The centenary of Super-Conductivity approaches

[DeltaV]

...He then bravely went ahead and published it as part of the proceedings; and was soon afterwards called by Marshall Stoneham FRS, admonishing him for publishing these manuscripts "which he knows must be wrong" . Stoneham was offered a manuscript in which he can argue why I must be wrong. That was in 2003, and he has not yet done so...

...I can add that in 2007, I tried to raise my understanding of superconduction again at a Royal Society meeting in London. Stoneham who did not attend the meeting was called in as chairman to shut me up!

http://firstnerve.com/2010/09/shocked-i ... ident.html

Note the way that Stoneham, a Fellow of the Royal Society, responds to scientific criticism. He doesn’t post a public comment to air his point of view. Just the opposite—he sends a thuggish private email demanding that I remove my comments because he dislikes them. And for good measure he implicitly threatens to smear my scientific reputation. What the hell happened to disagreement and debate? Did Prof. Stoneham take a correspondence course in Scholarly Intimidation and Message Control from the Phil Jones Climategate Academy of East Anglia?

As for Prof. Stoneham’s demands for clarification, censorship, and apology, I have a demand of my own. I am shocked that a prestigious organization like the Institute of Physics has elected as its president someone with such utter disregard for the scientific principle of free and open debate and who uses his position to suppress the views of those with whom he disagrees. I therefore demand that Marshall Stoneham immediately resign his IOP presidency.

[Betruger]

If I still live on campus this semester, I could help, provided clear references to look for. I don't have access to all journals, and this isn't my field at all, but I'd be glad to give you whatever I found.

I'll know whether I move off campus or not in a week or so.

This is an extremely kind offer. I do not even know for what to look. Maybe Grurgle-The-Gray can contact you?

Alright, I should be all set. I have access not to all, but to a good proportion of existing journals. Either of you can fire away with references, I'm at your disposal.

[Grurgle-the-Grey]

Thanks very much B.
I hope your kindness doesn't prove too burdensome.

[johanfprins]

Your interpretation of your results as SC is a lot more difficult to call. There is very little intersection between your results and known SC phenomena,

Not really, since my result is the very first superconducting phase that is really a Bose-Einstein Condensate. It is claimed that the charge-carriers within all the traditional superconductors form a BEC. After the formation of a BEC there cannot be separate entities around since a real BEC is a single, holistic entangled macro-wave, like a laser beam and the phases that are generated from the entanglement of atoms a few millionth's of a degree above absolute zero. My electron-phase is such a phase.

When you have superconduction by the movement of charge-carriers, you have a lowest energy state, but to form this state from separate entities does NOT require the entities to be bosons. In fact the charge carriers in most, if not all, the traditional superconductors discovered to date, are all singly-charged.

[but there is no connection with any other solid state phenomena.

There is the best connection that you can get since the superconducting phase forms part of a dipole layer and it is impeccably known from Solid State Electronics that dipole layers form to cancel applied electric-fields. Thus after reaching equilibrium there cannot be an electric-field within the phase: Even so, a current keeps on flowing. In fact my experiment is the very first experiment in the history of physics which proves unequivocally that charge transport can really occur without an electric-field. This has never been proved for any other superconducting phase ever.

Suppression of inconvenient results is unforgivable and very symptomatic of the lack of progress in modern Physics.

It should be made a criminal offence which mandates the death penalty.

[johanfprins]

As for Prof. Stoneham’s demands for clarification, censorship, and apology, I have a demand of my own. I am shocked that a prestigious organization like the Institute of Physics has elected as its president someone with such utter disregard for the scientific principle of free and open debate and who uses his position to suppress the views of those with whom he disagrees. I therefore demand that Marshall Stoneham immediately resign his IOP presidency.

I am not at all surprised that more people had such experiences with Marshall Stoneham. Unfortunately he is not the exception but the face of the rule. In my book I stated the opinion that physics will never be normalized again unless organisations like the British IOP, The Royal Society of London, the APS, the AAAS, and many others are forced to close down and liquidate in disgrace. They have undermined every principle for which the founding fathers of these institutions stood for. Especially the Royal Society of London is a sad remnant of the people who started this society during then 17th century.

[Grurgle-the-Grey]

In fact the charge carriers in most, if not all, the traditional superconductors discovered to date, are all singly-charged.

