Electron‐phonon interactions and superconductivity
JUL 01, 1973
“…the development of the role of electron‐phonon interactions in superconductivity from its beginnings in 1950 up to the present day, both before and after the development of the microscopic theory in 1957.”
Our present understanding of superconductivity has arisen from a close interplay of theory and experiment. It would have been very difficult to have arrived at the theory by purely deductive reasoning from the basic equations of quantum mechanics. Even if someone had done so, no one would have believed that such remarkable properties would really occur in nature. But, as you well know, that is not the way it happened; a great deal had been learned about the experimental properties of superconductors, and phenomenological equations had been given to describe many aspects, before the microscopic theory was developed. Some of these have been discussed by Schrieffer and by Cooper in their talks.
This article is only available in PDF format
References
1. D. Schoenberg, Superconductivity, Cambridge U.P., Cambridge (1938). Second edition, 1951.
7. F. London, Superfluids, Wiley, New York (1950).
8. For recent review articles with references, see the chapters by D. J. Scalapino and by W. L. McMillan and J. M. Rowell in Superconductivity (R. D. Parks, ed.), Dekker, New York (1969), volume 1. An excellent reference for the theory and earlier experimental work is J. R. Schrieffer, Superconductivity, Benjamin, New York (1964). The present lecture is based in part on a chapter by the author in Cooperative Phenomena (H. Haken, M. Wagner, eds.), to be published by Springer.
17. J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, J. R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. 108, 1175 (1957).https://doi.org/PHRVAO
18. For references, see the review article of M. A. Biondi, A. T. Forrester, M. B. Garfunkel, C. B. Satterthwaite, Rev. Mod. Phys. 30, 1109 (1958).https://doi.org/RMPHAT
24. I. Giaever, H. R. Hart, K. Megerle, Phys. Rev. 126, 941 (1962).https://doi.org/PHRVAO
25. J. M. Rowell, P. W. Anderson, D. E. Thomas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 334 (1963).https://doi.org/PRLTAO
26. G. J. Culler, B. D. Fried, R. W. Huff, J. R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 8, 339 (1962).https://doi.org/PRLTAO
27. J. R. Schieffer, D. J. Scalapino, J. W. Wilkins, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 336 (1963); https://doi.org/PRLTAO D. J. Scalapino, J. R. Schrieffer, J. W. Wilkins, Phys. Rev. 148, 263 (1966).https://doi.org/PHRVAO
28. D. J. Scalapino, Y. Wada, J. C. Swihart, Phys. Rev. Lett. 14, 102 (1965); https://doi.org/PRLTAO D. J. Scalapino, Y. Wada, J. C. Swihart, 14, 106 (1965).https://doi.org/PRLTAO, Phys. Rev. Lett.
34. J. P. Carbotte, in Superconductivity (P. R. Wallace, ed.), Gordon and Breach, New York, (1969), volume 1, page 491; J. P. Carbotte, R. C. Dynes, Phys. Rev. 172, 476 (1968); https://doi.org/PHRVAO C. R. Leavens, J. P. Carbotte, Can. J. Phys. 49, 724 (1971).https://doi.org/CJPHAD
Researchers don’t need to do science engagement alone. Working with professionals makes the job easier and more effective and can lead to better science.
Even a limited nuclear war could disrupt the climate, ecosystems, and global food supplies. Nuclear strategies and decisions should be required to factor in those potential consequences.
July 13, 2026 10:02 AM
This Content Appeared In
Volume 26, Number 7
Get PT newsletters in your inbox
PT The Week in Physics
A collection of PT's content from the previous week delivered every Monday.
One email per week
PT New Issue Alert
Be notified about the new issue with links to highlights and the full TOC.
One email per month
PT Webinars & White Papers
The latest webinars, white papers and other informational resources.