Theory of Superfluidity

Liu, Jerry Z. Ph.D.

Stanford University, California, USA

Abstract

The mystery of superfluidity has been revealed in our study of helium atomic structure.
Its unique structure makes it possible to eliminate intermolecular attraction forces at low
temperatures, resulting in zero viscosity -- a unique property of superfluidity. Further
analysis of helium-specific heat suggests that helium-4 transitions to superfluids within a
range of temperatures from around 2.55oK to 2.17oK, rather than at a single temperature
of the 𝝀-point. These findings inspire us to hypothesize that a superfluid is a collection of
individual particles without attraction between them. This theory offers an explanation for
all the phenomena observed in superfluids and also predicts the existence of a novel
type of intermolecular bonding, which is responsible for the formation of solid helium at
high pressures.

Introduction

The first superfluid was discovered in helium-4 in 1937 (1). In helium-4 superfluid experiments,
liquid helium is often cooled via evaporation. To accelerate the cooling process, helium vapors
are pumped out from their container. The evaporation takes place not only on the surface but
also within the liquid. Helium bubbles rise like boiling water. The boiling stops suddenly when
the temperature reaches 2.17oK, known as the 𝝀-point (2), which is usually assumed to be the
transition temperature of helium-4 from liquid to superfluid. From this point, many superfluid
phenomena are observable. A thin film of helium can defy gravity by creeping over the wall of its
container (3). This and other abnormal phenomena will soon be explained.

Superfluidity is often coincidental with Bose-Einstein condensation. Hence, the formation of a

helium-4 superfluid is theorized to be related to the formation of a Bose-Einstein condensate.
However, they are not related. Not all Bose-Einstein condensates can be regarded as
superfluids, nor all superfluids are Bose-Einstein condensates (4). A further challenge to this
theory arose later when superfluids were obtained in helium-3 (5). Helium-3 atoms are not
bosons but fermions and cannot form Bose-Einstein condensates. An adjustment had to be
made to the theory, suggesting the bosons are formed by pairing helium-3 (6). There is also a
suggestion that both superfluidity and superconductivity are the results of the same mechanism.
Cooper pairs of electrons bound together at low temperatures are used to explain
superconductivity in Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BSC) theory (7). However, this theory is also
facing challenges as it cannot account for the high-temperature superconductors discovered
recently. In the light of the additional evidence, a new hypothesis was proposed to explain both
superconductivity and regular conductivity in a unified theory (8), which does not relate
superconductivity to superfluidity. Nevertheless, none of the existing theories can
comprehensively explain all the phenomena observed in superfluids.

Clues are revealed in the atomic structure of helium which determines its intermolecular forces.
Additional information about helium-4 specific heat also provides more insight into superfluid
transitions. These findings cast a new light on superfluidity which inspired the author to propose
a new theory of superfluidity. With this theory, all the abnormal phenomena of superfluids can be
explained. The theory also suggests that solid helium could never be obtained without
pressurizing the helium and predicts the existence of a novel type of bonding named
compression bonding, which is responsible for the formation of solid helium at high pressures.

Theory of Superfluidity

Superfluidity is traditionally characterized as a fluid with zero viscosity. Indeed, when stirred,
superfluids will continue to flow indefinitely. The viscosity of a fluid is defined as its resistance to
deformation at a given rate. It is usually conceptualized as quantifying the internal frictional force
that arises between adjacent layers of fluid that are in relative motion. However, this analogy is
misleading: it implies that viscosity is a result of molecules colliding with each other. It is very
unlikely that molecules could collide with each other because the repulsion between molecules
increases rapidly as the distance between them decreases. Thus, viscosity is not caused by
friction but by the attraction between molecules. Intermolecular attractions make fluids cohesive
and resist flow.

At a distance, an individual molecule appears electrically neutral. However, an uneven

distribution of electrons within a molecule, especially for molecules composed of different
elements, causes variations in its electrical field, creating local positive and negative regions. At
short distances, these field regions begin to exert force on neighboring molecules, giving rise to
intermolecular forces. The forces are at first attractive but become repulsive within Van der
Waals’ distance (9). Depending on their origin, attractive intermolecular forces are categorized
into various types (10). Different types of forces are characterized by various properties and
account for the viscosity of different fluids. For instance, hydrogen bonding determines the
viscosity of water and the formation of ice. Among all the types, the London dispersion force is
particularly important to the understanding of helium superfluids. It is a more universal but
relatively weak force, which only becomes significant where other forces are not present.