Who or what tells us this?

Also you seem to be saying that single electrons can form a BEC, despite being fermionic?

[Giorgio]

Also you seem to be saying that single electrons can form a BEC, despite being fermionic?

I do not see where you got that idea.
In my reading he refers to coupled electrons. We know that in this case they do behave as Bosons, and hence they can form BEC.

[johanfprins]

Also you seem to be saying that single electrons can form a BEC, despite being fermionic?

I do not see where you got that idea.
In my reading he refers to coupled electrons. We know that in this case they do behave as Bosons, and hence they can form BEC.

This a long story which rests on the misconception that a collection of separate waves which all have the same energy form a BEC; and that only bosons can do this. This is of course nonsense since there are no separate waves "within" a BEC. A BEC is a single wave formed by the entanglement of the original waves during which the original waves lose their individual existences totally.

To form a phase of separate waves all having the same energy does not require the separate waves to be bosons. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that the phase of donor electrons within an n-type semiconductor can all have the same energy at low temperature even though they are fermions. It is the case for all collections of localized waves. And in fact all the traditional superconductors consist entirely of single-electrons waves within an energy gap bound at anchor sites. When you measure the so-called "binding-energy" of Cooper Pairs you are really measuring the position of the Fermi-level within the gap between free electrons and the bound localized electron-waves which are responsible for superconduction.

[happyjack27]

Also you seem to be saying that single electrons can form a BEC, despite being fermionic?

I do not see where you got that idea.
In my reading he refers to coupled electrons. We know that in this case they do behave as Bosons, and hence they can form BEC.

This a long story which rests on the misconception that a collection of separate waves which all have the same energy form a BEC; and that only bosons can do this. This is of course nonsense since there are no separate waves "within" a BEC. A BEC is a single wave formed by the entanglement of the original waves during which the original waves lose their individual existences totally.

To form a phase of separate waves all having the same energy does not require the separate waves to be bosons. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that the phase of donor electrons within an n-type semiconductor can all have the same energy at low temperature even though they are fermions. It is the case for all collections of localized waves. And in fact all the traditional superconductors consist entirely of single-electrons waves within an energy gap bound at anchor sites. When you measure the so-called "binding-energy" of Cooper Pairs you are really measuring the position of the Fermi-level within the gap between free electrons and the bound localized electron-waves which are responsible for superconduction.

the point of the BEC is that a superposition of waves add together to form a single wave with the same form of the original waves. i don't think it's a misconception, i just think it's a different wording of what you said. that the superposing of the individual waves into one is a mathematical description of the time-evolution from a non-BEC to a BEC. yes, once it's fully bec the "original" waves are indistinguishable and can no longer be separated out, but that's the whole point of a BEC, isn't it?

[Giorgio]

To form a phase of separate waves all having the same energy does not require the separate waves to be bosons. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that the phase of donor electrons within an n-type semiconductor can all have the same energy at low temperature even though they are fermions. It is the case for all collections of localized waves. And in fact all the traditional superconductors consist entirely of single-electrons waves within an energy gap bound at anchor sites. When you measure the so-called "binding-energy" of Cooper Pairs you are really measuring the position of the Fermi-level within the gap between free electrons and the bound localized electron-waves which are responsible for superconduction.

I see more clearly what you mean now.
Thanks for clarifying it.

[Grurgle-the-Grey]

SCs will Josephson couple only to other SCs over distances ~10nm, scanning tunnelling microscopes work at a range of .5nm.
Schroedinger does apply for the STM which works happily on an active super-conductor with NO Josephson current.
So the entity that Josephson couples cannot be an electron, or a pair of electrons since they obey Schroe's equation and the SC entity doesn't.
So if one wants to try and say that super-conductivity is caused by electrons the first thing to understand is why a fundamental particle can suddenly decide to ignore its Hamiltonian.

[johanfprins]

the point of the BEC is that a superposition of waves add together to form a single wave with the same form of the original waves. i don't think it's a misconception, i just think it's a different wording of what you said.

