Abstract:Under the spell of BCS-electron–phonon theory [M. Tinkham, Introduction to Superconductivity, 2nd ed. (McGraw Hill, New York, 1996)], during the last 6 years experimentalists have purportedly discovered a plethora of high temperature conventional superconductors among pressurized hydrides [Pickard et al., Ann. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 11, 57 (2020) and R. F. Service, Science 373, 954 (2021)], and theorists have been busy predicting and explaining those findings [Lv et al., Matter Radiat. Extremes 5, 068101 (2020); Flores-Livas et al., Phys. Rep. 856, 1 (2020); and Boeri et al., J. Phys. Condens. Matter. (to be published)]. The alternative theory of hole superconductivity (see https://jorge.physics.ucsd.edu/hole.html for a list of references) predicts instead that no superconductivity can exist in these materials. In this Tutorial, I will first argue that, unclouded by the prejudice of BCS’s validity, the existing experimental evidence for superconductivity in pressurized hydrides does not withstand scrutiny. Once it is established that superconductivity in pressurized hydrides is a myth and not a reality, the claim to validity of BCS-electron–phonon theory as a descriptor of superconductivity of real materials will be forever shattered, and an alternative theory will become imperative. I will explain the fundamentals of the theory of hole superconductivity, developed over the past 32 years [see https://jorge.physics.ucsd.edu/hole.html and J. E. Hirsch, Phys. Lett. A 134, 451 (1989)], and why it is compelling. Crucially, it explains the Meissner effect, that I argue the conventional theory does not. It applies to all superconducting materials and provides guidelines in the search for high temperature superconductors that are very different from those provided by BCS-electron–phonon theory. Light elements are predicted to be irrelevant to warm superconductivity because according to this theory the electron–phonon interaction plays no role in superconductivity.

How do you trust but verify hydride superconductivity?

Hydride superconductivity: here to stay

On magnetic field screening and trapping in hydrogen-rich high-temperature superconductors: unpulling the wool over readers' eyes

Are hydrides under high-pressure-high-temperature superconductors?

Broadening of In-Field Superconducting Transitions in Hydrides

Reply to "Is $MgB_2$ a superconductor? Comment on "Evidence Against Superconductivity in Flux Trapping Experiments on Hydrides Under High Pressure" "

Faulty evidence for superconductivity in ac magnetic susceptibility of sulfur hydride under pressure

On the "Author Correction: Magnetic field screening in hydrogen-rich high-temperature superconductors", Nat Commun 14, 5322 (2023)

High-temperature Superconductivity in Sulfur Hydride Evidenced by Alternating-Current Magnetic Susceptibility

Enormous variation in homogeneity and other anomalous features of room temperature superconductor samples: a Comment on Nature 615, 244 (2023)

High-temperature superconductivity in hydrides: experimental evidence and details

Unveiling future superconductors through machine learning

Revaluation of the lower critical field in superconducting H$_3$S and LaH$_{10}$ (Nature Comm. 13, 3194, 2022)

Massive electrons and unconventional room-temperature superconductivity in superhydrides

The current status and future development of high-temperature conventional superconductivity

Absence of high temperature superconductivity in hydrides under pressure

Feasible route to high-temperature ambient-pressure hydride superconductivity

A perspective on reducing stabilizing pressure for high-temperature superconductivity in hydrides

Comment on "Conventional superconductivity at 203 kelvin at high pressures in the sulfur hydride system" (A. P. Drozdov et al., Nature 525, 73 (2015))

Hole superconductivity xOr hot hydride superconductivity

Clear evidence against superconductivity in hydrides under high pressure