2020/12/31 by Mehmet Dogan, Marvin L. Cohen · 2 citations
Earth and Planetary Sciences · Physics and Astronomy · #Condensed matter physics #Earthquake Detection and Analysis #High-pressure geophysics and materials #High-temperature superconductivity #Hydride #Hydrogen #Materials science #Metallurgy #Physics #Quantum mechanics #Quantum, superfluid, helium dynamics #Room-temperature superconductor #Sulfur #Superconducting transition temperature #Superconductivity #cond-mat.mtrl-sci #cond-mat.supr-con
paper · pdf · doi:10.1016/j.physc.2021.1353851
published as Physica C: Superconductivity and its Applications, 2021, 583, 1353851
openalex publication_date 2021/03/05 · crossref created 2021/03/05 · arxiv created 2021/03/09 · arxiv updated 2021/03/16 · crossref issued 2021/04/01 · crossref published 2021/04/01 · crossref published-print 2021/04/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · crossref deposited 2025/10/12 · crossref indexed 2026/03/26 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/05
A new experimental study by Snider et al. [Nature 586, 373-377 (2020)] reported behavior in a high-pressure carbon-sulfur-hydrogen system that has been interpreted by the authors as superconductivity at room temperature. The sudden drop of electrical resistance at a critical temperature and the change of the R vs. T behavior with an applied magnetic field point to superconductivity. This is a very exciting study in one of the most important areas of science, hence, it is crucial for the community to investigate these findings and hopefully reproduce these results. In this comment, we present calculations that expand upon the arguments put forth by Hirsch and Marsiglio [arXiv:2010.10307], and offer some speculations about physical mechanisms that might explain the observed data. In agreement with Hirsch and Marsiglio, we show that there are errors in the analysis presented in the experimental paper, and with the correct analysis, the reported R vs. T data significantly deviate from the expected behavior. In particular, the extremely sharp change in resistance at the superconducting transition is not consistent with a strongly type II superconductor.