Abstract
It is shown that for the metals that get superconducting, the heat capacity above the transition temperature, TSC, is given by a sequence of power function of absolute temperature and not, as for the metals that do not get superconducting (Au, Ag, Cu…), by a superposition of a linear and a cubic term of absolute temperature. The two heat capacities have to be attributed to the relevant bosons in the critical range at T = 0. For the metals that get superconducting, the two boson fields interact and their heat capacities do no longer superimpose. Since the interaction details change with temperature, a sequence of power functions with rational exponents, different from the parent exponents of α = 3 and α = 1 occur. Each power function holds over a finite temperature range. A change of the exponent is a typical crossover event. From analyses of available experimental heat capacity data, the exponents of α = 1/2, 1, 3/2, 2, 3 and 4 could firmly be established. As the zero-field heat capacity of all superconductors, the critical field of the type I superconductors, BC(T), exhibits critical behavior at T = 0 only but not at the transition temperature, TSC. The superconducting transition, therefore, is not into a long-range ordered state. For all type I superconductors the critical exponent of BC(T) at T = 0 seems to be ε = 2. The lower and upper critical fields, BC1(T) and BC2(T), of the type II superconductors exhibit critical behavior not only at T = 0 but additionally at TSC, as it is common for long-range ordered systems. The experimentally identified critical exponents at T = 0 are ε = 3/2, 4/2, 5/2, 6/2 and 8/2. At T = TSC, the identified critical exponents are β = 2/3, 3/4 and 1. The large BC1 and BC2 values indicate that the two Cooper-pair electrons of the type II superconductors are much stronger coupled compared to the type I superconductors, remarkably, without a corresponding increase in TSC. The diameter of the Cooper pairs of the type II superconductors and, therefore, their diamagnetic moments are correspondingly low. At the critical field BC1, the diamagnetic moment of the individual Cooper-pair is no longer large enough such that only one layer of Cooper pairs next to the inner surface of the sample is sufficient to shield an applied magnetic field completely. The external field then penetrates the superconductor as an ordered flux-line lattice. As the critical behavior of BC1 and BC2 at TSC suggest, the flux-line lattice has the character of a long-range ordered system.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
K.G. Wilson, J. Kogut, Phys. Rep. 12C, 75 (1974)
P. Debye, Ann. Physik 39, 789 (1912)
U. Köbler, Int. J. Thermo. 24, 238 (2021)
U. Köbler, Int. J. Thermo. 26, 026 (2023)
U. Köbler, J. Low Temp. Phys. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10909-022-02886-7
U. Köbler, Int. J. Thermo. 20, 210 (2017)
W.S. Corak, M.P. Garfunkel, C.B. Satterthwaite, A. Wexler, Phys. Rev. 98, 1699 (1955)
B.B. Goodman, E. Mendoza, Phil. Mag. 42, 594 (1951)
U. Köbler, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 453, 17 (2018)
U. Köbler, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 502, 166533 (2020)
U. Köbler, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 325, 87 (2013)
D. Cribier, B. Jacrot, L. Madhav Rao, B. Farnoux, Phys. Lett. 9, 106 (1964)
J. Schelten, H. Ullmaier, W. Schmatz, Phys. Stat. Solidi 48, 619 (1971)
A. Hoser, U. Köbler, Acta Phys. Pol. A 127, 350 (2015)
Y.S. Touloukian, E.H. Byco, Thermophysical Properties of Matter (Specific Heat of Metallic Elements and Alloys, NewYork, 1970)
Ch. Enss, S. Hunklinger, Low Temperature Physics (Springer, Berlin, 2005)
C. Kittel, Introduction to Solid State Physics (Wiley, New York, 2005)
N.E. Phillips, Phys. Rev. 114, 676 (1959)
G. Seidel, P.H. Keesom, Phys. Rev. 112, 1083 (1958)
C.A. Bryant, P.H. Keesom, Phys. Rev. 123, 491 (1961)
F. Steglich, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 50, 225 (1989)
W. Schlabitz, J. Baumann, B. Pollit, U. Rauchschwalbe, H.M. Mayer, U. Ahlheim, C.D. Bredl, Z. Physik B 62, 171 (1986)
U. Rauchschwalbe, Physica 147B, 1 (1987)
T.T.M. Palstra, A.A. Menovsky, J. van den Berg, A.J. Dirkmaat, P.H. Kes, G.J. Nieuwenhuys, J.A. Mydosh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2727 (1985)
U. Köbler, Int. J. Thermo. 23, 147 (2020)
F. Steglich, C.D. Bredl, W. Lieke, U. Rauchschwalbe, G. Sparn, Physica 126B, 82 (1984)
W. Buckel, R. Kleiner, Supraleitung (WILEY-VCH, Weinheim, 2013)
T.F. Stromberg, C.A. Swenson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 9, 370 (1962)
U. Köbler, A. Hoser, Experimental Studies of Boson Fields in Solids (World Scientific, Singapore, 2018)
F. London, H. London, Z. Physik 96, 359 (1935)
J. Bardeen, L.N. Cooper, J.R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. 108, 1175 (1957)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
I am the only responsible author. The munuscript is my own work.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Köbler, U. On the Difference Between Type I and Type II Superconductors. J Low Temp Phys 213, 51–69 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10909-023-02991-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10909-023-02991-1