[glenstein]

>I don't think the actual proposed superconductivity mechanism is the relevant part of this paper. It is much easier to prove that this is superconducting than to prove why.

As another commenter has pointed out, the proposal of a new mechanism seems to be extraordinary and novel, and could lead to an explosion of new research, so it does indeed seem to be "relevant" on its merits.

I also don't see this as a case of the "why" being left unexplained. In the history of superconducting it has indeed been the case that new cocktails have led to superconductivity without the underlying why being understood. But the commenter that you're responding to quotes part of the paper that shows an awfully specific mechanism.

I understand the sense in which there can be a "why" that remains to be explained in certain circumstances, even when you have a mechanism. Who do monarch butterflies have the black and orange pattern on their wings? There's a cause and effect answer but there's also a "why" answer. But with superconductivity, the mechanism is the why, unless I'm misunderstanding here. If other forms of superconductivity rely on other mechanisms, there isn't going to be a general why connecting this case to the other cases, but nor is there anything left unexplained just by explaining the "why" of this case by explaining it's extraordinary mechanism.