← Back to search

Why band theorists have been so successful in explaining and predicting novel superconductors?

I. I. Mazin

arXiv:1908.09802 · DOI 10.1088/1361-648X/ab02ad · 2019-08-26 · Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter

T4experimental3 citations

Active bibliographic source — not scientific approval

Bibliographic access preserves source history; it does not approve extracted materials or validate reported claims. Review warnings on each occurrence separately.

Abstract

In this contribution to the J. Phys. memorial issue in honor of Sandro Massidda I reflect on a phenomenon Sandro had been a part of. While theoretical condensed matter physicists have made, over the years, exciting and most elegant contributions to the theory of superconductivity (which, in and by itself, is one of the most beautiful constructs in theoretical physics), some of them of utmost importance, they have had less success in predicting and explaining superconducting states and mechanisms in specific materials. More down-to-earth computational materials scientists, who often go by the moniker "band theorists", have been much more successful in applying (usually other people's) ideas in such circumstances. In this essay I give some examples, largely drawn from my own experience, and speculate on their meaning.

Source-reported materials — not catalogue approval

FormulaReported Tc (K)Pressure (GPa)Type
MgB2

Archive — visibility unverified

Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula.

40Pressure not reportedunknown
Ba1-xKxBiO3

Archive — visibility unverified

Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula.

—Pressure not reportedunknown
H3S

Archive — visibility unverified

Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula.

200Pressure not reportedunknown
LaH10

Archive — visibility unverified

Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula.

250Pressure not reportedunknown

Similar papers