Analysis of "Revaluation of the lower critical field in superconducting H_3S and LaH_10 (Nature Comm. 13, 3194, 2022)" by V. S. Minkov et al

TL;DR

This paper critically examines the magnetization data and analysis methods used to claim high-temperature superconductivity in H_3S and LaH_10, revealing inconsistencies and questioning the validity of the original conclusions.

Contribution

It provides a detailed analysis of the underlying data, demonstrating discrepancies and challenging the revaluation results that support the original superconductivity claims.

Findings

Published data are incompatible with underlying measured data

Revaluation analysis does not support original conclusions

Questions validity of high-temperature superconductivity evidence

Abstract

In Nat Comm. 13,3194 (2022) [1] and an "Author Correction" to it [2], Minkov et al. presented magnetization data versus applied magnetic field for H_3S and LaH_10 under pressure, argued that the data provide evidence that these materials are superconducting at high temperatures, and extracted from the reported data the behavior of lower critical fields versus temperature. In several papers [3,4,5,6] analyzing Refs. [1,2] it was shown that the published magnetization data could not have been obtained from the reported measured data through the processes described in Refs. [1,2]. Recently, Minkov et al performed a revaluation of their experimental results [7] and argued that the results derived from their new analysis are consistent with the results reported earlier [1]. In addition, they made public the underlying data [8] from which the data published in Ref. [1] were derived. In this paper we analyze those underlying data and conclude that (a) the data published in Ref. [1] are incompatible with the underlying measured data, and (b) the revaluation analysis presented in Ref. [7] does not support the conclusions drawn by the authors in Ref. [7] nor Ref. [1].