arXiv:1201.0139v1 [cond-mat.supr-con] 30 Dec 2011 eprtr,snete r on ..aogheavy among e.g. found critical with are that large materials fermion they a stressed having since are be by temperature, also superconductors characterized should necessarily ‘unconventional’ not It supposedly relative the shrinking. superconductors in ‘conventional’ rapidly of that is space fact phase remains the the terms compounds, of that and irrespective belief unwavering[4], elements the the materials, Yet describes simplest theory i.e. 3]. electron-phonon ‘unconventional’, theory[2, BCS be BCS conventional by to materials described of believed classes not generally different 10 are addition least argu- In at that now theory. circular by ‘conventional’ BCS are by there somewhat described is superconductor in a a superconductor ‘conventional’ In a superconductivity ment, of superconductors[1]. planation eo 0dges l oe hntespoel con- supposedly the than lower all superconductor ventional degrees, 30 below urtsadmn rnpitd aeil with materials iron-pnictide many electron-doped degrees, and 10 of cuprates order the of perconductors hs ehnssdsrb n uecnutrbecause of superconductor none any that argue describe I mechanisms effect. Meissner these the explain question to the how of addressed has ‘uncon- superconductivity cannot explain ventional’ it to proposed so the- mechanisms effect[5], unconventional BCS Meissner that argue the explain I explain cannot effect. Meissner ory the exhibit not, the or superconductors. fermion cuprates, apply heavy the that the e.g. or proposed only, pnictides, being family iron one are superconduc- to mechanisms unconventional specifically new all mechanism’ describe tors: ‘unconventional to single no proposed is there certainly C hoysilrin steudsue ex- undisputed the as reigns still theory BCS oee l uecnutr,wehrcnetoa or conventional whether superconductors, all However any n ucnetoa’ ovninlsprodcos(the superconductors including Conventional ‘unconventional’. and ASnumbers: PACS ntelgto hs ocps oeeprmna predictio experimental some of superfluidity concepts, the these Super to of connections effect. light Meissner the the in explain mechanis can conventional mechanisms the ventional neither electric electron that an than argue and I rather Furthermore distribution holes t charge by rather rigid conduction several kinetic non-homogeneous requires in of lowering it mechanism by riers, conventional al driven the for is superconductivity from superconductivity of differs mechanism and single effect a cuprat is ‘unconventio organics, there or mechani that fermions, ‘conventional’ or heavy mechanism whether the what superconductors, to as as such agreement perconductors general no is There uecnutr utemr,nn fthe of none Furthermore, superconductor. h rgno h esnreeti e n l superconducto old and new in effect Meissner the of origin The ti eeal eivdta uecnutn aeil ar materials superconducting that believed generally is It .INTRODUCTION I. eateto hsc,Uiest fClfri,SnDiego San California, of University Physics, of Department MgB T c so e ere,ogncsu- organic degrees, few a of ’s MgB 2 r ecie ycnetoa odnBSEisbr ele London-BCS-Eliashberg conventional by described are ) 2 with T c defined 39 = 4 He K . And . obe to .E Hirsch E. J. T c ’s inwihi turn in which tion hycno xli h esnreffect. Meissner the explain cannot they ewe uecnutr n ueflis e.g. superfluids, exist to and known is superconductors that between relationship close the by supported low- be to energy. has kinetic it[12] of driving ering in ‘emf’ increase the so hence energy, neg- separation, potential of charge motion implies outward out- charge charge; is ative negative there unless of occur motion fact cannot ward energy other the effect Meissner no kinetic from the is follows That that there superconductivity drives that force[12]. lowering fact electromotive the of from equations source outward the and from of motion[11] seen absence the immediately of That the is charge in force[10]. of impossible Lorentz motion immediately is the is effect of current action Meissner Meissner the from the seen of explains generation charge negative the of motion outward That charge. uncer- Heisenberg’s principle, via taintly e.g. means, lowering energy netic BCS correct. both undoubtedly are of theory parts London Nevertheless, and theory theory physics. electrodynamic superconductors. this London of nor describe state theory a ground BCS of the Neither form in the current[9] in itself spin manifests which macroscopic of motion existence zero-point the in inhomogeneous superconductivity[7]. and macroscopically distribution[8] to a charge in transition (ii) results the physics and in This interior carriers[6], surface the charge the from lowering to charge the by negative of driven expel energy superconductors is kinetic superconductivity the (i) of if: plained iei nrylwrn rvstesprudtransition superfluid the drives lowering energy vorticity. Kinetic generalized vanishing with ex- flow Both frictionless hibit phenomena[13]. quantum macroscopic are Both utemr u xlnto fsprodciiyis superconductivity of explanation our Furthermore Ki- connected. intimately are (ii) and (i) points The ex- be only can effect Meissner the that propose I a’ xii h esnreet argue I effect. Meissner the exhibit nal’, ntenra tt,adi rdcsa predicts it and state, normal the in s iie notocass ‘conventional’ classes: two into divided e a oeta nryo h hrecar- charge the of energy potential han edi h neiro superconductors. of interior the in field o n fteohrpooe uncon- proposed other the of any nor m lmnsadtosnso compounds of thousands and elements s oncin oDrcster,and theory, Dirac’s to connections ns, aeil,ta xlisteMeissner the explains that materials, l n nciefmle.Hwvrall However families. pnictide and e odciiyi aeil sdiscussed is materials in conductivity udmna set:i asthat says it aspects: fundamental m ecie‘novninl su- ‘unconventional’ describe sms aJla A92093-0319 CA Jolla, La , expansion implies to-hnntheory. ctron-phonon uwr oino negative of motion outward fteeetoi aefunc- wave electronic the of rs 4 He [13]. 2 in 4He[14], so it is natural to conclude that it also drives their interior to the surface[7, 8]. Experimentally, evi- the superconducting transition in superconductors. dence for kinetic energy lowering was found in optical We quote from the preface of London’s book on super- properties of cuprates and pnictides[20] as predicted the- fluids, Vol. II[13]: “That something strange happens to oretically several years before the experiments[21]. liquid helium at about 2.2oK was noticed by Kammerlingh Onnes as early as 1911. He found that when the liquid is cooled below that temperature it starts expanding instead II. ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE of continuing to contract, thus deviating from the behav- 4 ior of most substances”. Indeed, the expansion of He An electromotive force is a non-electric force that below the critical temperature is clear indication that moves electric charges against the direction dictated by the transition is driven by kinetic energy lowering, and it electric fields. In a voltaic cell, an electromotive force parallels[14] the wavefunction expansion and charge ex- moves positive charges from the negative to the pos- pulsion that we propose exists in superconductors, also itive electrode (raising their electric potential energy). driven by kinetic energy lowering. Similarly in the Meissner effect an electromotive force is Instead, BCS theory and conventional London electro- needed to accelerate the electric charges near the surface dynamic theory imply that superconductivity is driven carrying the developing Meissner current in direction op- by qualitatively different physics, that is non-existent posite to that dictated by the electric force generated 4 in liquid He. Nobody has ever proposed that what by Faraday’s law as the magnetic field lines are moving drives conventional superconductivity within BCS the- out[22]. ory, “a footling small interaction between electrons and Neither conventional BCS-London theory nor any of lattice vibrations”[15], has anything to do with the su- 4 the unconventional theories of superconductivity pro- perfluidity of He. And if charge moves outward driven posed in recent years (except for the one discussed here) by kinetic energy lowering, conventional London electro- offer an explanation of what this electromotive force is in dynamics will not apply because it requires absence of superconductors. In other words, while they describe the electric fields inside superconductors. initial and final state, they cannot describe the process Remarkably, the only suggestion we could find in by which the system evolves from the initial to the fi- the scientific literature before the high Tc era that ki- nal state. In the absence of such an electromotive force, netic energy lowering has anything to do with super- metals in the presence of a magnetic field would never conductivity is in the preface of London’s book on become superconducting. But they do. superconductivity[13], where he writes: “It is not neces- There is a limited number of possibilities offered by sarily a configuration close to the minimum of the poten- the known laws of physics. We know of four fundamental tial energy (lattice order) which is the most advantageous forces: gravitation, strong, weak and electromagnetic. It one for the energy balance, since by virtue of the uncer- is almost obvious that neither gravitational, nor strong tainty relation the kinetic energy also comes into play. If (nuclear) nor weak interactions can play a role. We are the resultant forces are sufficiently weak and act between left with electromagnetic, however we are seeking a non- sufficiently light particles, then the structure possessing electromagnetic electromotive force. the smallest total energy would be characterized by a good There is in fact a known fifth force in nature: the economy of the kinetic energy”. However, in the remain- “quantum force”. A quantum particle confined to a finite der of the book no mention whatsoever is made of how volume exerts“quantum pressure” against the confining “a good economy of the kinetic energy” would play any walls. This quantum pressure, times the area over which role in superconductivity. it acts, gives us a force. We have argued in reference [12] The reason that London said this in his preface is pre- that this is the electromotive force that explains both the sumably that he had superfluid He in mind together with physics of voltaic cells and the Meissner effect. the close relation in other properties of superconductors This then leaves us with just two possibilities: either and superfluids. There was however no indication at that there is another force in physics, as yet unknown, that time either from experiment or from theory that kinetic explains the electromotive force manifested in the Meiss- energy lowering had anything to do with the transition ner effect. If so, the proponents of the conventional the- to superconductivity. ory of superconductivity or of other unconventional the- That has changed by now. Since the early days of the ories should explain what that force is. Or, the quantum theory of hole superconductivity discussed in this paper force mentioned above explains the Meissner effect. The it was clear that electron-hole asymmetry was intimately theory described in this paper proposes the latter, and related to kinetic energy: the pairing interaction (cor- explores the consequences of this for the physics of super- related hopping) was termed ∆t[16], indicating its rela- conductivity. We find that many resulting properties of tion with the hopping amplitude t and kinetic energy superconductors are qualitatively different from the pre- (in contrast to other works[17–19]). The relation be- dicted properties of superconductors within conventional tween kinetic energy lowering, wavefunction expansion BCS-London theory. If proponents of the conventional and charge asymmetry became clearer when it was re- theory were to argue that this quantum force also ex- alized that superconductors expel negative charge from plains the Meissner effect in the conventional framework, 3
rs = 2λL ∼ 1000A˚. The correct theory of supercon- L = m vr ductivity should contain the physics depicted in Fig. 1. e n BCS theory does not. r 1 L2 The Hamiltonian for the conduction electrons in a n K = m v 2 = n e m r2 metal is 2 2 e n 2 ne H = K + Upot (3) " = # < r2 > Larmor m c 2 4 e The first term is the electronic kinetic energy, given by orbit expansion = ~2 negative charge expulsion = K = (− )∇2 (4) kinetic energy lowering = 2m i Xi e enhanced diamagnetism and the second term is the potential energy, given by the L2 sum of electron-ion and electron-electron interactions K K r s = < n s 2m r2 e s Upot = Uel−ion + Uel−el. (5)
Conventional BCS theory attributes the energy lowering in going from the normal to the superconducting state to U − together with the ion dynamics. Unconven- FIG. 1: The essence of superconductivity. An electron in el ion an expanding orbit with fixed angular momentum lowers its tional mechanisms proposed to describe new supercon- kinetic energy (Ks < Kn), increases its diamagnetic suscepti- ductors propose that the energy lowering originates in bility and causes expulsion of negative charge. The top orbit Uel−el, usually involving magnetic mechanisms. Instead, −1 represents the normal state, with rn = kF , the bottom one we propose that superconductivity in all materials origi- the superconducting state, with rs = 2λL. nates in the fact that the average electronic kinetic energy is lower in the superconducting state than in the normal state: they have to explain how one would avoid the other con- sequences of this physics that our theory predicts to be hΨsuper|K|Ψsuperi < hΨnormal|K|Ψnormali (6) unavoidable. while the average potential energy is higher
III. KINETIC ENERGY LOWERING, RADIAL hΨsuper|Upot|Ψsuperi > hΨnormal|Upot|Ψnormali (7) EXPANSION AND THE MEISSNER EFFECT albeit by a lesser amount, so that the difference yields the condensation energy of the superconductor. Figure 1 shows what we propose is the essential physics We can understand the energetics involved and its con- of the Meissner effect and hence of superconductivity. As nection with orbit expansion by looking at a two-electron − the electronic orbit expands from radius rn to rs, with atom, i.e. H or He, with atomic number Z = 1, Z =2 fixed angular momentum L, the kinetic energy decreases, respectively. Assuming the variational wavefunction diamagnetism increases, and negative charge moves out- r r ward. From the Larmor expression for the diamagnetic Ψr0 ( 1, 2)= ϕr0 (r1)ϕr0 (r2) (8) susceptibility with 2 ne 2 χLarmor = − 2 < r > (1) 1 1/2 −r/r0 4mec ϕr0 (r) = ( 3 ) e (9) r0π −1 one obtains Landau diamagnetism for r = k (k = F F we have Fermi momentum) and perfect diamagnetism for r = 2 2λL, with λL the London penetration depth[23]. This is ~ easily seen using the expressions for the electronic density hΨr0 |K|Ψr0 i =2 2 (10a) 2mer0 of states g(ǫF )=3n/2ǫF and the standard expression for the London penetration depth 2 2 Ze 1 4πne hΨr0 |Uel−ion|Ψr0 i = −2 (10b) 0 2 = 2 . (2) r λL mec Thus, the transition to superconductivity involves ex- 5 e2 −1 ˚ hΨr0 |Uel−el|Ψr0 i = (10c) pansion of electronic orbits from rn = kF ∼ A to 8 r0 4
