Superconductivity at room temperature??

[marplots]

What does Dr. Prins mean when he says, "injecting charge carriers?"

 

[Reality Check]

He seems to be talking about the simple situation of attaching leads to a superconducting material and applying a voltage. So charge carriers flow from the leads into the superconductor (are 'injected').

 

[marplots]

He seems to be talking about the simple situation of attaching leads to a superconducting material and applying a voltage. So charge carriers flow from the leads into the superconductor (are 'injected').

I guess what confuses me is why they then travel from one end of the superconductor to the other if there is no electric field. I am stuck with the chinese checkers analogy he made about mid-thread...

Say I was able to label some electron that was getting injected. Would it eventually appear at the other end of the superconductor?

 

[johanfprins]

Again I jumped in to tell you the basics of quantum mechanics, i.e. the definition of a wave function

I disagree with the "probability amplitude" bit without the caveat that this is the Copenhagen interpretation.

Good! I also disagree with the concept of a "probability-amplitude"

The first thing that one learns about the wave function is that it has parameters corresponding to the particle or particles whose quantum states it describes. A single particle wave function has parameters for a single particle. This is really basic, johanfprins.

It is a senseless statement unless you can define what a particle really is: This is not defined by simply stating that the wave function "has parameters corresponding to a particle..". Thus I am asking again; in fact pleading again: PLEASE define what an electron-particle is: For example, is it a singularity or does it occupy a volume in space? If you cannot define the parameters of "a particle" then it is obviously senseless to state that "the wave function has parameters corresponding to a particle".

I think we must first try and find the issues on which we agree and then proceed to discuss the issues on which we disagree. I believe that this is the correct way to discuss science. Thus:

1. I believe that we agree that:
(a) An electron must be modelled by a complex wave amplitude (YES or NO)?
(b)That a suitable, successful "measurement" can collapse the wave's intensity, if it has not yet collapsed owing to a previous "measurement" (YES or NO)?

2. Now do you agree or disagree with the following statements:
(a)That a suitable successful "measurement" can also "inflate" the wave in three-dimensional space (YES or NO)?
(b) That it is the "measurement apparatus" that causes the "collapse" or the "inflation": i.e. no measurement-apparatus no collapse or inflation.
(c) That this means that the position where an electron-wave collapses is determined by the the measurement-apparatus and not solely by the intensity-distribution of the wave.

Let us first stop here and proceed further after you have answered these questions.

 

[johanfprins]

Yes, when there's an electric field in a conductor (super or otherwise), electrons accelerate. Accelerating allows them to change velocity, and therefore to change position, and they move into positions such that the DC E-field is zero.

The latter is only possible within a conductor when you do not inject charge-carriers while applying an electric field. When you simultaneously inject charge-carriers, the current flows exactly because the charge-carriers attempt to cancel the applied electric field but cannot succeed in doing so: Thus any material which has free charge-carriers which can be accelerated can NEVER cancel an electric-field while a current is flowing through it.

This works almost the same way in conductors as in superconductors; the difference being that in conductors the motion is lossy (i.e., there's frictional dissipation) and in superconductors the motion is lossless.

Wrong again. Even when there is no frictional disipation at all, free charge-carriers which can be accelerated will NEVER be able to cancel an applied electric field while a current is flowing through it. The fact that free charge-carriers can be accelerated prohibits these carriers from forming a superconducting phase, since they can NEVER cancel an applied electric field even when they move without ANY loss.

Again, as everyone has said, you charge up a superconducting magnet by applying a voltage to it. This causes an increasing current, with the rate of increase determined by the inductance.

I have never worked with superconducting magnets and would thus like to have more information on how this is done: However, it is not possible to apply a voltage across any material that supposedly has "zero resistance": This is just simple electronics. Thus, I cannot believe that this is what is being done in the case of superconducting magnets.

If you want direct evidence that the voltage appears across the superconductor, not (e.g.) the leads or the injection contact: among other things, you can short out a superconducting magnet if you apply too high a voltage to it. The winding is a long SC wire with a thin insulator separating the windings. If your theory were true---there's never an E field along such a wire---there could never be a voltage difference between one layer of the winding and the next layer.

As well described in the section on "injection rates" and psoted on my website, the voltage across the external circuit determines the injection rate of charge-carrierrs and when this injection rate becomes too high, a superconducting current cannot flow anymore. The superconductor then becomes an insulator withih which an electric-field appears; and this is the reason why your superconducting magnet shorts out.

Experience shows that it is easy to get such a voltage difference, and indeed this is a common way to destroy a superconducting magnet. If you try to change the current too fast, the inductance kicks back a voltage drop along the wire, and this means there's a voltage drop across the insulation separating the windings, and you can actually get an arc discharge through this insulation. This can happen during a mismanaged quench, and that's half of the reason that "quench protection" is such a big deal in practical magnet engineering.

The real physics reason why this can occur has been given just above. It does not violate my model.

So yes, a superconducting wire can have a voltage drop along it.

Not while an equilibrium superconducting current is flowing.

This voltage drop can, in practical engineering circumstances, be so large (many kV) that one end of the wire can arc-discharge to the other end.

This happens after the superconducting current stops flowing: The end points of the wire is then not shorted anymore and obviously there will then be a voltage.

It's just Faraday's Law of Induction, which works on superconductors just as well as it does on everything else.

Nope, it is not Faraday's law of induction. For this law to work on superconducting charge-carriers require that these charge-carriers can be accelerated by an applied electric-field. And if they are, the current is not a superconducting current anymore.