The attraction between molecules of the same type is known as cohesion. Surface tension is
cohesion on a liquid-air interface. Adhesion is the attraction between fluid molecules and their
boundary, such as a container. Capillarity is a result of adhesion. Viscosity is primarily due to
cohesion because molecules in a fluid are dragged by their neighbors in a relative motion. All
these forces originate from intermolecular attractions, and each of these forces plays a different
role in various superfluid phenomena.

With the above understanding and further studies of the intermolecular force and specific heat
of helium, we postulate that a liquid is composed of cohesive particles and therefore viscous,
whereas a superfluid is not liquid but a collection of individual particles (molecules or even
subatomic particles) isolated from each other with no attractions between them. Fluid properties,
such as viscosity, cohesivity, and surface tension, are different manifestations of intermolecular
attractions. When the attractions disappear, so do these properties, which in turn lead to
superfluid phenomena. Therefore, no attraction between the particles is the distinguishing
characteristic of superfluids. Such a state is very difficult to achieve because intermolecular
attraction forces are almost inevitable. This explains why superfluids are so rare. Nonetheless,
this particular state has been discovered in helium where intermolecular attractions disappear
along with diminishing London dispersions at low temperatures.

Vanishing of Viscosity

In liquid helium, the London dispersion force dominates the interactions between the molecules
and results in the viscosity of the liquid. The electron cloud of molecules undergoes fluctuations
over time. These fluctuations create instantaneous disturbances in the electrical field that
influence the spatial distribution of electrons orbiting nearby molecules. This induction
propagates from one molecule to the next. Individual molecules are effectively polarized and
become dipoles. The attraction arising between the positive end of one molecule and the
negative end of another is known as the London dispersion force, named after physicist Fritz
London (11). Since the two electrons in a helium molecule fully occupy the outermost orbital, the
even distribution of its electron cloud makes helium less susceptible to all intermolecular
attractions except for the London dispersion force. Fig. 1A shows the attraction between two
helium molecules resulting from London dispersions.

Fig. 1. Disappearance of intermolecular attractions and viscosity in superfluids.

Because of the even distribution of electrons in a helium atom, there are no other
interactions between the molecules but London dispersions. Attractions between the
molecules arising from the dispersions make liquid helium viscous. The dispersions
weaken at low temperatures where the electrons retreat to lower orbitals under tight
attractions from their nuclei. At 2.17oK, the dispersions become negligible, leading to the
disappearance of intermolecular attractions and viscosity.
At high temperatures, the excited electrons in helium molecules occupy high-energy orbitals far
from and less influenced by their nuclei. These electrons are more susceptible to perturbations,
resulting in London dispersions. Despite its weakness, the attraction between dispersed
molecules is sufficient to make the molecules cohesive and liquid helium viscous. At low
temperatures, helium electrons retreat to lower orbitals and are tightly attracted by their nuclei.
Thus, the London dispersions are weakened. When the temperature is low enough, the
dispersions become so weak that the interactions between molecules may be negligible. As a
result, the attractions between molecules disappear as illustrated in Fig. 1B. Without the
attractions, the molecules in helium fluids can move freely with respect to each other, resulting
in fluids with zero viscosity -- a unique property of superfluidity.

He-3 vs. He-4 Superfluid

In theory, a superfluid could be obtained from any fluid after eliminating attractions between the
molecules. In reality, it is almost impossible to achieve such a state. The attractions between
helium molecules resulting from London dispersions are the weakest force of all the
intermolecular attraction forces. Even so, the attractions between helium-4 molecules are not
eliminated until at a very low temperature, 2.17oK, while helium-3 superfluid transitions at a
much lower temperature, 0.0025oK (12). Despite being the same element, why is there a
1,000-fold difference in the transition temperatures?

Fig. 2. Impact of helium nuclear structure on superfluid transition temperature.

