Room-temperature superconductivity?

[tomclarke]

Why didn't you address my first and most obvious point that you are wrong in saying that 'there is no electric-field' since this implies it does not exist at all

Because I have never said so! I have consistently stated that the "applied electric field" IS CANCELLED!!! And therefore there is no electric field which can accelerate charge carriers.
I never said that it "does not exist at all". I cannot help to question the motives of somebody who tries to put words in my mouth. This is an old trick to obfuscate a discussion. So PLEASE refrain!

Begin here,

E = - grad(phi)

What you might be able to say is that that the electric field tends to a null vector field.

This is exactly what I have stated all along: The applied electric is cancelled: Your idea that it "tends to a null vector fied" without giving a physics reason why and how it achieves this, is Voodoo. I am clearly saying that an applied electric field can ONLY be cancelled by an opposite polarisation field. If you know Maxwell's equations, as you claim you do, you should realise that there is no other way in which an applied electric field can be cancelled ever.

Although the e-field is not measured directly but only through the gradient of the potential (voltage) which is probably not measured directly either ...

Why can you not measure the latter directly? It is simple to measure the voltage difference over different distances: If this were not so we would not have been able to control electricity and/or electronics.

My guess is that you deliberately want to obfuscate the simple physics involved. The fact remains that there is no voltage difference between any two points. This means in "real physics" that charge-carriers cannot be accelerated. And this means from Newton's second law that there is no net force and thus no net electric field!

so categorically stating the non-existence of the electric field requires an objection to Maxwell's equations, and a leap of faith.

I repeat: If you read carefully I did not categorically state the "non-existence" of the field but the "cancellation of the applied field" so that it cannot accelerate charge carriers. This is an experimental fact not "a leap of faith".

The time-dependent part cannot either be ruled out so categorically either unless you have somehow measured the mag. vector potential across the entire frequency spectrum for oscillatory, yet time-averaged zero-field components, good luck with that.

Again you are trying to obfuscate the issue by applying mathematics which does not relate in any way to a steady-state condition when a steady-state current is flowing; which according to Ampere's law generates a time-independent magnetic field. Go to ANY text book on Electrodynamics and you will see that for steady-state conditions the magnetic field (and thus its vector potential) DOES NOT CHANGE WITH TIME. So to include a time-changing vector potential as if it manifests when an equilibrium current is flowing through a superconductor is not based on ANY experimental fact or known physics: It is physics nonsense: Voodoo.

If the 'no electric field' argument is the crux of your SC argument it seems mathematically shaky since the electric field is a derived quantity so postulating its non-existence is nonsense from the beginning.

To again repeat: Please do not put words in my mouth: I have consistently said that the applied electric field is "cancelled" so that it cannot accelerate charge-carriers: Or do you believe that charge-carriers are being accelerated within a superconductor? If the latter is the case, why is the potential difference zero?

Lets just say it tends to zero in some limiting behavior ... and then consider what that implies for the gradients and their boundary conditions of your SC region.

It implies nothing since what you are stating is Voodoo with no experimental basis. What I am stating is fact: If a current flows between two contacts without a potential difference over the contacts, then there CANNOT be a net electric field accelerating charge carriers. If this is not so it would mean that Newton's laws are wrong. And I am not yet willing to reject Newton's laws just because you want me to ignore them.

Johan,

Forgive me for some rather simple comments. Ch 23 of your book rests on the apparent contradiction that charge carriers appear to move in a superconductor but cannot be accelerated or deccelarated, because of the zero field.

I have not looked too deeply at this, but remembering vaguely some QM I would guess:

This is a semi-classical treatment of a quantum system. In (the standard model of) a superconductor the wave functions are highly nonlocalised so that non-local effects exist between interaction at different separated points. The electron Cooper pairs as a whole form a Bose-Einstein condensate with QM addition and subtraction operators. In this context charge can be added at one point, subtracted at another, and a QM description of the whole system is needed to see precisely what is going on?

The apparent contradiction relating to acceleration and decelleration does not exist because the eletrons are highly nonlocal and therefore do not move.

Forgive me if I have made a mistake here.