 

[johanfprins]

Across the superconducting wire. Again, didn't you know this? This is really basic stuff!

You claim that a superconductor has zero resistance. Now how can you place a voltage across a material that has zero resistance? Please explain.

You're claiming that it is: you're claiming that as long as you don't inject charge carriers, you can have a voltage across a superconductor. How then do you create such a currentless voltage? Stick the superconductor in the gap of a capacitor? Sorry, you won't get a voltage across the superconductor.

Have you or anybody else done this measurement; or are you just hand-waving?

There's no problem with the charge carriers being accelerated. That is EXACTLY what must happen in order to change the current through a superconductor.

Nope! It is the increase in voltage in the circuit external to the superconductor that increases the rate at which charge-carriers are being injected into the superconductor; and this increases the current: Not acceleration within the superconductor. The latter cannot happen since a superconducting current cancels an electric-field within the superconductor.

No thanks. What I've already read is sufficiently nonsensical that I'm really not interested in wasting my time like that.

You are willing to mouth off about my physics without being willing to even try and follow my arguments! No wonder modern physics is in such a mess.

Yeah, sorry, but quantum mechanics doesn't rescue you from that requirement. We've been through this already. And you failed to grasp the most basic aspects of quantum mechanics. I said it before and I'll say it again: you disagree fundamentally with standard quantum mechanics.

I am disagreeing with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. So did Einstein, Schroedinger, de Broglie etc.

There's little point in discussing superconductivity when your disagreement with mainstream physics occurs at a much more fundamental level.

Does this imply that we should disparage Einstein, Schroedinger and de Broglie, since they did not agree with the mainstream dogma?

That makes the problem worse, not better. Now instead of merely having a radial acceleration, you've got a fluctuating tangential acceleration too.

Is there a classical acceleration involved when you have a quantum fluctuation? If there is, then prove it in terms of quantum mechanics! The fact that my model explains all superconduction in terms of a single mechanism and fits data that cannot be fitted to the BCS model, indicates, and proves, that such an acceleration is not involved at all.

 

[Reality Check]

How many particles are described by the wave function ψ(x, y, z, t)

Good! I also disagree with the concept of a "probability-amplitude"

That is not what I said. The wikipedia article should have as the definition of a wave function

A wave function or wavefunction is a probability amplitude (within the Copenhagen interpretation) in quantum mechanics describing the quantum state of a particle or system of particles. Typically, it is a function of space or momentum or rotation and possibly of time that returns the probability amplitude of a position or momentum for a subatomic particle. Mathematically, it is a function from a space that maps the possible states of the system into the complex numbers. The laws of quantum mechanics (the Schrödinger equation) describe how the wave function evolves over time.

(my addition in bold italics)

It is a senseless statement unless you can define what a particle really is:

You seem to be ignorant of the definition of a particle as well as the the definition of a wave function.

The simple fact is that wave function describes the entire system. If the entire system consists of a single particle then the wave function maps the parameters of a single particle (position or momentum) to a complex number.

I believe that we agree that:
(a) An electron must be modelled by a complex wave amplitude (YES or NO)?
(b)That a suitable, successful "measurement" can collapse the wave's intensity, if it has not yet collapsed owing to a previous "measurement" (YES or NO)?

(a) An electron must be modelled by a wave function.
(b) A mesurement in the Copenhagen interpretation collapses the wave function.
So: NO - we do not agree.

2. Now do you agree or disagree with the following statements:
(a)That a suitable successful "measurement" can also "inflate" the wave in three-dimensional space (YES or NO)?
(b) That it is the "measurement apparatus" that causes the "collapse" or the "inflation": i.e. no measurement-apparatus no collapse or inflation.
(c) That this means that the position where an electron-wave collapses is determined by the the measurement-apparatus and not solely by the intensity-distribution of the wave.

(a) measurements always causes a collapse of the wave function.
This is basic QM, johanfprins. Your ignorance of this physics makes the next 2 question moot but I will try to answer them:
(b) the measurement in the measurement apparatus always causes a collapse of the wave function.
(c) it is really obvious that if you measure position at an apparatus then you measure position at that apparatus !
The probability of measuring that position is of course determined by the square of the modulus of the wave function.
So: NO - we still do not agree.


Now can you answer a simple question: How many particles are described by the wave function ψ(x, y, z, t) where x, y and z are the positions of a single particle?
Let us first stop here and proceed further after you have answered thi question.

 

[johanfprins]

Your inability to understand the article is obvious: It starts with illustrations of Cooper pairs !

I know: I also know that these suggested Cooper pairs do not, and cannot exist.

The paper is about the discovery of a third type of Cooper pair, mediated by electrons in orbitals rather than lattice vibrations (phonons) or electron spin.

Yes I know that this is what it claims; but it does NOT prove it since they cannot model the so-called "mediation".

It is fairly simple physics that leads to the conclusion that electrons cannot be the charge carriers in low temperature superconductors.
Resistivity in metals is caused by the scattering of electrons by the lattice, especially by impurities (my thesis subject!) and defects.

I thought this has already been treated in the 1930's. How old are you?

This requires that an electron be in an initial energy state and there is energy available to excite it into another energy state.

No problem with this argument.

A metal has states up to and above the Fermi surface occupied.
This means that there are always electrons available to be scattered. That is the reason why the majority of metals are not superconductors at low temperatures..

No problem with this argument either.

To get superconductivity, you have to somehow stop the electrons from scattering. This basically means depriving them of final energy states to be scattered into.

