The centenary of Super-Conductivity approaches

[happyjack27]

well then i see where you come to your understanding of physics: you create the idea in your mind of a contradiction where there truly is none, and use this as justification to wipe and ignore everything!

if only _life_ were that simple!

I wiped it because it is just the normal nonsense you find in any text book which invokes John Von Neumann's hallucinations. Rather answer my questions. How can a path be an eigenstate if according to accepted dogma an eigenstate can not simultaneously give tyou the positions an the momentum.

i've already told you a path is not an eigenstate.

also, this is unrelated to what you said before. (regarding your "reason" for intentional ignorance.)

[johanfprins]

it is real physics insofar as it is an approximation that applies with a degree of error e << 1 to the particular situation that it is being used to describe. like all physics. and yes, as i mentioned elsewhere (i believe in this same series of responses), "real" time; time with "novelty" ; irreducable time, takes all this crap and adds entropy too it, and then you're s-o-o-l.

If you want to believe such paranormal nonsense, be my guest.

i never said this.

Oh yes you did

for that i recommend you consult philosophical texts.

So you acknowledge that you are at a loss and refer me to books you yourself cannot understand but wants to believe.

there is quite a large epistomology on the subject.

MY, how you impress me with your vocabulary.

in mathematical, though, the short answer is it's a convenience. in experiment, on the other hand, the short answer is its a spatial-temporal singularity.

Thinking out new terms is not physics.

well that is your opinion that you present without evidence.

How do you know I do not have evidence. Open your eyes my son and you will see it all around you. I can give you lots of evidence.

but it has no bearing on this discussion. and so long as you recognize the other possibilities, i am content.

It does have a bearing since you are hell-bent in defending main stream dogma. I do not reject any physics without studying it deeply. Similarly I never rejected a manuscript because it contradicted what I want to believe. At present manuscripts are specifically rejected because censorship is rife. Think about the global warming debate. I can assure you that this is not the exception but the rule.

It is late in South Africa and I must now sign off.

[happyjack27]

it is real physics insofar as it is an approximation that applies with a degree of error e << 1 to the particular situation that it is being used to describe. like all physics. and yes, as i mentioned elsewhere (i believe in this same series of responses), "real" time; time with "novelty" ; irreducable time, takes all this crap and adds entropy too it, and then you're s-o-o-l.

If you want to believe such paranormal nonsense, be my guest.

none of what i just said is paranormal or nonsensical.

i never said this.

Oh yes you did

you might have made such an association, but i do not. and i did not state it. it's a matter of record.

for that i recommend you consult philosophical texts.

So you acknowledge that you are at a loss and refer me to books you yourself cannot understand but wants to believe.

there is quite a large epistomology on the subject.

MY, how you impress me with your vocabulary.

why thank you.

well that is your opinion that you present without evidence.

How do you know I do not have evidence. Open your eyes my son and you will see it all around you. I can give you lots of evidence.

i do not know whether you have evidence or not. i never said that i did. i simply said you haven't presented any for review. which you haven't, as a matter of record. i'm not asking you to, though, it's tangential and it's not a subject that interests me.

but it has no bearing on this discussion. and so long as you recognize the other possibilities, i am content.

It does have a bearing since you are hell-bent in defending main stream dogma. I do not reject any physics without studying it deeply. Similarly I never rejected a manuscript because it contradicted what I want to believe. At present manuscripts are specifically rejected because censorship is rife. Think about the global warming debate. I can assure you that this is not the exception but the rule.

i am not hell-bent on anything. and even if i were it would still be non-sequitor.

you rejected ("wiped") a clear logical statement i made on the basis of an imagined contradiction that simply did not exist. if that's any indication...

in any case i have more faith in the rationality of mankind... er... the more accomplished ones. perhaps it is misplaced. in any case i try to keep my critical reasoning skills sharp so i dont have to.

It is late in South Africa and I must now sign off.

south africa?! how easily one forgets how global the internet is! u.s. here.

[happyjack27]

Thinking out new terms is not physics.

who said it was?

though actually there are numerous examples, e.g. the definition of "work". tautologies and what not. but its not really relevant.

[KitemanSA]

Gentles,
Please take a figurative step back, take a few deep breaths, and try to communicate WITH each other, not AT each other? Please?