Bet wishes, Tom

[hanelyp]

When voltage is applied to a superconductor current rises at a rate limited by inductive impedance, the energy being stored as a magnetic field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_impedance

So you claim that this ONLY happens for a superconductor and NOT for a normal conductor? The energy stored in the magnetic field after a steady state current has been achieved is THE SAME for a normal conductor AND FOR a superconductor through which the same current is flowing. So what are you really trying to say? How does this cancel an electric field within a superconductor?

You have a reading comprehension problem. I never said or implied that this inductive behavior is different from a normal conductor. I will say, again, that is is consistent with the electric field in a super conductor NOT being canceled while the current is rising or falling. Rather I'd describe it as the voltage being opposed by inductive reactance.

V = k*L*dI

[johanfprins]

Forgive me for some rather simple comments. Ch 23 of your book rests on the apparent contradiction that charge carriers appear to move in a superconductor but cannot be accelerated or deccelarated, because of the zero field.

It is exactly this "contradiction" which has to be explained to understand superconduction: And the reason why this "contradiction" has to be explained is that this is exactly what is experimentally measured. The measurement proves that there are separate charge-carriers flowing with a constant drift speed from an injection contact to a target contact for an applied voltage V; which is, however, cancelled and can therefore not be responsible for providing the kinetic energy which the charge-carriers require in order to constitute the current. If you cannot explain this "contradiction" you cannot model superconduction.

I have not looked too deeply at this, but remembering vaguely some QM I would guess: This is a semi-classical treatment of a quantum system.

Excellent observation: This is always the case when a current is flowing: For example, in a normal conductor the valence electrons also form a macro quantum system, but when you apply an electric-field this system forms wave-packets and these wave-packets allow us to treat the current as charge-carriers which move classically: I discuss that in detail in section 9 of my book: Unfortunately this section will only become available once the book is published.

n (the standard model of) a superconductor the wave functions are highly nonlocalised so that non-local effects exist between interaction at different separated points. The electron Cooper pairs as a whole form a Bose-Einstein condensate with QM addition and subtraction operators.

Firstly as I also discuss in detail in my forthcoming my book, a Bose-Einstein Condensate does not consist of a collection of wave-entities; but an entanglement of them: After entanglement they have completely lost there separate identities. This is also what happens when you generate a laser-wave.
This does not mean that a ground state cannot form from separate identifiable waves which superpose so that they all have the same energy: The latter, however, does not demand that the entities which superpose MUST be boson entities. For example, consider a perfect array of single-electron donors at low temperature within a semiconductor. Jointly they form a single macro phase even though each entity is a fermion.
Consider now delocalised standing waves in a perfect metal: Each identical wave is occupied by two electrons, one with spin up and the other with spin down. These waves ARE thus bosons, but they follow Fermi-Dirac statistics.

The fact is that most, and I believe ALL, superconducing materials discovered to date contain a phase consisting of localised fermions which can communicate in a coherent manner as soon as Heisenberg's relationship for energy and time allows it: i.e. as soon as their ionisation energy and distances between them makes such a resonant interaction possible.

In this context charge can be added at one point, subtracted at another, and a QM description of the whole system is needed to see precisely what is going on?

This is possible for a true Bose Einstein single macro wave. The latter is what I discovered for electrons 10 yeras ago when I extracted electrons from a diamond by an anode. A single ground-state wave-entity forms so that if you inject an electron into it, the increase in energy can either break it up or it can release an electron by disentanglement at the other contact: i.e. charge is thus teleported in this case. No current is flowing as in the case for a "normal" superconductor which consist of an array of separate localised states that interact by resonance.

The apparent contradiction relating to acceleration and decelleration does not exist because the eletrons are highly nonlocal and therefore do not move.

If they do not move there will be no current and no magnetic field around the superconductor. Charge-carriers moving as a current cannot consist of non-local waves ever: A current with charge-carriers can only be modelled classically.
Thanks for your extremely relevant questions. If my answers did not satisfy you. PLEASE return with more. You cannot imagine how much such questions help me to hone my own understanding of what is happening.

