You first apply a voltage Vsource over the SIS material which consists of a superconductor-insulator-superconductor. The applied voltage is cancelled within the whole SIS so that a current flows with zero voltage across the insulating junction: When this happens you have "pure" Josephson "tunneling". On an IV diagram the current increases while the measured voltage stays zero.
No, not correct since the voltage V appears without changing the voltage Vsource.
V_source----A -------wire----------B---junction---C----wire------D----groundIt might be "obvious" to you that I have an incorrect mental picture of tunneling. I agree I have had an incorrect picture for more than 40 years. It was the picture which you obviousy still believe; and which violates energy conservation since the entity has energy T+V before tunneling into a region with a potential energy VB>>T+V.
I have explained it many times on this thread that a charge-carrier can only move "through a barrier" if it gains enough energy (delta)E within an allowed time interval (delta)t to scale the barrier and reach the other side with the same energy it has had before the quantum fluctuation "kicked" it over the barrier.
You do not know that, but are of the wrong opinion that it is so. Well we can all have opinions, but it does not constitute knowledge until after careful experimentation; which it seems that you absolutely abhor!
Then read what I have published before sounding off.
So you do not want to know my real model but rather make up you own idea of what you think my model is. No scientist of repute will do this!
This could have been solved by simply and politely asking me a question instead of imagining what my model is.
If there is no electric-field within the barrier, the entity quantum-jumping to the other side of the barrier (what you incorrectly attribute to an impossible mechanism called "tunneling") will not accelerate; since then it will reach the other side with more energy than it started off with thus violating energy conservation.
Describe this "tunneling" you are talking about: The charge-carriers move through a superconductor by "quantum-jumping" the barriers and if they accelerate while doing so they will emit radiation just as they do when they 'quantum-jump" a Josephson junction when there is a voltage V across it; but not when there is no voltage and thus no acceleration.
you know that I have never said that. What I said and repeat saying is that all charge-carriers within conductors will radiate when they are being accelerated. And I stick to this statement which you know has nothing to do with rotating discs or fictitious ropes.
A superconductor is a conductor and if charge is transported by charge-carriers which are being accelerated they will radiate.
You keep on dishonestly misrepresenting what I have said.
Your question is vague: Probably deliberately. What do you mean by "addressing acceleration in quantum systems"? If you mean wave packets in normal conductors: Yes they are quantum systems and we know that when they accelerate, they radiate and also scatter; to in this way cause "vibrating" atoms which also radiate.
You are the one who kept on denying this. Thanks for finally agreeing.
As long as I have to repeat over and over that I was only talking about charge-carriers being accelerated within conductors when I wrote that they must radiate when they accelerate, .....why acknowledge anything?
You see what I mean.? Or are you really too stupid? I doubt it: You might not be very adept at physics but you are clever in twisting words and concocting ad hominim arguments.
You know by now that this was not and is not my claim and I am getting sick and tired of writing this over and over. You are the guys playing games and then crying when you get your own medicine back.
So when you have a superconducting current around a ring it is really a spinning disc which look like a stationary ring? You could have fooled me!
Thanks for finally admitting that Synchrotrons do: Spinning discs have nothing and never had anything to do with charges being accelerated by an electric field within a conductor.
Well you and Ziggurat made the "blanket statements" that they never radiate!
Well you and Ziggurat made the "blanket statements" that they never radiate!
Well you and Ziggurat made the "blanket statements" that they never radiate!
As long as I have to repeat over and over that I was only talking about charge-carriers being accelerated within conductors when I wrote that they must radiate when they accelerate, .....why acknowledge anything?
Well you and Ziggurat made the "blanket statements" that they never radiate!
You are insulting me and should be ashamed of yourself; if you are capable of having a conscience:
Man concludes that this experiment shows that an applied electric-field must be cancelled by a polarization field before superconduction can occur, and then remembered from primary school physics that this is never possible within a conductor WHILE A CURRENT IS FLOWING THROUGH IT. Thus, a superconductor cannot be a normal conductor, but must be an insulator that conducts in a certain manner.
Correct, since his theory makes Cooper Pairs redundant and the scientific community will not tolerate such blasphemy.
