Superconductivity at room temperature??

[Ziggurat]

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.

If the charge carrier is stationary, then there is no current. We're clearly discussing the case where there is a current, so the charge carrier is axiomatically NOT stationary in the scenario of interest.

Hallo? Hallo? So a charge-carrier in equilibrium within a potential well can accelerate out of the well?

Did I say that? No, I did not.

Calculate <-dV/dx>. Tell me if it's nonzero. If it's nonzero, then you're not in equilibrium. And if you are in equilibrium, you'll find that <-dV/dx> is zero.

My, my I am really learning new physics from you!

That is precisely the problem: you aren't learning, even though you need to.

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?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if you do the calculations for a stationary state, you will find that <-dV/dx> = 0. Do you know what those brackets mean, johan? That means it's an expectation value. You need to do an integral. The integral can give you zero even when -dV/dx is nonzero everywhere. If you find that the integral is nonzero, then you do not have a stationary state. You have an accelerating state.

This is basic quantum mechanics, and you appear to be wholely ignorant of it.

I have read many more books on quantum mechanics than you have energy opened

And apparently didn't understand or have forgotten their meaning.

I do not know what "thance" means

It means I made a typo while transcribing. That should have been "change".

That is what they use in the case of virtual photons in QED.

Not anyone who's being rigorous.

So now you have a phone to God who can tell you what is legitimate and what not?

First off, that's still a quote from Griffiths, that's not me. Secondly, his derivation of the energy-time uncertainty relationship demonstrates that it means exactly what he says it means. Reading it to mean something completely different is therefore obviously illegitimate. If you want to imbue it with this additional meaning, you need to come up with a completely different derivation. You haven't done that for your suggested meaning. Nobody has.

Nowhere have I ever claimed this: My claim does not violate energy conservation

Sure it does. You're borrowing energy from nowhere. That violates energy conservation.

Why do you need the Meissner effect?

Because zero resistance without the Meissner effect, it isn't superconductivity, it's ideal (or perfect) conductivity. The Meissner effect is part of the definition of superconductivity. If you find zero resistance without the Meissner effect, then you've discovered something new. I am not claiming that this is impossible, I am merely pointing out that it is not superconductivity, by definition.

How did he measure his first result without measuring voltage?

I'm not intimately familiar with his measurement procedure, but generally speaking, current measurements are the easiest measurements to perform directly, and are probably what Onnes did. But it doesn't really matter. What he reported was resistance.

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?

I never claimed to be a physicist of repute. And your argument is self-refuting. You cannot rely on Onnes' results if his results are undefined, and if you think the significance hinges on the definition, you should be able to provide one yourself. Yet you haven't.

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.

What the hell are you talking about? First off, impedence was already known to Onnes, so zero voltage and zero resistance are certainly not equivalent. And secondly, you've spent a long time now arguing that you can't have a voltage in a superconductor, and now you're saying that it can. You're making no sense.

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!

Because I tire of your constant hostility, and I don't mind seeing you make a fool out of yourself. Which you just did.

Probably the best definition in the current context is the power dissipation over current squared, ie, R=P/I².

That was more than a month ago. Furthermore, you already made this same mistake:

I have requested from you before not to use terms you do not define. "Zero resistivity" has never been defined; so how can you take "the limit of zero resistivity" without even knowing what it is?

and I corrected you at the time. Yet here you are, repeating the mistake again, and saying my claim to have provided a definition was false when it's quite clearly true.

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.

We've been over this already. The cause of the acceleration is irrelevant. You keep pretending that it is, even though you can provide no evidence or reasoning for why, and even though such a conclusion violates Maxwell's equations.

Ehrenfest specifically derived it for when a force is present

Uh, no. The theorem can be, AND IS, derived without any reference to what V(x) is.

So you say that there will still be a force when the gradient is zero?

I'm saying that the theorem still applies. If the gradient is zero everywhere (or everywhere the wave function is nonzero), then the theorem TELLS you that the force is zero. The theorem still applies.

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.

Again you display your ignorance. You're asking me to prove something which contradicts what I'm actually claiming. Why would I do that?

<-dV/dx> is zero for a stationary electron state. I can prove that rather easily for atomic electron orbitals. Just give me the quantum numbers you want to try, and I'll demonstrate.