Therefore, if in going from the normal to the super- (a) (b) (c) conducting state r0 changes from rn to rs > rn we have from Eqs. (10)
hΨrs |K|Ψrs i < hΨrn |K|Ψrn i (11a)
hΨrs |Upot|Ψrs i > hΨrn |Upot|Ψrn i (11b)
(the latter valid as long as Z > 5/16) so that the ki- FIG. 2: Illustration of three key aspects of the physics of su- netic energy decreases and the potential energy increases. perconductors proposed here. (a) Superconductors expel neg- ative charge from their interior to the region near the surface; More specifically, (b) Carriers reside in mesoscopic overlapping orbits of radius 2λL (λL=London penetration depth); (c) A spin current flows hΨ |U − |Ψ i > hΨ |U − |Ψ i (12a) rs el ion rs rn el ion rn near the surface of superconductors (the arrow perpendicular to the orbit denotes the direction of the electron magnetic moment). hΨrs |Uel−el|Ψrs i < hΨrn |Uel−el|Ψrn i (12b) so the potential energy increase results from increased electron-ion energy partially compensated by a decrease IV. THEORY OF HOLE in electron-electron energy. SUPERCONDUCTIVITY The minimum in the total energy occurs for The theory of hole superconductivity[24] is consistent a0 with the physics of the Meissner effect discussed in Sect. r¯0 = ¯ (13) Z II and depicted in Fig. 1. More specifically, it predicts 2 2 the physics shown schematically in Fig. 2. Supercon- with a0 = ~ /(m e ) the Bohr radius and e ductors expel negative charge from the interior to the 5 surface, due to the expanding orbits, giving rise to an Z¯ = Z − (14) 16 excess negative charge density[25] Therefore, in order for the minimum value of the energy ~ ρ− = ens (16) to correspond to the mesoscopic scale 2λL, the ‘effective’ 4mecλL nuclear charge Z¯ has to be very small: within a London penetration depth of the surface. An a0 Z¯ ∼ . (15) electric field exists in the interior pointing outward, with 2λL maximum value given by This illustrates that orbit expansion and the Meissner ~c effect will be associated with situations where carriers Em = − 2 . (17) 4eλ propagate through negatively charged anions, where the L ‘effective’ nuclear charge Z¯ is close to zero, such as O=, −−− = = − Electrons within a London penetration depth of the As , S , Se and B . It is not surprising therefore surface carry a spin current, with velocity given by[26] that high Tc superconductivity is found in cuprates, iron pnictides, iron chalcogenides and magnesium diboride. 0 ~ When the orbits expand, they become highly overlap- ~vσ = − ~σ × nˆ (18) 4meλL ping, so they have to become phase coherent to avoid collisions that would raise the potential energy even fur- withn ˆ the outward-pointing normal to the surface. It ther. In contrast, the small orbits in the normal state originates in the superposition of rotational zero-point are non-overlapping and hence can have arbitrary phases. motion of electrons in the 2λL orbits throughout the bulk Therefore, the entropy is larger in the normal state (small of the system, that cancels out in the interior but not near orbits) than in the superconducting state (large orbits) the surface, just like Amperian surface currents originate and for this reason the normal state is favored at high in the sum of local magnetic dipole currents in the bulk temperatures and the superconducting state at low tem- of a magnetized material. The electrodynamic equations peratures. governing the behavior of electric and magnetic fields, Finally, to achieve a low value of the ‘effective’ nuclear charge and spin currents, are given in ref. [25]. charge Z¯ requires the electronic conduction band to be The proposal that superconductors eject electrons from almost full so that the negative electrons cancel the posi- their interior to the surface depicted in Fig. 2(a), whether tive charge of the ions. Thus superconductivity will occur or not magnetic fields are present, has not yet been exper- if there are almost full bands, giving rise to dominance of imentally verified. However we argue that it is clearly il- positive Hall coefficient (hole conduction) in the normal lustrated in the situation shown in Fig. 3. When current state. flows from a normal conductor into a superconductor, 5
Similarly the corresponding energy scales are obtained 2 by multiplying the Dirac energy scale EDirac = 2mec Normal Superconductor Normal by powers of the fine structure constant conductor conductor α 2 α 2 α 2 E = ( ) E = ( ) ( ) E (22) sc 2 band 2 2 Dirac
FIG. 3: Current distribution in a superconducting wire fed where the energies of quantum confinement over these by normal conducting leads. As electrons enter the super- length scales are given by conducting region their velocities acquire a radial component 2 and charge moves towards the surfaces together with mag- ~ 2 EDirac = 2 =2mec =1.022MeV (23a) netic field lines (circles). 2merq
2 2 flow lines go to the surface. Since the current is carried ~ e Eband = 2 = = 13.6eV (23b) by charge carriers, charge carriers entering the supercon- 2mea0 2a0 ductor in the interior region have to flow to the surface. The “London moment” experiments[27] and the “gyro- 2 magnetic effect” experiments[28] show that charge carri- ~ Esc = 2 =2ν = 181µeV (23c) ers in the superconducting state are always electrons[29], 2me(2λL) hence it is electrons (with their negative charge) that flow to the surface as they enter the superconducting region. where At the same time, magnetic field lines, which are circles 2 2 ~ q0 throughout the interior in the normal region, are pushed ν = (24) out to the surface. It is only a small additional step to 4me conclude that electrons in superconductors move to the −1 (with q0 = (2λL) ) is the kinetic energy lowering per surface whether or not a charge current is flowing, carry- electron obtained within our theory in the transition to ing any existing interior magnetic field lines with them. the superconducting state (the kinetic energy of electrons The orbital angular momentum of electrons in orbits of 0 2 0 0 ~ in the spin current is (1/2)me(vσ) = ν/2[33]). Thus, radius 2λL and speed vσ is L = mevσ(2λL)= /2. Thus, spatial expansion with factor (2/α) and corresponding it reflects the intrinsic spin angular momentum of the energy reduction by (α/2)2 is seen to connect these three electron, which itself can be thought of as an orbital mo- very different realms. tion at speed c[30, 31] in an orbit of radius r = ~/2m c, q e The expelled charge density ρ− is related to the total the “quantum electron radius”[32](as opposed to the clas- 2 superfluid charge density ens by the same factor[25]: sical electron radius rc = e /2mec). There exists a remarkable parallel in the physics at the 0 vσ rq α 2 2 2 − three different length scales rq , a0 = ~ /mee (Bohr ra- ρ = ens = ens = ( ) ens (25) c 2λL 2 dius) and 2λL, corresponding to the length scale of the electron, the atom and the superconductor. Slater has al- as is the spin current speed to the speed of light ready remarked[34] that for superconductors “the orbits 0 rq α 2 must be of order of magnitude of 137 atomic