Room-temperature superconductivity?

[MSimon]

STM used with CuO SCs:

http://www.edn.com/article/509843-_Pseu ... tivity.php

[DeltaV]

The pace quickens...
From Joe Eck's website: Indications of room-temperature superconductivity at a metal-PZT interface

The experimental results reported here strongly suggest the presence of a superconducting layer near room temperature in the interface between a metal film and a PZT substrate.

[MSimon]

The pace quickens...
From Joe Eck's website: Indications of room-temperature superconductivity at a metal-PZT interface

The experimental results reported here strongly suggest the presence of a superconducting layer near room temperature in the interface between a metal film and a PZT substrate.

The AD620 is one of my favorite instrumentation amplifiers. Relatively low noise. High gain and a good GBw product. Low offset voltage and low bias current. Plus high input impedance and no resistors in the input leads. All you have is the feedback resistors.

[johanfprins]

So, you are implying that kinetic energy to the charge carrier is applied externally before it arrives to the start of the superconductor (as example in an electric generator). The charge than reaches the start of the superconductor where the electric field nullifies and the transport to the other side occurs in a "tunnelling" fashion (kinda like what happens in a kinetic balls toy, when you let a ball drop a chain of other balls and the one at the opposite side bounces away).
At the other end of the superconductor the charge reappers with the same starting characteristics (and entropy).

Am I reading this correctly?

I am NOT implying "that kinetic energy to the charge-accrier is applied externally before it arrives to the start of the superconductor". The latter is ONLY possible if the injection contact is a source of charge-carriers as you have in a ctahode ray tube or an electron accelerator. In a closed circuit the kinetic energy required for the charge carriers to flow from one contact to the other must be generated WIThin the superconductor, BUT not by acceleration since there is NO electric field to accelerate the charge-carriers. Furthermore, this kinetic energy MUST NEVER dissipate to generate entropy. This can ONLY happen when the charge carriers move by hopping with energy supplied by quantum fluctuations, NO OTHER MECHANISM CAN EXPLAIN OR MODEL SUPERCONDUCTION!

[Giorgio]

I see, I understand better your point now.

Can I ask you what you think it happes when a material switch from a resistive to a superconducting state?

In other words, what is the phisical modification that the material undergoes that (at lower temperatures) will make it behave as a superconductor?

[johanfprins]

Can I ask you what you think it happes when a material switch from a resistive to a superconducting state? In other words, what is the phisical modification that the material undergoes that (at lower temperatures) will make it behave as a superconductor?

It has to undergo a metal insulator transition. In metals this requires the instantaneous opening up of a gap in the elrectronic spectrum and the formation of an array of localised states within the gap. Wigner predicted that this must happen in "non-ideal" metals. Guess which metals superconduct? At high enough temperatures these states can hop thermally as had been modelled in numerous text books.

When the distances between the localised states become small enough, such a state can hop by borrowing energy (delta)E for a time-interval (delta)t; as allowed by Heisenberg's relationship for energy and time. At this point superconduction sets in.

With this borrowed energy a charge-carrier hops to transfer a current from one localised position to the next. Since the energy is on loan it does not dissipate to generate entropy: AND since the charge-carriers are localised anchored entities, they polarise and thus cancel the applied electric-field. All superconductors discovered to date (except the one I can form from electron is a vacuum) works by this same mechanism; and in all cases the charge-carriers ARE NOT PAIRS.

The phase I can extract into the vacuum is a single entangled macro-wave of single-electron waves which lost their individual identies during entanglement. It is a Bose-Einstein Condensate" i.e. an electron-phase which is equivalent to a laser beam.

[DeltaV]

The pace quickens...
From Joe Eck's website: Indications of room-temperature superconductivity at a metal-PZT interface

The experimental results reported here strongly suggest the presence of a superconducting layer near room temperature in the interface between a metal film and a PZT substrate.

Johan, I don't have the background to appreciate the details of superconduction, much less to judge between theories, but the above paper refers to a "Bose-Einstein condensation of bipolarons" and I'm curious about how similar, or how different, the above is in comparison to your theory.

[johanfprins]

The pace quickens...
From Joe Eck's website: Indications of room-temperature superconductivity at a metal-PZT interface

The experimental results reported here strongly suggest the presence of a superconducting layer near room temperature in the interface between a metal film and a PZT substrate.

Johan, I don't have the background to appreciate the details of superconduction, much less to judge between theories, but the above paper refers to a "Bose-Einstein condensation of bipolarons" and I'm curious about how similar, or how different, the above is in comparison to your theory.

The problem with all the standard theories is that they do not know what a Bose-Einstein Condensate is: It is NOT a collection of separate entities all having the same lowest energy. To generate such a collection does not mandate boson-entities. A Bose-Einstein Condensate is a SINGLE macro-entangled wave like, for example, a laser beam or the superconducting phase that I have generated by extracting electrons from a diamond.

The idea of a bipolaron is near to the actual charge-carriers one finds in the metal- and ceramic superconductors. It is then, however, incorrectly argued that these bipolarons transfer charge. This is impossible since, just as in the case of Cooper pairs, such charge-carriers transfer BOTH positive and negative charges simultaneously: i.e. ZERO charge transport.