[johanfprins]

You have a reading comprehension problem. I never said or implied that this inductive behavior is different from a normal conductor. I will say, again, that is is consistent with the electric field in a super conductor NOT being canceled while the current is rising or falling. Rather I'd describe it as the voltage being opposed by inductive reactance.

V = k*L*dI

So what: Everybody with a simple grasp of physics knows that a superconductor generates entropy for an ac or a transient current. Why are you moving the topic away from equilibrium conditions. Is the kitchen getting too hot?

[tomclarke]

Forgive me for some rather simple comments. Ch 23 of your book rests on the apparent contradiction that charge carriers appear to move in a superconductor but cannot be accelerated or deccelarated, because of the zero field.

It is exactly this "contradiction" which has to be explained to understand superconduction: And the reason why this "contradiction" has to be explained is that this is exactly what is experimentally measured. The measurement proves that there are separate charge-carriers flowing with a constant drift speed from an injection contact to a target contact for an applied voltage V; which is, however, cancelled and can therefore not be responsible for providing the kinetic energy which the charge-carriers require in order to constitute the current. If you cannot explain this "contradiction" you cannot model superconduction.

I have not looked too deeply at this, but remembering vaguely some QM I would guess: This is a semi-classical treatment of a quantum system.

Excellent observation: This is always the case when a current is flowing: For example, in a normal conductor the valence electrons also form a macro quantum system, but when you apply an electric-field this system forms wave-packets and these wave-packets allow us to treat the current as charge-carriers which move classically: I discuss that in detail in section 9 of my book: Unfortunately this section will only become available once the book is published.

n (the standard model of) a superconductor the wave functions are highly nonlocalised so that non-local effects exist between interaction at different separated points. The electron Cooper pairs as a whole form a Bose-Einstein condensate with QM addition and subtraction operators.

Firstly as I also discuss in detail in my forthcoming my book, a Bose-Einstein Condensate does not consist of a collection of wave-entities; but an entanglement of them: After entanglement they have completely lost there separate identities. This is also what happens when you generate a laser-wave.
This does not mean that a ground state cannot form from separate identifiable waves which superpose so that they all have the same energy: The latter, however, does not demand that the entities which superpose MUST be boson entities. For example, consider a perfect array of single-electron donors at low temperature within a semiconductor. Jointly they form a single macro phase even though each entity is a fermion.
Consider now delocalised standing waves in a perfect metal: Each identical wave is occupied by two electrons, one with spin up and the other with spin down. These waves ARE thus bosons, but they follow Fermi-Dirac statistics.

The fact is that most, and I believe ALL, superconducing materials discovered to date contain a phase consisting of localised fermions which can communicate in a coherent manner as soon as Heisenberg's relationship for energy and time allows it: i.e. as soon as their ionisation energy and distances between them makes such a resonant interaction possible.

In this context charge can be added at one point, subtracted at another, and a QM description of the whole system is needed to see precisely what is going on?

This is possible for a true Bose Einstein single macro wave. The latter is what I discovered for electrons 10 yeras ago when I extracted electrons from a diamond by an anode. A single ground-state wave-entity forms so that if you inject an electron into it, the increase in energy can either break it up or it can release an electron by disentanglement at the other contact: i.e. charge is thus teleported in this case. No current is flowing as in the case for a "normal" superconductor which consist of an array of separate localised states that interact by resonance.

The apparent contradiction relating to acceleration and decelleration does not exist because the eletrons are highly nonlocal and therefore do not move.

If they do not move there will be no current and no magnetic field around the superconductor. Charge-carriers moving as a current cannot consist of non-local waves ever: A current with charge-carriers can only be modelled classically.
Thanks for your extremely relevant questions. If my answers did not satisfy you. PLEASE return with more. You cannot imagine how much such questions help me to hone my own understanding of what is happening.

We have two separate hypotheses for standard superconductivity:

(Prinz) Coherent quantum barrier jumping of bound local fermions in an array - which implies that the jumping fermions are all entangled. (Incoherent jumping would be probabilistic and lead to a stochastic distribution for state occupancy).