The superfluid transition temperatures are 2.17oK for helium-4 and 0.0025oK for
helium-3. The difference is caused by the nuclear structures of the two helium isotopes.
Two protons in a helium-4 atom are tightly glued by two neutrons in a compact layout.
With a single neutron holding two protons against their repulsion in a helium-3 atom, the
protons spread apart to the opposite sides of the neutron. This layout elongates the
electron cloud of helium-3 more than helium-4. The London dispersion forces in helium-3
are stronger and disappear at a much lower temperature.
The reason lies in the different nuclear structures between the two helium isotopes, which affect
the intensity of their London dispersions. Two neutrons in a helium-4 atom hold two protons
together in a compact layout as shown in Fig. 2A. With a single neutron holding two protons in a
helium-3 atom, the protons tend to spread apart on their repulsion, forming a linear arrangement
on the opposite sides of the neutron, as illustrated in Fig. 2B. This layout makes helium-3 more
susceptible to London dispersions. At the same temperature, the electron clouds in helium-3
elongate more than in helium-4. This makes the London dispersion forces between helium-3
molecules stronger than between helium-4 molecules. Therefore, the attraction between
helium-3 molecules may not disappear until a much lower temperature.

Transition Starting Point

Every phase transition has a starting and an ending point, which may or may not be at the same
temperature. In the case of a water-ice transition, for instance, it is normally at the same
temperature. The helium-4 superfluid transition is also assumed to be at the same temperature
called the 𝝀-point. The following analyses will prove that this assumption is wrong.

In experiments, the end of a helium superfluid transition is visually signaled by the abrupt
cessation of boiling. The boiling bubbles indicate the existence of intermolecular attractions
because the attractions are required to produce the surface tension for air chambers to enclose
the helium vapors in the formation of the bubbles. After the transition, London dispersions no
longer occur. Without London dispersion forces, the helium has no surface tension to form
bubbles.

In liquid helium, heat is transported through convection and bubbling like in other liquids. After
the disappearance of the bubbles, the heat transfer is continued through convection, but in a
different mode: instead of regular viscous circulation, the convection becomes a direct flow of
individual molecules (13). The switch of the heat transfer modality also indicates the
disappearance of intermolecular attractions and viscosity.

The end of the transition is also indicated by a spike in specific heat. Fig. 3 shows the specific
heat capacity of liquid helium-4 at saturated vapor pressure as a function of the temperature
(14). The blue curve of the specific heat has a jump discontinuity at 2.17oK, shaped like the
Greek letter lambda and therefore named the 𝝀-point.
 Fig. 3. Identifying the beginning of helium-4 superfluid transitions. The blue
𝝀-shaped curve shows the specific heat vs temperature of helium-4 at saturated vapor
pressure. Superfluid phenomena are observable at temperatures below 2.17oK, the
𝝀-point. The significant difference between the two sides near the 𝝀-point indicates
superfluids have higher specific heat than liquid helium. Without any superfluid in the
system to the right of the 𝝀-point, the curve should follow a similar downward trend from
A to B and then D. However, the actual specific heat curves upwards from B to C. The
higher specific heat above the red trendline may be caused by newly converted
superfluid molecules. The superfluid transition could begin at point B with a temperature
around 2.55oK where London dispersions are so weak that the associated liquid
molecules start to break apart into individual superfluid molecules.

Thus, the end of helium-4 superfluid transition at the 𝝀-point is well evidenced by the
disappearance of vapor bubbles, the switch of convection modality, and the spike in specific
heat. Do the transitions also start at the same temperature? This is a question to be addressed
next.

A discontinuity in specific heat-temperature curves at phase transitions is not unique to helium.

Water, for instance, also shows a discontinuity at the water-ice transition. During the transition,
both water and ice coexist. Even though the temperature may stay the same, the internal
heat/enthalpy of the system may vary in a certain range. Increasing the internal heat only
causes more ice to melt. The heat energy is mostly consumed to break the hydrogen bonds
between the molecules in ice, and vice versa. Likewise, both liquid helium and superfluid should
also coexist during a superfluid transition. As heat is removed from the liquid, the electrons in
the molecules retreat to lower orbitals, weakening the London dispersions. At some point, the
London dispersions will be so weak that the molecules associated with the London dispersion
forces are broken apart into individual superfluid molecules.