What is correct is that the charge-carriers must form STATIONARY dipoles consisting of pseudo-electrons ancored by induced positive charges: By stretching semantics, one can describe such an entity as a "stationary-bipolaron". When applying an electric-field without injecting any current into the superconductor these dipoles polarise to cancel this applied electric-field. When at the same time injecting a current, the applied field stays cancelled while the injected charge carriers move through the phase by running a relay race.

Consider the case when only a single electron charge is injected: It moves to the nearest dipole at the contact by borrowing the required energy as allowed by Heisenberg's relationship for energy and time. When reaching the dipole the time (delta)t has expired so that the energy is NOT available anymore. The injected "electron" then replaces the pseudo-electron at the dipole: The latter then moves on to the next dipole by borrowing energy; etc. etc. etc., The relayed charge eventually reaches the opposite contact.

Note that:
1. NO positive charge has moved along and THEREFORE charge has been transferred.
2. The the kinetic-energy to move from one anchor point to the next has NOT been generated by acceleration: In fact it cannot be generated by acceleration since the applied electric-field remains cancelled.
3. Therefore no kinetic energy accumulated which needs to dissipate and increase entropy.
4. At any time t the superconducting phase does not increase its energy in any manner since the extra injected charge is "juggled" to "stay in the air"
4. Note that the entities jumping from anchor-point to anchor-point need not be bosons: And in fact the metal superconductors do NOT conduct by the movement of bosons but by the movement of fermions.
5. The BCS model requires ALL the Cooper pairs to move "coherently" when a SINGLE charge is injected. Clearly this is nonsensical voodoo!

I hope that this helps.
Johan

[Giorgio]

The problem with all the standard theories is that they do not know what a Bose-Einstein Condensate is: It is NOT a collection of separate entities all having the same lowest energy. To generate such a collection does not mandate boson-entities. A Bose-Einstein Condensate is a SINGLE macro-entangled wave

Shouldn't this have been easily noticed in BEC experiments?
I mean, a single entangled boson entity behaves much differently from a collection of Bosons sharing the same wave functions.

Where is, according your opinion, the mistake that you see that made the researchers think to have found a collective wave function instead than a collective entangled state?

[johanfprins]

Shouldn't this have been easily noticed in BEC experiments?
I mean, a single entangled boson entity behaves much differently from a collection of Bosons sharing the same wave functions.

Exactly! And the experimental verification of your statement has all along been right in front of our eyes. When cooling a collection of atoms to a VERY low temperature just above absolute zero, the behaviour is VERY different from that of superfluid helium. Once you have an actual BEC, this is a single, holistic wave in immediate contact with itself: Therefore it can diffract and interfere like any single wave can. In fact, the most fascinating demonstration of this is that buckey balls can diffract when cooled to low enough temperatures. The whole buckey ball then becomes a single holistic wave: a BEC. It does then NOT consist of separate carbon atoms anymore. As soon as the temperature becomes high enough for the buckey ball NOT to be a BEC anymore, it cannot diffract; just as experimentally observed.

Where is, according your opinion, the mistake that you see that made the researchers think to have found a collective wave function instead than a collective entangled state?

Nobody has EVER understood what entanglement REALLY means: In my book I have postulated that it is a merging of waves so that each wave loses its own separate identity. It is thus totally different from superposition of separate waves. For example all the "photon-waves" being emitted from the walls in a black-body cavity cannot persist as photon waves since the boundary conditions of the cavity do not allow this. Thus they entangle to form the single standing waves allowed by the boundary conditions. Even though each standing wave has an energy equal to a multiple of identical photon-energies, the original photon-waves have all merged to form a SINGLE standing light wave: a BEC.

When two photons entangle, they are not two photons but a single wave which is in immediate contact with itself. When doing a measurement which requires disentanglement, the whole wave is aware of this and thus disentangles into two photon-waves which has to be correlated with each other. NO spooks or complementarity involved: Only the simple fact that within the intensity distribution of a single holistic wave, time does not exist: This is so for light waves because they travel with the speed of light, and this is so for matter-waves (electron-waves) because they DO NOT vibrate harmonicallly within our three-dimensional space, but outside of it: Hence the need for complex wave amplitudes.

[Giorgio]

I'll have to think over for sometime about your statements.

They clearly remove some of the limitations and incongruities that BCS has shown over the years, but they open other issues.
For one, I do not see how entanglement over a distances greater than Planck scale can be explained using your model.

[icarus]

http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/07 ... ?art_pos=1

Evidence of room temperature superconductor, mentions something about Bose-Einstein theory also ... hotting up?

[icarus]

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-swave.asp

Atom as EM standing waves, BEC as a single standing wave ... getting into some wild territory now people ...

[Giorgio]

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-swave.asp

Atom as EM standing waves, BEC as a single standing wave ... getting into some wild territory now people ...

Too much wild IMHO.
They just take bits of theory here and there and place them together to prove ther hypothesis but with no real convincing argument or any experimental data.

Their "mathematical proof" that the electron is a spherical electromagnetic standing wave is laughable to say the least:
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-prop.asp

[Betruger]

Slashdot is the same paper as reported earlier.