![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00030v1-figure-b8e6228e-e5cd-4a34-88b0-1d2fcaa0a4a8.jpg)

## Physics	of	Superconducting	Transition	Temperatures

## Steven	A.	Kivelson

The	superconducting	transition	temperature,	Tc,	is	a	dimensionful,	non-universal	quantity	that manifestly	depends	on	microscopic	details.		It	depends	on	``chemical''	differences	between	Hg and	Pb,	not	just	on	whether	the	material	in	question	is	conventional	or	unconventional	and whether	or	not	there	is	a	nearby	quantum	critical	point	or	a	fractionalized	phase.		For	physicists interested	in	the	theory	of superconductivity or	of emergent	quantum	phenomena in	highly correlated	electronic	systems,	Tc	may	appear	to	be	a	``microscopic	detail''	that	is	unworthy	of serious	consideration.		Indeed,	since	most	conceivable	superconducting	phases	have	been classified,	one	might	argue	that	superconductivity	research	should	be	transferred	to	Material Science	and/or	Chemistry	Departments,	and	only	studied	in	Physics	Departments	to	the	extent that	superconductors	are	useful	for	realizing	qubits	and	other	elements	of	quantum	circuits.

However,	my	friend,	Ted	Geballe,	has	always	been	interested	first	and	foremost	in	Tc.		I	like talking	to	Ted,	so	I	have	been	forced	to	think	about	Tc	as	well.		Ted	will	ask	me	'Why	do	you think	cuprates	with	Hg	in	the	charge	reservoir	layer	have	higher	Tc's?'		or	even	more	often will pose questions about	promising	but	uncorroborated	reports	of	USOs .	When	I	stop	by	his	office 1 to	discuss	what	I	learned	at	one	meeting	or	another,	he	will	ask	me	whether	there	was	anything new	about	a	second	superconducting	dome	in	very	overdoped	cuprates	or	whether	everyone was	discussing	high	temperature	superconductivity	in	hydrides	under	pressure.		(Usually,	the answer	I	give	is	along	the	lines	of,	'No,	mostly	we	discussed	methods	for	braiding	of	nonAbelian	anyons.')

In	honor	of	my	friend's	100 th birthday,	and	in	full	recognition	of	the	fact	that	ultimately	the physics	of	Tc	cannot	truly	be	addressed	with	the	sort	of	statistical-mechanics-based	approach	to condensed	matter	physics	I	generally	favor,	I	have	put	together	some	(possibly	useful)	thoughts concerning	the	physics	of	superconducting	transition	temperatures.

## I.	Phase	ordering	vs	pairing	dominated	Tc

As	is	well	known,	superconductivity	requires	both	pairing	and	condensation.		In	conventional superconductors,	Tc	is	essentially	the	temperature	at	which	pairs	first	form,	but	there	are circumstances	-	for	instance	in	granular	superconductors	or	Josephson	junction	arrays	-	in which	the	pairing	scale	can	be	parametrically	larger	than	Tc.		In	such	systems,	local	(e.g. spectroscopic)	measures	of	the	material	may	still	show	what	looks	like	a	(possibly	rounded) superconducting	transition	at	a	relatively	high	temperature,	Tpair,	but	long-range	phase coherence	onsets	only	at	Tc	&lt;	Tpair.[1]		In	simple	model	problems,	such	as	the	negative	U Hubbard	model,	it	is	possible	to	increase	Tpair	without	bound	by	simply	increasing	the	strength of	the	pairing	interaction.		However,	this	inevitably	leads	to	a	crossover	to	a	regime	in	which

1 Unidentified	Superconducting	Objects.

phase	ordering	-	rather	than	pairing	-	determines	Tc.		In	models,	optimal	Tc	always	occurs	as	a crossover	between	a	pairing	dominated	and	a	phase	ordering	dominated	Tc.[2]

It	is	less	clear	how	universally	this	observation	applies	in	real	materials.		At	a	microscopic	level, the	dominant	interaction	between	electrons	is	surely	repulsive,	and	it	is	only	through	rather subtle	collective	effects	that	they	can	be	tricked	into	pairing.		Here	is	where	retardation	plays	a central	role	in	the	theory	of	conventional	superconductivity	in	allowing	the	relatively	weaker electron-phonon	mediated	attraction	to	successfully	out-compete	the	bare	repulsion. However,	there	is	some	evidence	that	phase	ordering	plays	an	unusually	large	role	in determining	transition	temperature	of	various	'unconventional'	superconductors	with relatively	high	Tc's,	and	even	that	optimal	Tc	occurs	as	a	crossover	between	a	paring	dominated and	a	phase	ordering	regime	of	parameters.[3]

## II.	Negative	U	centers	and	superconductivity	from	preformed	pairs

It	is	possible	to	imagine	circumstances	where	a	combination	of	good	screening	and/or	strong electron-lattice	coupling	produce	a	strong	net	attraction.		If	the	attractive	interactions	are strong	enough,	they	can	lead	to	relatively	tightly	bound	states	of	pairs	of	electrons	-	and	thus	a low	energy	effective	theory	consisting	of	a	fluid	of	bosonic	'real-space	pairs'	or	bipolarons. Naively,	it	would	appear	that	looking	for	circumstances	in	which	such	pairs	arise	might	provide fertile	hunting	grounds	for	high	temperature	superconductors.