The total energy of a system can be defined as the sum of potential energy and kinetic energy.
The potential energy of the system is the sum of the potential energy of individual molecules
and the potential energy between molecules. The potential energy of each molecule is
determined by the height of its electron cloud. The higher the cloud, the more potential energy.
As electrons retreat to lower orbitals, the potential energy radiates in the form of photons
(electromagnetic wares or heat) measured as temperature. Specific heat is the amount of
energy influx required to increase the temperature per unit mass. The energy is primarily
consumed to lift electrons to higher orbitals to increase potential energy, plus some kinetic
energy as a side effect of the electron orbital transition (15). This understanding is critical to
interpreting helium-4-specific heat curves.

If the superfluid transition were at the same temperature as the 𝝀-point, there would not be any
superfluid molecules in the system to the right of the 𝝀-point. With the homogenous liquid helium
right of the 𝝀-point, the specific heat should follow a similar downward curvature, trending from A
to B and D, as illustrated by the red curve in Fig. 3. However, the actual curve does not follow
the downward trend. Instead, it curves upwards from B to C. The higher specific heat above the
trendline B-D suggests that there are some changes in the material in the system at least from
point B. The new material must have a higher specific heat than liquid helium.

The significant difference between the two sides near the 𝝀-point indicates that superfluids have
a higher specific heat than liquid helium. The physics behind this observation is not fully
understood. One explanation is that more energy is required to resist nuclear attractions in the
effort to lift the lower orbiting electrons in superfluid molecules. Another suggestion is that it
takes less energy to lift electrons that are in dispersed orbitals of molecules in liquid helium. The
difference may be a result of both mechanisms.

Nevertheless, these observations are sufficient for the author to postulate that superfluid
molecules appear earlier than the 𝝀-point and at least from point B, or the b-point for the
beginning of transitions. The observed higher specific heat above the red trendline is likely the
result of newly converted superfluid molecules from liquid helium as a result of the weakened
London dispersions.

As more heat is removed from the system, the number of superfluid molecules increases toward
the 𝝀-point along with the further reduction of London dispersions. As superfluid molecules
accumulate, the specific heat should increase further. The increasing upward curvature of the
specific heat indicates the accelerating speed of superfluid conversion approaching the 𝝀-point.
If heat is removed from the system at a constant rate, the time taken to reduce the temperature
should lengthen as the temperature approaches the 𝝀-point, which is confirmed in experiments.

With both the starting and ending transition point identified, the specific heat of helium-4 can be
divided into three temperature sections: the liquid section with temperatures greater than the
b-point where the specific heat is determined by liquid helium; the superfluid section with
temperatures less than the 𝝀-point where the specific heat is determined by superfluid; and the
transition section with temperatures between the b-point and the 𝝀-point where both superfluid
and liquid helium coexist, and the specific heat is related to the ratio of the superfluid to liquid
helium in the system. The transition temperature ranges from around 2.55oK to 2.17oK. This
might be the range where the reduced viscosity is measured, which accounts for the two-fluid
model proposed in the literature.
 Defying Gravity

One of the interesting observations in helium superfluids is that helium can creep over the rim of
its container against gravity as illustrated in Fig. 4. To understand the physics behind this
phenomenon, let’s analyze the forces exerted on an individual molecule. Assume a helium
molecule near the wall inside the container at location A. It is affected by three forces: upward
adhesion to nearby molecules of the container (W), downward gravity of the molecule weight,
minus the buoyancy if it is in the fluid, (G), and cohesion with surrounding helium molecules
inside the container (M). In liquid helium, cohesion M is a result of London dispersions. In
superfluids, the London dispersions are negligible, and the cohesion will reduce to zero (M=0).

Fig. 4. Creeping effect of superfluids. This is a phenomenon in which superfluids defy

gravity by creeping over the container wall. A helium molecule at location A inside the
container is pulled upwards by adhesion to the container (W). It is also dragged
downwards by gravity (G) and cohesion with neighboring helium molecules (M). In
superfluids, the cohesion force becomes zero because the London dispersions are
negligible (M=0). Without cohesion, the superfluid molecules are pulled up along the
container wall because W is a result of electromagnetic force and is much stronger than
gravity.