[happyjack27]

for that i recommend you consult philosophical texts.

So you acknowledge that you are at a loss and refer me to books you yourself cannot understand but wants to believe.

no. i simply refer you to books. the rest is your own conjecture.

[Grurgle-the-Grey]

JFP your model of SC relies on Wigner Orbitals. It is possible that you are referring to a Wigner crystal of electrons only, but it seems more likely that you're referring to the orbitals of interstitial atoms which will have a lower work function than the atoms around them.
This presumably means that there would be a connection between the density of defects and the density of SC charge-carriers, has this been seen in a lab?
I'm also intrigued by the idea that there is a connection between the thickness of an SC block and the maximum flux it can absorb, has this been observed?

[johanfprins]

JFP your model of SC relies on Wigner Orbitals. It is possible that you are referring to a Wigner crystal of electrons only,

We must be careful here since I also thought that my orbitals are akin to a "Wigner crystal" of electrons. I only later found out the hard way that Wigner wrote two papers: one on so-called Wigner Crystals, and one on the metal-insulator transition in non-ideal metals. In the latter he derived that localized electron-waves (orbitals) form which can be modeled as electrons performing simple harmonic vibrations through induced positive charges.

This prediction was so well founded that even Nevill Mott commented that it is strange that such a metal-insulator transition has not been observed. The fact is that it has been observed since 1911, but the "insulating phase" forms a superconductor; and that is why it was not recognized as the transition predicted by Wigner. Therefore I refer to these localized orbitals as "Wigner orbitals; not because they relate to an electron "Wigner Crystal".

These orbitals immediately explain all the properties of the low temperature metal superconductors, like the isotope effect, without having to invoke "paired electrons"

that you're referring to the orbitals of interstitial atoms which will have a lower work function than the atoms around them.

The orbitals are harmonic electron-orbitals with the electrons (forming them within metals) usually "moving quantum mechanically" through the induced positive charges: This causes the isotope effect. If the electrons "vibrate" parallel to the positive charges as they are doing in the ceramics and a few of the metals, the isotope effect is suppressed.

This presumably means that there would be a connection between the density of defects and the density of SC charge-carriers, has this been seen in a lab?

The orbitals can be considered as "defects", similar to donor-flaws in an n-type semiconductor. It is for this reason that for the ceramics there is a "doping-effect". There are many measurements on the ceramics that confirm this, however, the main stream guys do not understand what they are seeing.

I'm also intrigued by the idea that there is a connection between the thickness of an SC block and the maximum flux it can absorb, has this been observed?

It is known, and has been illustrated in the lab, that when the so-called "London penetration depth" is larger than the thickness of the superconductor, the superconductor cannot superconduct anymore.

[johanfprins]

I am going to try and follow Kiteman's advice and talk with you

oh i can define them. i choose not to. because any definition beyond (by that i mean more specific) that already provided by the confines of experimental evidence would be aribtrary. fortunately, the one provided by experiment evidence is more than sufficient.

You see why I am losing it when arguing with you. If you cannot define what you are talking about it is impossible to reason rational physics with you. If there is a "definition" provided by experiments you can surely quote these experiments?

And please do not just quote information from text books which I know by heart already. I have read my physics thoroughly and expect that I know more physics than you do. So if you want to make a relevant point, don't do it like a Bible-punching preacher: "It is in the book and therefore it is correct".

Until you define what you mean by "a particle" I will, for the sake of my sanity, be forced to just ignore any further posts by you.

[Grurgle-the-Grey]

Ok so Josephson Coupling is perfectly normal electron tunnelling, obeying Schroe's evanescent equation, but starting from a higher energy level than the fermi level due to the interstitial atom's higher potential. The locally reduced energy barrier, which is the work-function for metal vacuum boundaries, then enables greater tunnelling range than a scanning microscope say.
That about right?

[johanfprins]

Ok so Josephson Coupling is perfectly normal electron tunnelling, obeying Schroe's evanescent equation,

So far correct yes.

but starting from a higher energy level than the fermi level due to the interstitial atom's higher potential.