diameters”. vσ = c = ( ) c (26) If we asume that the carrier density is given by 2λL 2 1 Within Dirac theory, the ratio of the small to the large ns = 3 (19) component of the electron wave function is ∼ v/c in the 4πa 0 non-relativistic limit. Thus Eqs. (25) and (26) indicate it yields a London penetration depth (using Eq. (2)) that the expelled charge density ρ− reflects the small component of the electron wave function. Denoting by a0 |ϕ > and |χ > the large and small components of the λL = = 137a0 (20) α electron wavefunction, ρ− ∼ e<χ|ϕ>. with α = e2/~c the fine structure constant. The atomic or band length scale a0 is then precisely the geometric V. ELECTRONIC ZITTERBEWEGUNG mean of the electron length scale rq and the supercon- ducting length scale 2λ . It is as if an expansion takes L Within Dirac’s theory of the electron, the ‘instanta- place neous’ velocity of the electron is always c, the speed of r → a0 → 2λ q L light[35, 36]: the time derivative of the position operator with scaling factor 2/α, i.e. in the Heisenberg representation is dxk/dt = cαk,with 2 2 2 2 αk the Dirac α−matrices, and αk = 1. The motion of 2λ = a0 = ( )( )r (21) L α α α q the electron with average speed v thus has superposed a 6 rapidly oscillating component at speed c (termed ‘Zitter- In going from the normal state (or from an ensemble bewegung’ by Schr¨odinger[35]), that has been interpreted of normal states at finite temperature above Tc) to the as a circular motion of radius rq = ~/2mec giving rise to superconducting state, the total energy necessarily has the spin angular momentum ~/2 and the electron mag- to decrease. Equation (32) then would seem to indicate netic moment[30, 31]. that the kinetic energy increases, in contradiction with The rotational zero-point motion in 2λL orbits with or- the discussion in our previous sections. bital angular momentum ~/2 predicted by our theory can However, Eq. (31) only holds if the Schr¨odinger equa- be seen as an amplified version of this microscopic Zitter- tion is assumed to apply without relativistic corrections. bewegung. It is remarkable that for each spin component As discussed in the previous section, relativity plays a the spin current in the absence of applied magnetic field key role in the theory of hole superconductivity. We is can estimate the magnitude of deviation in the energet- n 0 ρ− ics predicted by the nonrelativistic virial theorem by the j = s v = c (27) σ 2 σ 2 following argument. Electrons can be thought of as be- ing “spread out” over a distance rq = ~/2mec, so the using Eq. (25), hence it can be interpreted as originating Coulomb potential form e2/r is not valid when r be- in the excess electrons of each spin propagating at speed comes comparable or smaller than rq. The average of c in opposite directions. Moreover, when a magnetic field the Coulomb potential over this region is is applied the currents change to 2 2 2 e e rq ns 0 eλL ~ δU =< >rq ∼ 3 = 362µeV (33) jσ = (vσ − ~σ · B) (28) r a0 2 mec as the spin parallel (antiparallel) to B~ slows down (speeds for a wavefunction extending over a distance a0 (Bohr up). At the same time, it is found[25] that the excess radius). The magnitude of this term is certainly large charge density changes by the same factor: enough to be relevant to superconducting condensation energies. ns 0 eλL ~ The term just discussed corresponds to the “Darwin ρσ = (vσ − ~σ · B) (29) 2c mec term” in the non-relativistic limit of the Dirac equation. An equally important correction comes from the spin- i.e. the excess charge density of spin parallel (antipar- orbit interaction allel) to B~ that slows down (speeds up) decreases (in- ~ creases) in magnitude. Thus, e ~ Us.o. = − 2 2 ~σ · (E × ~p). (34) 4mec jσ = ρσc (30) The electric field E~ generated by the positive compen- holds for any applied magnetic field lower than the crit- sating ionic charge density |e|n at distance 2λ is ical field. In other words, the predicted ground state s L currents both with and without applied magnetic field E =2π|e|ns(2λL) (35) can be seen as resulting from the electrons giving rise to 0 the excess charge density moving at the speed of light, and taking p = mevσ and using Eq. (2), Eq. (34) yields just as in Schr¨odinger’s Zitterbewegung. ~2 Us.o. = 2 = ν (36) 4me(2λL) VI. ENERGETICS AND THE VIRIAL THEOREM which is the same as Eq. (24). It is also closely related to the correction Eq. (33), since using (from Eq. (21)) 2 It has been argued that the virial theorem implies that that rq(2λL)= a0: the kinetic energy of electrons is necessarily increased in 2 2 going from the normal to the superconducting state[37, e rq Us.o. = 3 . (37) 38], independent of what is the mechanism for super- 4a0 conductivity. According to the virial theorem[39], in a system where the only interactions are Coulomb interac- In summary, we conclude that the argument that the tions virial theorem forbids kinetic energy driven superconduc- tivity is invalid if relativity plays a key role in supercon- 1 ductivity. As discussed here and in earlier work, relativ-
and noted that superconductivity is associated with low antibonding high kinetic values of VE, with the smallest VE values correspond- hole conduction energy ing to the highest critical temperatures. Figure 5 shows the Meissner-Schubert diagram obtained from a paper by bonding E. Justi[42], where VE is plotted versus atomic number. electron conduction low kinetic energy Justi remarks[42] that this is a very marked correlation (“ausgepr¨agte Regelm¨assigkeit”) that has “evident truth content” (“offenbare Wahrheitsgehalt”). It is also inter- FIG. 4: When the Fermi level is near the top of the band, esting to note that in the same paper Justi remarks that the kinetic energy of electrons at the Fermi level is high, con- there is no correlation between superconductivity and duction occurs through hole carriers in the normal state, and Debye temperatures: “...finden wir weder eine spezielle the electronic charge density in the region between the ions is Auszeichnung der S-Leiter durch besondere θD Betr¨age, low. die vielmehr uber den gesamten vorkommenden Bereich o o von θD = 69 bis θD = 400 streuen, noch insbesondere einen Zusammenhang zwischen θD and Tc”.[43] It would be interesting to extend the Meissner- Schubert diagram to many more superconducting ele- ments and compounds discovered since then. B. Matthias has emphasized that superconductivity is very frequently associated with lattice instabilities[44]. This observation follows naturally from the principles dis- cussed here: first, carriers having high kinetic energy in the normal state gives rise to an unstable situation, and to lower the kinetic energy either the system will go su- perconducting or the lattice will distort. Second, when the Fermi level is near the top of the band the electronic wavefunction is antibonding, with small charge density between the ions, in contrast to the bonding wavefunc- tion for electrons near the bottom of the band, as shown FIG. 5: Meissner-Schubert diagram (from ref. [42]). The schematically in Fig. 4. The small electronic charge 3 23 ordinate gives the electron volume in cm for 6 × 10 con- density between ions for antibonding electrons gives rise duction electrons. Some of the transition temperatures are to repulsion between the ions and “antibinds” the lat- given next to the elements. tice, thus leading to lattice instabilities. Thus, the fact that many antibonding states are occupied by electrons (Fermi level near the top of the band) is associated with VII. SUPERCONDUCTIVITY IN MATERIALS both lattice instabilities and superconductivity. In contrast, as is well known BCS theory does not If indeed superconductivity is driven by kinetic energy particularly care about superconducting materials hav- lowering, it will occur when the kinetic energy of carri- ing low values of VE nor predominantly hole carriers in ers in the normal state is high. That will be the case the normal state. It ascribes the prevalence of lattice when bands are almost full, as shown schematically in instabilities near superconductivity to a strong electron- Fig. 4 where the conduction in the normal state occurs phonon interaction. But it does not provide simple crite- through holes rather than electrons. We have discussed ria to predict which materials will have “strong electron- extensively in previous papers the vast empirical evidence phonon interaction” and which will not; this is usually indicating that it is always hole carriers that drive su- found out only after elaborate calculations that calculate perconductivity, and that materials without hole carriers Tc after its value has been measured experimentally[2]. cannot be superconductors[40]. And BCS theory has nothing to say about the Meissner- Another way to put it: if superconductivity involves Schubert correlation discussed above nor about the ne- an expansion of the electronic wavefunction as discussed cessity of hole carriers for superconductivity to occur, in Section II, it should predominantly occur in systems which many workers have pointed out in the past[45]. where the electronic wavefunction is very compressed in the normal state, so that the drive to expand to lower the quantum kinetic energy is highest. It is interest- ing that precisely this criterion was formulated by W. VIII. SOME EXPERIMENTAL Meissner and G. Schubert in 1943[41]. They defined the CONSEQUENCES quantity VE, volume per valence electron, as the differ- ence between the atomic volume and the ionic volume, We have discussed a variety of experimental conse- divided by the number of conduction electrons per atom, quences in previous papers. Here we focus on three: 8
A. Plasmon dispersion relation B. Screening and compressibility
The dispersion relation for longitudinal bulk plasmons The dispersion relation Eq. (39) arises from the zeros in a normal metal is of the longitudinal dielectric function of the superfluid
2 2 3 2 2 which is very different from the Linhardt function of the ωq = ωp + vF q (38) normal metal according to our theory[48]. In the static 5 limit this dielectric function is [48, 50] 2 2 with wp = 4πne /n, n the electron density, and vF the Fermi velocity. Conventional BCS theory predicts that 1 ǫs(q,ω → 0)=1+ 2 2 (42) plasmons are essentially unchanged in the superconduct- λLq ing state[46, 47]. Instead, we predict[48] for longitudinal charge oscillations of the superfluid the dispersion rela- in contrast to the Linhardt-Thomas-Fermi form valid in tion the normal state as well as in the superconducting state within BCS theory[46, 47] 2 2 2 2 ωq = ωp + c q (39) 1 ǫ (q)=1+ (43a) which is a significant change since vF << c (we are as- T F 2 2 λT F q suming no change in the plasma frequency ωp between normal and superconducting states for simplicity). with At finite temperatures the response should have a nor- 1 2 mal and a superfluid component. If nn, ns are the normal 2 =4πe g(ǫF ) (43b) and superfluid densities at temperature T we have λT F
2 2 ns 2 nn 3 2 2 with g(ǫ ) the density of states at the Fermi energy. ω = ω + [ c + v ]q F q p n n 5 F These equations imply that static external electric fields 2 2 2 are screened over distances λ and λ for the super- = ωp + veff q (40a) L T F conductor and the normal metal respectively. For free electrons we have g(ǫF )=3n/2ǫF so that ns 2 nn 3 2 veff = c + vF (40b) 2 2 r n n 5 1 6πne 1 3mec = = (44) λ2 ǫ λ2 2ǫ so that the slope of the plasmon dispersion relation ωq T F F L F should increase from 3/5v to c as T is lowered from F assuming the density of superconducting electrons ns is Tc to 0. The superfluidp density at temperature T is given the same as that of normal electrons. From the com- by pressibility sum rule 2 λL 2 n = n (41) 4πe 2 s λ2 (T ) ǫ(q → 0, 0)=1+ n κ (45) L q2 where λL in the numerator is the zero-temperature Lon- −1 don penetration depth. In a two-fluid model description with κ = −V ∂P/∂V )N it follows that the supercon- 4 4 ductor is much more rigid than the normal metal with one has approximately ns = n(1 − t ), nn = nt , with respect to longitudinal charge distortions: t = T/Tc. To our knowledge the plasmon dispersion relation in 1 1 superconductors has never been carefully studied exper- κs = 2 = (46a) 4πe2n2λ n m c2 imentally, presumably because no change is expected s L s e within BCS theory since the energies involved are much larger than the superconducting energy gap. In ref. [49], 1 g(ǫF ) 3 N¨ucker et al reported measurements of EELS spectra in κn = 2 2 2 = 2 = (46b) 4πe n λT F n 2nǫF Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8 at room temperature and at the end of the paper stated “we would like to mention that we (the latter valid for a free electron gas). Furthermore the have performed similar measurements on excitations of superfluid will propagate longitudinal charge oscillations valence and core electrons at 30 K which is well below the at the speed of light rather than the Fermi velocity. superconducting transitions temperature T, 83 K. Neither Thus, as the temperature is lowered below Tc, the elec- the loss function nor the plasmon dispersion show a sig- tronic bulk modulus (inverse compressibility) should in- nificant difference between room temperature and 30 K.” crease rapidly as electrons condense into the superfluid We believe the experiment should be repeated, since the phase. This is not predicted by conventional BCS the- theory discussed here predicts a significant change in the ory and should provide an explanation for the anomalous plasmon dispersion relation in that temperature range. behavior of electronic sound propagation found by Avra- Our theory also predicts a significant change in the dis- menko et al[51] in metals cooled into the superconducting persion relation of surface plasmons below Tc. state. 9
C. NQR
Nuclear quadrupole resonance spectroscopy (NQR) measures the interaction between the electric quadrupole moment of a nucleus and the electric field gradient at the site. Thus it may offer the possibility of detecting the in- ternal electric fields in superconductors predicted by our E theory. In the superconducting state we predict an internal electric field that grows linearly with the distance to the center as the surface is approached, reaching maximum value Em given by Eq. (17) at distance λL from the (a) (b) surface and decreasing to zero approximately linearly as the surface is reached. Thus the electric field gradient created by this electric field within distance λL of the FIG. 6: Superfluid pressure causes (a) electrons in supercon- surface is ductors to be expelled from the interior to the surface and beyond, and (b) 4He to climb the lateral surfaces of a con- ∂E~ E ∼ m (47) tainer and escape to the exterior (“Onnes effect”). ∂nˆ λL For example, for Nb, Pb and In we have respectively E = 308, 400V/cm, λ = 400A˚, E = 240, 900V/cm, perconducting state of various materials, both those cat- m L m egorized as ‘conventional’ and ‘unconventional’, would be λL = 390A˚ and Em = 87, 900V/cm, λL = 640A˚. The electric field gradient Eq. (47) is too small to be of great interest. No such effects are expected within the detected directly. For example, the electric field gradient conventional theory of superconducitivity nor have such in In metal measured by NQR is of order 1018V/cm2[52], effects been predicted within other unconventional the- several orders of magnitude larger than what Eq. (47) ories. Measurement of such effects would provide direct predicts. However the electric field itself will shift ionic evidence for the development of an electric field in the positions and modify the electronic charge distribution interior of superconductors as they enter the supercon- around the nuclei which will change the electric field gra- ducting state, as predicted by our theory. dient at the nuclear site and this effect should be large enough to be observable. For example, application of an IX. SUPERFLUID PRESSURE AND RELATION electric field of magnitude 17, 100V/cm to KClO3 was 4 found to result in a substantial shift and change of line- WITH He shape of the Cl35 quadrupole resonance[53]. In 1961 Simmons and Slichter[54] reported a marked The essential common aspect of the physics of super- 4 shift in the nuclear quadrupole resonance frequency of conductors and superfluid He, unrecognized in the cur- In below the superconducting transition temperature, of rently accepted theories of both systems, appears to be approximately 2% downwards, as well as a change in line- that superfluids exert quantum pressure that is larger shape from symmetric to asymmetric. They remarked than in the normal state. This is in contrast to the that “volume changes associated with the superconduct- situation in conventional Bose condensation where the ing phase transition are not, by several orders of mag- condensate exerts no pressure. nitude, large enough to account for this large shift” and In other words, as the system goes superfluid or super- they concluded that “The explanation of the large shift conducting and long range coherence sets in, the wave- remains an open question at present.” It is still an open function of the mobile carriers exerts additional outward question today, and the experiment has never been re- pressure and expands its spatial extent, driven by lower- peated. ing of quantum kinetic energy. There have been remarkably few other measurements For superconductors, this quantum pressure manifests of NQR resonance in zero magnetic field in the supercon- itself in the negative charge expulsion (not yet experi- ducting state. Hammond and Knight[55] reported a very mentally detected) that we predict exists in all supercon- small frequency shift in the superconducting state of Ga. ductors (Fig. 6(a)) and associated with it in the “Meiss- In YBCO, a steep decrease in the frequency as Tc was ner pressure”[57] that expels the magnetic field through approached from above was measured, and an increase orbit expansion, opposing the “Maxwell pressure” that below Tc[56]. That reference also gives a complete list wants to keep the magnetic field inside. As discussed in of NQR measurements in the normal and superconduct- Sect. II, Meissner pressure is proposed to originate in ing states of various materials over the years. The list is quantum pressure which in turn is proposed to originate remarkably short. in the fact that a rotating body with fixed angular mo- We suggest that a systematic study of NQR frequency mentum lowers its kinetic energy by expanding its orbit. shifts and lineshape changes between the normal and su- In is interesting to note that in the early development of 10
ibility) observed below the λ− point[62]. For superconductors we have shown that electron-hole heater asymmetry gives rise to positive thermoelectric power for dI porous plug dV NIS tunnel junctions[63]. Namely, if the superconductor is at lower temperature than the normal electrode, elec- trons will flow from the superconductor to the normal electrode, exactly the opposite to what would happen in helium bath the normal state. This is entirely analogous in the case 4 of He: above Tλ, the normal fluid will flow from the superfluid pressure in superconductor superfluid pressure in 4He hotter to the colder region in a container. Instead, below Tλ the dominant flow is from the colder region to the FIG. 7: Illustration of manifestations of superfluid pressure. hotter region (as in the fountain effect). This is again In superconductors (left), it gives rise to asymmetric tunnel- clear illustration of the identical effect of quantum pres- ing characteristics, frequently observed in high Tc materials, sure for superconductors and superfluids that we propose reflecting (according to our theory) the pressure pushing out is responsible for these phenomena. negative electrons from the interior of superconductors. In 4 superfluid 4He (right) it gives rise to the fountain effect, re- In superfluid He, a backflow of normal fluid flow oc- flecting the superfluid pressure that drives the superfluid flow curs whenever the constraints of the system allow it when into the hotter region that has lower superfluid density. there is superfluid flow from a colder to a hotter region of the container. Similarly we may expect such backflow to occur in superconductors: when electrons in the interior electromagnetism, Maxwell explained the “Maxwell pres- condense into the superfluid state and are expelled to- sure” exerted by magnetic fields in direction perpendicu- wards the surface in the transition to superconductivity, lar to the field also as originating in rotational motion (of the outward charge flow should be partially compensated “molecular vortices”) with axis along the magnetic field by an inflow of normal electrons. In the presence of a direction[58]. magnetic field, the inflowing electrons will be deflected Another manifestation of the superfluid pressure for by the Lorentz force in opposite direction to the outflow- the case of superconductors is that tunneling currents in ing electrons and will transmit that angular momentum NIS tunnel junctions are larger for negatively biased sam- to the ionic lattice by scattering. This should play an im- ples (Fig. 7 left panel)[59, 60], reflecting the tendency of portant role in explaining the puzzle of how angular mo- superconductors to expel electrons. Yet another manifes- mentum is conserved when a metal goes superconducting tation is the proximity effect, where the superconducting in the presence of a magnetic field and the Meissner cur- wavefunction extends from the superconducting into the rent that carries angular momentum develops[5]. neighboring normal region. In summary, we have seen that several different phe- 4 For superfluid He[13], the superfluid pressure man- nomena in superfluid 4He and superconductors can be ifests itself vividly in the “fountain effect”: when the explained if the superfluids exert quantum pressure due superfluid concentration is depleted in one region of a to quantum zero point motion. In addition, the friction- container by heating, the superfluid from another region less flow of electric current in superconductors and the will spurt into the depleted region with great force, driven nonviscous flow of superfluid 4He and their respective by this pressure (Fig. 7 right panel). It also manifests critical velocities can be explained in a unified way as itself (according to our