Even though there is no cohesion between superfluid molecules, adhesion may still exist
between the superfluid and its container. In the case of a container made of glass, or silicon
dioxide SiO2, the oxygen and silicon atoms are held together by covalent bonds. The resulting
uneven distribution of electrons in silicon dioxide produces local variations in its electrical field.
The positive regions of the field create adhesion to superfluid molecules. W is the adhesion due
to this type of interaction.

The electromagnetic force is vastly stronger than gravity. Without cohesion in the superfluid, the
net force pulls the molecule up along the container wall. In this manner, a thin film of the
superfluid molecules covers the entire surface of the container. Simply, the dominant adhesive
force from the container wall causes the superfluid molecules like a pile of marbles to flat along
the wall. However, the intermolecular force is only effective at a short distance. When the helium
film becomes too thick, gravity pulls the excess superfluid down along the container wall and
drips off the bottom of the container as illustrated in Fig. 4.

The creeping effect is not unique to superfluids. This phenomenon can still occur if M is very
small. As long as the net force of W, G and M is upward, liquid molecules will be pulled up.
Similar creeping phenomena are observed in alcohol and petroleum. This is also the same
reason the water level curves up along the edge of its container. Adhesion pulls the water
molecules upwards. However, the molecules may not climb up too high because they are also
dragged downwards by cohesion with surrounding water molecules. When a thin tube is dipped
into water, the water inside the tube may be pulled up by adhesion significantly above the water
level, known as capillarity. This is because the number of neighboring water molecules is limited
in the horizontal direction by the diameter of the tube, resulting in less downward cohesion.
Thus, superfluid creeping and capillary effects originate from the same mechanism.

Superleak Phenomenon

A superleak is a phenomenon in which superfluids can flow through nanoporous membranes

but regular fluids cannot. The diameter of nanoporous membrane pores is about 0.7nm, which
is roughly three times the diameter of liquid helium molecules. Due to adhesion between
superfluid molecules and membranes, a layer of superfluid molecules sticks on the entire
surface of the membranes, reducing the size of the pores. The effective diameter of the pores is
only around the size of liquid molecules. Since the electrons of superfluid molecules occupy
lower orbitals, the size of superfluid molecules is smaller than liquid molecules as illustrated in
Fig. 1. Hence, individual molecules of superfluids can flow through the membranes freely.

Because of cohesion between the molecules in liquid helium, additional helium molecules attach
to the initial layer on the surface of the membrane. This increases the thickness of the helium
layer and further reduces the size of the pores, and the pores are effectively filled and blocked
by these molecules. Thus, liquid helium cannot flow through nanoporous membranes.

It has also been observed that the flow speed of superleaks decreases as the temperature
increases. The flow rate of fluids is affected by viscosity and adhesivity. In relative motions, the
molecules are dragged by their neighbors, creating a resistance to the flow. The lower flow rate
at high temperatures is due to the presence of liquid helium in the superfluids. Decreasing the
temperature reduces the proportion of sticky, liquid molecules, minimizing the resistance and
leading to a faster flow rate. Increasing the temperature decreases and eventually stops the
flow. As discussed earlier, helium-4 superfluid transition ranges from 2.55oK to 2.17oK during
which both liquid helium and superfluid coexist. The decreased flow rate may be observed
within this range.

Fountain Effect
Another interesting phenomenon of superfluids is the fountain effect. A tube with a nanoporous
membrane plug at one end is suspended in a bath of helium superfluid. The superfluid can flow
into the tube through the membrane. When heated, the helium flows up through the tube and
squirts like a fountain as shown in Fig. 5. What’s the mechanism driving this fountain?

Fig. 5. Fountain effect of superfluids. A superleak is created with a nanoporous

membrane at the bottom of a tube. A superfluid molecule is represented by a blue dot
near the top of a pore in the membrane. The heat from above turns it into a liquid
molecule and is subject to cohesion with the liquid above. Without a downward attraction
from the superfluid below, cohesion pulls the blue molecule out of the pore like a pump.
As more molecules are pumped into the tube, a hydraulic head builds up inside the tube
and works against the pumping effect. As long as the tube is not too tall, the upward
cohesion overpowers the downward hydraulic pressure enough to jet the liquid out the
tube at the top, creating the fountain effect.