Then please show me that an electron in a ground state vibrates classically as mandated by Ehrenfest's theorem.

Clearly you have no idea what Ehrenfest's theorem means, because it mandates nothing of the sort.

You do not know that I posted an erratum on my website?

Nope. Just like you didn't know that I posted a definition of resistance over a month ago. But unlike you, I'm not calling you a liar for claiming to have done so. Got a link?

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.

And how did it store this energy in the first place? Where did it come from? We've still only input an energy QV into the system, and we're still getting out 2QV in photons. You're still violating energy conservation.

 

[johanfprins]

Am I going insane here or are you you both in agreement here, but just disagreeing for fun?

Yes, with Ben you never know whether he is visiting Alice in Wonderland or at least trying to be a realist. I also feel as if I am starting to go insane, but will keep on explaining physics in the hope that the great paranormal delusion instigated by Bohr, Heisenberg and Born in 1927, will be replaced by the realism of Einstein, Schroedinger and de Broglie; so that we stop wasting money on searching for a universe within which cats are both alive and dead.

 

[johanfprins]

The only discord is between Johan and everyone else. I agree with everything Zig and ben have posted here (at least everything I've read, which I must admit isn't everything).

In cases where I disagree with Zig or ben - which has happened multiple times before on this forum - we have a simple way of settling our disagreements. We present mathematical arguments, refer to the literature if need be, and discuss experimental evidence - and sooner (or rarely, later), one of us agrees the other is correct.

Exactly what I am doing: The literature you Ben and Ziggurat refer me to I have already read, and is mostly irrelevant to main topic that we should stick to, and that is whether you can accelerate free charge-carriers within a conductor with an electric-field without generating EM radiation. I say no and you say yes, without having given a single experimental proof that you are correct. What you rather do is to vomit up red herrings like rotating discs with charges glued to them or infinitely long ropes consisting of a single charge moving past at a speed v. Your physics background is so weak that you do not even know that when an object with length move past you, the time you observe within the object is a function of position along the object.

With Johan this method fails. He doesn't understand mathematical arguments,

I understand them far better than you, Ben or Ziggurat

able to understand he ignores references to the literature (which he evidently regards as mostly wrong),

Not one of you has read my model in detail but you all three have the arrogance to criticize me?

and he draws invalid and unjustified inferences from the experimental data.

Which experiment data?

Why is that? I think the psychology paper I posted earlier is a partial answer to that question.

As I already pointed out: Why would this paper help me if after you have read it it did not help you?

Johan's posts fit a pattern we've seen over and over again on this forum: a lone individual that can't do math and doesn't understand basic physics decides everyone else is wrong about something.

If you want to claim that according to you I do not understand physics then it becomes imperative to compare your standing in physics with my standing in physics. You know who I am and can easily go to my citation index. Now give us your citation index so that we can see who knows more about physics: I do not think you will be willing to have this honesty (and may I use the word integrity?) Your posts fit a pattern I have seen over and over on all forums, on which you find charlatans hiding behind anonymity, who dare not reveal how little they really know about mathematics and basic physics and then waste everybody's time by posting inane arguments.

When his ideas aren't accepted, he interprets that as an attack due to the mainstream's fear that its ideas are wrong

It has happened many times in the past that an individual was right and was then persecuted by the main stream. Do you say this is not possible at present? Censorship of ideas that confront main stream dogma has become the norm. Everybody is talking about this sick phenomenon at the present time. The global warming debate is not an exception to the rule.

Pointing out mistakes in his assertions simply cements his beliefs further -

The one time you did point out that my argument is not tenable, I did concede and then you came back and asked whether you can trust my physics if I had to concede that I made a mistake. Now you say that pointing out a mistake "cements my beliefs further". How low can you really become?

he either regards objections as nitpicks that distract from the main point

I have tried to answer every objection on this thread in a scholarly fashion (even though I have retaliated to being called a "crackpot"); maybe not as clearly as I should have because it is difficult to judge what you, Ben and Ziggurat really know about physics. It is also difficult to argue with people who reject my model on superconduction out of hand without having studied it.

and confirm his belief that the mainstream is trying to avoid engaging

Does "engaging" mean to blindly attack a model without having first studied it?

or he cannot understand them, which he attributes to them being nonsense (again, confirming his beliefs)

I am really trying to understand what you are trying to argue, and in the one rare case where you have made a valid point I did concede. In most cases, however, no matter how hard I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, your arguments were nonsense.