If	such	attractions	occur	at	special	sites	in	a	material	-	such	as	in	the	neighborhood	of	an impurity	or	an	O	vacancy	-	this	can	lead	to	negative	U	centers.		As	Ted	and	I	recently reviewed[4],	this	notion	was	introduced	by	Anderson[5]	to	explain	the	properties	of	certain classes	of	disordered	insulators,	especially	chalcogenide	glasses.		Because	they	are	disordered and	insulators,	the	electronic	states	tend	anyway	to	be	localized,	so	binding	of	a	pair	of electrons	is	substantially	easier	than	in	metals.		The	strong	pairing	explains	a	variety	striking features	of	these	materials,	including	the	lack	of	Curie	paramagnetism.		However,	the	formation of	pairs	at	negative	U	centers	makes	these	materials	more	strongly	insulating	rather	than superconducting!

For	real-space	pairing	to	occur	in	a	translationally	invariant	system	requires	that	the	net attraction	is	stronger	than	the	kinetic	energy.		If	this	arises	from	some	form	of	strong	electronphonon	coupling,	it	generally	leads	to	very	heavy	pairs.		Specifically,	the	effective	hopping matrix	element	of	a	bipolaron	is	generically	suppressed	by	a	Frank-Condon	factor,[6]

$$t ^ { \text{eff} } \sim ( t ^ { 2 } / | U | ) \exp [ \, - \alpha \, | U | / \omega _ { 0 } \, ]$$

where	t	is	the	bare	electron	hopping	matrix	element,	|U|	is	the	bipolaron	binding	energy, ω 0 is an	average	of	the	phonon	frequencies	(measured	in	units	of	energy)	and α ~		1.		Since	a prerequisite	for	real-space	pairing	is	that	|U|	&gt;	EF	(the	bare	Fermi	energy)	and	since	in	most circumstance,	EF	&gt;&gt; ω 0 ,	bipolarons	(and	the	pairs	found	at	negative	U	centers)	are	effectively classical,	non-dynamical	objects	-	condensation	of	such	pairs	is	implausible.		This	is	why	the chalcogenide	glasses	are	particularly	good	insulators,	not	incipient	superconductors.

If	real-space	pairing	is	to	play	any	role	in	superconductivity,	it	must	be	in	circumstances	in which ω 0 ≥	|U|	≥	EF.		Possibly,	this	can	occur	if	the	pairing	is	directly	a	consequence	of	electron correlations	(no	phonons)	or	if	EF	is	unusually	small	(low	electron	density)	and ω 0 is	relatively large.		Otherwise,	real-space	pairing	will	always	lead	either	to	a	superconducting	state	in	which Tc	is	parametrically	small	(due	to	low	phase	stiffness)	or,	more	usually,	to	some	competing insulating	phase	-	either	due	to	disorder	or	charge-density-wave	(CDW)	formation.[7]

## III.	Upper	bound	on	conventional	superconductivity

Our	basic	understanding	of	conventional	phonon-mediated	superconductivity	rests	on	sound theoretical	principles.[9]		These	can	be	recast	in	the	modern	language	of	the	renormalization group	(RG),	so	long	as	all	the	underlying	microscopic	interactions	are	sufficiently	weak	(and short-ranged)	-	i.e.	so	long	as	a	perturbative	RG	treatment	is	valid.[10,11]		At	a	first	stage, microscopic	degrees	of	freedom	with	energies	greater	than	the	maximum	phonon	frequency, ω max,	are	integrated	out.		In	this	first	stage	of	renormalization,	the	electron-phonon	coupling	is essentially	unrenormalized,	but	the	electron-electron	repulsion	renormalizes	down	from	a	bare value,	U,	to	a	renormalized	value,	U 	=	U/{	1	+ * ρ (EF)	U	log[	EF/ ω max	]	}.	At	this	stage,	one	is	left only	with	electronic	states	in	a	narrow	shell	about	the	Fermi	surface	of	width Δ k	= ω max/vF which	interact	with	a	renormalized	interaction,	Veff	=	U 	-	Uel-ph,	in	the	'Cooper	channel,'	where * Uel-ph	is	the	induced	attraction	mediated	by	the	exchange	of	phonons.		In	the	second	stage	of RG,	Veff	is	seen	to	be	irrelevant	(the	ground-state	is	metallic)	if	Veff	&gt;0	and	relevant	(the	groundstate	is	superconducting)	if	Veff	&lt;	0,	with λ =	-Veff ρ (EF)	and	Tc	~ ω max	exp[	-	1/ λ ].