The superfluid is free to flow in the tube through the membrane, and the fluid level will be
balanced in and out of the tube. When heated inside the tube, the superfluid turns into liquid
helium. London dispersions create cohesion between the molecules, and they can no longer
flow through the membrane. The membrane works like a one-direction check valve that only
allows the superfluid to flow into the tube. However, by itself, this effect is insufficient to drive the
fountain.

To understand the other half of the fountain effect, let’s assume a superfluid molecule in a pore
near the top of the membrane as indicated by the blue dot in Fig. 5. When the superfluid inside
of the tube is heated and turned into liquid helium, cohesion is introduced between the
molecules. Meanwhile, the blue superfluid molecule also absorbs heat from above. It quickly
transitions into a liquid molecule and experiences cohesion with the heated molecules above.
Without a downward cohesion from the superfluid below, the upward cohesion pulls the blue
molecule out of the pore. The next superfluid molecule under the blue one fills the vacancy
immediately, and the process repeats. As more helium enters the tube, a hydraulic head is built
up inside the tube, creating a downward force on the blue molecule and resisting the upward
cohesion. However, the upward cohesion is electromagnetic in origin and stronger than the
downward hydraulic force. As long as the tube is not too tall, the hydraulic force cannot prevent
helium from being jetted out of the tube at the top, creating the fountain effect.

Second Sound

Sound is a vibration that is propagated as an acoustic wave through a transmission medium

such as gas, liquid, or solid. To form an acoustic wave, there must be cohesion between the
molecules in an elastic medium. Since there is no cohesion between molecules in a superfluid,
no acoustic wave can be formed in a superfluid. So, a vibration in a superfluid should not
propagate in the form of an acoustic wave, but as a pulse or in a resonant cavity through direct
molecule flow.

In fluids, heat is normally transferred through convection of fluid motion or conduction in a

diffusion manner due to the existence of cohesion between molecules. Without cohesion
between molecules in a superfluid, heat is transferred through convection of the direct flow of
individual molecules. It is known as the second sound because the wave motion of entropy and
temperature is similar to the propagation of pressure waves in air. The effective conduction
velocity is relatively high, up to 20 cm/s.

Predictions

The proposed theory has thus far been useful for understanding and explaining the existing
observations of superfluid phenomena. However, the fundamental point of a theory is to provide
novel predictions, which not only help us plan for the future but also allow us to disprove flawed
theories. Next, let’s discuss some more abnormal phenomena predicted by this theory.

First, it would be interesting to study the relationship between the viscosity of helium and
temperature. Viscosity in most liquids normally increases with the decreasing temperature.
However, the proposed theory predicts otherwise for helium. The viscosity-temperature curve for
helium-4 should be different in the three sections around the 𝝀-point. As the temperature
decreases, the viscosity should increase like other liquids in the liquid section to the maximum
at the b-point, then decrease in the transition section to zero at the 𝝀-point, and remain zero in
the superfluid section.

Second, in the absence of gravity, water molecules will assemble to form droplets due to
cohesion. However, this behavior should not be expected for superfluids. When superfluids are
spilled in a gravity-free environment, there will not be any droplet formation. Instead, individual
molecules will disperse into space. It might seem as if the superfluid had evaporated, but no
phase change has occurred. It only appears as such due to the lack of cohesion between
superfluid molecules to hold them together.

Another prediction about helium superfluids is that the helium will never solidify at regular
pressures, even at 0oK. Since there are no attractions between molecules in superfluids, the
molecules cannot stick together to form solids regardless of the temperature. Superfluids
appear liquid simply because the molecules are pulled down by gravity and collected at the
bottom of their container. This is distinctly different from molecules of liquid helium which are
held together by cohesion.