I don't think any amount of discussion will ever change that - certainly not discussion about physics.

Well try and discuss physics: You have rarely done so on this thread. I do not think you should discuss physics until you prove on this thread that you are capable of doing so by revealing your standing within the physics world. If I knew as little as you know, I would also not have posted under my real name.

 

[johanfprins]

Skwinty: Johan has made the claim that all accelerating charges radiate. (All A are R)

I have not! The assertion that "all" accelerating charges accelerate was made under the topic of whether charge-carriers within a superconductor are being accelerated without radiating. This assertion was dishonestly expanded by you Sol and Ziggurat beyond the behavior of charge-carriers within a conducting material. The fact that you, Sol and Ziggurat insist on doing this just prove what you really are: Just people who fire cheap irrelevant shots.

He is trying to prove this by showing examples of accelerating charges that radiate. (X is A and X is R)

I am quoting this in the hope that you will be able to give me real evidence that charge carriers within a conductor that is being accelerated by an electric field cannot radiate. Not one of you could give me such an experimentally verified example.

I agree that some accelerating charges radiate. I agree with some of Johan's examples of such charges, including this one.

So give me experimental proof that free charge-carriers being accelerated by an electric-field do not accelerate. This is what you claim and what I dispute.

However, there are also counterexamples. The spinning disk Y is A, but not R. This disproves Johan's original statement.

So the charge-carriers glued to a spinning disc are each free and being accelerated by an electric field? Stop playing childish games.

For an analogy: Johan says "All armadillos are rabid". To prove this, he posts examples. "Here is a rabid armadillo. Here is another rabid armadillo! Everyone knows this armadillo is rabid, too." I agree that those three armadillos are rabid. However, I can show you one non-rabid armadillo---therefore not all armadillos are rabid, and the statement "all armadillos are rabid" is false. You can't make it true by showing me more rabid armadillos.

The statement that all free charge-carriers being accelerated will emit radiation does not fit this silly argument of yours. You have not given a single experimental vindication that one can accelerate a free charge carrier with an applied electric field so that the charge carrier does not emit radiation.

 

[johanfprins]

Thanks Sol and Ben.

In any event, the probability of me going insane = 1.

I sympathize with you, Sol and Ben are enough to drive any rational being to insanity But I cannot understand why you thank them for this.

 

[johanfprins]

Sol, that's one of the reasons I want to cut off the "acceleration" discussion. Johan isn't interested in opening up Jackson to see the E&M side of things.

I have been searching for my old copy of Jackson: My old books have been stored and I am definitely not buying a new copy of this atrociously written book. But I am sure that what you refer to has nothing to do with free charge-carriers being accelerated by an applied electric-field within a conductor.

He thinks that the quantum side behaves very differently, but I have no interest in talking about it with someone who objects to the words "probability", "expectation value", and "particle".

Why not? Are these terms and concepts holy dogma to you? You are confirming all along that you are not willing to look objectively at ideas which you do not want to believe in. It is this mentality which has caused the deaths of many innocent people during the ages. Maybe you should,have been a Cardinal during the inquisition? Or a security policeman in South Africa during Apartheid?

However, I think we do have a slim chance of making progress on the energy-conservation problem. Johan, are you interested in getting back to that?

Yes as I have promised I am willing to repeat arguing this point in an attempt to hone my arguments. You must, however, know that you make it extremely difficult by not first reading my model: Whether you agree with it or not: But of course you prefer not to take notice of new approaches at variance with what you want to believe.

Can you walk us through the energy budget of an electron going through your battery (gaining U = qV), through your radiating Josephson junction (radiating E = 2qV) and around and around?

The first very important point that most people, even highly acclaimed physicists, do not realize is that a charge-carrier within a material is not "an electron": It is always a pseudo-particle. In a metal it is a wave packet formed by the superposition of all the delocalized electron-waves.

