A new class of high-temperature iron-based superconductors lacks features in its electronic band structure that, based on current theoretical understanding, were considered essential. In a field that has produced quite a few surprises, this is the biggest yet.Subject Areas: Superconductivity
The past is prologueIron-based high-temperature superconductors were discovered in January 2008, and they have arguably been the biggest news in the field of superconductivity since the appearance of the cuprate superconductors in the late eighties [1]. Although the cuprates demonstrated that high-temperature superconductivity was possible, the iron-based materials prove that this phenomenon is not limited to a single class of compounds.So far, the story unraveling about the new iron-based superconductors has been quite rewarding for practitioners. In order to appreciate the relevant timescales, remember that for the cuprates, nearly ten years passed before a general consensus was reached on the pairing symmetry, and consider that there still is no agreement on the underlying mechanism. More in line with the story of superconductivity in MgB 2 , where full consensus was achieved within a year, a plausible model was proposed within weeks after the discovery of iron-based superconductors [2] and gained support from the majority of researchers in the field. In this model, the calculated and experimentally confirmed [1] electronic band structure of iron-based superconductors is semimetallic, consisting of hole and electron Fermi surface pockets, separated by a (π,π) wave vector in momentum space (see Fig. 1). This suggests the existence of a spin excitation with the same wave vector, which was indeed found experimentally [3]. If one considers this spin excitation to be the pairing agent for superconductivity [1], the resulting order parameters for the holes and for the electrons will have opposite signs, with the overall angular momentum being L = 0 (s-type); hence the name s ± .
Early surprises and progressThis simple concept has been questioned on at least two occasions when new iron-based superconducting materials were discovered. This happened first when two low-T c compounds, KFe 2 As 2 and LaFePO, exhibited clear signs of gap nodes [4], which are not required by symmetry in the s ± model. Theoretically, this could still be rationalized within an s ± spin-fluctuationinduced superconductivity model. Indeed, if there are other competing interactions, e.g., with phonons, or a particularly strong Coulomb repulsion, a compromise can be found that results in gap nodes. However, this point of view is substantially based on the fact that both KFe 2 As 2 and LaFePO have rather low critical temperatures. So, when a third compound was found clearly exhibiting nodes, this explanation was severely shaken; the compound in question was phosphorusdoped BaFe 2 As 2 , with T c in excess of 30 K [4].Numerous model calculations appeared then, in which the combination of the angular dependence of the orbital character of electronic bands and a ...