The	success	of	this	conventional	understanding	relies	explicitly	on	the	existence	of	a	small parameter, ω max/EF.		Fortunately,	this	parameter	is,	in	fact,	typically	very	small	in	all conventional	superconductors	as	it	is	proportional	to	one	of	the	genuine	small	parameters nature	provides	us	with, ω max/EF	~	[	m/M	] 1/2 ,	where	m	is	the	electron	mass	and	M	is	the	ion mass.	However,	it	is	often	not	recognized	that	in	order	for	the	perturbative	RG	to	be	valid,	it	is also	necessary	that	Veff	&lt;&lt;	EF,	or	in	other	words	when	| λ | &lt;&lt;	1.		So-called	'strong-coupling' expressions	for	Tc	have	been	derived[12]	that	invoke	Migdal's	theorem	as	justification	even when λ &gt;	1	so	long	as λ &lt;&lt;	EF/ ω max.		In	all	these	expressions,	Tc	is	a	monotonically	increasing function	of λ .

The	electron-phonon	problem	is	amenable	to	numerical	solution	by	minus	sign	free determinantal	quantum	Monte	Carlo.		We	have	recently	undertaken[13]	an	extensive	such study	of	the	simplest	such	model	-	the	Holstein	model	-	in	which	we	can	compare	the	exact results	with	those	computed	using	'Migdal's	approximation'	-	that	is	the	approximate resumation	of	perturbation	theory	suggested	by	Migdal's	theorem.		We	found	that	the	Migdal approximation	is	remarkably	accurate	so	long	as λ is	smaller	than	a	temperature	dependent crossover	value λ *(T)	~	½,	but	that	it	breaks	down	both	qualitatively	and	quantitatively	for larger	values	of λ .		This	breakdown	has	to	do	with	bipolaron	formation	and,	for	the	reasons already	discussed,	this	leads	to	an	exponential	suppression	of	any	phase	ordering	tendency	of the	system.		As	a	consequence,	there	is	an	optimal	value	of λ -	not	too	small	(where	the	pairing scale	is	miniscule)	and	not	too	large	(where	phase	coherence	is	quenched)	-	at	which	Tc	is maximal.		This	means	that	Tc	has	a	maximum	magnitude	(for	given ω max)	of	the	form[8]

$$T _ { c } \leq \omega _ { \max } \, A$$

Where	A	is	a	number	of	order	1.		For	the	2D	Holstein	model,	we	found	empirically	that	A	=	1/10.

With	the	caveat	that	there	could	well	be	special	circumstances	in	which	A	is	somewhat	higher than	this	value,	we	proposed	that	this	should	be	taken	as	an	approximate	bound	for	real materials	with	roughly	the	same	value	of	A	we	obtained	from	the	Holstein	model.		We	have done	an	extensive	(but	possibly	not	exhaustive)	search	of	published	data	on	superconductors that	are	thought	to	be	'conventional.'		Where	available,	we	have	taken	the	measured	Debye temperature	as	a	proxy	for ω max,	and	otherwise	we	have	taken ω max	from	DFT	calculations.		In all	cases	we	have	found	that	this	bound	is	satisfied	-	sometimes	by	a	wide	margin	(in	which case	it	is	true	but	irrelevant)	-	while	in	other	cases	Tc	comes	within	10%-20%	of	saturating	this bound.		Examples	of	materials	that	come	close	to	this	bound	are	Hg,	Pb,	Nb3Sn,	BKBO,	and	H3S under	high	pressure.

Manifestly,	this	bound	is	approximate.		But	the	analysis	that	leads	to	it	is	sufficiently	robust	that it	should	be	taken	seriously.		It	suggests	-	not	surprisingly	-	that	to	find	high	Tc	one	needs	to have	the	effective	interactions	that	lead	to	pairing	operating	on	a	relatively	high	energy	scale. Moreover,	in	common	with	all	no-go	results,	its	main	usefulness	may	be	to	stimulate	searches for	ways	to	circumvent	its	reach.

## IV.	Engineered	composite	systems

Another	notion	that	may	be	useful	in	the	search	for	new	high	temperature	superconductors	is the	notion	of	using	engineered	composite	systems	as	a	platform.		We	have	already	seen	that there	is	a	trade-off	as	a	function	of	strength	of	interactions	between	the	imperative	of	having	a high	pairing	scale	and	the	need	to	retain	a	high	phase	coherence	scale.		One	way	around	this	is to	devise	a	two-component	system	in	which	one	portion	of	the	system	is	strongly	correlated, and	is	thus	able	to	produce	strong	pairing	between	electrons,	and	the	other	is	highly	itinerant, and	hence	able	to	support	a	high	coherence	scale.[14]

Of	course,	Murphy's	law	implies	that	under	most	circumstances,	such	a	composite	system	is likely	to	inherit	the	worst	features	of	each	subsystem.		However,	both	theoretical	and preliminary	experimental	evidence	exists	that	-	under	appropriate	circumstances	-	Tc	can	be enhanced	in	such	composite	systems.		(For	a	relatively	recent	review,	see	Ref.	[15],	and	for some	promising	but	not	yet	definitive	experimental	results	suggesting	that	this	strategy	is possible,	see	[16-18].)