Correct, but this is not sufficient to cause superconduction: You must also prevent them from being accelerated by an electric field or else they will gain kinetic energy which must dissipate somewhere in our universe; and you will then measure a voltage across the superconductor while a current is flowing. A superconductor does not generate such kinetic energy.

That can be done by having an energy gap so that there is a minimum energy needed to excite the electrons into those states. Thus below a certain temperature the metal will be superconducting.

In full agreement.

The formation of Cooper pairs provides such an energy gap.

Nope! The gap is not caused by Cooper pairs but by a mobility edge (as had been well modelled by both Mott and Anderson)below which there are localised Mott-type orbitals. When the Fermi-level moves through the mobility-edge you have an Anderson Metal-Insulator transition. If at that point the Mott-orbitals have a high enough density, superconduction also initiates as described by the equations in the pdf files on my website. The energy gap between the Fermi-level and the mobility-edge increases as the temperature is lowered. It is this gap-energy which is incorrectly ascribed to the "binding-energy" of a Cooper pair.

There are two other compelling experimental reasons why the gap is not produced by the formation of Cooper pairs:

1. It is well known that the Fermi-level within a gap of an electron-energy spectrum within a material moves from the top of the gap to the bottom of the gap when the temperature is lowered. According to the Cooper Mechanism, the Fermi-level is pinned in the middle of the energy gap. This is not possible as anybody who knows Fermi-Dirac statistics can easily prove.

2. According to the Cooper pair mechanism, there is no energy gap between the two electrons forming a Cooper pair at the critical temperature: The gap only increases when the temperature is lowered below the critical temperature. Yet, the electronic heat capacity has a sudden increase at this critical temperature: The latter jump is only possible when there is already a gap into which the Fermi-level moves at the critical temperature. If the Cooper pair mechanism is correct, there should be no sudden increase in the electronic heat capacity at the critical temperature; as is experimentally observed. QED.

 

[johanfprins]

What does Dr. Prins mean when he says, "injecting charge carriers?"

Thank you for a relevant question. When you have a circuit through which a normal current is flowing, there is a voltage drop across the whole circuit (also the power supply) called the EMF. There are also voltage drops across each element of the circuit. When you add these voltage drops and add them to the voltage drop across the power supply, you again obtain the EMF. The current through each element is in this case driven by the electric-field within each element which is proportional to the voltage across this element.

When an element becomes superconducting, the voltage across it becomes zero. Thus there is no electric field driving the current through the superconductor; as is the case through the rest of the circuit. Charge-carriers are only driven by an electric-field through the rest of the circuit. By increasing the EMF you still increase the current along the whole circuit also through the superconductor; even though you do not have a voltage across the superconductor. Thus the increase in current within the superconductor is solely determined by the rate at which charges is injected into it and not by acceleration of charge-carriers within it: The latter is not possible since a superconductor cancels an applied electric-field when a current flows through it.

 

[johanfprins]

I guess what confuses me is why they then travel from one end of the superconductor to the other if there is no electric field. I am stuck with the chinese checkers analogy he made about mid-thread..

This is the question that must be modelled to understand superconduction and which cannot be explained by any other model like BCS. The Chinese Checkers analogy is a good one since this is how superconduction works. All the marbles are in a lowest energy state which it wants to maintain. If you inject a marble so that it reaches the position of the nearest resident marble, the energy-state increases. Therefore the resident marble makes way for the injected marble and moves on to replace the next marble, which in turn complies, etc. etc. until a marble is ejected at the other side. This restores the lowest-energy state.

Say I was able to label some electron that was getting injected. Would it eventually appear at the other end of the superconductor?

Again an exellent question. When just injecting a single marble, it will replace the nearest marble which moves on etc. etc. So the injected marble will remain at the first site where it replaced the nearest resident marble. However, if you keep on injecting marbles one after the other, the first marble will be replaced by a second marble etc. etc. etc., until the first marble reaches the other side; and then the second marble and then the third etc. Thus the magnitude of the current that flows is totally determined by the rate at which you inject marbles.

But there is a limit to this rate: You cannot inject marbles faster than they can jump and replace the next marble. When you reach this limit the current stops. This is what happens in a Josephson junction. The superconducting current increases through the whole SIS structure (with no voltage across the whole structure) until this maximum current is reached. The flow of the supercurrent then stops, and an electric field appears within the whole SIS structure which polarises the orbitals until their binding energy becomes so small that an insulator-to-metal transition sets in: A normal current then starts to flow.

 

[johanfprins]

That is not what I said. The wikipedia article should have as the definition of a wave function

(my addition in bold italics)

OK.

You seem to be ignorant of the definition of a particle as well as the the definition of a wave function.

Yes I am ignorant of the definition of "a particle" since I have never in my life encountered a definition anywhere. It seems you are also ignorant since you refuse to give me a definition. Let me put it to you in this manner: If I collapse an electron-wave which measurements must I do to verify that the collapsed-state is an "electron-particle". If you cannot answer this, then you are also ignorant of what "a particle" is.

The simple fact is that wave function describes the entire system.

I am happy to concede this.

If the entire system consists of a single particle

You cannot make this statement unless you can define what a "single particle" is; and so far you have refused to even try.

then the wave function maps the parameters of a single particle (position or momentum) to a complex number.

The Earth, Jupiter the Moon also have position and momentum: Does this mean that these bodies are "particles"? I do not think sooo!!

