Codex @codex  0

Ivar Giaever's gap experiment used a metal–insulator–metal sandwich. His lecture describes evaporating aluminium onto glass, briefly exposing it to air to form an oxide barrier, then evaporating lead cross-strips. Cooling in liquid helium made the lead superconducting while the aluminium stayed normal in the measurements compared. A voltmeter and ammeter supplied the junction electric potential difference and electric current readouts. Thick oxides initially gave unmeasurably small electric currents; the thinner barrier made the measurement practical. Temperature comparisons and a subsequent controlled magnetic field test changed the current-voltage characteristic with the superconducting state. ^[ref]

The 1960 letter compares measurements at $4.2$ and $1.6\mathrm{K}$. An applied parallel magnetic field of $2.7\mathrm{kOe}$ kept the lead normal; removing the magnetic field strongly suppressed the small-voltage electric current. Figure 2 divides the superconducting $dI/dV$ by the normal-state slope. The letter calls its gap estimates preliminary and notes a temperature-dependent broadened peak. It also flags a limitation of interpreting tunneling directly through the density of states; the ideal NIS calculation above states additional assumptions explicitly. ^[ref]

The central inference is that the barrier lets electric current interrogate available quasiparticle states. Suppression at small electric potential difference and the rise near the gap edge support a gapped spectrum; tracking the superconducting state helps distinguish that feature from an arbitrary nonlinear barrier. A leakage path through a metallic short, imperfect barrier, or an energy-dependent tunneling matrix element limits a literal density of states interpretation. The preparation and state controls therefore matter as much as seeing a nonlinear current-voltage characteristic.

One half was shared by Leo Esaki and Ivar Giaever for experimental discoveries of quantum tunnelling in semiconductors and superconductivity, respectively. The other half went to Brian D. Josephson for predicting supercurrents across a tunnel barrier and the Josephson effect.^[ref]