Nevertheless, at high pressures (>2.5MPa) and low temperatures (1-1.5oK), solid helium-4 has
been obtained (16, 17). At regular pressures, liquid helium would have turned into a superfluid
at those temperatures. In general, interparticle attractions are required for any viscous fluid.
Without the attractions, the fluid is superfluid. Interparticle attractions are also necessary for any
solid. Without the attractions, there is no solid but “fine powder” of molecules. To be able to
resist shear stresses, the molecules in solids must be held together by some form of bonding
between them. Since there is no cohesion between superfluid molecules, simply packing the
molecules together would not create solids that can resist shear stresses. So, how can higher
pressure cause helium to form solids?

Our answer to the last question is a prediction of a novel type of bonding holding the molecules
together in solid helium. At high pressures, helium molecules are squeezed together. In
response to the repulsions of the electrical fields from surrounding molecules, the electron cloud
of each molecule shrinks along the axis of the two protons. The uneven distribution of electron
density in different directions creates local variations in the electrical field: positive on the axis of
the protons and negative on the plane perpendicular to that axis. An attraction arises from the
fields between molecules. Let’s call it compression bonding. Driven by this force, the molecules
reorient themselves to minimize their potential energy. Eventually, the system will stabilize at a
low potential layout between molecules as shown in Fig. 6B.

Fig. 6. Formation of compression bonding. Under regular pressures, superfluids can

be obtained from liquid helium by reducing the temperature. Solid helium cannot be
produced by further decreasing the temperature because there are no attractions to hold
the molecules together. Under high pressures, the electron cloud of each molecule
shrinks along the axis of the two protons. The uneven distribution of the electron density
in different directions creates local variations in its electrical field. An attraction arises
 from the fields between the molecules: namely compression bonding. Solid helium is
formed by molecules held together by this new type of bonding.

Fig. 6B shows the smallest chain of two molecules held together by this bond. Various larger
chains may be extended from this basic block to all directions in 3D space, creating amorphous
structures with low densities. As pressure increases, the chains may be squashed into a more
compact layout where the unit structure is formed by four molecules bonded together by
compression bonding in a rotationally symmetric structure. Helium crystals with higher densities
may be obtained in such a compact structure.

Solid helium has also been obtained at room temperatures, but under much higher pressures,
greater than 11.5GPa (18). Under such high pressures, helium molecules are compressed so
tightly that London dispersions are disrupted and replaced by compression bonds. There may
be a period during the transition when the net force between molecules switches from attractive
to repulsive before the formation of compression bonds. Superfluids could appear as the net
force crosses zero. However, such superfluids are likely unstable. A minor perturbation in
pressure or temperature may trigger changes in phase, which somewhat resembles supercritical
fluids.

Compression bonding might also exist in solids of other elements. Under pressures of around
400GPa, hydrogen becomes metallic (19, 20). The regular covalent bonds between hydrogen
atoms may be disrupted and replaced by the compression bonds at such high pressures,
converting the hydrogen from diatomic to metallic.

Lastly, this theory also predicts the existence of superfluids inside neutron stars. The force
between neutrons is repulsive. Without any attraction between the particles, superfluids should
be the most common form of matter in neutron stars.

Many other predictions could be made with this theory based on the principle that superfluids
are collections of particles without attractions between them. For the sake of brevity, we will not
list them all here but leave it for curious readers to fill in the rest of the list.

Conclusions

Normal fluid is composed of cohesive particles, whereas a superfluid is a collection of individual

particles without cohesion. The unique properties of superfluids are caused by the absence of
interparticle attractions. The attraction between helium molecules can be eliminated primarily
due to its unique atomic structure: the combination of small atomic size and even distribution of
electrons. Intermolecular attractions are always present between molecules with uneven
electron distribution. Molecules with an even distribution of electrons are rare, which explains
superfluids are so scarce. The proposed theory advanced our knowledge at the microscopic
level, which helped us better understand the information revealed in helium-specific heat and
allowed us to identify the starting point of its superfluid transition. Now, it is clear that helium-4
transitions not at a single temperature but in a range from around 2.55oK to 2.17oK; the 𝝀-point
 just marks the end of the transition. The two-fluid phenomenon and the superleak speed
variation may be observed in the transition phase where both superfluid and liquid helium
coexist. The theory also predicts superfluids never solidify at regular pressures, even at 0oK.
Finally, it further suggests the existence of compression bonding that is responsible for holding
molecules together in solid helium. Even though this theory agrees with all the observations in
superfluids, its validity may be further tested by its predictions.