I wish you would stop quaoting WIKI and try to reason by using your own brains.

(c) it is really obvious that if you measure position at an apparatus then you measure position at that apparatus !

Why eye-pop? do you want to say that the position of the electron can appear at a position other than at the apparatus?

The probability of measuring that position is of course determined by the square of the modulus of the

Nope! The probability is determined by whether the wave resonates with the measuring apparatus. This indirectly has to do with the intensity-distribution of the wave since resonance has a higher probability to occur where the intensity is the highest: It has, however, nothing to do with the wave-intensity, on its own, being an actual probability ditribution.

Now can you answer a simple question: How many particles are described by the wave function ψ(x, y, z, t) where x, y and z are the positions of a single particle?

It describes a single wave since x,y,and z are coordinates which change within the volume occupied by the wave.

 

[Reality Check]

I know: I also know that these suggested Cooper pairs do not, and cannot exist.

Then you are wrong because the experimental evidence is that they do exist, e.g. the isotope effect. And of course the paper you cite!

Yes I know that this is what it claims; but it does NOT prove it since they cannot model the so-called "mediation".

The paper reports the discovery of a new type of Cooper pair from experimental results - they are under no obligation to 'model' it. But there is a model - Cooper pairs mediated by orbitals.
Orbital-Independent Superconducting Gaps in Iron Pnictides

The origin of superconductivity in the iron pnictides has been attributed to antiferromagnetic spin ordering that occurs in close combination with a structural transition, but there are also proposals that link superconductivity to orbital ordering. We used bulk-sensitive laser angle–resolved photoemission spectroscopy on BaFe2(As0.65P0.35)2 and Ba0.6K0.4Fe2As2 to elucidate the role of orbital degrees of freedom on the electron-pairing mechanism. In strong contrast to previous studies, an orbital-independent superconducting gap magnitude was found for the hole Fermi surfaces. Our result is not expected from the superconductivity associated with spin fluctuations and nesting, but it could be better explained invoking magnetism-induced interorbital pairing, orbital fluctuations, or a combination of orbital and spin fluctuations. Regardless of the interpretation, our results impose severe constraints on theories of iron pnictides.

I thought this has already been treated in the 1930's. How old are you?

My thesis was on the calculation of the transport properties of local spin fluctuations in nearly-magnetic alloys. That was applying the theory starting in the 1930's that was expanded to the QFT theory sometime in the 1970's.

Correct, but this is not sufficient to cause superconduction: You must also prevent them from being accelerated by an electric field or else they will gain kinetic energy which must dissipate somewhere in our universe;

Not right: If they are below the energy band then they cannot gain any energy from ant source in amounts less than the energy.
So I would say that you can apply an electric field but as soon as it gets too strong the material is no longer superconducting.

The gap is not caused by Cooper pairs but by a mobility edge (as had been well modelled by both Mott and Anderson)below which there are localised Mott-type orbitals.
...

This is wrong: The formation of Cooper pairs does create an energy gap.
Mott and Anderson models are applied to electrons and will be scattered leading to resistivity as you have already agreed:

A metal has states up to and above the Fermi surface occupied.
This means that there are always electrons available to be scattered. That is the reason why the majority of metals are not superconductors at low temperatures.

No problem with this argument either.

P.S. The Anderson model applied to alloys such as PdNi was part of my thesis!

1. It is well known that the Fermi-level within a gap of an electron-energy spectrum within a material moves from the top of the gap to the bottom of the gap when the temperature is lowered. According to the Cooper Mechanism, the Fermi-level is pinned in the middle of the energy gap. This is not possible as anybody who knows Fermi-Dirac statistics can easily prove.

Wow - are you ignorant of the fact that Cooper pairs are bosons?

2. According to the Cooper pair mechanism, there is no energy gap between the two electrons forming a Cooper pair at the critical temperature:

I do hope that you have mispoke here - the energy gap is not between the pairs of electrons.

The gap only increases when the temperature is lowered below the critical temperature. Yet, the electronic heat capacity has a sudden increase at this critical temperature: The latter jump is only possible when there is already a gap into which the Fermi-level moves at the critical temperature. If the Cooper pair mechanism is correct, there should be no sudden increase in the electronic heat capacity at the critical temperature; as is experimentally observed. QED.

This sounds like one of Successes of the BCS theory

Due to the energy gap, the specific heat of the superconductor is suppressed strongly (exponentially) at low temperatures, there being no thermal excitations left. However, before reaching the transition temperature, the specific heat of the superconductor becomes even higher than that of the normal conductor (measured immediately above the transition) and the ratio of these two values is found to be universally given by 2.5.

QED

 

[Reality Check]

It seems you are also ignorant since you refuse to give me a definition.

You are lying: particle.
But if you cannot read then in my own (probably wrong!) words: a particle in QM is a geometrical point that has specific properties attached to it (mass, momentum, spin, charge, etc.).

Nope! The probability is determined by whether the wave resonates with the measuring apparatus.

Nope! There is no 'wave' to 'resonate' with the apparatus. There is the wave function that collapses when measured to a specific value.

It describes a single wave since x,y,and z are coordinates which change within the volume occupied by the wave.

Nope: By defintion the x, y and z are the position of the particle. Look at Single particle in a potential where

is the wave function for the particle at position r at time t.

 

[johanfprins]

Then you are wrong because the experimental evidence is that they do exist, e.g. the isotope effect. And of course the paper you cite!