If it is a single wave, why does superconduction require Cooper Pairs? The fact is that there is only one superconducting phase that is really a BEC and that is the wave of electrons that I extracted from an n-type diamond. All the other superconductor phases discovered consist of charge-carriers each having the same lowest energy. And as I have pointed out such a phase can also consist of singly-charged entities like donor electrons. This is why a highly doped semiconductor can superconduct when the density of donor electrons is high enough, and their ionization energy is low enough. Boson charge-carriers is thus not a prerequisite for superconduction to occur.

yes, once it's fully bec the "original" waves are indistinguishable and can no longer be separated out, but that's the whole point of a BEC, isn't it?

Thank you: We are in full agreement: But according to the BCS model, the charge-carriers do not form such a BEC. They remain separate entities, and therefore they do not need to be bosons as is claimed that they must be for superconduction to be possible.

[johanfprins]

SCs will Josephson couple only to other SCs over distances ~10nm, scanning tunnelling microscopes work at a range of .5nm.
Schroedinger does apply for the STM which works happily on an active super-conductor with NO Josephson current.

"Tunneling" between two superconductors is totally different from "tunneling" from a superconductor to a normal conductor. Note that In the latter you need a much higher voltage and what you extract are "normal" electronic charge- carriers which can "tunnel" over much larger distances. This is well known in the literature. Note the use of " " since the wave entities cannot really tunnel through a barrier: This is impossible since it would violate energy conservation. What happens is that a "quantum fluctuation" supplies energy for a short time interval (delta)t which allows the wave-entity to scale the barrier with a speed v. Let is call the latter process rather "quantum-hopping".

So the entity that Josephson couples cannot be an electron, or a pair of electrons since they obey Schroe's equation and the SC entity doesn't.

Charge-carriers within a material are never the same as "free" electrons outside the material. In a normal conductor, the charge-carriers are wave packets which form by the superposition of de-localized electron waves which, when they do not superpose to form wave packets, are each present everywhere within the conductor. In a superconductor the charge-carriers are are localized stationary wave-entities, which move from one position to the next by quantum-hopping over the barriers which hold them otherwise stationary.

So if one wants to try and say that super-conductivity is caused by electrons the first thing to understand is why a fundamental particle can suddenly decide to ignore its Hamiltonian.

No conductivity is caused by electrons but by localized wave-entities caused by the superposition of electron-waves which, if they do not superpose would otherwise each fill then whole material. In a normal conductor these wave-entities are wave-packets, and in a superconductor they are localized, anchored orbitals that move by means of quantum-hopping.

[happyjack27]

the point of the BEC is that a superposition of waves add together to form a single wave with the same form of the original waves. i don't think it's a misconception, i just think it's a different wording of what you said.

If it is a single wave, why does superconduction require Cooper Pairs? The fact is that there is only one superconducting phase that is really a BEC and that is the wave of electrons that I extracted from an n-type diamond. All the other superconductor phases discovered consist of charge-carriers each having the same lowest energy. And as I have pointed out such a phase can also consist of singly-charged entities like donor electrons. This is why a highly doped semiconductor can superconduct when the density of donor electrons is high enough, and their ionization energy is low enough. Boson charge-carriers is thus not a prerequisite for superconduction to occur.

yes, once it's fully bec the "original" waves are indistinguishable and can no longer be separated out, but that's the whole point of a BEC, isn't it?

Thank you: We are in full agreement: But according to the BCS model, the charge-carriers do not form such a BEC. They remain separate entities, and therefore they do not need to be bosons as is claimed that they must be for superconduction to be possible.

i wasn't talking about superconductors, just BECs proper. from what i understand of BCS its sort of like a BEC in that the cooper pairs are in a sense "entangled" and thus propagate em-fluctuations like a coherent wave. but that's really not my subject. i'm still learning quantumn mechanics.

[johanfprins]

i wasn't talking about superconductors, just BECs proper. from what i understand of BCS its sort of like a BEC in that the cooper pairs are in a sense "entangled" and thus propagate em-fluctuations like a coherent wave.

No those are density waves which have been considered many years ago but rejected for many reasons.

that's really not my subject. i'm still learning quantumn mechanics.

The charge-carriers moving through a superconductor do not all have to move as they must for such a wave. Only enough of them move to transport the current. It is even possible to only send a single charge at a time through a superconductor. It is crazy to suggest that in such a case all the charge-carriers must move: However when more than one charge carriers must move they do so in a correlated fashion similar to, but not quite the same, as soldiers marching. But for this they do not have to be bosons or form a BEC.