Please look at posts # 962 and 987; and put on your thinking cap. All the arguments you have raised on this post #959 have already been answered on this thread.
I did, since my whole model is based on the fact that the applied electric field is cancelled at the position of each and every superconducting charge-carrier by polarization of the charge carriers. If this is not the case the charge-carriers will be accelerated like normal charge-carriers and superconduction will not be possible.
Have you read my book? How can you make such a statement without first checking your facts?
So you judge on appearances; not on facts! And you call yourself a scientist?
Read my posts above: There is no energy-conservation problem.
Again it "appears" to you that this is the case without checking the actual facts:; Please read posts #964, 987 and 999 above: Put on your thinking cap if you have one.
Yes electric-field energy is transmuted into polarization energy. If you want to claim that the transmuted energy must be subtracted from the original amount of electric field-energy; then I agree. If you want to argue that the total energy (electric-field and polarization) must decrease, you are wrong. All the dipoles are surrounded by "free" charges that can conduct and thus re-arrange in an electric field. Crunch the numbers.
This is obviously an irrelevant and infantile argument and just wasting everybody's time on this thread. Why do you not put a Josephson SIS between two capacitor plates with a separate battery and measure what you get before believing that you can model what happens without doing the experiment? Sheesz! Even better, get a high school pupil to do this experiment for you and report the results objectively before you influence him/her to get what you want to get.
What do you think the "old" "experts" on superconduction will do if they are confronted by the possibility that they will have to announce that their models and publications based on these models have been incorrect for over 50 years?
Yes it has always been there from the time of Galileo: It has now reached a worse scenario since after the second world war physicists increased and number and are vying for funds. It is bad for your future to acknowledge that you have made a mistake; and even worse when the majority in the field has to do so. How the public will laugh when the physicists acknowledge that they are not the "clever gods" portrayed by the BBC on their Horizon programs. At least Stephen Hawking was prepared to state after 30 years that he was wrong: This in my my mind makes him the most important physicist alive today!
I have offered this countless time, but never received an answer from anybody.
You are obviously living in cloud cuckoo land: If you have published ever anything at all (which I doubt) you must have very carefully toed the line not to upset the "cardinals" in charge of main stream dogma. I am sure that if Einstein today tried to publish his theory of relativity for the first time, he would have remained a second grade patent clerk.
I can assure you that when such a dream comes true it immediately turns in the worst nightmare possible. This one can see from the few examples that did succeed notwithstanding the bigotry of the main stream cardinals (better to call them criminals): Take Tectonic Plate Theory, Mandelbrot's mathematics, etc. etc. etc.
If you believe this BS you should not be doing science at all. To judge new science in this manner is to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The latter has become the rule over the past 100 years. This is why I claimed above that Einstein would have had no chance to publish his theory of relativity at present: It is because of people like you that think it is a virtue to defend established theory, instead of evaluating new theory on merit. If only we could clean physics from this curse! Please, in the interest of mankind, become a street sweeper: You are more fit to do the latter. Did you not bid me goodbye in an earlier post? You cannot even keep a promise.
And when I challenge other people to do simple experiments to prove that it is "gibberish" or not "gibberish" they refuse. And when I point out that Cooper Pairs cannot have charge, I am ignored even though the model itself is totally commensurate with this being the case. An when I point out that charge-carriers which can be accelerated cannot convey a supercurrent since the voltage over such a material will never drop to zero, I am insulted and denigrated.
It does not violate energy conservation and I proposed simple experiments in posts #964, 987, and 999, to easily prove that energy is not violated
Standard definitions based on normal conduction? Then I will be just as incompetent as Sol, Ben and Ziggurat. We are not dealing with normal conduction here and thus need to settle the issues by experiment: And I have proposed these experiments.
I can assure you that in contrast to Sol, Ben and Ziggurat I will admit it when I am wrong; as I did in the beginning of this thread when I realized that my initial explanation was wrong.
Sol is incapable to understand anything that does not fit in with the dogma he wants to believe. He is not able, and never will be able, to see the mountains on the moon.
If they are incapable of understanding a presentation based on new experimental evidence it is up to them to do the necessary experiments. If you only repeat experiments because you understand what a person told you, you are not worth to be called a physicist.
I was discussing my initial experiment which does not have conduction in the xy-direction. It is not a traditional superconducting phase. That was ten years ago. Since then I discovered the mechanism responsible for traditional superconduction.
. This is not possible for the phase that I extracted from an n-type diamond; and is still not possible for such a phase. My present materials are under development and proprietary. Nonetheless I can think of applications for my first phase in the micro-electronics industry.
If they are being accelerated as you claim they are, then work is done on them since potential energy is converted into kinetic energy.
This does not give a physics-reason why no work is being done solely because there is an absence of scattering. According to your reasoning here, it means that Newton's second law only applies when there is scattering!