Man did not choose to do so but had no other options left.
Where have they done so?
Perhaps? This is always possible for any experiment, but not enough reason for banning the results unless you can prove that there is actually such a flaw. Nobody could to date prove any flaw but still keep on ridiculing the original experiment. Marshall Stoneham, who claimed that the experiment must be wrong was challenged in 2003 to write a paper in which he gives reasons why this must be so: 7 years later we are still waiting.
Such a conflict should be welcomed and not prevented from being published just because it conflicts with accepted dogma. If you do the latter, you are undermining the very possibility of discovering new paradigm shifts.
Presenting alternative models, no matter how well-established the "cornerstone" models are is the real business of physics: To call it "undermining" is breathtakingly stupid.
Show me a single ad-hominen attack that I have launched anywhere.
What intransigence? Is the postulating of alternative models in physics intransigence? Physics must not be a religion as you think that it must be. But unfortunately the main stream physicists have become more bigoted and dogmatic than the Vatican could ever have dreamed of being when it was used by Galileo's peers to censor him and shut him up.
I suppose you are referring to the derivation that the London brothers first proposed or similar derivations based on this? If you do you will notice that they equated two expressions which are both zero and ignored integration constants. Not one of my freshman students would have been allowed to get away with this type of "solution using Maxwell's equations". So you are wrong to say that "Maxwell's equations say so" for DC superconductors.
Firstly, before applying the DC voltage across the insulating junction, the applied electric field-energy being cancelled on both sides of the junction is exactly the same. So the stationary orbitals which are responsible for transferring charge by means of running a relay race involving barrier-hopping to the position of the next orbital and replacing this orbital; which then in turn does the same, all have the same binding energy. The larger the electric-field being cancelled the lower the binding energy.
They are correct since this has never been required for superconduction to occur. Where they make their mistake is to search for the mechanism within the crystallographic layers instead of between the crystallographic layers where the superconducing orbital arrays are forming. The crystallographic layers only serve as sources for the electrons that form the orbitals between the layers. That is why these materials have to be doped to superconduct.
I have tried to do so again just above in this posting and hope that I have now succeeded in clearer language to describe how it really happens. If not, please come back and I will try again, and again, and again until I succeed in being crystal clear.
Yes they only travel from the higher energy side to the lower energy side and emit "photons" in a quantum mechanical manner as they must; not classically by an AC current over the junction.
Yes we see the frequency (2eV)/h of a photon for charge-carriers each with charge q which all barrier-jump the junction along the same direction.
At quantum mechanical distances? I doubt it!
Thank you!! At least we are getting somewhere.
yes it is if you assume that the statistics is not caused by your measuring apparatus not being able to measure accurately, but by an inbuilt probability in Nature. What is called the "expectation value" for any single electron wave is its center-of-mass: It has NOTHING to do with an inbuilt probability in Nature: Just like Einstein said: "God does not play dice".
Nothing wrong with the weighted integral since such integrals are used to calculate the position of the center-of-mass of any object which has mass-energy: But it is not an inbuilt uncertainty in the position of the center-of-mass of an electron since this will violate Galileo's inertia and Newton's laws.
And I have pointed out to you that the time coordinate changes with position along such a stretchy rope when it passes you at a speed v. Your charge-distribution is thus already time dependent without even considering the E and B fields; and in either case it is a metaphysical situation which you use which has no relevance to any reality.
Yes it does on this forum since this is what we have been talking about all along: On whether the charge-carriers within a superconductor are being accelerated by an electric field or not.
Whether the charge-carriers on a spinning disc radiates or not has never been relevant to the discussion, and I am not willing to waste my breath on it except if you can prove that the charge-carriers moving through a superconductor form a spinning disc.
The spinning disc is not a counterexample since charge-carriers within a conductor do not move in such a manner. I owe you no apology when it upsets me when you change what is really being discussed in order to waylay the arguments and unnecessarily stretching out this thread with irrelevant arguments.
If a particle is stationary in front of a barrier surrounding it, as in the case for charge-carriers within a superconductor, it cannot accelerate backwards over the barrier as you are obviously claiming here. A gradient in potential energy around a stationary charge-carrier does not automatically mean that according to Ehrenfest's theorem it will accelerate away from equilibrium as you are arguing here..