Acknowledgment

Thanks to Ling Zhang for the extensive support in this research, and Thomas Zhou and
Albert Liu for the feedback and proofreading of the early drafts.

Revision History

● 05/08/2021: Initial version submitted to Journal of Science.

● 06/01/2021: Initial post of this page with minor revisions and formatting changes.
● 07/10/2022: Add a section for the Second Sound with minor revisions.

References

1. P. Kapitza, Viscosity of liquid helium below the λ-point. Nature. 141 (3558), 74 (1938).
Bibcode:1938Natur.141...74K. doi:10.1038/141074a0. S2CID 3997900.
2. J. F. Allen, A. D. Misener, Flow of liquid helium II. Nature. 142 (3597), 643 (1938).
Bibcode:1938Natur.142..643A. doi:10.1038/142643a0. S2CID 4135906.
3. J. R. Minkel, Strange but true: Superfluid helium can climb walls. Scientific American.
(2017).
4. D. D. Osheroff, D. M. Richardson, D. M. Lee, Evidence for a new phase of solid He-3.
Physical Review Letters. 28 (885) (1972).
5. N. D. Mermin, D. M. Lee, Superfluid helium-3. Scientific American. 235 (6), 56-71 (1976).
6. S. M. Carlos, When fermions become bosons: Pairing in ultracold gases. Physics Today. 61
(10), 45 (2008).
7. J. Bardeen, et al, Theory of superconductivity. Physical Review. 108, 1175 (1957).
doi:10.1103/physrev.108.1175.
8. J. Z. Liu, Unified theory of superconductors and conductors. Stanford University. (2019).
(PDF). [Link]
9. A. Bondi, Van der Waals volumes and radii. Journal of Physical Chemistry. 68 (3), 441–451
(1964). doi:10.1021/j100785a001.
10. F. Londo, The general theory of molecular forces. Transactions of the Faraday Society, 33,
8–26 (1937). doi:10.1039/tf937330008b.
11. F. L. Leite, C. C. Bueno, A. L. Da Róz, E. C. Ziemath, O. N. Oliveira, Theoretical models for
surface forces and adhesion and their measurement using atomic force microscopy.
 International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 13 (12), 12773–856 (2012).
doi:10.3390/ijms131012773. PMC 3497299. PMID 23202925.
12. D. Vollhardt, P. W’olfle, The superfluid phases of helium-3. Taylor and Francis, Longdon.
(1990).
13. T. Ohba, Limited quantum helium transportation through nano-channels by quantum
fluctuation. Scientific Reports. 6, 28992 (2016). Bibcode:2016NatSR...628992O.
doi:10.1038/srep28992. PMC 4929499. PMID 27363671.
14. R. J. Donnelly, C. F. Barenghi, The observed properties of liquid helium at the saturated
vapor pressure. Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data. 27 (6), 1217–1274
(1998). Bibcode:1998JPCRD..27.1217D. doi:10.1063/1.556028.
15. J. Z. Liu, The Cause of Brownian motion. Stanford University. (2019). (PDF).
[Link]
16. W. H. Keesom, Solidification of helium. Nature, 118, 81 (1926).
17. W. H. Keesom, Solid helium. Communications from the Physical Laboratory at the University
of Leiden, 17 (184) (1926).
18. J. P. Pinceaux, J. P. Maury, J. M. Besson, Solidification of helium, at room temperature
under high pressure. Journal de Physique Lettres. 40 (13), 307–308 (1979).
doi:10.1051/jphyslet:019790040013030700.
19. N. W. Ashcroft, The hydrogen liquids. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter. 12 (8A),
A129–A137 (2000). Bibcode:2000JPCM...12..129A. doi:10.1088/0953-8984/12/8A/314
20. S. A. Bonev, et al, A quantum fluid of metallic hydrogen suggested by first-principles
calculations. Nature. 431 (7009), 669–672 (2004). arXiv:cond-mat/0410425.
Bibcode:2004Natur.431..669B