The centenary of Super-Conductivity approaches

[happyjack27]

oops, missed one:

Besides that i don't know what you mean by "paranormal physics". particles suddenly "jumping" "barriers" without any explanation certainly seems "paranormal" to me.

If you supply a particle with energy for a short time, it can jump a barrier. That an electron wave can gain such energy is proved by the width's of spectral lines and these widths are not paranormal like an electron moving with negative energy through a barriers.

that is a macroscopic and classical description. i'm talking at a much lower level. as temporal and spatial scale approach zero.

By the way Feynman's QED uses this same concept.

as stated above, that is a macroscopic and classical description.

[happyjack27]

You are confusing priests with prophets. Bohr typically believes like these people believed when they scared people by telling them that there is no real cause and effect in this world; but that things just happen by chance or by the whims of naughty ghosts (read probability).

an atheist would find the idea that the priest (or einstien) had any such knowledge to be absurd.

Why? An atheist is not supposed to believe in God at all! And in either case we are not discussing religion here except to say that Bohr took physics back to superstition.

[/quote]

really my main point here is on the nature of presumptiveness and the weight of evidence. priests or prophets or what have you - the religious disposition in general - asks us to NOT demand evidence where we otherwise would. whereas the scientific mindset is the opposite - it asks us to demand evidence where we otherwise would not. put otherwise, the religious disposition is the one that claims to know what they cannot, whereas the scientific disposition is the one that claims not to know what everybody else thinks is obvious.

for instance, asserting that "chance" is due to "the whims of naughty ghosts" would be a religious response (and a logicaly inconsistent one at that), claiming to know the cause of something when by definition it cannot be determined. here it seems absurd to you because you are conflating randomness with determinancy and then attributing that conflation to somebody else. perhaps you are conflating because you are looking for a cause where by definition one cannot be found. perhaps you are looking for the cause due to a disposition towards determinancy. i can only guess. point is that the less presumptous position -- the more humble position -- is the one of _uncertainty_, not the one of certainty. and in that sense -- as it applies to religious disposition vs. scientific -- the analogy is backwards.

[happyjack27]

(of course you could do some math to show that you can also state this in pure mathematical mumbo jumbo that means spatially nothing, but unless you need to do so to solve some equation, why?)

Since it models all superconductors ever discovered perfectly in terms of this type of barrier movement. Especially all the experimental characteristics which cannot be explained in terms of the traditional approaches, like those of the London Bros., Ginzberg and Landau, BCS; and what-have-you.

the same thing can be expressed differently by way of a mathematical transformation. like i said one might choose to express it one way or another on account of it being easier to solve for certain things rather than on account of it being more spatially intuitive. that does not mean that one way to express it allows or predicts things that another way doesn't. that means, on the contrary, that if one allows for / predicts it then they all do; i.e. they are mathematically equivalent. the question is simply what view is most useful for explanation the given phenomena. all transformations (views) are by definition just different aspects of the same thing.

[Grurgle-the-Grey]

JFP, are you saying all SC phenomena may be explained by electrons only,
all falling within the bounds of Maxwell's Laws and Schroe's equation?
Schroe's is essentially an energy Hamiltonian for particle/waves so if SC phenomena are breaking it, it needs to be admitted as a paranormal lab result surely?

[johanfprins]

firstly, the individual trajectories here are classical path integrals, which means you're using classical time (well once you integrate over the space of different paths it's no longer classical, but this is before you integrate over that). and classical time is completely reversible. and it doesn't violate causality.

Really!? So spilled milk can jump back into a bottle?

it just says that some positron was emitted at one point and some indistinguishable positron was absorbed at another, with probability p.

It "says" nothing of the sort! That is the paranormal claptrap that you want to believe.

and to correctly calculate the fine structure constant you need to include that "paranormal claptrap" stuff that is perfectly rational and consistent and doesn't require any unexplained physics or unjustified constraints, unlike your explanation.

What is rational about time being reversible? I wish it were, then I can reverse any accident I might have in future.

There are rational theoretical physicists who do not agree with you; but are blocked from publishing non-paranormal interpretations.

[johanfprins]

this is not the path,

Heisenberg said it is. Who should I believe Heisenberg or a "happyjack?