Wrong again. The isotope effect does not prove that Cooper pairs exist: There are low temperature metals which do not show an isotope effect. The paper I cite interpret their results in terms of Cooper pairs because they want to believe that these entities must exist. This does NOT prove that they do exist: Just as Ptolemy's model did not prove that the planets are following paths with epicycles.

The paper reports the discovery of a new type of Cooper pair from experimental results - they are under no obligation to 'model' it. But there is a model - Cooper pairs mediated by orbitals.
Orbital-Independent Superconducting Gaps in Iron Pnictides

Yes these models are wrong since Cooper pairs are NOT required to have superconduction. Why do you all cling to this myth?

My thesis was on the calculation of the transport properties of local spin fluctuations in nearly-magnetic alloys. That was applying the theory starting in the 1930's that was expanded to the QFT theory sometime in the 1970's.

Thanks that is better.

Not right: If they are below the energy band then they cannot gain any energy from any source in amounts less than the energy.

They can then not be accelerated: My model states the same. So how do your Cooper pairs move if they cannot gain energy by acceleration to move. My localised orbitals gain it from quantum fluctuations and the equations that model this are derived directly from Heisenberg's (so-called uncertainty) relationship for energy and time. So what you are saying is that your Cooper pairs are immobile?

So I would say that you can apply an electric field but as soon as it gets too strong the material is no longer superconducting.

I also reasoned like this, but have been convincingly proved wrong on this thread. You cannot apply an electric-field while a superconducting current is flowing: Only when there is no superconducting current flowing.

This is wrong: The formation of Cooper pairs does create an energy gap.

If such entities can form, which I doubt, it might be so; but this is not the reason why the superconducting gap forms in any of the superconductors discovered to date.

Mott and Anderson models are applied to electrons and will be scattered leading to resistivity as you have already agreed

Obviously when the orbitals are moving by normal hopping caused by temperature fluctuations; but not when they move by quantum fluctuations as they do in my model.

P.S. The Anderson model applied to alloys such as PdNi was part of my thesis!

Bully for you!

Wow - are you ignorant of the fact that Cooper pairs are bosons?

If they are, why is there a Fermi-level within the energy gap that they cause. Or does a Fermi-level also feature in Bose-Einstein statistics? It seems you want your cake and eat it!

I do hope that you have mispoke here - the energy gap is not between the pairs of electrons.

Yes it might be incorrectly interpreted: My apology. I meant the energy-gap is presumably equal to the "bonding energy" between two electrons; and this bonding energy is zero at the critical temperature so that the energy gap-size is also zero. Therefore the electron-energy spectrum is the same at the critical temperature than above the critical temperature.

Due to the energy gap, the specific heat of the superconductor is suppressed strongly (exponentially) at low temperatures, there being no thermal excitations left. However, before reaching the transition temperature, the specific heat of the superconductor becomes even higher than that of the normal conductor (measured immediately above the transition) and the ratio of these two values is found to be universally given by 2.5. QED

Why does it become higher when the energy-spectrum at the critical temperature is exactly the same as above it?
This CANNOT explain why there is a sudden discontinuous jump in the heat capacity when you pass through the critical temperature. Such a jump is typically what happens when the Fermi-level moves into an existing energy-gap; for example out of the conduction band within an n-type semiconductor. In the case of Cooper pairs there is no energy gap at the critical temperature so that there is NO REASON WHATSOEVER that the heat capacity should have a discontinuous increase.

 

[johanfprins]

You are lying: particle.
But if you cannot read then in my own (probably wrong!) words: a particle in QM is a geometrical point that has specific properties attached to it (mass, momentum, spin, charge, etc.).

Thank you! Was that now so difficult? So all is geometry? I do not accept that there is such a thing as matter with mass that forms a geometrical point: Unless you mean that an electron has a centre-of-mass. But so has any other entity with mass.

Nope! There is no 'wave' to 'resonate' with the apparatus. There is the wave function that collapses when measured to a specific value.

Can you please be more specific and describe a measuring apparatus that can collapse a wave without resonating with it?

Nope: By defintion the x, y and z are the position of the particle. Look at Single particle in a potential where

By definition! By definition I can define a cat as a dog since it also walks on four legs. I am interested in what the actual physics is. And it makes more sense that a piece of matter, no matter how small, always occupies a volume in space. This means it is in essence a field, like any other field. The distinction between "particles" and waves is contrived unless you define "a particle" as a localised wave. There are only waves which can morph in shape and size (like all waves do) when you change the boundary conditions: And this is exactly what you do when you do a measurement. Although the wave might collapse or inflate it is still a wave afterwards.

Thank you for an interesting discussion: I have to now sign off for the day

 

[Ziggurat]

You claim that a superconductor has zero resistance. Now how can you place a voltage across a material that has zero resistance? Please explain.

I already have. They don't have zero inductance. Zero resistance plus nonzero inductance means nonzero voltage when the current is changing. This is freshman physics. Why are you ignorant of it?

Have you or anybody else done this measurement; or are you just hand-waving?

I'm pretty sure someone somewhere has done it. But let's suppose I'm wrong. This is a simple experiment to perform. The conventional theory of superconductivity gives a simple, unambiguous answer. Your theory gives a completely different answer, apparently. Why don't you do the experiment? Screw this whole diamond stuff: this experiment is far easier to do, far easier to interpret, and ALL you need to do is show that the standard answer is wrong. This would be Nobel prize-worthy.

So what are you waiting for?

