phase mixtures and a distribution of local transition temperatures are separate issues.\n\nEvidence: theory. Sources: source-85009580cf550887.\n\nConditions: Phenomenological alpha-model or specified gap structure; an adjusted fit is not a microscopic mechanism proof. Distinct model assumptions cannot be interchanged.\n\nVerification scope: Padamsee publisher abstract and selected Johnston manuscript sections VII-IX (underlying multiband papers not independently checked); no complete fit or microscopic theory reproduction.\n\n### scwiki-a3-claim-limits-and-disputes-3\n\nBud'ko, Ni and Canfield report an empirical relation $\\Delta C_p/T_c\\propto T_c^2$ for their substituted Ba122 series together with specified literature samples. Equivalently, the jump itself scales as $T_c^3$ within that comparison. This is a dataset-dependent observation, not a fundamental law or a stand-alone proof of a pairing mechanism. The current check covers the publisher abstract, not a reanalysis of the data.\n\nEvidence: experiment. Sources: source-f075b0cef0106abc.\n\nConditions: Specific substituted Ba122 dataset and selected literature samples; same normalization is required. No universal law, extracted sample Tc or pairing mechanism is inferred.\n\nVerification scope: Publisher abstract only; DeltaCp/Tc scaling is distinguished algebraically from DeltaCp scaling. No full-curve reanalysis.\n\n### scwiki-a3-claim-discovery-implications-1\n\nUse an anomaly to constrain a proposed state together with independent probes. Ask which part of the temperature dependence is reliable, how much of the sample participates, and whether competing backgrounds could produce the same result. Preserve disagreement between probes and the uncertainty in extrapolated quantities.\n\nEvidence: hypothesis. Sources: source-85009580cf550887.\n\nConditions: Editorial reporting protocol; sample, normalization, probe, temperature, field and reference-background assumptions must be stated. No particular dataset is certified.\n\nVerification scope: Reporting guidance adapted from the pinned A3 chapter and thermodynamic definitions; cited model motivates comparisons but does not establish every possible artifact.\n\n### scwiki-a3-claim-discovery-implications-2\n\nA useful next experiment resolves a specific ambiguity: a field-dependent background, an uncertain phase fraction, a residual low-temperature term or an alternative gap distribution. Comparing a single normalized jump to 1.426 cannot uniquely select gap symmetry, coupling strength or a mediator. These are model-discrimination questions, not new experimental findings.\n\nEvidence: hypothesis. Sources: source-85009580cf550887.\n\nConditions: Editorial reporting protocol; sample, normalization, probe, temperature, field and reference-background assumptions must be stated. No particular dataset is certified.\n\nVerification scope: Reporting guidance adapted from the pinned A3 chapter and thermodynamic definitions; cited model motivates comparisons but does not establish every possible artifact.\n\n## Revision and review\n\nArticle ID: scwiki-a3. Revision: 5cdd22236f8ff447c033. Updated: 2026-10-18T06:22:03.922022+00:00.\n\nReview scope: Edited pinned A3 chapter; selected Johnston author-manuscript equations, Padamsee and Budko-Ni-Canfield publisher abstracts, and an independent numerical BCS entropy/jump consistency check.\n\n- This is not full scientific validation, independent experimental replication or a microscopic proof for a material.\n- No sample-specific heat-capacity curves, normal backgrounds, transition temperatures or volume fractions were re-extracted.\n- Padamsee and Budko-Ni-Canfield checks are abstract-scoped; Johnston journal text was not compared with the cited author manuscript.\n- Continuous-transition entropy balance requires consistent constraints and residual-entropy assumptions; it does not apply unchanged to first-order transitions.\n\nSource: [A_phenomenology/A3_specific_heat_jump.md](https://github.com/JackZH26/jzis-superconductivity/blob/0a7c9d6696804ec26aa12f8eed68b55c9b3c0fcf/A_phenomenology/A3_specific_heat_jump.md), commit 0a7c9d6696804ec26aa12f8eed68b55c9b3c0fcf, SHA-256 b840c2280244ab50bae87d70f7bddfba64a65a785cf848bf0b0057be956cb080.\n","wordCount":826}}