Talk-Polywell.org

Super-Conductivity was discovered in 1911 and 100 years later we still don't understand it. Though there are theories for how various lattices achieve this, none are universal and many are contradicted by other known results.

Grurgle-the-Grey wrote:Super-Conductivity was discovered in 1911 and 100 years later we still don't understand it. Though there are theories for how various lattices achieve this, none are universal and many are contradicted by other known results.

The worst is that the brilliant young Bernd Matthias has said along: "These theories are not predictive and thus worthless". Brian Pippard tried to circumvent this incisive criticism by dividing superconductors into "conventional" and "non-conventional" superconductors; thus, as he has done most of his life, adding to the confusion.

Approaching this like a crossword clue, we have a whole lot of weird observations, some super-conduction (SC) only effects, some SC lattice interactions and some mistaken for SC.
Pure SC effects are:
Super-conduction
Meissner / London Moment
Josephson Coupling
Andreev Reflection

The right answer will allow for all those wierdities.
As I understand it, all SCs will Josephson Couple with all others so the assumption must be that the SC 'entity' is identical wherever we find it. 'Unconventional' and 'D-wave' are different types of SC in theory, apparently, but not in the lab. Also, I gather, coupling has been seen through 10nm of vacuum, which given that tunnelling microscopes work around .5nm, is an increase of 20X in range. This would require a barrier potential of 1/400th that for a normal fermi level electron were Schroedinger's evanescent equation to be operating. This is below the kT energy for observed temperatures and would suggest thermal emission of the 'entities', or it just ignores Schroedinger?

Grurgle-the-Grey wrote: Pure SC effects are:
Super-conduction

The following is the correct definition: Superconduction occurs when a current is transported by the movement of electronic charge-carriers without any of them being accelerated

Meissner / London Moment

The following is the correct explanation: Superconducting charge-carriers absorb magnetic energy, and therefore their density decreases: When the density becomes less than a critical value, superconduction cannot occur anymore.

Josephson Coupling

The tails of wave functions do not "couple" to cause "tunneling" since these tails are the curvature of space around mass-energy: The intensity of a matter-wave is its mass-energy and the curvature of space around this mass-energy. There is NO PARANORMAL PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION involved whatsoever.

Andreev Reflection

It is just the back-reflection of a "image" charge when a single-charge is injected into an insulator.

The right answer will allow for all those wierdities.

It does: There is a single mechanism that causes all superconduction and this has NOTHING to do with electron-pairing whatsoever. I have tried to publish this mechanism for the last 7 years but hve been consistently blocked by the main stream crackpots in charge of superconduction physics.

As I understand it, all SCs will Josephson Couple with all others so the assumption must be that the SC 'entity' is identical wherever we find it.

This is based on a misunderstanding of what "tunneling" is all about: An "electron" does not move through a barrier because it has "a probability" to be within and on the other side of a barrier. It jumps a barrier since Heisenberg's relationship for energy and time:

(delta)E*(delta)t=g(hbar)

allows it to do so when the energy barrier (delta)E(S) and the distance L which it must jump are below certain limits. The value of g is determined by the wave that is jumping. In the case of superconductors these waves are Gaussian in the directions that they jump and therefore g=(1/2). The largest critical distance L(C) that such an electron-wave can jump is easy to derive: It is given by:

L(C)=(g*hbar)/ SQRT(2*m*(delta)E(S)).

This is what you have called coupling, but it has nothing directly to do with overlapping wave tails. Using these equations ANY superconductor can be modeled and the fits to experimental data are remarkable for ALL "types" of superconductors.

'Unconventional' and 'D-wave' are different types of SC in theory, apparently, but not in the lab.

Precisely since "pair formation" of electrons has NOTHING to do with superconduction whatsoever.

Also, I gather, coupling has been seen through 10nm of vacuum, which given that tunnelling microscopes work around .5nm, is an increase of 20X in range. This would require a barrier potential of 1/400th that for a normal fermi level electron were Schroedinger's evanescent equation to be operating. This is below the kT energy for observed temperatures and would suggest thermal emission of the 'entities', or it just ignores Schroedinger?

This difference can be understood in terms of my model involving barrier-jumping.

johanfprins wrote:This is based on a misunderstanding of what "tunneling" is all about: An "electron" does not move through a barrier because it has "a probability" to be within and on the other side of a barrier. It jumps a barrier since Heisenberg's relationship for energy and time:

(delta)E*(delta)t=g(hbar)

allows it to do so when the energy barrier (delta)E(S) and the distance L which it must jump are below certain limits. The value of g is determined by the wave that is jumping. In the case of superconductors these waves are Gaussian in the directions that they jump and therefore g=(1/2). The largest critical distance L(C) that such an electron-wave can jump is easy to derive: It is given by:

L(C)=(g*hbar)/ SQRT(2*m*(delta)E(S)).