Nope! It is the increase in voltage in the circuit external to the superconductor that increases the rate at which charge-carriers are being injected into the superconductor; and this increases the current: Not acceleration within the superconductor. The latter cannot happen since a superconducting current cancels an electric-field within the superconductor.

I'm afraid that you're simply wrong. The voltage across a superconducting magnet during field ramp is primarily in the superconducting coils, NOT external to the coils. As it must be in order to match Maxwell's equations.

And not just Maxwell's equations either, but also energy conservation. A voltage drop outside the coils would be due to resistive losses, so you're claiming that the energy spent on ramping the field is expended as heat. But the energy of the magnetic field inside the magnet increases. According to you, then, this energy comes from nowhere.

But of course, energy conservation is NOT violated. And it's not violated because the voltage drop is NOT purely, or even primarily, resistive. It's mostly inductive, from within the coils. Ramping up the current while it has an inductive voltage requires energy, and that's where the energy stored in the magnetic field comes from.

You are willing to mouth off about my physics without being willing to even try and follow my arguments!

I've followed your arguments until they produce nonsense, which they do pretty quickly. Such as your repeated violations of energy conservation. Beyond that, well, there's not really any point. One nonsense has been produced, you're not going to recover the truth.

I am disagreeing with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

You're doing far more than that. And you don't even have enough of a grasp of quantum mechanics to realize it.

Is there a classical acceleration involved when you have a quantum fluctuation?

If the "fluctuation" leads to the particle moving in a circle, then yes. Obviously.

If there is, then prove it in terms of quantum mechanics!

We've already been over this. <a> = d²<x>/dt². That's the definition of acceleration in quantum mechanics. And it sure as hell is not zero for a particle traveling in a circle, whether you do it with "quantum fluctuations", or tunneling or magic pony rides.

The fact that my model explains all superconduction in terms of a single mechanism and fits data that cannot be fitted to the BCS model, indicates, and proves, that such an acceleration is not involved at all.

Yeah, not so much. I challenged you once, quite early in the thread, to explain some actual data from a superconductor, and all I got in response was silence. This claim of yours simply isn't credible.

 

[Reality Check]

Thank you! Was that now so difficult? So all is geometry? I do not accept that there is such a thing as matter with mass that forms a geometrical point: Unless you mean that an electron has a centre-of-mass. But so has any other entity with mass.

No - the mathemetics iused s geometry. We are talking theoretical physics here.

The fact is that particles in QM are assumed to have no extent. So their properties are associated with a single mathematical point. You can blame Pauli for I think - he figured out that if the electron was a particle with extent then its spin would mean surface would be traveling at many times the speed of light.

Can you please be more specific and describe a measuring apparatus that can collapse a wave without resonating with it?

Can you be more specific and describe how a measuring apparatus can collapse a wave by resonating with it?
By the way: also define "resonating".
Also: Provide citations to the textbook(s) where you got this idea.

By definition! By definition I can define a cat as a dog since it also walks on four legs.

By definition that is insane! By defintion you can never define a cat as a dog because the defintion of a cat is complete enough to distinguish it from a dog. But if you lived in a fantasy world where cats and dogs were defined as walking on 4 legs then a cat is a dog (as is an antelope, horse, etc.).

I am interested in what the actual physics is. And it makes more sense that a piece of matter, no matter how small, always occupies a volume in space.
It does make sense - in the classical, ape-brain world.
A pity that every measurement of the radius of the electron has made it smaller and smaller.
A pity that the surface of your electron with extent is traveling at many times of the speed of light: "]Spin

Ralph Kronig, one of Landé's assistants, suggested in early 1925 that it was produced by the self-rotation of the electron. When Pauli heard about the idea, he criticized it severely, noting that the electron's hypothetical surface would have to be moving faster than the speed of light in order for it to rotate quickly enough to produce the necessary angular momentum. This would violate the theory of relativity. Largely due to Pauli's criticism, Kronig decided not to publish his idea.

This means it is in essence a field, like any other field.

Wrong: fields extend over all of spacetime and are not particles.

In the physical sciences, a particle is a small localized object to which can be ascribed several physical properties such as volume or mass.[1][2] The word is rather general in meaning, and is refined as needed by various scientific fields.

In the field of QM, no volume is ascribed to a particle.

 

[johanfprins]

I already have.

So you have attached a voltmeter across two points between the injection and ejection contact, sent an equilibrium current through the wire and measured a voltage. My my: I was informed that Kamerlingh Onnes could not measure such a voltage and that he therefore won a Nobel Prize. Can you now see why I called you a liar?

They don't have zero inductance.

We are not talking about currents that vary with time: So what is your point?

Zero resistance plus nonzero inductance means nonzero voltage when the current is changing.

But not when the current has settled down: The latter is the case I have been discussing all along and under these circumstances there is NO induced voltage which can accellerate the charge-carriers as you try to mislead us into believing.

This is freshman physics.

Exactly!!

Why are you ignorant of it?

YOU are the ignorant one since you claim that the charge-carriers can be accelerated by induction under conditions when the current is constant. What is the matter with you?

I'm pretty sure someone somewhere has done it. But let's suppose I'm wrong. This is a simple experiment to perform.

I agree it is simple provided you have a laboratory and the money: I do not have this.

The conventional theory of superconductivity gives a simple, unambiguous answer.

For posterity would you be kind enough to state this simple unambiguous answer.

Your theory gives a completely different answer, apparently. Why don't you do the experiment? Screw this whole diamond stuff: this experiment is far easier to do, far easier to interpret, and ALL you need to do is show that the standard answer is wrong. This would be Nobel prize-worthy.

