On the origin of the controversial electrostatic field effect in superconductors
Ilia Golokolenov, Andrew Guthrie, Sergey Kafanov, Yuri Pashkin, Viktor Tsepelin
arXiv:2009.00683 · DOI 10.1038/s41467-021-22998-0 · 2020-09-01 · Nature Communications
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 semiconductor electronics, the field-effect refers to the control of electrical conductivity in nanoscale devices, which underpins the field-effect transistor, one of the cornerstones of present-day semiconductor technology. The effect is enabled by the penetration of the electric field far into a weakly doped semiconductor, whose charge density is not sufficient to screen the field. On the contrary, the charge density in metals and superconductors is so large that the field decays exponentially from the surface and can penetrate only a short distance into the material. Hence, the field-effect should not exist in such materials. Nonetheless, recent publications have reported observation of the field-effect in superconductors and proximised normal metal nanodevices. The effect was discovered in gated nanoscale superconducting constrictions as a suppression of the critical current under the application of intense electric field and interpreted in terms of an electric-field induced perturbation propagating inside the superconducting film. Here we show that ours, and previously reported observations, governed by the overheating of the constriction, without recourse to novel physics. The origin of the overheating is a leakage current between the gate and the constriction, which perfectly follows the Fowler-Nordheim model of electron field emission from a metal electrode.c`
Source-reported materials — not catalogue approval
| Formula | Reported Tc (K) | Pressure (GPa) | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sn Archive — visibility unverified Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula. | — | Pressure not reported | unknown |
| In Archive — visibility unverified Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula. | — | Pressure not reported | unknown |
| Al Archive — visibility unverified Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula. | — | Pressure not reported | unknown |
Similar papers
Josephson effect in Superconductors and Superfluids
similarity 0.87Anna Posazhennikova · 2009 · arXiv:0908.1761
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Supercurrent in Nb/InAs-Nanowire/Nb Josephson junctions
similarity 0.87H. Y. Gunel et al. · 2012 · arXiv:1205.2289
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Superinsulator-Superconductor Duality in Two Dimensions
similarity 0.86Tatyana I. Baturina & Valerii M. Vinokur · 2012 · arXiv:1209.0530
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Correlated Cooper pair transport and microwave photon emission in the dynamical Coulomb blockade
similarity 0.86Juha Leppäkangas et al. · 2015 · arXiv:1511.06280
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Electric field noise in a high-temperature superconducting surface ion trap
similarity 0.86Philip C. Holz et al. · 2021 · arXiv:2106.03945
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Electrostatic control of phase slips in Ti Josephson nanotransistors
similarity 0.86C. Puglia et al. · 2019 · arXiv:1910.14000
Source status unknown — claims are unverified