## V.	Concerning	some	of	Ted's	favorite	superconductors

Until	now,	I	have	dealt	with	generalities.		Ted	is	a	materials	person.		I	have	had	endless discussions	with	him	about	how	these	various	ideas	apply	in	the	context	of	specific	materials.

## A. Negative	U	centers	in	Tl	doped	PbTe

Tl	is	a	so-called	'valence	skipping'	element.		To	the	extent	that	a	specific	charge	state	can	be identified	in	a	solid,	it	generally	is	found	either	in	a	Tl 1+ or	a	Tl 3+ state.		A	many-body	definition of	the	effective	interaction	between	two	electrons	on	a	Tl	site	is	given	by

$$U = E ( T I ^ { 1 + } ) + E ( T I ^ { 3 + } ) - 2 \ E ( T I ^ { 2 + } )$$

where	E(Tl p+ )	is	the	energy	of	a	Tl	with	charge	+pe.		Needless	to	say,	for	a	Tl	atom	in	free	space, U	defined	in	this	way	is	positive;	however,	due	to	correlation	effects	associated	with	filled shells,	it	is	anomalously	small.[19]		One	can	imagine	that	if	the	long-range	part	of	the	Coulomb interaction	were	screened,	as	it	is	in	a	solid,	that	this	could	give	rise	to	an	effective	negative	U.

Ted	combined	this	insight	with	the	observation	that	Tl	doped	PbTe	was	known	to	exhibit	a superconducting	Tc	that	is	considerably	larger	than	any	comparably	low-density	doped semiconductor,	and	concluded	that	the	mechanism	must	be	identified	with	Tl	negative	U centers.[20]		In	collaboration	with	Ian	Fisher,	they	explored	this	idea,	and	have	amassed considerable	evidence	in	favor	of	this	view.[21-23]		In	particular,	evidence	of	a	so-called 'charge-Kondo	effect'	in	the	normal	state	fairly	directly	establishes	the	existence	of	negative	U centers.		Moreover,	the	superconductivity	onsets	at	a	critical	value	of	the	doping	which	can	be seen	to	correspond	to	the	point	at	which	the	Fermi	energy	satisfies	the	resonance	condition, 2EF	=	E(Tl 1+ )	+	E(Tl 3+ ),	at	which	point	Tl	valence	fluctuations	between	these	two	charge	states should	be	observable.[23]

What	is	meant	by	a	negative	U	center	in	this	context?		At	minimum,	what	this	means	is	that	the effective	U	in	Eq.	(3)	is	negative	and	comparable	to	or	larger	in	magnitude	than	EF.		In	turn,	U generally	receives	contributions	from	electron-correlation	effects[27],	but	also	from	coupling	to relatively	high	frequency	phonons.		However,	the	restriction	to	high-frequency	phonons	is essential.	Otherwise	the	pair	tunneling	rate,	teff	,	which	in	the	charge-Kondo	problem	plays	the role	of	the	Kondo	coupling,[24-26]		is	reduced	by	an	exponential	factor	as	in	Eq.	(1)	-	with	|U| replaced	by	|Uel-ph|,	the	electron-phonon	contribution	to	U.		Thus,	given	that	the	ions	involved are	relatively	heavy,	in	order	that	-U	is	at	least	comparable	to	EF	it	is	probably	necessary	that the	dominant	contribution	to	U	is	from	some	form	of	electronic	overscreening.			A	negative	U from	strong	electron-phonon	coupling	would	tend	to	reproduce	the	physics	of	the	chalcogenide glasses.

There	is	not	seen,	nor	is	there	expected	any	large	deviations	from	the	BCS	predictions	for	the superconducting	state	itself,	since	the	superconducting	correlation	length	is	always	large compared	to	the	distance	between	Tl	dopants.		This	means	that	for	this	purpose,	the	negative	U centers	can	be	viewed	as	giving	rise	to	a	uniform	effective	attraction	of	order	x	teff,	where	x	is the	concentration	of	Tl	dopants.		However,	the	mechanism	involved	-	assuming	all	the inferences	drawn	by	Geballe	and	Fisher	hold	up	-	is	extremely	unconventional.		Although	the superconducting	order	parameter	is	s-wave,	the	pairing	is	primarily	derived	from	the	electronelectron	repulsion,	and	is	not	critically	dependent	on	the	electron-phonon	coupling.		This	result should	be	more	widely	discussed.

## B. O	vacancies	in	STO

Lightly	doped	SrTiO3	is	another	of	Ted's	favorite	superconductors.[28]		It	is	certainly	unusual; the	very	low	carrier	density	at	which	superconductivity	arises	is	more	or	less	unique	and	the fact	that	the	phonon	frequencies	are	typically	greater	than	the	Fermi	energy	means	that	-	even were	the	pairing	mechanism	phonon	mediated	-	the	way	it	plays	out	must	be	entirely	different from	that	in	conventional	metallic	superconductors.