According to BCS it is a Cooper pair within a low temperature metal superconductor. According to my model, each charge-carrier is a localized wave-entity, which is anchored by a binding energy (delta)E_S at a specific position. Such arrays of orbitals form during a metal-insulator transition: Such transitions have been widely studied by Anderson and Mott and led to them winning the Nobel Prize. Thus according to my model superconduction requires such an array of orbitals to form within an energy-gap of the electron spectrum at an energy (delta)E_S below "free" energy levels above which normal conduction is possible by means of wave packets. The critical temperature of superconduction in metals coincide with the critical temperature at which the concomitant metal-insulator transition occurs. And this according to both Mott and Anderson occurs when the Fermi-level moves from the high-energy "free" energy levels into the gap.

Although the transition is called a metal insulator transition, it does not mean that the material now suddenly cannot conduct anymore. It means that conduction does not occur primarily by wave packets anymore, but by thermally induced hopping of the localized states. Such hopping conduction has been a hot topic for years in physics; and is now not badly understood.

Now in my model, superconduction occurs when the hopping is not thermally induced but by quantum fluctuations. That such fluctuations do occur has been demonstrated experimentally. Thus in such a metal, the activation energy to excite electrons from the localised states sitting at an energy (delta)E_S below the free electron levels, starts off at zero when the Fermi-level moves into the gap. It then increases and and becomes (delta)E_S at absolute zero. Thus what is interpreted in the BCS model as the binding energy of a Cooper pair, is the activation energy determined by the position of the Fermi-level. And it also explains why one gets a jump in the heat capacity at the critical temperature: One always get such a jump when the Fermi-level moves into an existing energy gap. In the case of Cooper pairs there is no energy gap at the critical temperature since the binding energy of a Cooper pair is zero. There is thus no physics-reason why one must get such a jump if superconduction is caused by Cooper pairs.

Thus according to my model a superconductor is really a conducting insulator. It is thus not surprising that superconduction has also been found within the ceramics. Now we all know that when applying a electric field to an insulator, its localized orbitals become polarized so that part of the electric field-energy is stored within the ceramic. This reduces the initially applied voltage over the ceramic as we know when inserting a dielectric between capacitor plates. Thus reduction in voltage does not mean that the electric field-energy that was between the plates before inserting the dielectric has now become less after having inserted the dielectric. The electric-field energy stays exactly the same even though the voltage has decreased. A superconductor is a "perfect dielectric": It localized charge carriers polarize to totally cancel the applied voltage: This means that their binding energy (delta)E_S decreases. Thus the charge-carriers of two identical superconductors will have different binding energies when they have to cancel two electric-field of different magnitudes; and since they move by "quantum-hopping", the one with the high electric-field will have lower barriers the charge carriers have to hop over in order to transport charge.

Now if you have a so-called "tunneling" junction between two materials, the light being radiated when putting a voltage V over the junction will depend on the properties of the charge-carriers:

1. If the two materials are normal metals conducting by the movement of wave packets, each wave packet has a charge -e and will thus radiate energy eV.

2. If the two materials are superconductors, and if the impossible is true so that the charge-carriers are Cooper pairs, each Cooper pair, if the two electrons can move simultaneously through a junction which is far far far thinner than the length of the Cooper pair, will radiate energy 2eV.

3. If the charge-carriers are polarized orbitals, as I am claiming that they are, the voltage V does not just shift the normal electron levels by eV, but in addition this shift in voltage results in a difference in the stored electric field-energy on both sides which decreases of polarization energy of the orbitals on the low energy side by an additional amount of energy also equal to eV. Thus if an orbital now moves through the junction it must radiate energy 2eV even though its charge is only -e. Now here does the extra eV comes from? From the stored electric field energy on the high energy side since for each orbital jumping the junction, another enters the superconductor at the high energy side. Thus even though the normal shift in the energy levels is only eV since one only measures V, the light being emitted by an orbital with charge -e, has an energy of 2eV.

In a superconductor You say it picks up +qV from "polarization", but that energy can't be coming from the battery.

Oh but it does come from the battery: As explained above the fact that the voltage over a capacitor drops when you insert a dielectric does NOT mean that the electric field energy also drops in concert. You can have a voltage V maintaining an electric-field energy which would require a voltage of 2V if there were not any polarization.

I really hope that I have made myself more clear this time around. If not, please feel free to come back; and let us at least try and keep the discussion on a professional level

 

[johanfprins]

Johan and I agreed on one thing early on - that if we could agree on precisely that issue, we'd never agree on anything.

So let us discuss the issue further: See my post #766, and come back if you have more questions or disagreements.