Hallo? Hallo? So a charge-carrier in equilibrium within a potential well can accelerate out of the well? My, my I am really learning new physics from you!
The charge-carrier will then not accelerate as you are consistently claiming that it must.
So you are saying that the ground state of the such an electron is held in place by classical vibrations owing to Ehrenfest's theorem? Interesting idea!
You are claiming that such an excited state is a classical vibration?
So a hydrogen atomic orbital is caused by classical vibrations through the nucleus?
Please prove that the waves you have now described are formed by classical movements of, what you people call, the expectation value of the electron wave. I would looove to see how you do these calculations.
It is mathematics that a ground-sate electron within a potential well vibrates like a classical particle? Wow!
Have you ever proved experimentally that there is an electric-field within a superconductor that accelerates the charge-carriers? If so, why do you then demand that I must prove by measurement that in the experiment where I extract electrons from a diamond, the electric field is zero?
I have read many more books on quantum mechanics than you have energy opened, and any other interpretation than I have given will make Yukawa's law invalid as ell as the explanation given for the width's of atomic spectral lines. Furthermore, this interpretation gives a single mechanism that explains and accurately models all superconducting materials ever discovered.
I do not know what "thance" means , but except for the use of paranormal terms like "expectation values" you are saying what I am saying.
That is what they use in the case of virtual photons in QED.
So now you have a phone to God who can tell you what is legitimate and what not?
Nowhere have I ever claimed this: My claim does not violate energy conservation since a wave has both kinetic and potential energy: A matter wave has a complex wave amplitude and thus vibrate outside three-dimensional space; so that we can only observe its potential energy as its intensity. Thus energy is available without violating conservation of energy.
You claim they are incorrect since they do not correspond to what you want to believe: That is not how a real physicist treats new ideas. But I suspect that you do not really know your physics and the rules which must be used to analyse new claims. No wonder physics is in a quagmire.
Why do you need the Meissner effect? Only to fit the wrong models you are defending as if Moses brought them down from mount Sinai written on tablets.
That does not prove me wrong does it or do you believe that physics should be decided on faith?
How did he measure his first result without measuring voltage?
Well if he had "a definition" and you are a physicist "of repute" and do not know what it is, you are not really a physicist one should take any notice of; is it not so?
Well then give me "his idea"! If this 'idea" rests on the assumption that zero resistivity is defined when the voltage goes to zero, then surely when the resistivity goes to zero (no scattering and EM radiation) the voltage must go to zero. We know that the latter is not true.
I dispute this false claim: Why make such a claim if it would be just easier to repeat your definition? Something is smelling rotten here!
An example of bonded charge carriers to a disc! It is not relevant and never will be relevant to free charge-carriers being accelerated by an electric-field within a conductor.
Trivially is the word since I just left the charge out: To make an issue of it defines how low you can be. Furthermore V can also be the potential energy an thus include the charge.
Ehrenfest specifically derived it for when a force is present: So you say that there will still be a force when the gradient is zero?
And as I have asked you above: prove to me that there is a force on the ground-state of an electron within a well which causes it vibrate classically as required by Ehrenfest's theorem.
Then please show me that an electron in a ground state vibrates classically as mandated by Ehrenfest's theorem. I would like to see your "trivial" derivation: Hell you might even win the Nobel Prize for this you know!
You do not know that I posted an erratum on my website?
In the case of a classical charge-carrier you are correct. In the case of a superconducting charge carrier, the carrier can store electric field-energy by polarization and this energy provides the extra qV: as I have now explained over and over and over again. It is quite trivial you know as long as you understand what really causes superconduction; which you of course refuse to understand or even want consider; since you believe that the charge-carriers are being accelerated within a superconductor without causing entropy.
Now you suddenly remember?
Many competent physicists have made simple mistakes: Einstein even divided by zero, but this does not mean that since you have, as you claim, never made a trivial mistake, YOU are more competent than Einstein. Before you misuse this example again, since you have proved on this thread that there is no low or lie low enough that you are willing to avoid: I am not claiming I am Einstein!