While	many	people	have	focused	on	this	and	related	aspects	of	this	problem,	Ted	has	long	been excited	by	a	possibly	unrelated	observation:	The	superconducting	regime	in	STO	doped	with	O vacancies	extends	to	significantly	lower	doping	concentrations	than	with	the	more	usual	Nd doping.		Since	most	theoretical	approaches	to	the	problem	involve	no	particular	role	of	the dopant	-	other	than	to	provide	the	requisite	doped	holes	-	understanding	this	manifestly requires	new	considerations.		One	could	imagine	that	Nb	impurities	and	O	vacancies	could disturb	the	electronic	structure	(introduce	disorder)	to	different	degrees,	but	there	is	no evidence	of	this	apparent	from	normal	state	properties.

So,	Ted	focused	on	the	structure	of	the	impurities	themselves	and	based	on	quantum	chemical intuition	suggested	that	the	O	vacancies	may	act	as	negative	U	centers,	thus	contributing	to	the pairing	tendencies	at	very	low	doping.		As	with	Tl,	presumably	what	this	means	is	that	the	local electronic	structure	leads	to	a	significant	reduction	of	the	short-range	repulsion	between	two electrons	on	a	vacancy	site,	and	that	this	reduced	repulsion	is	converted	to	a	net	attraction	due to	environmental	screening.		Moreover,	so	long	as	the	majority	of	this	environmental	screening is	electronic	in	origin,	or	involves	relatively	small	amplitude	motions	of	optical	phonon	modes,	it might	not	lead	to	a	large	Frank-Condon	suppression	of	coherence.		There	are	a	number	of	ways to	test	this	proposal	in	analogy	to	studies	that	have	been	carried	out	in	Tl	doped	PbTe	-	this would	be	well	worthwhile.

## C. Hydrides	under	pressure	and	a	second	dome	in	the	cuprates?

There	are	many	other	anomalous	superconductors	that	have	interested	Ted	over	the	years. Naturally,	he	has	been	excited	from	the	very	first	reports	of	high	temperature superconductivity	in	hydrides	at	high	pressure.[29-32]		I	am	not	aware	of	any	new	insights	Ted has	had	here,	but	on	the	other	hand	one	of	the	key	players	in	this	field	was	his	grandson,	Zach Geballe.		So	indirectly	Ted	has	played	a	key	role.

In	contrast,	Ted	was	one	of	the	first	to	realize	that	there	were	a	number	of	reports	that	there	is a	second	superconducting	dome	in	the	cuprates	at	much	higher	hole	doping	than	was previously	appreciated.[33]		One	of	the	most	significant	observations	about	superconductivity in	the	cuprates	is	that	it	appears	in	some	way	linked	to	the	antiferromagnetic	order	that characterizes	the	undoped	parent	compounds.		This	linkage	has	been	corroborated	in	several ways,	but	the	most	intuitively	clear	was	the	observation	that	the	superconducting	dome	always ends	at	an	upper	critical	doping	of	somewhat	less	than	x=0.3.		It	has	been	widely	understood that	beyond	this	point,	the	memory	of	the	antiferromagnetic	order	in	the	parent	compound	is sufficiently	weak	that	it	can	no	longer	underlie	a	mechanism	of	pairing.		The	observation[34-37] of	superconductivity	-	with	transition	temperatures	less	than	but	of	order	100K	-	for	doping concentrations	estimated	to	be	x	~	0.5	thus	might	indicate	that	there	is	something	missing	in the	zeroth	order	understanding	of	the	origin	of	superconducting	pairing	in	the	cuprates.

This	is	clearly	the	problem	that	most	interests	Ted	at	present.		All	of	the	materials	involved	are messy	in	some	way	or	other	-	mostly	because	they	involve	complicated	high-pressure	synthesis that	makes	obtaining	substantial	amounts	of	material,	much	less	single	crystals,	very	difficult. There	is	clearly	much	work	that	needs	to	be	done	to	characterize	these	materials,	their	normal state	electronic	structure,	and	the	nature	of	the	superconducting	state	that	arises.		But	Ted	is clearly	right	that	this	is	an	important	direction	for	future	research.

## VI.	Ted	Geballe

The	two	portraits	of	Ted	Geballe	reproduced	in	this	article	are	oil	paintings	on	canvas	by	Pamela Davis	Kivelson.		(Her	legal	name	is	Pamela	Davis,	but	her	art	name	is	Pamela	Davis	Kivelson,	or PDK	for	short.)		The	first	is	a	formal	portrait	that	oversees	the	common	area	of	the	Geballe Laboratory	for	Advanced	Materials	(GLAM)	at	Stanford.	Ted	posed	patiently	for	this	portrait while	my	daughter	-	Sophia	(then	probably	about	10	years	old)	-	entertained	him	with	songs from	Gilbert	and	Sullivan	operettas.		It	accurately	captures	something	of	Ted's	personality.		It	is a	smiling,	happy	portrait	which	is	certainly	rare	in	the	history	of	art;	it	makes	one	joyful	just	to see	it,	much	the	way	everyone	who	knows	Ted	is	uplifted	by	each	discussion	with	him.			But	I like	the	second	portrait	even	better.		It	is	Ted	from	behind	-	and	all	that	can	be	seen	is	his familiar	hat	and	red-checked	jacket.		I	do	not	know	whether	it	is	the	angle	of	the	head	or	the slope	of	the	shoulders,	or	just	the	familiarity	of	the	simple	items	of	clothing	-	at	any	rate,	there is	no	mistaking	that	this	is	Ted.