This is what you have called coupling, but it has nothing directly to do with overlapping wave tails. Using these equations ANY superconductor can be modeled and the fits to experimental data are remarkable for ALL "types" of superconductors.

i learned that "tunneling" is just a property of the solution of the time-independant shrodinger equation, that you get exponential tails on the other side of a finite energy barrier. considering the feyman path integral approach, the trajectory of an electron is the sum of all possible random walks of the electron weighted by their probability, so that would suffice to explain the exponential tail on the other side of the "barrier". kind of a statistical mechanics effect. so that's how i understand tunneling. i'm not familiar with a "heisenberg" explanation. is that the "heisenberg picture" version as opposed to the "shrodinger picture"? clearly the feymann path integral picture is most direct, as it's, well, a path integral.

and that says, rather than "it "jumps" because "mumbo-jumbo pure mathematical stuff that means nothing spatially"", simply that it has a nonzero probability of being on the other side of the barrier because its path is the probability weighted sum of all random walks. and some of those random walks, of course, include traversing said "barrier". this is, of course, a lot more sensible. and meaningful.

(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?)

happyjack27 wrote:i learned that "tunneling" is just a property of the solution of the time-independant shrodinger equation, that you get exponential tails on the other side of a finite energy barrier.

This is the official interpretation in physics text books. It is based on the probability interpretation of quantum mechanics; which must be paranormal physics since it also requires that the electron can be within the barrier where it must have "negative kinetic energy". We know that energy (delta)E is available for an electron wave for a limited time (delta)t. Although this also sounds paranormal, it can be proved experimentally that it is so. I have found that you get a better more self-consistent model of "tunneling" by accepting that the electron borrows this energy when allowed to do so by Heisenberg's relationship for energy and time so that the electron can scale the barrier.

In the traditional model, a a quantum tennis ball moves through a wall and proceeds as it the wall is not there. In my model the ball approaches the wall, then jumps over the wall and proceed as if the wall is not there. This movement models all superconducting currents by exactly the same mechanism

considering the feyman path integral approach, the trajectory of an electron is the sum of all possible random walks of the electron weighted by their probability, so that would suffice to explain the exponential tail on the other side of the "barrier". kind of a statistical mechanics effect.

It pains me to preach that Feynman was, and of course still is wrong; since Feynman is one of my heroes. The waves which he constructs in this way requires phase angles which are not solutions of harmonic waves; as they must be according to Schroedinger's equation. Feynman's approach forces one to conclude that you can have a conservative vector field which is a rotational vector field: A mathematical impossibility. And this in turn forces one to accept paranormal physics as Aharanov and Bohm did by concluding that an electron can sense a magnetic field even when its charge does not move through the magnetic field.

it that's how i understand tunneling. i'm not familiar with a "heisenberg" explanation. is that the "heisenberg picture" version as opposed to the "shrodinger picture"?

It is not Heisenberg's explanation but my own explanation because it works and fits experimental results better than any other model for "tunneling". It also does not require from the electron to have negative kinetic energy; which is purely a paranormal concept since kinetic energy is always a quadratic form which must always be positive.

clearly the feymann path integral picture is most direct, as it's, well, a path integral.

Just a pity that it has nothing to do with a harmonic wave as is required by Schroedinger's equation. I am afraid Feynman led us along paranormal paths.

and that says, rather than "it "jumps" because "mumbo-jumbo pure mathematical stuff that means nothing spatially"", simply that it has a nonzero probability of being on the other side of the barrier because its path is the probability weighted sum of all random walks. and some of those random walks, of course, include traversing said "barrier". this is, of course, a lot more sensible. and meaningful.

Nature does not work in terms of such probabilities: As Einstein correctly said: "God does not play dice". And Bohr then answered him like a typical shamaan or superstitious high priest: "Albert stop telling God what he can or cannot do".