"this is an eigenvalue of the operator associated with an eigenstate. and there is no way to know what eigenstate you will get.

What operator? Your eyes? Even the paranormal interpretation of quantum physics agrees that if I measure that an electron has a momentum p then I know that when I measure again it will have the same momentum. So I do know what "eigenstate" I will get! Furthermore, this same paranormal interpretation states that I cannot measure an eigenstate for which both the position and momentum are known simultaneously; but you just now stated that a path, for which this must be the case, is an eigenstate!

lauch an electron with momentum p except maybe you can calculate that you will get any given eigenstate with a probability p associated with the system. or by empirically measuring the same system a whole bunch of times you can get an a posteri estimate of the probability associated with each eigenstate, and then perhaps an expectation. none of this tells you anything about the path any given electron takes in any given experiment.

Like I said this is paranormal claptrap! There is no such inbuilt uncertainty in nature and this claptrap is not needed to model anything using wave equations.

[johanfprins]

Why? An atheist is not supposed to believe in God at all!

and in order for an atheist to state that they must be able to make logical
arguments concering beliefs about him and man. which is precisely what that just was.

And in either case we are not discussing religion here except to say that Bohr took physics back to superstition.

oh, so except when it supports your point of view. i see.

Let us rather leave this alone: You are clearly not able to argue logic!

[johanfprins]

i wouldn't presume to know what "bohr typically believes", and esp. would avoid straw man characterizations. but apparently you hold yourself to different standards.

I did not presume anything : I was just stating the fact that Bohr did not believe in an objective reality, but that there are boundaries to what we can know before we "measure" and what we then obtain is only one of the "inbuilt probabilities" in nature that then actualizes. As I pointed out this is the same as superstition and paranormal reasoning.

[Grurgle-the-Grey]

Arthur C Clarke said that all technology we don't understand is indistinguishable from magic.
Thus anything we don't understand is superstition and paranormal till we do understand it?
Surely the actually results we don't understand aren't paranormal?

[johanfprins]

that is neither relevant nor sensical. [ /quote] Not relevant? YOU state that what actualizes is determined by inbuilt probabilities in nature; and when I then pointed out that in most cases the derivation of the most probable expected position for an electron is where the probability of finding it is zero, you say it is not relevant nor sensical? I will remember that when I loose my wallet next time that I must search for it where it at a place where it is totally impossible to find it in order to find it!

Why say that there is inbuilt probabilities in nature when it is not needed at all?

you are confusing positive space with negative space; the null hypothesis with the god hypothesis. degree of specifity can be measured by information theory.

Information theory: Yes you are in the world of virtual reality. The fact that you can store physical pictures in terms of code does not mean that nature consists of code. Further paranormal claptrap on your part.

and the implicit assumption that particles are innately "all-knowing" is just absurd.

Where did I say that? All I maintain is that nature is run by cause and effect and not by rolling dice. When there are different probabilities, they are not caused by "probability amplitudes" but by the fact that the measurement apparatus, like a roulette wheel, allows different outcomes. Nothing more!

who said anything about cause? i never said that nature didn't have "cause and effect". you are making a straw man of me. all i said - and the word "implicit" should have communicated this, is that you may not be aware of it (and apparently you aren't), but what you say implies all knowing particles - or waves or spaces or what have you - doesn't matter. perhaps you're unaware of the relation between probability (and certainty) and information theory. i don't presume to know, just a guess.

I am not "unaware" but just state that it has nothing to do with real physics; with virtual paranormal reality YES: But we are talking reality not virtual reality.

When an "electron" is outside a barrier its V+T must be the same as inside the barrier: Outside the barrier T>V but inside the barrier T<V; thus for T+V to stay the same T must be negative.

you're applying a classical approximation to a non-classical problematic.

So conservation of energy is a classical approximation? You are really demented I think.

So when I send separate electrons one-by-one into a counter I am not able to distinguish between them? You are amazing!

how am i amazing? if you are able to distingish between them in such an experiment, then i will certainly find _you_ amazing. i am certain you will win a nobel prize for that.