Pam	is	a	psychological	painter	-	she	cannot	help	herself.		These	two	pictures	unmistakably reflect	her	unadulterated	love	of	the	subject.		But	then,	everyone	loves	Ted.

Acknowledgements:		I	benefitted	from	helpful	comments	from	I.	R.	Fisher	and	K.	Behnia.		This synergistic	work	was	supported	in	part	by	the	U.	S.	Department	of	Energy	(DOE)	Office	of	Basic Energy	Science,	at	Stanford	under	contract	No.	DE-AC02-76SF00515.

## References:

[1]	See,	for	example,	L.	Merchant,	J.	Ostrick,	R.	P.	Barber,	Jr.,	and	R.	C.	Dynes,	Crossover	from phase	fluctuation	to	amplitude-dominated	superconductivity:	A	model	system,'	Phys.	Rev. B 63 ,	134508	(	2001).

- [2]	See,	for	example,	M.	Randeria,	N.	Trivedi,	A.	Moreo,	and	R.	T.	Scalettar,	'Pairing	and	spin gap	in	the	normal	state	of	short	coherence	length	superconductors,'	Phys.	Rev.	Lett. 69 ,	2001 (1992).
- [3]	For	a	discussion,	see	V.	J.	Emery	and	S.	A.	Kivelson,	"Importance	of	Phase	Fluctuations	in Superconductors	with	Small	Superfluid	Density', Nature , 374 ,	434-437	(1995).		For	more	recent developments	see	I.	Božović,	X.	He,	J.	Wu,	and	A.	T.	Bollinger,	'The	Vanishing	Superfluid Density	in	Cuprates-and	Why	It	Matters,'	Journal	of	Super.	And	Novel	Mag. 31 ,	2683	(2018).
- [4]	T.	H.	Geballe,	S.	A.	Kivelson,	'Paired	Insulators	and	High	Temperature	Superconductors,'	to appear	as	part	of	"The	proceedings	of	PWA90:	A	lifetime	of	Emergence,"	edited	by	P.	Chandra, P.	Coleman,	G.	Kotliar,	P.	Ong,	D.	Stein,	and	C.	Yu,	to	be	published	by	World	Scientific	(2015).
- [5]	P.W.	Anderson,	'Model	for	the	Electronic	Structure	of	Amorphous	Semiconductors,'	Phys. Rev.	Lett. 34 ,	953	(1975).
- [6]	T.	Holstein,	'Studies	of	polaron	motion:	Part	I.	The	molecular-crystal	model,'	Annals	of	Phys. 8 ,	325	(1959)	and	'Studies	of	Polaron	Motion:	Part	II,	The	'Small'	Polaron,'	Annals	of	Physics, 8 , 343	(1959).
- [7]	For	a	recent	confirmation	of	this	point	of	perspective	on	the	basis	of	an	approximation-free numerical	study	of	the	Holstein	model,	see	I.Esterlis,	S.A.Kivelson,	and	D.J.Scalapino, 'Pseudogap	crossover	in	the	electron-phonon	problem,'	Phys.	Rev.	B 99 ,	174516	(2019)
- [8] I.Esterlis, S.A.Kivelson, and D.J.Scalapino, ÒA bound on the superconducting transition temperature,Ó npj Quantum Materials 3 , 59 (2018).
- [9]	J.	R.	Schrieffer,	'Theory	of	Superconductivity,'	(Taylor	and	Francis,	London,	1964).
- [10]	R.	Shankar,	'Renormalization-group	approach	to	interacting	fermions,'	Rev.	Mod.	Phys. 66 , 129	(1994).
- [11]	J.	Polchinski,	'Effective	Field	Theory	and	the	Fermi	Surface,'	arXiv:hep-th/9210046.
- [12]	For	example,	in	the	important	paper	P.B.	Allen	and	R.C.Dynes,	'Transition	temperature	of strong-coupled	superconductors	reanalyzed,'	Phys.	Rev. B	12 ,	905	(1975).
- [13] I. Esterlis, B. Nosarzewski, E.W.Huang, B. Moritz, T. P. Devereaux, D. J. Scalapino, and S. A. Kivelson, 'Breakdown of Migdal-Eliashberg theory; a determinant quantum Monte Carlo study,' Phys. Rev. B 97 , 140501 (2018).
- [14]	For	an	extended	discussion	of	this	point	can	be	found	in	S.A.Kivelson,	'Making	high	Tc higher:		a	theoretical	proposal,'	Physica B	318 ,	61	(2002)	-	a	paper	written	in	honor	of	Z.	Fisk,

another	great	physicist	who	shares	Ted's	interest	in	numbers.		For	an	attempt	to	make	these considerations	more	explicit,	see	E.	Berg,	D.	Orgad,	and	S.	A.	Kivelson,	'Route	to	hightemperature	superconductivity	in	composite	systems,'	Phys.	Rev.	B 78 ,	94509	(2008).

