Sorry DeltaV; I missed this posting until now. I believe that my model can describe these effects very well: I, however, stopped trying to publish this since once I point out that a superconductor phase IS NOT A METAL, then I get the reaction that we got from GIThruster on this forum: I should NOT "redefine" what a superconductor is but exaplain my model in terms of the wrong definitions already accepted as correct.DeltaV wrote:Johan, can your theory explain that?At the atomic level, cuprates are classified as a "many-body system" — essentially a vast collection of electrons that interact with each other. Such systems are usually described using quantum mechanics. However, so far, physicists have found it difficult to describe cuprates, because their behavior is so different from other materials. Understanding that behavior could help physicists find new materials that superconduct at even higher temperatures. These new materials would have potentially limitless applications.
Unlike most materials, cuprates do not obey Fermi's laws, a set of quantum-mechanics principles that govern microscopic behavior at very low temperatures (close to absolute zero, or -273 degrees Celsius). Instead, cuprates become superco The strangenductors. Just above the temperature at which they begin to superconduct, they enter a state called the "strange metal" state.
In this study, the researchers focused on two properties that distinguish those cuprate strange metals from Fermi liquids. In ordinary Fermi liquids, electrical resistivity and the rates of electron scattering (deflection from their original course caused by interactions with each other) are both proportional to the temperature squared. However, in cuprates (and other superconducting non-Fermi liquids), electron scattering and resistivity are proportional to the temperature. "There's really no theory of how to explain that," says Liu.
I cannot discuss this specific material in detail on this forum, and also do not have the time to do all the calculations. Suffice to say that I would have been VERY surprised if the non-superconducting charge-carriers formed a Fermi-liquid.
What happens in most of the ceramic superconductors is that there are donors WITHIN the crystallographic layers which donate electrons which, in turn, form the insulating superconducting array of localised orbitals at a lower energy BETWEEN the layers. This leaves positive charges behind within the crystallographic layers. While the tremperature decreases the Fermi-level moves down from the donor-energy positions towards the energy of the superconducting orbitals between the layers.
Conduction within the crytallographic layers can in this case occur before superconduction sets in (between the layers) by means of electrons tunnelling from non-ionised donors to next neighbour ionised donors. I am convinced that it is this conduction that they claim to be a "strange metal" . Measuring the charge on charge carriers when nearest neighbour hopping occurs can be confusing, but I expect that in most cases this strange metal might be displaying hole conduction.
In the low temperature metals the electrons at higher energies are wave packets (pseudo particles) and they will conduct like a Fermi-liquid while the Fermi-level lies above the superconducting gap. No "strange metal" forms until superconduction sets in as soon as the Fermi level moves into the gap. In the ceramics the Fermi-level already lies within the gap and the strange metal conduction observed before SC sets in can thus only be caused by a process akin to NN-hopping. Only when the localised charge carriers between the layers reaches a high enough density does SC start.
In all superconductors the Fermi-level moves towards the energy of the superconducting orbitals and will end up at these orbitals at a low enough temperature. Thus the superconducting energy gap you measure with changing temperature is the gap between the Fermi-level and the top of the gap. I have NEVER measured a Fermi-level that does NOT move within an energy gap when changing the temperature (as is claimed for BCS). In the ceramics it is even possible that at a lower temperature the localised orbital-density becomes so high that they overlap to form a band of states with the Fermi-level at their energy position. If this happens, superconduction then becomes impossible and you will probably measure metallic conduction for which the charge-carriers are now negatively charged.
I think "string theory" is most cranky thing I have heard of in my lifetime!