Even so, I think that chance is close to zero.

I also have this bad feeling, but it will not be my fault since I am always willing to agree and apologize when I find that I have made a mistake. I doubt whether you would be willing to do the same.

 

[johanfprins]

2eV made more sense as it is the energy of 2 electrons (cooper pair).

It seems to make more sense if you ignore the fact that a superconductor is a "conducting dielectric"

It should however not make any sense when you compare the distance between two Cooper-electrons with the width of the junction. This is a fundamental flaw of the BCS model, the density of the Cooper Pairs are so high that they cannot be separate charge-carriers as is claimed. This model has been a fairytale right from the start since it is based on quantum field theory which is also a fairytale. Since the Higgs' boson is based on the same "physics" it will be interesting to see what happens at the LHC in Cern. Will they claim that they found this non-existent "particle" just as Rubbia claimed that he found the vector bosons? Most probably they will have to after the billions of dollars that have been spent.

Ok! You have posted enough for one day, I think.

 

[catsmate]

Yes, with Ben you never know whether he is visiting Alice in Wonderland or at least trying to be a realist. I also feel as if I am starting to go insane, but will keep on explaining physics in the hope that the great paranormal delusion instigated by Bohr, Heisenberg and Born in 1927, will be replaced by the realism of Einstein, Schroedinger and de Broglie; so that we stop wasting money on searching for a universe within which cats are both alive and dead.

Has anyone been keeping track of the Crackpot Index for Johan's postings? Must be over 100 now.
This post alone should be worth 20 points...........

 

[ben m]

I have been searching for my old copy of Jackson: My old books have been stored and I am definitely not buying a new copy of this atrociously written book. But I am sure that what you refer to has nothing to do with free charge-carriers being accelerated by an applied electric-field within a conductor.

You haven't presented the slightest scrap of evidence in favor of this, except the fact that you're so sure of it.

Why not? Are these terms and concepts holy dogma to you?

No. It's just that I will give you only one at a time.

If quantum mechanics is wrong ... well, hang up your anti-BCS hat for a while, go do an experiment proving quantum mechanics wrong.

If Jackson is wrong ... well, hang up your anti-BCS hat for a while and find the flaws in his (and everyone else's) derivations.

Then maybe you can come back, after there's a coherent argument in favor of your anti-QM and anti-Maxwell statements. Then, maybe, you can cite the new-QM and the new-E&M as part of the underlying physics of your anti-BCS model.

You've been making your model true first, and finding QM-is-false and Jackson-is-wrong as consequences whenever someone spots a contradiction. You know what this is? It's unfalsifiability. Your model is utterly untestable, if disagreements between your model and laws-of-physics always make you discard the laws.

Maybe you should,have been a Cardinal during the inquisition? Or a security policeman in South Africa during Apartheid?

First I was Goebbels, now I'm Torquemada and P.W. Botha. For crying out loud! That crosses my ignore-list threshhold. Bye bye, crackpot.

 

[ben m]

3. If the charge-carriers are polarized orbitals, as I am claiming that they are, the voltage V does not just shift the normal electron levels by eV, but in addition this shift in voltage results in a difference in the stored electric field-energy on both sides which decreases of polarization energy of the orbitals on the low energy side by an additional amount of energy also equal to eV. Thus if an orbital now moves through the junction it must radiate energy 2eV even though its charge is only -e. Now here does the extra eV comes from? From the stored electric field energy on the high energy side since for each orbital jumping the junction, another enters the superconductor at the high energy side. Thus even though the normal shift in the energy levels is only eV since one only measures V, the light being emitted by an orbital with charge -e, has an energy of 2eV.
Oh but it does come from the battery: As explained above the fact that the voltage over a capacitor drops when you insert a dielectric does NOT mean that the electric field energy also drops in concert. You can have a voltage V maintaining an electric-field energy which would require a voltage of 2V if there were not any polarization.

Yep. A perfectly clear description of a violation of conservation of energy.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh but it does come from the battery

No, johan, it does not. The only energy that comes out of a battery is QV. If you don't pull Q out, you don't get any energy. And you can't get MORE energy out than QV. Doing so would violate conservation of energy.

I don't care what you connect your battery to, the battery itself really is that simple.

As explained above the fact that the voltage over a capacitor drops when you insert a dielectric does NOT mean that the electric field energy also drops in concert.