- [15]	S.	A.	Kivelson	and	.	Fradkin,	'How	optimal	inhomogeneity	produces	high	temperature superconductivity,'in	"Treatise	of	High	Temperature	Superconductivity"	edited	by	J.	Robert Schrieffer	and	James	S.Brooks,	(Springer,	2007)	pgs.	570	-	596.
- [16]	G.	Koren	and	O.	Millo,	'Enhancement	of	the	superconducting	transition	temperature of	La2-xSrxCuO4	and	La1.875Ba0.125CuO4	bilayers:	Bilayer	and	reference	film	prepared	on	the	same wafer,'	Phys.	Rev.	B 81 ,	134516	(2010).
- [17]	A.	Gozar,	G.	Logyenov,	L.	FittingKourkoutis,	A.T.	Bollinger,	L.	A.	Gianuzzi,	D.	A.	Muller,	and	I. Bozovic,	'High-temperature	interface	superconductivity	between	metallic	and	insulating cuprates,'	Nature 455 ,	782	(2008).		See	also,	for	a	critical	analysis	and	broader	perspective	on the	issue,	J.	Pereiro,	A.	Petrovic,	C.	Panagopoulos,	and	I.	Bozovic,	'Interface	superconductivity: History,	development	and	prospects,'	Physics	Express 1 ,	208	(2011).
- [18]	S.	Ideta,	K.	Takashima,	M.	Hashimoto,	T.	Yoshida,	A.	Fujimori,	H.	Anzai,	T.	Fujita,	Y. Nakashima,	A.	Ino,	M.	Arita,	H.	Namatame,	M.	Taniguchi,	K.	Ono,	M.	Kubota,	D.	H.	Lu,	Z.	-X. Shen,	K.	M.	Kojima,	and	S.	Uchida,	'Enhanced	superconducting	gaps	in	the	tri-layer	highTc	cuprate	Bi2Sr2Ca2Cu3O10+ ,'	Phys.	Rev.	Lett. δ 104 ,	227001	(2010).
- [19]	C.	M.	Varma,	'Missing	valence	states,	diamagnetic	insulators,	and	superconductors,'	Phys. Rev.	Lett. 61 ,	19511	(2016).
- [20]	Others,	as	well,	had	the	same	basic	insight	-	see,	for	a	review,	S.	A.	Nemov	and	Y.I.	Ravich, 'Thallium	doping	in	lead	chalcogenides:	investigation	methods	and	peculiarities,'	Phys.	Uspekhi 41 ,	735	(1998).
- [21]	Y.	Matsushita,	H.	Bluhm,	T.H.Geballe,	and	I.	R.	Fisher,	'Evidence	for	Charge	Kondo	Effect	in Superconducting	Tl-Doped	PbTe,	Phys.	Rev.	Lett. 94 ,	157002	(2005).
- [22]	P.	Giraldo-Gallo,	P.	Walmsley,	B.	Sangiorgio,	S.	C.	Riggs,	R.D.	McDonald,	L.	Buchauer,	B. Fauque,	C.	Liu,	N.	A/	Spaldin,	A.	Kaminski,	K.	Behnia,	and	I.	R.	Fisher,	'Evidence	of	Incoherent Carriers	Associated	with	Resonant	Impurity	Levels	and	Their	Influence	on	Superconductivity	in the	Anomalous	Superconductor	Pb1-xTlxTe,'	Phys.	Rev.	Lett. 121 ,	207001	(2017).
- [23]	P.	Walmsley,	C.	Liu,	A.	D.	Palczewski,	P.	Giraldo-Gallo,	C.	G.	Olson,	I.	R.	Fisher,	and	A. Kaminski,	'Direct	spectroscopic	evidence	for	mixed-valence	Tl	in	the	low	carrier-density superconductor	Pb1-xTlxTe,'	Phys.	Rev.	B 98 ,	184506	(2018).

[24]	H.-	B.	Schüttler,	M.	Jarrell,	and	D.	J.	Scalapino,	'Superconducting	Tc	enhancement	due	to negativeU impurities:	Monte	Carlo	study	of	a	local	exciton	model,'	Phys.	Rev.	B 39 ,	6501 (1989).

[25]	A.	Taraphder	and	P.	Coleman,	'Heavy	fermion	behavior	in	a	negative	U	Anderson	model,' Phys.	Rev.	Lett. 66 ,	2814	(1991).

[26]	M.	Dzero	and	J.	Schmalian,	'Superconductivity	in	Charge	Kondo	Systems,'	Phys.	Rev. Lett. 94 ,	157003	(2005).

