In December 1947, John Bardeen and Walter Houser Brattain obtained transistor action at Bell Telephone Laboratories. William Shockley proposed the distinct bipolar junction transistor within the following month.[ref]
Their 1948 paper describes ground, etched germanium, initially also anodized and rinsed. Surface contacts separated by – share a broad base contact. Positive emitter biasing injects electron holes; negative collector biasing draws them toward the collector. An input signal changes emitter electric current, and a collector electrical load converts the resulting change into voltage.[ref]
Figure 1. . Original functional schematic; geometry and current arrows are explanatory, not measured data.[ref] Source. Details.
Early electric field control experiments gave unexpectedly weak responses. John Bardeen proposed that surface states screened the interior. Surface charge could create a barrier and a hole-rich semiconductor inversion layer. Replacing an electrolyte control with a gold contact reversed the response sign, suggesting electron hole carrier injection. Closely spaced contacts made from a gold-coated wedge split with a razor then enabled power gain. The relative importance of surface and bulk transport depended on preparation and collector forming.[ref]
The 1948 authors found that collector-current increments could exceed emitter-current increments; their current gain depended on biasing.[ref] A terminal-current ratio alone cannot identify the microscopic path. Surface states, the local barrier, carrier injection and contact preparation prevent a single ideal modern bipolar junction transistor model from explaining every point-contact transistor.
For the conventional electric current directions drawn in the figure, enters the emitter, leaves the collector and signed enters the base. Kirchhoff's current law requires
Thus a local current gain requires an accompanying base-current change. The collector increment is not simply a count of injected electron holes, and it does not violate electric charge conservation.
For an experiment following the functional arrangement, first establish each contact's separate current-voltage characteristic relative to the base. Then hold collector biasing fixed, vary a small emitter signal, and compare the collector electrical load voltage with the input. A decisive power gain check measures both input electric current and voltage and the output power in a known electrical load; voltage enlargement alone is insufficient. These are proposed measurement controls, not additional claims about the 1947 laboratory record.
Repeating a setting tests drift; reversing or removing emitter biasing tests whether the response requires carrier injection. Contact motion, surface contamination, temperature, direct electrical coupling and noise can all affect the inference. A small-signal model describes measured local terminal response without deciding every microscopic mechanism.
BCS theory Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-18
BCS theory describes a superconducting instability caused by attractive interactions between opposite-momentum fermions near a Fermi surface.
John Bardeen, Leon Neil Cooper and John Robert Schrieffer developed BCS theory in 1957, using attraction mediated by phonons.[ref]
Weak-coupling Cooper pairs overlap. The Cooper instability reorganizes an unpaired Fermi surface; it is not Bose-Einstein condensation of compact, pre-existing molecules. The original paper explicitly distinguishes these pictures.[ref]
Two complementary clues made the microscopic problem concrete. The superconducting isotope effect connected the transition to phonons.[ref]
A 1957 transmission experiment used thin lead and tin films as samples in far-infrared and millimeter-microwave measurements. The measured transmission was converted to complex electrical conductivity, normalized to the normal-state value. Comparing film thickness, resistance, annealing and the two metals tested the response's reproducibility. Weak low-photon-energy absorption followed by an onset supported a superconducting energy gap; its extraction required a thin-film electrodynamic model.[ref]
The later Giaever superconducting tunnelling experiment provided another way to resolve the superconducting energy gap through quantum tunnelling.[ref] The derivations below explain what the model predicts, including the distinction between a single quasiparticle's minimum energy and the threshold for making two of them.