interpretation)[14] in the “Onnes originating in quantum zero point diffusion[14, 64]. Of effect”, the fact that the superfluid will climb up the walls course the fact that quantum zero point motion plays an of a container, defying gravity (Fig. 6(b)). It manifests important role in liquid He is generally recognized. For itself in the anomalous negative thermal expansion of su- example, everybody agrees that this is the reason why 4 perfluid He below the λ point. It manifests itself in He remains liquid under its own vapor pressure down to 4 the inverted λ−shape of the specific heat curve in He zero temperature. However the fact that superfluid 4He (that gives the name to the λ− transition) which is di- exerts quantum pressure that is larger than that of the rect evidence for quantum kinetic energy lowering in the normal fluid is not generally recognized, despite the clear transition to superfluidity[61]. All these phenomena we experimental evidence for it. A notable exception can be argue are manifestation of superfluid pressure originat- found in the writings of K. Mendelssohn who consistently ing in quantum pressure i.e. kinetic energy lowering. We emphasized this key aspect of superfluid 4He, for exam- have proposed that, just as in superconductors, in super- ple when he writes[65]: “A question of particular interest 4 fluid He this pressure originates in rotational zero point is whether or not the superfluid phase contributes to the motion[14]. pressure. According to the Bose-Einstein model (F. Lon- Furthermore, the enhanced charge rigidity that we pre- don, 1939) this contribution is zero, but it appears to us dict in the superconducting state is clearly associated from the experimental results that such a zero-point pres- with this quantum pressure and has its counterpart in sure must exist and that it is of fundamental importance 4He in the enhanced bulk modulus (inverse compress- for the explanation of the transport phenomena.” 11
X. DISCUSSION into the physics of superfluidity in 4He. Both super- conductivity and superfluidity are proposed to be kinetic We argue that the Meissner effect is an unresolved puz- energy driven, due to the fact that superfluids exert quan- zle within the conventional theory of superconductivity. tum pressure. This suggests a common explanation for How can superconductors governed by conventional BCS- many observed phenomena in superfluids and supercon- London theory expel a magnetic field when cooled from ductors that would be unrelated otherwise, such as the superfluid fountain effect, the tunneling asymmetry in su- the normal into the superconducting state? The mag- 4 netic Lorentz force perconductors, the thermomechanical effect in He, the predicted positive thermoelectric power in superconduct- e e F~ = ~v × B~ = B(vrθˆ − vθrˆ) ≡ Fθθˆ + Frrˆ (48) ing tunnel junctions, the Onnes effect in superfluid He c c films, the Meissner effect in superconductors, the transfer of optical spectral weight from high to low frequencies in will not give rise to an azimuthal force Fθ that will set the Meissner current into motion unless there is a radial ve- superconductors, and the negative thermal expansion of superfluid He. The non-relativistic virial theorem, which locity vr, i.e. a net outflow of charge: in Eq. (48), Fθ =0 says that kinetic energy should be raised when the to- if vr = 0. BCS-London theory does not describe radial tal energy is lowered if the dominant interactions in the flow of charge, hence vr = 0. Unless and until propo- nents of BCS-London theory explain which force in na- system are Coulomb, is profoundly misleading for both ture will propel the charge near the surface to move in the superconductors and superfluids. azimuthal direction and overcome the Faraday counter- The physics of superconductivity as driven by kinetic emf to generate the Meissner current, the Meissner effect energy lowering and exhibiting rotational zero point mo- will remain unexplained within the conventional theory. tion has led us to conclude that the fundamental origin of Since all superconductors exhibit the Meissner effect, we quantum pressure in nature is rotational zero-point mo- must conclude that the conventional theory in its present tion, and in particular is responsible for the stability of form does not apply to any real superconductor. matter and the Pauli exclusion principle[23, 66]. In con- Instead, we have proposed that the Meissner effect trast, in the conventional understanding of quantum me- in all superconductors is explained by orbit expansion chanics there is no rotational zero point motion, and the driven by quantum pressure, that gives rise to outflow origin of quantum pressure and the stability of matter is of negative charge, an outward pointing electric field in attributed to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. How- the interior of superconductors, an excess negative charge ever, an alternative interpretation of quantum mechan- near the surface, enhanced charge rigidity, rotational zero ics connecting Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to an point motion in 2λL orbits reflecting electronic Zitterbe- intrinsic rotational motion of the electron due to its spin wegung, and a macroscopic spin current near the surface. was already proposed in pioneering work by D. Hestenes This non-conventional physics should exist in all super- in 1979[67]. The idea that rotational motion gives rise to conductors that exhibit the Meissner effect. That is, in pressure is of course very old: it was at the core of the all new and old superconductors, ‘conventional’ and ‘un- early description of magnetic fields by Maxwell (molecu- conventional’. lar vortices)[58] as well as in the theory of “vortex atoms” Concerning materials, this physics indicates that su- by Lord Kelvin[68]. Our suggestion derived from both the physics of superconductors (fermions) and superfluid perconductivity should be particularly favored in mate- 4 rials that have a lot of negative charge, namely almost He (bosons), that rotational zero point motion is at the filled bands (hole conduction in the normal state) and root of quantum pressure quite generally, suggests that negatively charged anions, as well as highly compressed rotational zero point motion may be a fundamental ele- electronic wavefunctions giving rise to high kinetic en- ment of the fabric of space-time itself, and it is natural ergy and quantum pressure, since all of these factors will to speculate that it may also be at the root of other phe- contribute to the tendency to expel negative charge. Ma- nomena such as the enigmatic dark energy that pervades terials evidence in favor of this[40] is the high Tc observed the universe[69]. in the cuprates, pnictides and MgB2, all possessing nega- tive anions, that superconductors overwhelmingly display dominant hole conduction in the normal state (positive Acknowledgments Hall coefficient), that they show a particularly small vol- ume per electron (Meissner-Schubert diagram) and that The author is grateful to R. Orbach for suggesting they are often close to lattice instabilities, indicating high NQR as a probe of the predicted electric field in su- occupation of antibonding states. perconductors, and to F. Marsiglio, A.S. Alexandrov, A. Furthermore, we have argued that this view of super- Bussmann-Holder, H. Keller , A.J. Leggett and J. Fink conductivity has close connection to and sheds new light for stimulating comments and discussion.