(Standard) electrons pair to make boson-like quasiparticles. These superpose coherently (equivalently with quantum entanglement). The wave functions are highly non-local, so that quantum teleportation is possible between different points.

The distinction that concerns you relates to current. In both cases there is a (set of) quantum state changes rather than a semiclassical current. My physical intuition tells me that in both cases the average current (which is all that will be measured from such a system) will be equivalent to the corresponding clasical current.

I have not the time, and my math being rusty I would need to take time, to work out the precise equations, though I see no problme doing this. I suspect that interaction between the nonlocal boson wave function and localised electrons at different points will impart to the non-local wave functions exactly the correct momentum to provide the expected magnetic field.

To show this you play with the bosonic wave function, the insertion of a Cooper pair at point A and the extraction of a Cooper pair at point B.



PS - it occurs to me that these two hypotheses may not be separate! In both cases the wave functions are coherent. Whether a localised wannier function basis or a distributed basis is taken is arbitrary - there is no description in the physical object. Therefore it seems likley to me that the two descriptions are mathematically indentical.

The question is then what prevents single fermion barrier hopping and requires Cooper pairs? I think there may be some answer relating to conservation of spin.

[johanfprins]

(Prinz) Coherent quantum barrier jumping of bound local fermions in an array - which implies that the jumping fermions are all entangled.

Exactly at this point you are already wrong. Separate wave-entities can NEVER be entangled. This misconception results from the Copenhagen interpretation and Bohr's ludicrous postulate of complementarity
An entangled wave is a single, holistic wave which do not have separate smaller entites constituting it. It does NOT simultaneously exist of "complementary particles"; since such entities do not even exist.

A single electron-wave on its own, although it cannot disentangle into smaller entities, is also a holistic "entangled" wave; like any other larger entangled wave. This does not mean that an entangled holistic wave cannot consist of smaller "fragments": Consider the case of a single holistic electron-wave when it forms a p- or a d-wave around a nucleus; as well as the fact that it must fragment into two parts when it moves through a double slit. The two fragments still constitute a holistic, single wave, or else there would not be coherent interference between them after they have moved through the two slits.

The same is true for a macro- so-called Bose-Einstein Condensate'". To decompose into smaller separate entities it has to disentangle. When it is NOT disentangled it is a single entity on its own. That is why a BEC can cause interference fringes. A superconducting phase, although a macro-electron wave, like all valence-electron phases are (One has to sovle a so-called "many-body" wave equation) whether they superconduct or not, is NOT a BEC. It is an insulating array of localised waves which can jump from one position to the other.

Incoherent jumping would be probabilistic and lead to a stochastic distribution for state occupancy.

Incoherent jumping does occur for such an insulator above the critical temperature. This has been well modelled as "hopping conduction". These jumps are caused by temperature fluctuations. Below Tc adjacent states can resonate quantum-mechanically owing to Heisenberg's uncertainty relationship and therefore superconduction now becomes possible by means of quantum fluctuations.

If, as you claim, the whole phase must always interact coherently when a current flows, it will mean that such a phase will not be able to transport a singly-injected electron-charge from one contact to the other. But all superconducting phases can do the latter.

(Standard) electrons pair to make boson-like quasiparticles. These superpose coherently (equivalently with quantum entanglement). The wave functions are highly non-local, so that quantum teleportation is possible between different points.

As I have pointed out this is possible, but the only phase EVER generated which is able to do this is the electron phase I have generated by extracting electrons from a diamond into a vacuum. There is in this case not a current flowing through the element containing this phase, so there is then not a magnetic-field around it. For all other superconductors discovered to date there is a constant magnetic field forming which proves by Ampere's law that charge carriers move and they are thus not teleported.

The distinction that concerns you relates to current. In both cases there is a (set of) quantum state changes rather than a semiclassical current.

When you teleport there cannot be a current: By its definition teleportation is a non-local transfer of charge.

My physical intuition tells me that in both cases the average current (which is all that will be measured from such a system) will be equivalent to the corresponding clasical current.