Actually, if you keep the charge constant, that's exactly what it means. The capacitor will do work on the dielectric (and it pulls the dielectric in), and in the process the electric field energy of the system decreases. But it's worth noting that you're not actually keeping track of what happens to the charge in these scenarios. That's a mistake. As mentioned above, the energy output of the battery is always just QV. If you don't pay attention to Q, you won't get the right answer.

 

[Mr.D]

Oh but it does come from the battery:

Johan,

Have you actually measured the output power from the battery?

 

[sol invictus]

As explained above the fact that the voltage over a capacitor drops when you insert a dielectric does NOT mean that the electric field energy also drops in concert. You can have a voltage V maintaining an electric-field energy which would require a voltage of 2V if there were not any polarization.

Nonsense.

Johan - what do you think is the relation between voltage and electric field?

 

[johanfprins]

I'll repeat my answer: You're wrong, the circuit diagram (again, from your erratum) is nonsense. The energy loss in traversing the junction is the same as the energy gain in traversing the battery, not twice that.

OK Ben; your staying power has forced my arm to go into aspects which I tried to avoid for reasons that will become apparent. The energy difference that you have been raising consistently I have already noticed about 5 years ago: I, however, decided that since people call me a "crackpot" after I have found that electrons extracted from an n-type diamond into an anode form part of a dipole layer within which the applied electric-field is totally cancelled, while charge is still transferred from the diamond to the anode, the most obvious implication of the energy-balance situation would have had me burning at the stake.

I have searched all these years to avoid mentioning this possibility in the hope that there is a way around it. Since you persistently pointed out that there is no way around it, I will take the plunge and brace myself to be called the crackpot of all crackpots. This means that this post will be rather lengthy; but please bear with me since objective criticism will be very useful indeed.

But before I give further background, first a few remarks on your energy diagram. (i) A trivial remark is that both you and Ziggurat claim that the charge-carriers within a superconductor are being accelerated, the voltage between the power supply and the junction should then have a slope. Since I, however, know that they move without being accelerated, I am happy with the flat voltage as you have drawn it. (ii) A more serious remark is that you ignored the Fermi-level and the matching of the Fermi-level at the contacts to the superconductor. By doing this, your diagram is not applicable to the BCS model, and also not to my model. The latter aspect is what I want to address; but it first requires a comparison between BCS and my model.

The BCS model and my model do have some similarities. The major similarity is that for both models there is an energy gap and a Fermi-level within the gap. And both models are based on quantum fluctuations: In the BCS model it is a "virtual phonon" in my model it is a "quantum-hop".

In the BCS model it is claimed that the relevant energy-gap represents the binding-energy of the two electrons forming a Cooper pair; and that the one electron has an energy (delta) above the Fermi-level and that the other has an energy (delta) below the Fermi-level, where these (delta)'s increase with decreasing temperature while the Fermi-level stays centered between them. This energy gap is supposedly "mediated" by a "virtual phonon" which causes the gap to be zero at the critical temperature and to increase to its maximum value at absolute zero. In other words when superconduction initiates, the electron-energy spectrum is exactly the same as it is above the critical temperature.

Before getting to the Fermi-levels at the contacts to the superconductor there are aspects which I find strange in this model; and I will now mention the two most obvious ones:
(i)The most obvious one is that if there is no drastic change in the electronic energy spectrum at the critical temperature, there should not be a sudden jump in the heat capacity of the electrons as is observed in the low temperature metal superconductors.
(ii) Phonons are positively charged and if the bonding of the two electrons is mediated by phonons. they will be accompanied by a positive charge (while they move along) of at least +e; more probably +2e. Thus they cannot be doubly-charged charge-carriers and are most probably neutral entities which sure as hell can then not be charge-carriers.

At both the injection contact (where single electrons are being injected by the power supply) and the ejecting contact where single electrons are being ejected from the superconductor, the Fermi-level within the contact must be in alignment with the Fermi-level within the superconductor, which according to the BCS model is situated in the middle of the energy-gap between the two electrons forming a Cooper pair.

Thus when electrons are being injected they enter into an insulating gap: Two successive electrons require one of them to lose energy (delta) and the other one to gain energy (delta) in order to form a Cooper pair. It is easy for the electron which has to lose energy (delta) to radiate this energy away; but where does the energy (delta) comes from for the second electron which has to gain this energy? One might want to argue that it comes from the first electron by a type of Auger mechanism; but it sounds very contrived.