You see you do not even know what you are talking about. The molecules of a gas are distinguishable and thus follow Maxwell Boltzmann statistics. If you separate entities far enough they will also become distinguishable in the same sense. Unfortunately the Nobel Prize has already been awarded for the concepts distinguishable and non-distinguishable.

so then you get into quantum field theory and the probability amplitudes aren't amplitudes for a single particle but for an entire field of indistinguishable particles.

How do you know that there are "particles forming the field" Stop talking paranormal nonsense.

clearly you don't undestand me. going from QED to QFT is a straightforward mathematical transformation.

But not physics!

I recommend that if you don't understand how it is done that you look it up, instead of ridiculing those who do. this principle holds in general.

I know how it is done and it is nothing more than mathematical claptrap. It has nothing to do with real physics.

[johanfprins]

oops, missed one:
that is a macroscopic and classical description. i'm talking at a much lower level. as temporal and spatial scale approach zero.

So "macroscopic classical entities" can move by means of quantum fluctuations? A rock lying next to a lake can suddenly jump up into the air and end up in the lake?

By the way Feynman's QED uses this same concept.

as stated above, that is a macroscopic and classical description.

So QED is a macroscopic classical description? You could have fooled me!

[Grurgle-the-Grey]

I'm new here so can I continue to pretend we're all Gentlemen
Surely, as physicists, the onus is on finding results that support or confound your position.
Rather than insult would it not be more creative to design experiments that would show clearly one position or the other?
This is a <2 min video clip
Look carefully at what happens just after 40sec and tell me whether it is understood/paranormal??

[johanfprins]

JFP, are you saying all SC phenomena may be explained by electrons only,

By localized electron-waves (orbitals) within an insulator. That is why in the low-temperature metals the metal-superconductor transition corresponds with a metal-insulator transition. If after the transition there is not superconduction, the localized orbitals transport charge (hop) by means of temperature fluctuations. Superconduction occurs when these orbitals "jump" owing to qunatum fluctuations.

all falling within the bounds of Maxwell's Laws

Maxwell's laws apply since an applied electric field is cancelled by the polarization of the superconducting orbitals

and Schroe's equation?

Schroedinger's equation applies since it determines the electronic characteristics of the localized orbitals

Schroe's is essentially an energy Hamiltonian for particle/waves

Schroedinger's wave is an approximation of a wave equation which should when solved, give the energy of the electron in terms of its mass energy. It only seems that the Hamiltonian plays an actual role because Schroedinger used the rest mass as an input. The actual matter-wave has nothing to do with the Hamiltonian of a particle whatsoever.

if SC phenomena are breaking it, it needs to be admitted as a paranormal lab result surely?

SC phenomena does not break the Schroedinger equations since it is an adequate approximation to use when calculating the characteristics of the localized orbitals which cause SC by moving with the aid of quantum fluctuations.

[johanfprins]

Arthur C Clarke said that all technology we don't understand is indistinguishable from magic.
Thus anything we don't understand is superstition and paranormal till we do understand it?
Surely the actually results we don't understand aren't paranormal?

I agree fully and therefore I am totally against the Copenhagen interpretation which claims that what we cannot understand must be accepted as probabilistic magic. That is why I call this way of thinking paranormal physics.

[johanfprins]

I'm new here so can I continue to pretend we're all Gentlemen
Surely, as physicists, the onus is on finding results that support or confound your position.
Rather than insult would it not be more creative to design experiments that would show clearly one position or the other?
This is a <2 min video clip
Look carefully at what happens just after 40sec and tell me whether it is understood/paranormal??

The way in which this is explained by the traditional theories as developed by the London Bros. and what followed is wrong.

What is happening is that the localized orbitals which move by quantum fluctuations, absorb the impinging magnetic field. This absorbtion can be modeled by using the Schroedinger equation.

When the energy of the orbitals becomes too high, they cannot superconduct by means of quantum fluctuations anymore. Thus you find that the energy is only absorbed to a certain depth. If the magnet moves nearer to the SC, the energy will have to be absorbed to a deeper depth. This will increase the energy of the SC further.

When it becomes energetically unfavorable for the superconductor to absorb more magnetic field energy, a minimum energy state is reached which allows the magnet to float above the superconductor.

If the superconductor is too thin, so that the depth to which a magnetic field can be absorbed is larger than the thickness of the superconductor, the magnet will not float at all.