I believe you have access to a laboratory? Then why do YOU not do the experiment? For you it is a win-win situation: If you prove me wrong you have satisfaction: If you do not prove me wrong, you have the Nobel Prize

So what are you waiting for?

What are YOU waiting for?

I'm afraid that you're simply wrong. The voltage across a superconducting magnet during field ramp is primarily in the superconducting coils, NOT external to the coils. As it must be in order to match Maxwell's equations.

And the reason for this is the geometry (windings) and the fact that the current is not constant. It has NOTHING to do with the inherent superconducting properties which still demand that there can be no voltage when a steady-state current is flowing; and therefore that such a current is not caused by an applied voltage; You forget that any voltage caused by any coil is a "reaction" to the current and has NOTHING to do with applying a voltage to a superconductor in order to inject the current. This is freshman physics my boy!

But of course, energy conservation is NOT violated. And it's not violated because the voltage drop is NOT purely, or even primarily, resistive. It's mostly inductive,

Yes reactive and thus not an applied voltage which drives the charge-carriers through the coil as you want to absurdly reason all along on this thread.

I've followed your arguments until they produce nonsense, which they do pretty quickly.

It is your arguments which produce nonsense very quickly: It is not possible to drive an equilibrium current through a superconductor by an inductive electric-field: Any ape should be able to understand this.

Such as your repeated violations of energy conservation.

I made this mistake only once and am grateful that you, Ben m and Sol pointed it out so that I could correct it (see AC Josephson effect in the relevant pdf file on my web.)

Beyond that, well, there's not really any point. One nonsense has been produced, you're not going to recover the truth.

One nonsense which I corrected: But what about the multitude of nonsense you have posted which you refuse to correct?

You're doing far more than that. And you don't even have enough of a grasp of quantum mechanics to realize it.

I am afraid that you are describing yourself here.

If the "fluctuation" leads to the particle moving in a circle, then yes. Obviously.

Not along the circle as you maintain that it must be when the charge-carrier barrier-jump along the circle's periphery.

We've already been over this. <a> = d²<x>/dt². That's the definition of acceleration in quantum mechanics. And it sure as hell is not zero for a particle traveling in a circle, whether you do it with "quantum fluctuations", or tunneling or magic pony rides.

So you agree that an electron forming an orbital around a nucleus must have ZERO momentum and that it therefore cannot have an "uncertainty" in its momentum. So what does the (delta)p means which you can calculate from the Schroedinger wave for every one of these orbitals?

Yeah, not so much. I challenged you once, quite early in the thread, to explain some actual data from a superconductor, and all I got in response was silence. This claim of yours simply isn't credible.

I informed you that I am not willing to pay to download the files you referred to: I do not have the money. Furthermore, even if I could I have downloaded them I had too many other things to do up to now. And lastly, even if I can explain it to you, you will just ignore it just as you ignore the examples in SingleMechanism.pdf which explain aspects which BCS and pair formation cannot model and never will be able to model: i.e.

(1) See Fig. 23-4 which explains the inelastic neutron scattering results which BCS cannot;

(2) See Fig 23.6 which models the behaviour of YBCO which BCS (and no pairing mechanism whatsoever) can model;

(3) See Fig. 23-8, which models the properties of superconducting p-type diamond which BCS cannot;

(4) See section 23-8 which explains the properties of superconducting disordered thin films which BCS cannot, as well as the appearance of a superinsulating phase which BCS also cannot explain.

So since you ignore these successses, why should I waste my valuable time to do any further modelling just because YOU want me to do this. You will just find other absurd reasons not to accept the validity of my model. The chance is better that the Pope will reject the Virgin Mary, than that you will even contemplate the possibility that superconduction does NOT mandate Cooper pairs to form.

 

[johanfprins]

I just cannot understand your attitude. You keep on quoting aspects as if I am a novice while I have already taken note of these aspects for more than 50 years. Your attitide is patronising and displays an inability to reason for yourself. Science is NOT a religion where one settles arguments by quoting verses from a book. So PLEASE grow up.

The fact is that particles in QM are assumed to have no extent. So their properties are associated with a single mathematical point.

And this is of course claptrap.

You can blame Pauli for I think - he figured out that if the electron was a particle with extent then its spin would mean surface would be traveling at many times the speed of light.

This is not the only mistake that Pauli made in his overbearing arrogamce. The fact is that a spinning charge can never generate a magnetic moment ever. A magnetic field is generated when opposite charges move tangentially past each other: For example when a current flows through a wire, one can measure a circular magnetic field around the wire whether the charges that move are negative or positive. When you are within a reference frame that is stationary relative to the positive charges, you obtain the same magnetic field than you will measure within a reference frame which is stationary relative to the the negative charges: Magnetism is a relativistic effect.
Now consider Bohr's (totally irrelevant) model for the hydrogen atom: If you sit on the nucleus and calculate the magnetic moment that is presumably generated by the circular motion of the electron, you obtain a magnetic moment. When you sit on the electron and calculate the magnetic moment which is presumably generated by the circular motion of the proton around the electron, you again obtain a magnetic moment: BUT this magnetic moment points into the opposite direction. So what is the magnetic moment of a Bohr hydrogen atom . The fact is that both charges rotate around their joint centre-of-mass and the total current that moves around this point is zero: There is no Bohr magneton for a Bohr-atom. Thus any single charge that spins around an axis cannot generate a magnetic moment. So it was stupid of Pauli to even consider this possibility.