I am not willing to argue physics generated by your "intuition": The fact is that teleportation cannot generate a current to flow and that all electric currents we have ever encountered consist of charge-carriers which move to constitute the current. In the case of a normal conductor they are accelerated while in the case of a superconductor they cannot move by acceleration.

I have not the time, and my math being rusty I would need to take time, to work out the precise equations, though I see no problme doing this. I suspect that interaction between the nonlocal boson wave function and localised electrons at different points will impart to the non-local wave functions exactly the correct momentum to provide the expected magnetic field.

I think it will be a good idea to rather do this than to rely on your intuition!

To show this you play with the bosonic wave function, the insertion of a Cooper pair at point A and the extraction of a Cooper pair at point B.

That would be non-local charge reansport which cannot generate a magnetic field by means of Ampere's law.

I am sure there are others on this site with less rusty knowledge of QM - in which case please correct mistakes in the above

I can assure you that I will welcome such input even more than you do.

PS - it occurs to me that these two hypotheses may not be separate! In both cases the wave functions are coherent. Whether a localised wannier function basis or a distributed basis is taken is arbitrary - there is no description in the physical object. Therefore it seems likley to me that the two descriptions are mathematically indentical.

I can assure you that they are not gthe same at all. I have done the mathematics and my quantum mechanics is not "rusty" at the moment.

The question is then what prevents single fermion barrier hopping and requires Cooper pairs? I think there may be some answer relating to conservation of spin.

When you do not know what is going on use "spin". I can assure you that Cooper Pairs have only really existed in the mind of Leon Cooper. The electromagnetic radiation coming from a Josephson junction with a voltage across it proves unequivocally that they are singly-charged. Josephson used a classical equation describing an impossible ac-current, and reached the wrong conclusion that the charge-carriers are doubly-charged.

(Prinz)

Are you maybe GIThruster who decided to behave this time around?

[TallDave]

Very interesting reading guys, if a little combative at times. Thanks for sharing.

[johanfprins]

Does this lack of further response signal an acceptance that I have won all the physics arguments? I would think so: But it would be nice if somebody would be willing to concur that, at least up to now, I have been able to counter all the arguments directed against me.

During the 1970's I had even more vicious disagreements when I argued that Apartheid is immoral. Those who came to the point that they could not anymore argue against me, just fell silent, but kept on fanning disbelief, hatred and slander against me. Also at that time I was accused as being "gruff" with "no social skills". When I come across these people at present, they deny that they did not agree with me. In fact, if you believe the "White Afrikaner Tribe" within which I was also born, they specifically voted for that government because they were all "against Apartheid". A prime example is our previous foreign minister The Honourable Pik Botha.

The reaction that I got from the "Physics Tribe" during the past year is exactly the same. "They will not bat with me against the status quo". How many Jews must have heard this same argument in Hitler's Germany. God help the human race! Will they also one day claim that they always suspected that the BCS model is a hallucination?

[WizWom]

Honestly, I need to get through tensor mathematics and quantum mechanics before I can have a decent shot at analyzing either standard superconductor theory or your refinement to it.

[johanfprins]

Honestly, I need to get through tensor mathematics and quantum mechanics before I can have a decent shot at analyzing either standard superconductor theory or your refinement to it.

Great response: I am looking forward to your further input after you have mastered these fields. I can assure you both of them are wonderful. I have been very good in tensor analysis 40 years ago and also plan to brush up on it again as I had to do on quantum mechanics after I discovered superconduction at room temperature. My quantum mechanics is now really up to par and it shows on its own that Eintein's theory of gravity is already compatible with matter-waves, like those that Schroedinger's equation models. In terms of this deduction, I am of the opinion that Einstein's theory can be simplified without changing its conclusions. If I do not die soon, that is what I would like to look into next.

By the way, you cannot refine the presently-accepted theory since it is a complete hallucination. You can only replace it with real physics.

[GIThruster]

That's impressive, Johan. Einstein couldn't do his own tensor maths. He had help with them.

[Giorgio]

Does this lack of further response signal an acceptance that I have won all the physics arguments? I would think so: But it would be nice if somebody would be willing to concur that, at least up to now, I have been able to counter all the arguments directed against me.