[1] “BCS: 50 years”, ed. by L.N. Cooper and D. Feldman, [2] J.E. Hirsch, Physica Scripta 80, 035702 (2009). World Scientific, Hackensack, NJ, 2011. 12
[3] M.R. Norman, Science 332, 196 (2011). [43] Translation: “...we find neither a special distinction of su- [4] M.L. Cohen, Mod. Phys. Lett. B 24, 2755 (2010). This perconductors as having particular values of θD (Debye paper summarizes the alleged successes of BCS theory in temperature), which in fact spread over the entire range o o the description of conventional superconductors. of values from θD = 69 to θD = 400 , nor in particu- [5] J.E. Hirsch, J. Phys. Cond. Matt. 20, 235233 (2008). lar any relationship between θD and Tc (superconducting [6] J.E. Hirsch, Physica C 201, 347 (1992). critical temperature”. [7] J.E. Hirsch, Phys. Lett. A 281, 44 (2001). [44] B.T. Matthias, E. Corenzwit, A.S. Cooper and L.D. [8] J.E. Hirsch, Phys.Rev. B 68, 184502 (2003). Longinotti, PNAS 68, 56 91971). [9] J.E. Hirsch, Phys.Rev. B 71, 184521 (2005). [45] K. Kikoin and B. Lasarew, Physik. Zeits. d. Sowjetunion [10] J.E. Hirsch, Phys.Lett.A 315, 474 (2003). 3, 351 (1933); L. Brillouin, Jour. de Phys. et le Rad. .VII, [11] J.E. Hirsch, Physica C 470, S955 (2010). Tome IV, p. 333 (1933); A. Papapetrou, Z. f. Phys. 92, [12] J.E. Hirsch, J. Supercond. Nov. Magn. 23, 309 (2010). 513 (1934); M. Born and K.C. Cheng, Nature 161, 968 [13] F. London, Superfluids, Vol. I, Dover, New York, 1961; (1948); I. M. Chapnik, Sov. Phys. Dokl. 6, 988 (1962). Vol. II, J. Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, 1954. [46] G. Rickayzen, Phys. Rev. 115, 795 (1959). [14] J.E. Hirsch, Mod. Phys. Lett. B 25, 2219 (2011). [47] R.E. Prange, Phys. Rev. 129, 2495 (1963). [15] K. Mendelssohn, “The Quest for Absolut Zero”, [48] J.E. Hirsch, Phys. Rev. B 69, 214515 2004). McGraw-Hill, New York, 1966, p. 219. [49] N. N¨ucker, H. Romberg, S. Nakai, B. Scheerer, J. Fink, [16] J. E. Hirsch and F. Marsiglio, Phys.Rev. B 39, 11515 Y. F. Yan and Z. X. Zhao, Phys. Rev. B 39, 12379 (1989). (1989). [50] J.E. Hirsch, Phys. Rev. B 70, 226504 2004). [17] S. Kivelson, W.P. Su, J.R. Schrieffer and A.J. Heeger, [51] Y.A. Avramenko et al, Low Temp. Phys. 28. 328 (2002); Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1899 (1987). Mat. Sci. Eng. A 370, 373 (2004); arXiv: 1111.4326 [18] D. K. Campbell, J. Tinka Gammel, and E. Y. Loh, Phys. (2011). Rev. B 42, 475 (1990). [52] R.R. Hewitt and T.T. Taylor, Phys. Rev. 125, 524 [19] R. Micnas, J. Ranninger, and S. Robaszkiewicz, Rev. (1962); R. Leiberich et al, Hyperfine Interactions 60, 865 Mod. Phys. 62, 113 (1990). (1990). [20] D.N. Basov et al, Science 283, 49 (1999); H. J. A. Mole- [53] J. Armstrong, N. Bloembergen and D. Gill, Phys. Rev. graaf et al, Science 295, 2239 (2002); A. F. Santander- Lett. 7, 11 (1961). Syro et al, Europhys. Lett., 62 568 (2003); A. Charnukha [54] W.W. Simmons and C.P. Slichter, Phys. Rev. 121, 1580 et al, Nature Communications 2, 219 (2011). (1961). [21] J.E. Hirsch, Physica C 199, 305 (1992). [55] R.H. Hammond and W.D. Knight, Phys. Rev. 120, 762 [22] J.E. Hirsch, Phys. Lett. A366, 615 (2007). (1960). [23] J.E. Hirsch, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 25, 1173 (2011). [56] H. Riesemeier et al, Sol. St. Comm. 64, 309 (1987). [24] J. E. Hirsch , Jour. Phys. Chem. Solids 67, 21 (2006) and [57] The term “Meissner pressure” was coined by F. London references therein. in ref. [13], Vol. I, p. 111, 135, 138. [25] J.E. Hirsch, Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 17, 380 (2008). [58] J.C. Maxwell, “On physical lines of force”, Phil. Mag. S. [26] J.E. Hirsch, Europhys. Lett. 81, 67003 (2008). 4, Vol. 21, No. 139, p. 161 (1861). [27] A. Hildebrandt, Phys. Rev. Lett.12, 190 (1964); A.A. [59] F. Marsiglio and J.E. Hirsch, Physica C 159, 157 (1989). Verheijen et al, Nature 345, 418 (1990). [60] P.W. Anderson and N.P Ong, Jour. Phys. Chem. Solids [28] I. K. Kikoin and S. W. Gubar, J. Phys. USSR 3, 333 67, 1 (2004). (1940); R. H. Pry, A. L. Lathrop, and W. V. Houston, [61] The variation of the potential energy with temperature Phys. Rev. 86, 905 (1952). gives rise to non − inverted λ behavior at the transition [29] J.E. Hirsch, Phys.Rev.B 68, 012510 (2003). point. See L. Goldstein and J. Reekie, Phys. Rev. 98, 857 [30] H. Hoenl, Ann. Phys. 425, 565 (1938), Naturwis- (1955); L. Goldstein, Phys. Rev. 100, 981 (1955). senschaften 26, 408 (1938). [62] J.C. Findlay, A. Pitt, H. Grayson Smith and J.O. Wil- [31] D. Hestenes, Found. of Physics 10, 1213 (1990). helm, Phys. Rev. 54, 506 (1938); K.R. Atkins and C.E. [32] J.E. Hirsch, Int. J. Mod. Phys. 24, 3627 (2010). Chase, Proc. Phys. Soc. London A 64, 826 (1951). [33] J.E. Hirsch, arXiv:1106.5311 (2011), J. Supercond. Novel [63] J.E. Hirsch, Phys. Rev. B 58, 8727 (1998); Phys. Rev. B Mag. DOI: 10.1007/s10948-011-1345-8. 59 , 11962 (1999). [34] J.C. Slater, Phys. Rev. 52, 214 (1937). [64] K. Mendelssohn, Proc. Phys. Soc. London 57, 371 (1945); [35] E. Schr¨odinger, Sitzungsb. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Phys.- F. London, Rev. Mod. Phys. 17, 310 (1945); J. G. Daunt Math. XXIV, p. 418 (1930). and K. Mendelssohn, Phys. Rev. 69, 126 (1945). [36] V. Fock, Z. f. Physik 68, 522 (1931). [65] K. Mendelssohn, “Report of an International Conference [37] D.J. Singh, Phys. Rev. B 75, 012501 (2007). on Fundamental Particles and Low Temperatures”, Vol. [38] G.V. Chester, Phys. Rev. 103, 1693 (1956). II, p. 35, publ. by The Physical Society, London, 1947. [39] V. Fock, Z Phys. 63, 855 (1930). [66] J.E. Hirsch, Mod. Phys. Lett. B 24, 2201 (2010); Phys. [40] J.E. Hirsch, arXiv:1104.1624 (2011), Physica C 472, 78 Lett. A 374, 3777 (2010). (2012). [67] D. Hestenes, Am. J. Phys. 47, 399 (1979). [41] W. Meissner and G. Schubert, Sitz. Ber. Bayr. Akad. d. [68] Lord Kelvin, Phil. Mag. Vol. XXXIV, p. 15-24 (1867). Wiss. Nat. Abst. (1943), p. 6. [69] P.J.E. Peebles, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 559 (2003). [42] E. Justi, Naturwissenschaften 33, 292 (1946).