Special offer. See more information about Outbyte and uninstall instructions. Please review EULA and Privacy policy.

Possibly—but the new UTe₂ result is not evidence that ordinary, zero-resistance superconductivity continues above its critical temperature. University of Illinois researchers report scanning-tunneling-microscopy signatures they interpret as pair-density-wave (PDW) order persisting after the material’s main superconducting phase disappears. The measurement probes the surface, so it does not establish that the same state exists throughout the bulk.

What the above-transition result means

In a conventional superconductor, Cooper pairs participate in a coherent superconducting phase. A pair-density wave is a proposed state in which the density of pairs varies across space. In the Illinois researchers’ interpretation, PDW-related order can remain after the main superconducting phase is gone.

The distinction matters: the reported above-transition signal is not proof of unchanged superconductivity above the critical temperature, nor a demonstration of zero electrical resistance there. Instead, the team infers paired order from the behavior of spatially varying electronic modes measured by scanning tunneling microscopy (STM).

How the researchers tested the PDW interpretation

Improved UTe₂ samples and a directional magnetic field

The team studied uranium ditelluride, or UTe₂, using higher-quality crystals grown by a molten-flux method. They used a vector-magnetic-field STM, which let them change temperature and vary both the strength and direction of the magnetic field while measuring the surface electronic spectrum. UTe₂’s anisotropy makes field direction relevant to interpreting its behavior.

Special offer. See more information about Outbyte and uninstall instructions. Please review EULA and Privacy policy.

The researchers tracked spectral modes associated with charge-density-wave (CDW) patterns as those conditions changed. The University of Illinois account reports that the modes’ temperature- and field-dependent responses—including their persistence above the superconducting transition and suppression by magnetic field—matched predictions for PDW order.

Why a charge-density wave alone may not explain the observations

A spatial CDW pattern by itself does not establish a PDW. The researchers argue that a CDW-only explanation conflicts with constraints on how the phases evolve with temperature and magnetic field, while an interpretation that includes intertwined PDW and CDW orders gives a consistent account of the observations. That is the authors’ interpretation of the data, not an uncontested conclusion that all alternative explanations have been ruled out.

What STM reveals—and what it cannot settle

STM measures electronic properties at a material’s surface. It does not directly photograph individual Cooper pairs; the PDW conclusion is inferred from measured spectral modes and how they respond to experimental conditions.

The researchers acknowledge that UTe₂’s interior could behave differently from its surface. The measurements therefore support a PDW interpretation at the surface but do not, on their own, establish that the same order extends through the bulk. Vidya Madhavan, a co-lead of the project, described the modes’ persistence above the point where superconductivity disappears as a predicted PDW signature that had not been convincingly observed before.

Special offer. See more information about Outbyte and uninstall instructions. Please review EULA and Privacy policy.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Support on Ko-Fi

Temperatures and the study to know

The Illinois account says superconductivity in UTe₂ was reported below 2 kelvins. It also labels a Fourier-transform image of surface spatial patterns as measured at 300 millikelvins. That image temperature is not the reported critical temperature.

The study is titled “Evidence of intertwined pair density and charge density wave orders in UTe₂” and was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2026 (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2602117123). The university’s account describes the experiment and the researchers’ interpretation: University of Illinois Materials Research Laboratory report.

Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.