I can tell you that you have almost convinced me with your theories. I am not yet convinced about the idea of an instantaneous wave collaps as it reaches the boundary, but this is the only issue I am finding for now with your theory.

Yet it will need experimental evidences to make a breakthrough in mainstream physicists (it was the same with Einstein theories after all....).

My suggestion, and the suggestion of most of the people here, is to put your efforts in completing the small mathematical introduction to your theory and than complete your book.

With a clean and easily understandable introduction much more people will be willing to give a good look to your theories (and maybe test them).


Edited to fix some typos.

[johanfprins]

That's impressive, Johan. Einstein couldn't do his own tensor maths. He had help with them.

Thanks GIThruster: In fact 50 years ago it was my great wish to become a theoretical physicist but could not find anybody to really explain to me what Einstein did in tensor analysis. This is of course not a reflection on my professors, since it was no their expertise. I thus worked very hard to understand it by myself: But once I came to the conclusion that all Einstein's tensors must be derived from a 4-dimensional euclidean space which supplies the "eternal" reference frame for time-space and thus curvature, I came into conflict with the way Einstein's theory is presented in books.

I was young and could, of course not find any funding to pursue this any further. Neither was I then strong enough to take on the "status quo". Therefore I ended up finally as an experimental Materials Scientist. But my sortee into trying to become a theoretical physicist left a lasting impression and desire in me. Today I am very glad that I did not follow that path since it is now my conclusion that theoretical physics was totally derailed in 1927. Einstein knew it but lost all the arguments against Bohr: Probably because of the fact that he was responsible bringing in the wrong interpretation that the photo-electric effect requires "light-particles". It is fascinating that in 1922 he so much as admitted in a lecture in Brazil that he probably led physics astray. A pity that he did not develop this argument further before engaging Bohr in 1927 and 1930. By 1935, when he posted the EPR paradox it was already too late to turn the tide.

[johanfprins]

I can tell you that you have almost convinced me with your theories.

Thanks, I appreciate this very much. You will be surprised to hear that I will appreciate it even more if you do succeeed in shooting me down sometime in the future. This is how physics develops into new paradigms.

I am not yet convinced about the idea of an instantaneous wave collapse as it reaches the boundary, but this is the only issue I am finding for now with your theory.

This I find quite surprising from my point of view since it is accepted in the "probability" interpretation that it happens. So both my interpretation and the Copenhagen interpretation agree on this point. Probably the only point we agree on!

Yet it will need experimental evidences to make a breakthrough in mainstream physicists (it was the same with Einstein theories after all....).

I am of the opinion that the reality of "quantum-jumps" (i.e. instantaneous changes in the "orbitals" that atomic electrons experience) proves this point.

My suggestion, and the suggestion of most of the people here, is to put your efforts in completing the small mathematical introduction to your theory

Please tell me what still needs completion?

and than complete your book.

Agreed: I am working VERY hard on this and it is my intention to have it available in three weeks; maximum 4.

With a clean and easily understandable introduction much more people will be willing to give a good look to your theories (and maybe test them).

Your assistence here will be grealtly appreciated.

[GIThruster]

That's impressive, Johan. Einstein couldn't do his own tensor maths. He had help with them.

Thanks GIThruster: In fact 50 years ago it was my great wish to become a theoretical physicist but could not find anybody to really explain to me what Einstein did in tensor analysis. This is of course not a reflection on my professors, since it was no their expertise. I thus worked very hard to understand it by myself: But once I came to the conclusion that all Einstein's tensors must be derived from a 4-dimensional euclidean space which supplies the "eternal" reference frame for time-space and thus curvature, I came into conflict with the way Einstein's theory is presented in books.

Perhaps your book project is not the only way you can enhance your ability to be heard? I know someone who is able to do the kinds of math we're here talking about. He's an educator but he moonlights for DOD doing contract piece work in these very advanced mathematics. He can't afford to work on interests of his own for free because he makes TOO MUCH MONEY doing what so very few are able to do.

If you think you can write a resume for this kind of work, send it to me privately and I'll forward it to the proper people. Connecting with them might be a way for you to be heard on your work with RTSC's.