I do not quite follow your reasoning: The localized electron wave (orbital) does not relate to an interstitial atom but to an electron-state which lies below the Fermi-level. Only at absolute zero does the Fermi-level coincide with the energy of the superconducting orbitals. Thus what they measure and call the "binding energy of Cooper pairs" in BCS theory, is nothing else but the activation energy as defined by the position of the Fermi-level which moves down in energy when cooling; and thus increases the activation energy.

locally reduced energy barrier, which is the work-function for metal vacuum boundaries, then enables greater tunnelling range than a scanning microscope say. That about right?

Are you now talking of Josephson tunneling through as vacuum gap as compared to normal tunneling microscopy? It is difficult to make a direct comparison, since field effects at a sharp point must also be taken into account. One will have to compare apples with apples as far as the geometry, and the materials are concerned. I will need more information.

[Grurgle-the-Grey]

Interesting paper by McElroy et al.
He is electron tunnelling scanning a super-conducting lattice and only gets normal tunnelling, no Josephson current seems to be reported.

[johanfprins]

Interesting paper by McElroy et al.
He is electron tunnelling scanning a super-conducting lattice and only gets normal tunnelling, no Josephson current seems to be reported.

Did he cool the superconductor to be below the critical temperature? It is not mentioned in the abstract. The tunneling experiments might have been done at temperatures above the critical temperature. Thus it will then be tunneling from a "normal" material which can become superconducting at a lower temperature?

[happyjack27]

I am going to try and follow Kiteman's advice and talk with you

oh i can define them. i choose not to. because any definition beyond (by that i mean more specific) that already provided by the confines of experimental evidence would be aribtrary. fortunately, the one provided by experiment evidence is more than sufficient.

You see why I am losing it when arguing with you. If you cannot define what you are talking about it is impossible to reason rational physics with you. If there is a "definition" provided by experiments you can surely quote these experiments?

And please do not just quote information from text books which I know by heart already. I have read my physics thoroughly and expect that I know more physics than you do. So if you want to make a relevant point, don't do it like a Bible-punching preacher: "It is in the book and therefore it is correct".

Until you define what you mean by "a particle" I will, for the sake of my sanity, be forced to just ignore any further posts by you.

please don't insult me. i don't know all of the experiments. there are a lot. i do know that a photodetector behind a photomultiplier under very low light produces discrete "clicks" as it were. i also know they've experimentally measured the fine structure constant, i believe by the time it takes an electron to travel a certain distance across a voltage gradient? not sure of the setup there, but the implication is that perturbation theory is correct here, and perturbation theory implies particle-like interactions. also they've verified the pauli exclusion principle and entanglement. many things predicted by QED. in fact, EVERYTHING predicted by QED from my understanding.

also, oh, and here's a big one: the tracks in a bubble-chamber! in modern day we use solid-state analogs. anycase, see for yourself. those are all time-delay or whatever. you know what i mean - the paths show the history. they're in the presence of a magnetic field and that's what causes them to curve. by their curvature you can tell their charge-to-mass ratio * velocity, via the lorentz force. what happens is as they pass by other particles they impart energy to them, and then it is that energy that you see... well i suppose you can read more about how the original versions worked http://www.thefullwiki.org/Bubble_chamber.

so there are a few examples.
now the question is how do you construct a mathematical apparatus that correctly predicts all these outcomes, using as few assumptions as possible? obviously it's going to involve spatial fields w/moving singularities, because that's, well, what we're seeing. e.g. a photograph ("spatial field") w/a black line on it ("singularity"). and this line is a "track" through time, i.e. the "singularity" moves through time. so you see this is a very direct consequence. we're adding nothing here.

[KitemanSA]

Well, there seems to have been a bit higher communication to ire ratio there but you both need a bit of practice! Please, figuratively speaking, step back, take some deep breaths and imagine a world where neither of you is INTENTIONALLY trying to insult the other.

One of my favorite lines from the movie "Master and Commander" was where the "hero" said "name a shrub after me. Something prickly and hard to irradicate". I do hereby name that shrub the HappyJohan!

Yes that was a bit of an insult, but a teasing, friendly one, intended to make you both snicker a bit. If it failed, oops!

PEACEFUL COMMUNICATION PRACTICE EXERCISE:
In your next posts, never write "You". It isn't "You are wrong...", it is "the meaning of this phrase eludes me" or "this is contrary to my experience in this way..."

It is harder to be prickly about yourself!

Ok. I'll shut up!