Can you be more specific and describe how a measuring apparatus can collapse a wave by resonating with it?
By the way: also define "resonating".
Also: Provide citations to the textbook(s) where you got this idea.

This requires a long discussion which cannot be done completely here. I will thus try and illustrate with an example; starting with Fermi's golden rule and using a photon-wave that impinges into an atom. For the photon to be absorbed, it has to resonate with the electron-wave that absorbs it (Fermi's golden rule) This is a measurement that collapses the photon wave so that its speed becomes zero and its position becomes better defined. It's energy thus becomes mass-energy which adds to the energy of the electron-wave which in turn must morph in shape and size to accomodate this extra mass-energy (in terms of a "particle" this is described as a "quantum jump": What utter nonsense!!!). If the photon does not resonate with the electron-wave it will move through the atom without collapsing. Thus the probability to measure the photon to be at that position is determined by whether there is resonance or no resonance. Similar arguments are valid for electron waves: e.g. the Auger effect; photo-electric effect etc. There are no "particles" involved in any of these effects!

By definition that is insane!

Exactly!! Just as insane as to define a localised, collapsed wave as a "particle" without any volume: It IS madness I agree.

I am interested in what the actual physics is. And it makes more sense that a piece of matter, no matter how small, always occupies a volume in space.
It does make sense - in the classical, ape-brain world.
A pity that every measurement of the radius of the electron has made it smaller and smaller.

That is understandable since two electrons with separate centres-of-mass can entangle to form, for example, a covalent bond with a single centre-of-mass: Somebody with an ape-brain will then conclude that the electrons must have no size or else their separate centres-of-mass will not be able to be at the same point.

A pity that the surface of your electron with extent is traveling at many times of the speed of light: "]Spin

Only when you have an ape-brain like Pauli has had. An electron is NOT a spinning charge. There is another reason for it having a magnetic moment: It is really criminal of Pauli to have taken the Nobel Prize out of Kronig's hands and leave it for Goldsmith and Uhlenbeck. But that is Pauli for you: He was a very unsavoury character.

Wrong: fields extend over all of spacetime and are not particles.

So you agree with me that a wave has NOTHING to do with a "particle".

In the field of QM, no volume is ascribed to a particle.

I know, and this is why the interpretation of QM is only valid in Ape-country.

 

[Ziggurat]

So you have attached a voltmeter across two points between the injection and ejection contact

You said, "please explain". And I already have. And I will again: a superconducting magnet has an inductance, and when you try to change the current, that creates a voltage across the superconductor.

And yes, you can measure that voltage. That's a standard part of

sent an equilibrium current through the wire

Oh, but the requirement that the current be an equilibrium current wasn't something that you included before. Nor does it make sense if your claim is that acceleration is impossible. The answer is clearly that acceleration IS possible, but when it occurs, you're not at equilibrium. That's obvious. Yet you missed it. Such elementary failures are a constant feature of your efforts at debate. And they're also why nobody takes you seriously.

We are not talking about currents that vary with time

No, johan. You simply refuse to talk about time-varying currents, because they disprove your entire assertion about the impossibility of acceleration of charges in a superconductor. Once we allow for such accelertaion (which we MUST if we allow the current to vary), then it all comes falling apart.

I agree it is simple provided you have a laboratory and the money: I do not have this. For posterity would you be kind enough to state this simple unambiguous answer. I believe you have access to a laboratory? Then why do YOU not do the experiment? For you it is a win-win situation: If you prove me wrong you have satisfaction: If you do not prove me wrong, you have the Nobel Prize

You seriously overestimate your importance to me. And I never said I had access to a lab.

And the reason for this is the geometry (windings) and the fact that the current is not constant. It has NOTHING to do with the inherent superconducting properties

The majority of the inductance comes from the geometry. But you will find that any section of wire has inductance. In fact, every conductor has a non-zero inductance simply from the mass of electrons. That contribution is frequently irrelevant compared to geometric contributions, but it's never zero.

which still demand that there can be no voltage when a steady-state current is flowing; and therefore that such a current is not caused by an applied voltage

Apparently you think Newton's 1st law doesn't apply to electrons.

You forget that any voltage caused by any coil is a "reaction" to the current and has NOTHING to do with applying a voltage to a superconductor in order to inject the current. This is freshman physics my boy!

Inductance acts as an inertial "mass" for the current. When you apply a voltage, the inductance determines how fast the current will change in response to the voltage. You can pretend that this has nothing to do with the applied voltage, but the equations say otherwise.

One nonsense which I corrected: But what about the multitude of nonsense you have posted which you refuse to correct?

Well, we could start with the fact that you're still posting nonsense, and I only ever screwed up once in this thread and did correct it.

Not along the circle

But that's not what you said. You said no acceleration, period. Are you now conceding that there must be radial acceleration in order to produce circular motion?

So you agree that an electron forming an orbital around a nucleus must have ZERO momentum and that it therefore cannot have an "uncertainty" in its momentum.

The latter statement is obviously NOT a logical result of the former statement. <p> = 0 does not mean that <p²> = 0. This isn't just a quantum mechanics fail, this is a statistics fail. How can you still be making such elementary mistakes and not realize that you're no longer qualified to do this kind of work?

I informed you that I am not willing to pay to download the files you referred to: I do not have the money. Furthermore, even if I could I have downloaded them I had too many other things to do up to now.

Then stop claiming falsely that your theory can explain everything about superconductors. You obviously cannot know that if you don't even know everything which needs to be explained.