Why later? This is the crux of the matter! You are in effect claiming that there is a "cannon" below the injection contact within the superconductor; which then "fires off" the charge-carriers so that they can afterwards move with a constant speed to the next contact. So you are claiming that only within this limited region below the injection contact of the superconductor you have a voltage which then disappears as if by magic over the rest of the material. Even if this magic were physically possible, you will still measure this voltage over the contacts to the superconductor. Furthermore, the resultant kinetic energy will still dissipate when the charge-carriers enter the end-contact, so that conduction without entropy generation does not occur at all.
If there is nothing that can do work on the charge-carriers, how do they attain a drift speed that is orders of magnitude larger than in the rest of the circuit?
In which direction is this non-constant velocity when the charge-carriers move between two contacts?
Again if there is no voltage anywhere between the contacts by what mechanism does the charge-carriers achieve their constant drift speed? This cannot be explained by the BCS model.
I do not reject physical theory but the Copenhagen interpretation and what follows from it. In this I am not being controversial since Einstein, Schroedinger, and eventually de Broglie questioned this interpretation right up to their deaths. David Bohm also proposed an alternative interpretation.
Quite correct: I reject the interpretation that the intensity of a photon-wave (or an electron-wave) is an inbuilt probability in Nature which on its own describes the probable outcomes that can become a reality when making a measurement. I do not reject the fact that there are probabilities involved, but these probabilities are "normal" just like the probability that a diffusing atom can jump from one position to another within a crystal. To explain my reasoning, let us consider what really happens when one measures the positions of an ensemble of identical photon-waves that impinges into a measuring apparatus.
The result is straightforward when you assume that a photon is a light wave rather than a "particle" which it is not.
It is possible to give a causal model for the alignment of an electron's spin. A free electron has energy (1/2)*(hbar)*(omega): i.e the energy of a harmonic oscillator with one degree of freedom. When solving for such an oscillator in the presence of a magnetic field, its energy beciomes a function of the angle (theta) to the axis of the magnetic field. When (theta) is 90o the energy is at its maximum. When (theta) is zero or 180o the energy is the same minimum value. So once again, the probability of an electron to flip spin-up or spin-down has nothing to to with an inbuilt probability in Nature.
Why should I. I know the derivation well and has taught it for many many years to my students.
So this is totally determined by John von Neumann's mathematics and not by the physics; like, for example, the properties of the measuring apparatus. I know that you are spouting the standard dogma: But it is obviously physics-nonsense.
All experiments that I have come across which supposedly proves the Born rule can be explained in terms of the well known properties of waves when they interact causally. They change shape and size when the boundary conditions change; and if the boundary conditions are such that they can resonate at different points, an ensemble of waves will statistically collapse at the different points, just like you get different outcomes in a casino: Not because of the Born rule.
That is what they say but I do not believe that it is so.
Because the rest mass is used as input which should not be done under relativistic conditions.
A blatant lie!
The Schroedinger equation is an excellent approximation when calculating bound energy states for electrons that end up having energies not far below the rest mass energy of the electron. I suspect that it can be made compatible with relativistic conditions by not using the rest mass as input. Dirac's equation has nothing to do with a single electron; and should thus be ignored as irrelevant If you solve an equation for a single electron and find that you have to invoke an infinite sea of electrons to make sense of your solution, you are definitely not doing physics but abstract mathematics.
Not possible while free charge-carriers constitute a current through the material; as is the case for BCS.
So the intensity of an electromagnetic wave is not determined by its electric-and magnetic energy?
You are just fooling around with the fact that the solution of any wave equation requires "normalization" ; but guess what after normalization the intensity of an EM wave at a point must be its energy at that point: Nothing else makes sense!
No it is not: The probability density must be unity for all the electron-waves after integrating over their intensities, while different electron waves can have different energies.
So the wave-solution for an electron within its own inertial reference frame is not time independent? What does Ehrenfest say about it? No potential gradient but the wave is not a stationary wave? Wow!
Why are they not energy eigenstates when the potential energy does not change with time or position?
If you have an electron passing you with a momentum how do you calculate this momentum from Schroedinger's equation?
If you knew a bit of relativity theory you would know that it is dangerous not to use relative velocities and therefore there is only a single relative momentum involved when an electron diffracts from a diffraction apparatus relative to which it is moving.
I have never argued this anywhere at any time.
The mass you use as input to calculate the energy of the oscillator or the energy which is less than this rest mass? I am not asking about the input mass; and would not be surprised if you were not so dumb as you pretend to be on this issue
It is exactly the same since we have all along discussed voltages during superconduction through a Josephson junction NOT when superconduction is not occurring. You see, this is the problem with especially you and Ziggurat; you play at semantics in order to make cheap shots.
This is another cheap shot by you. Obviously any battery supplies a voltage and a current and that is not what the argument is about. The argument is whether a single battery in series with a resistor and an SIS will cause a voltage over the Josephson junction while superconduction occurs through the SIS. So this is the issue and I expect that you should first admit that your sentence: "The battery will generate a voltage and a current" is deliberately misleading.