- [27]	As	a	point	of	principle,	it	is	possible	to	obtain	a	net	attractive	interaction	between electrons	in	a	model	problem	with	only	microscopic	repulsive	interactions	-	for	instance,	this can	be	seen	from	exact	diagonalization	on	various	small	Hubbard	clusters	as	shown,	e.g.	in Steven	R.	White,	Sudip	Chakravarty,	Martin	P.	Gelfand,	and	Steven	A.	Kivelson,	'Pair	binding	in small	Hubbard	model	molecules,'	Phys.	Rev.	B 45 ,	5062	(1991).
- [28]	For	a	recent	review,	soo	C.	Collingnon,	X.	Lin,	C.W.	Rischau,	B.	Fauque,	and	K.	Behnia, 'Metalicity	and	Superconductivity	in	Doped	Strontium	Titanate,'	Ann.	Rev.	of	Cond.	Mat.	Phys. 10 ,	25	(2019).
- [29]	A.	P.	Drozdov,	M.	I.	Eremets,	I.	A.	Troyan,	V.	Ksenofontov,	and	S.	I.	Shylin,	'Converntional superconductivity	at	203	Kelvin	at	high	pressures	in	the	sulfur	hydride	system,'	Nature,	Volume 525,	Issue	7567,	pp.	73-76	(2015).
- [30]	A.	P.	Drozdov,	P.	P.	Kong,	V.	S.	Minkov,	S.	P.	Besedin,	M.	A.	Kuzovnikov,	S.	Mozaffari,	L. Balicas,	F.F.	Balakirev,	D.E.	Graf,	V.	B.	Prakepenka,	E.	Greenberg,	D.	A.	Knyazev,	M.	Tkacz,	and M.	I.	Eremets,	'Superconductivity	at	250	K	in	lanthanum	hydride	under	high	pressures,'	Nature 569 ,	528	(2019)
- [31]	H.	Liu,	I.	I.	Naumov,	Z.	M.	Geballe,	M.	Somayazulu,	J.	S.	Tse,	and	R.	J.	Hemley,	'Dynamics and	superconductivity	in	compressed	lanthanum	superhydride,'	Phys.	Rev.	B 98 ,	100102 (2018).
- [32]	M.	Somayazulu,	M.	Ahart,	A.	K.	Mishra,	Z.	M.	Geballe,	M.	Baldini,	Y.	Meng,	V.	V.	Struzhkin, and	R.	J.	Hemley,	'Evidence	for	Superconductivity	above	260	K	in	Lanthanum	Superhydride	at Megabar	Pressures,'	Phys.	Rev.	Lett. 122 ,	027001	(2019).
- [33]	T.	H.	Geballe	and	M.	Marizio,	'Out	of	plane	effect	on	the	superconductivity	of	Sr2x BaxCuO3+ 	with	Tc	up	to	98K,'	Phys.	Rev.	B δ 82 ,	216501	(2010).
- [34]	M.	Marezio,	O.	Chmaissem,	C.	Bougerol,	M.	Karppinien,	H.	Yamaguchi,	and	T.	H.	Geballe, 'Ovedoped	cuprates	with	high	temperature	superconducting	transitions,'	APL	Materials 1 , 021103	(2013).

[35]	A.	Gauzzi,	Y.	Klein,	M.	Nisula,	M.	Karppinien,	P.K.Biswas,	H.	Saadaoui,	E.	Morenzoni,	P. Maneul,	D.	Khalyavin,	M.	Marezio,	T.	H.	Geballe,	'Bulk	superconductivity	at	84K	in	the	strongly overdoped	regime	of	cuprates,'	Phys.	Rev.	B 9 4,	180509(R)	(2016).

[36]	Q.	Q.	Liu,	H.	Yang,	X.	M.	Qin,	Y.	Yu,	L.X.	Yang,	F.	Y.	Li,	R.	C.	Yu,	C.	Q.	Jin,	and	S.	Uchida, 'Enhancement	of	the	superconducting	critical	temperature	of	Sr2CuO3+ 	to	95	K	by	ordering δ dopant	atoms,'	Phys.	Rev.	B 74 ,	100506(R)	(2006).

[37]	W.M.Li,	L.P.Cao,	J.F.	Zhao,	R.Z.Yu,	J.Zhang,	Y.Liu,	Q.Q.Liu,	G.Q.	Zhao,	X.C.Wang,	Z.Hu, Q.Z.Huang,	H.Wu,	H.J.Lin,	C.T.	Chen,	Z.Li,	Z.Z.Gong,	Z.	Guguchia,	J.	S.	Kim,	G.	Stewart, Y.W.Long,Y.J.Uemura.	S.	Uchida,	and	C.Q	Jin,	'A	new	superconductor	of	cuprates	with	unique features,'	arXiv:1808.09425.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00030v1-figure-83c455a3-b838-4c3b-a381-9ca7585076f8.jpg)
Steven A. Kivelson
Physics of Superconducting Transition Temperatures
This paper was written in honor of my friend Ted Geballe's 100th birthday. It
concerns the physics of the superconducting Tc. Tc is a dimensional quantity,
and so depends on microscopic details of a material making it a strange
quantity to consider from the perspective of simple paradigmatic models or
effective field theories. Still, there are certain qualitative lessons that can
be learned even from such approaches which may give some insight into the
physics of Tc - and where to look for it. Given my friend's relentless interest
in this subject, this seems to be a good place to discuss these issues.