A material that carries electricity without resistance may be held back by its own structure, challenging 40 years of assumptions about copper-based superconductors.
A crystal that scientists thought had the same structure throughout is actually a patchwork of two subtly different arrangements of atoms. The boundaries between those regions are hundreds of times wider than expected, so broad that they behave almost like a structure in their own right rather than a simple dividing line.
The material belongs to a family called cuprates, copper-based superconductors that can carry electricity without resistance at unusually high temperatures for superconductivity, although those temperatures are still very cold. High-temperature superconductivity underpins research into future power grids, medical scanners, and quantum computers. Its promise also includes magnets far more powerful than those possible today.
X-rays reveal the crystal’s internal divisions
To examine the crystal’s interior, researchers in the University of Warwick’s Department of Chemistry worked with the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF) in France. They used scanning 3D X-ray diffraction, a technique that works somewhat like a medical CT scan but maps the arrangement of atoms inside a crystal. This allowed the team to build a three-dimensional picture deep within the material for the first time, revealing structural differences throughout its bulk. The study was published in Physical Review Letters.
A recent €150 million upgrade to the ESRF made the technique possible. The researchers see its reach extending beyond superconductors, allowing scientists to examine a wide range of materials in three dimensions at a previously inaccessible level of detail and investigate how their internal structures shape their behavior.
Crystal boundaries may hinder superconductivity
Within superconductivity research, the team suspects that this hidden structural complexity is common across the wider cuprate family. It may also occur in related materials being explored for superconductivity under extreme pressure.
Professor Mark Senn, of the University of Warwick’s Department of Chemistry, who led the study, said, “For 40 years, the working assumption has been that these materials are the same all the way through, and nearly all the theory is built on that picture. We’ve shown it doesn’t hold. The crystal is fundamentally patchworked and textured, with unusually wide boundary regions that likely work against superconductivity rather than just sitting alongside it.
“This might explain why some materials perform better than others and means some existing bulk measurements will need to be reinterpreted and future theoretical models built that incorporate this structural complexity.”
Reference: “Giant Domain Walls and Intrinsic Heterogeneity in 214 Cuprate Superconductors” by Evie Ladbrook, Jon P. Wright and Mark S. Senn, 17 September 2026, Physical Review Letters.
DOI: 10.1103/r62x-kt5j
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
6 Comments
I regularly see gushing story after story about superconductor advances.
but have any of these advances actually made it to real life products or are they just announcements so researchers can keep their grants?
How have these updates advanced the science work they are tied to?
Almost nothing in nature is as it’s described in theory. Engineers and Experimental Physicists know this all too well, Theoretical Scientists in academia not so much.
Thank you for your comment.
Theory is important, it is almost one of the main differences between humans and other animals on Earth. Just for nearly a century, it has been corrupted by the filth and ugliness of the American Physical Society and some called peer-reviewed publications.
某些所谓的同行评审出版物早已不知道何谓肮脏和丑陋！
The American Physical Society (APS) and its publications packaged observational data asymmetry as a physical law of parity nonconservation and widely disseminated it. Such a practice has already gone beyond ordinary academic disagreement and constitutes a serious harm to scientific norms and academic credibility.