Failed theories of superconductivity
AI-generated Key Points
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.
- Superconductivity was discovered by Kamerlingh Onnes and explained theoretically by Bardeen, Cooper, and Schrieffer almost 50 years later.
- Many physicists attempted to develop a microscopic understanding of superconductivity during this time but failed.
- Joerg Schmalian's paper "Failed Theories of Superconductivity" summarizes some of these unsuccessful attempts.
- Failed theories served as stepping stones towards the eventual formulation of the BCS theory, which is now widely accepted as the most accurate explanation for superconductivity.
- Incorrect or inapplicable theories can inspire new ideas and lead to breakthroughs.
- Fritz London's theory suggested that electrons in a superconductor formed pairs due to attractive forces between them, inspiring later work on electron pairing in superconductors.
- Lev Landau's theory proposed that superconductivity was caused by electrons forming a Bose-Einstein condensate, paving the way for later research on Bose-Einstein condensates.
- Failure is an essential component of scientific progress; without attempting and failing at various approaches to understanding phenomena like superconductivity we would not have arrived at our current level of knowledge and understanding.
Authors: Joerg Schmalian
Abstract: Almost half a century passed between the discovery of superconductivity by Kamerlingh Onnes and the theoretical explanation of the phenomenon by Bardeen, Cooper and Schrieffer. During the intervening years the brightest minds in theoretical physics tried and failed to develop a microscopic understanding of the effect. A summary of some of those unsuccessful attempts to understand superconductivity not only demonstrates the extraordinary achievement made by formulating the BCS theory, but also illustrates that mistakes are a natural and healthy part of the scientific discourse, and that inapplicable, even incorrect theories can turn out to be interesting and inspiring.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through atree representation
Look for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.