Correct!Grurgle-the-Grey wrote:A Neutron decays into an electron, proton and anti-neutrino but it would be very wrong to talk of 'the electron in the neutron'.
That is because it is wrongly assumed that a superconducting charge carrier must be a boson. In fact the charge-carriers within a superconductor obeys Schroedinger's equation perfectly.So too with this boson, it really is something very different with some very odd properties. We know it shows contempt for Schro's evanescent equation, so it can't be obeying Schro's wave equation in a lattice. Therefore it won't be affected by the electron band-structure.
This is exactly what the charge-carriers within a superconductor do. They are stationary, localized electron-waves, each having the same binding energy, within an electron-energy gap; similar to donors below a conduction band. The so-called Cooper Pair "binding energy" is the position of the Fermi-level in this gap which ends up at the energy of the charge-carriers at absolute zero.So in a lattice that is more gap than band for electrons, like a doped insulator, it is likely that our boson will take up an energy in a gap.
In fact such a doped semiconductor is a dormant superconductor. If their ionization energy and distances between the donors are suitably low, such a semiconductor will superconduct even though the donor-electrons are singly-charged. This has been demonstrated experimentally during the past decade.
As I have argued, one does not need bosons to have superconduction.Since the gap prevents thermal lattice electrons from causing decay of the bosons it can only be the bosons own thermodynamics that causes higher temperature SC.
I am at a lost with terminology here; and do not know the experiment. What do you exactly define as the "London moment" and what did Tate actually measure?Further proof that we are dealing with a separate entity that decays to Cooper Pairs is the Tate '89 experiment. She measured e/m using the London Moment