Andreev tried to model how this occurs by what has become known as "Andreev reflection": However, his model requires that an electron must be injected at an energy (delta) below the Fermi-level. Obviously this is a nonsense assumption. The back-reflected hole derived by him always occurs when you eject an electron into an insulator; and has nothing to do with Cooper pairs being formed.

A similar situation occurs at the ejection contact: The higher-energy electron can end up at the Fermi-level within the contact by radiating away its energy, but where does the lower energy electron get its energy from to end up at the Fermi-level in the contact?

At a Josephson junction there are even more complications which I have already mentioned on this thread: The major one is that the Cooper pair has a much larger size than the largest width of the junction through which it can "tunnel" as if it is a "point particle". Why is it not possible to tunnel through a junction that at least has a width equal to the size of the Cooper pair?

2. In my model the energy gap (delta)E_S already exists at full strength at the critical temperature: In the low temperature metals the critical temperature coincides with the metal-insulator transition: i.e. when the Fermi-level moves into the gap between the free-electron energy states and the localized orbitals which are responsible for superconduction by means of "quantum-hopping". At this point the energy difference (delta)E_A between the Fermi-level and the free electron-levels is zero, but the energy required to absorb heat must suddenly jump, since electrons must now primarily be excited from the stationary orbitals over the gap energy (delta)E_S. Thus the jump in heat capacity must occur for this reason. As the temperature decreases the Fermi-level moves down within the gap (like Fermi-levels always do within an electron-energy spectrum) until at absolute zero temperature (delta)E_A=(delta)E_S. It is this increase in (delta)E_A, which is interpreted in the BCS model as being the binding energy of a Cooper pair.

It is also the latter Fermi-level which must align with the Fermi-levels within the contacts. At temperatures above absolute zero it is at an energy (delta)E_Q=(delta)E_S-(delta)E_A above the superconducting orbitals. Thus when an electron is injected in order to replace the nearest orbital to the injection contact, which then moves on further to replace the next orbitals etc., the injected electron must lose energy (delta)E_Q; which can be easily done by radiating it away.

When it reaches the ejection contact, it needs this energy to enter the contact; but since the temperature is higher than absolute zero this energy is probably supplied by a temperature fluctuation; so that the charge is easily transferred from the superconductor to the external circuit. But how does it enter the contact at absolute zero? Fortunately at absolute zero the Fermi-level is at the energy-position of the orbital, so that an injected electron need not lose any energy and an ejected electron does not need extra energy.

But now comes the Josephson junction with a voltage V_J across it: To simplify the discussion let us assume that without the junction voltage the Fermi-level is situated at the energy position of the orbitals. Before switching on the voltage V_J the Fermi-level is the same on both sides of the junction. After switching on the voltage V_J the Fermi-level shifts by an energy qV_J over the junction where q is the charge on the charge-carriers. But as already explained on this thread, the charge-carriers on the low energy side shifts by an additional amount of energy qV_J owing to a decrease in their polarization-energy. Thus when an orbital with charge q moves through the junction it radiates energy 2qV_J.

But now when reaching the ejection contact, it has an energy qV_J lower than the position of the Fermi-level within the contact. Thus to move on it must gain this additional energy. Where does it come from? Well as Ben correctly pointed out all along, it cannot come from the battery; even though I have tried for years to argue that it must be so since, if it does not, I have to conclude that it is supplied by a quantum fluctuation. It is all good and well to claim that the orbitals are borrowing energy (delta)E_S+1/2m*v^2 to move from one point to another after which this energy is returned; but to argue that at the ejection contact part of this borrowed energy remains, and is not given back, sounds bizarre. It would mean that "free energy" is extracted from the "vacuum". I thus decided that there must be another mechanism for the appearance of this energy; and have been valiantly searching for this mechanism in order not to cement my position as a crackpot.

Ben's persistence that this energy cannot come from the battery or any capacitor in parallel, now forces me to conclude that, if my model is correct, one might be able to use Josephson junctions to extract "free energy" from our surroundings. There: Ben has forced me to state this in the open! I now really feel like a crackpot!

 

[johanfprins]

Johan,

What is the difference between a holistic macro wave and a density wave.

I am talking under correction: The term "density wave" seems to be invoked when nobody really knows what is happening. What I can deduce from the literature is that it consists of a distribution of electrons moving like a macro-wave through the crystal lattice: Very much like a water-wave consists of molecules.

My definition of a holistic, macro matter-wave is a macro-wave that, similar to a single-electron wave, has a time-independent intensity distribution: i.e. it is a single entity which does not consist of identifiable single-electron waves "within it". The electrons from which it formed all merged into a single identity which is in immediate contact with itself over most of the region in space that it occupies.

Thus an entangled wave formed by two electrons is, according to this viewpoint, not dualistic as described by the Copenhagen interpretation, since there are not two separate particles after entanglement. When you make a measurement, you change the boundary conditions of this entangled, holistic entity, and this might require that the wave disentangle into two single-electron waves. Since the wave is in immediate contact with itself before disentangling, the two waves that result from the measurement are correlated.

Similarly, I believe that a laser beam is also such an entangled entity within which there are not separate photons. It is a single light wave which is similarly in immediate contact with itself and can be disentangled into smaller waves when the boundary conditions change: For example, when the laser beam impinges into another object.

Similarly, the electron phase that I have extracted many times from n-type diamond forms such a single holistic wave. A kind of macro chemical bond between the diamond and the anode.

I believe that such waves are really Bose-Einstein Condensates and not any collection of separate waves which all have the same lowest energy. Although the latter collection of individual waves can also be considered as a "condensate" (eg. liquid helium) the individual waves need not be bosons, but can under suitable conditions also be fermions; as in the case of most superconductors discovered to date.

Once again I link to this paper:
http://www.physorg.com/news189798601.html
ETA: The comments to this article even make reference to you.
ETA2: I see you posted to this discussion. I will read all the comments.

The problem is that the difference between a density-wave and a holistic macro-wave has not yet been appreciated within main stream physics. The reason for this is the concepts of wave-particle duality and Bohr's complementarity.

In this article, they try to explain the pseudo-gap in the ceramic superconductors by invoking density waves, whereas this is not necessary. That the ceramics must have a pseudo-gap flows naturally from my model. In the metals superconduction immediately initiates when the Fermi-level moves into the gap (see just above). In the ceramics, the Fermi-level moves down into the energy gap before the density of orbitals is high enough to result into superconduction. Thus, the Fermi-level first moves through a pseudo-gap until the orbital density is high enough, and then it moves into the gap within which superconduction then occurs.

 

[Skwinty]

Thanks Johan.

 

[johanfprins]

What puzzles me is that Johan has said on numerous occasions that the Josephson junction is irrelevant.
Yet here we are, discussing the Josephson junction again.

If I did state this I was wrong since the Josephson junction illustrates most of the aspects of superconduction very well indeed. What I did say, and still maintain, is that the modelling of superconduction as a macro wave having a phase-angle scalar-field which can be treated as if its gradient is a circular vector field, is wrong physics and wrong mathematics.

 

[Skwinty]

Fair enough, although my next post corrected my statement from Josephsom junction to Josephson derivation.

This implied, IMO, that the junction is relevant as it has been shown to do exactly what it was intended to do.

I interpreted the derivation to mean a math explanation confirming the mechanism.

But on the other hand, I am probably wrong again.

 

[sol invictus]

It would mean that "free energy" is extracted from the "vacuum". I thus decided that there must be another mechanism for the appearance of this energy; and have been valiantly searching for this mechanism in order not to cement my position as a crackpot.

Ben's persistence that this energy cannot come from the battery or any capacitor in parallel, now forces me to conclude that, if my model is correct, one might be able to use Josephson junctions to extract "free energy" from our surroundings. There: Ben has forced me to state this in the open! I now really feel like a crackpot!

That your model violates conservation of energy has been obvious to everyone from your first posts about it. Why did it take nearly 800 posts for you to admit it? If you've known this for so long, why did you repeatedly lie and deny it over and over?

After realizing that it violates the best-established and most fundamental principle in physics, an intelligent person would conclude that his model was wrong. Instead, since you "know" you're correct, you conclude conservation of energy must be wrong. Free energy for all!

You don't just feel like a crackpot, you are one - and that too has been obvious from the very first page of this thread.