(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.

from my understanding its been proved that the feymann path integral can be mathematically equated to the shrodinger equation. besides that i don't know what you mean by "paranormal physics". particles suddenly "jumping" "barriers" without any explanation certainly seems "paranormal" to me. and though probability amplitudes having phase angle may not be perfectly spatially intuitive, the fact that physical observables must have real values certainly opens up that possibility, i.e. there's nothing "paranormal" about it. stating that it _cannot_ on the other hand, would be adding specificity that cannot be rigorously justified by theory OR experiment. likewise, saying that "nature does not work in probabilites." amounts to adding specifity that cannot be rigorously justified. (and a whole frickin lot of it!) and the implicit assumption that particles are innately "all-knowing" is just absurd.

and there's no such thing as "negative kinetic energy". kinetic energy is the norm of a vector squared times the mass. by the time you get to norm of a vector you're already - well i suppose it could be dot product of vector and itself. in which case if the spatial coordinates are allowed to take on complex values... either that or you have negative mass, and mass is also positive definite. though i don't imagine that's what you're thinking of. i think you're just reasoning wrong. another explanation could be the charge. it's possible you're thinking of potential energy, or a positively charged electron. a.k.a. a positron, which due to CPT symmetry is mathematically equivalent to an electron traveling back in time. don't know where you're going awry there.

also bear in mind that there's no way to tell two electrons apart, theoretically or experimentally, save their eigenstates. 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. so if you find the idea that every particle in the universe isn't "all knowing" too emotionally disturbing, perhaps you can settle for that perspective. which amounts to saying every point in a field isn't "all knowing". i don't see any difference, really, but perhaps you'll find it emotionally more settling.

in any case, bohr's response was quite poignant. i don't know where you get the shaman idea from, that's certainly the opposite of what a priest would say - a priest would claim themselves, like einstien does there, to be the voice of god. ("and then god said unto me, tell the people that i don't play dice.") an atheist would find the idea that the priest (or einstien) had any such knowledge to be absurd.

also, if the paths of a particle could be uniquely determined (i.e. god didn't play dice), that would imply that no path that could not be uniquely determined could exist, meaning that all possible states must form a closed computable set. a.k.a. "computable numbers" that limits the dimensionality of the set to 0. (e.g. all real numbers up to but not including infinity). which would mean that the position and momentum operators would commute. and that would make planck's constant equal to zero. so you're essentially stating that h=0.

happyjack27 wrote:from my understanding its been proved that the feymann path integral can be mathematically equated to the shrodinger equation.

Where has this been proved ever. The Schroedinger equation (even though it is an approximation since it uses the electron mass as an input) is a harmonic wave equation and a harmonic wave's phase angle ONLY changes with position perpendicular to wave fronts. According to Feynman' path integral the phase changes along any path even backward in time . What paranormal claptrap.

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.

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

as is done and though probability amplitudes having phase angle may not be perfectly spatially intuitive, the fact that physical observables must have real values certainly opens up that possibility, i.e. there's nothing "paranormal" about it.

Of course it is paranormal. The whole concept that outcomes are determined by an inbuilt probability in nature is paranormal: There is NO experimental proof for it!

stating that it _cannot_ on the other hand, would be adding specificity that cannot be rigorously justified by theory OR experiment.

It can be shown that it is claptrap since the intensity of most Schroedinger waves gives the most likely position to find an electron at a position where the intensity of the wave is zero!l

likewise, saying that "nature does not work in probabilites." amounts to adding specifity that cannot be rigorously justified. (and a whole frickin lot of it!)

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

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!

and there's no such thing as "negative kinetic energy".

You are stealing my line!

kinetic energy is the norm of a vector squared times the mass. by the time you get to norm of a vector you're already - well i suppose it could be dot product of vector and itself. in which case if the spatial coordinates are allowed to take on complex values... either that or you have negative mass, and mass is also positive definite. though i don't imagine that's what you're thinking of. i think you're just reasoning wrong. another explanation could be the charge. it's possible you're thinking of potential energy, or a positively charged electron. a.k.a. a positron. don't know where you're going awry there.

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.

also bear in mind that there's no way to tell two electrons apart, theoretically or experimentally, save their eigenstates.

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

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.

so if you find the idea that every particle in the universe isn't "all knowing" too emotionally disturbing, perhaps you can settle for that perspective. which amounts to saying every point in a field isn't "all knowing". i don't see any difference, really, but perhaps you'll find it emotionally more settling.

I have NEVER talked about particles as all-knowing or not all-knowing. First define for me what "a particle" is. You cannot even do that but wants to argue whether "particles" have brains or not. How more paranormal can one become?

Bohr's response was quite poignant.

I also thought so when I was young and stupid.

i don't know where you get the shaman idea from, that's certainly the opposite of what a priest would say - a priest would claim themselves, like einstien does there, to be the voice of god. ("and then god said unto me, tell the people that i don't play dice.")

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.

happyjack27 wrote:also, if the paths of a particle could be uniquely determined (i.e. god didn't play dice),

Heisenberg in using double talk admitted that the path of a particle can be uniquely determined by stating that" the path comes into existence when one observes it". Thus "by observing" you can determine the path uniquely. How does this "observing" collapse both the position wave and the momentum wave simultaneously while the official dogma tells us that this is never possible?

johanfprins wrote:

happyjack27 wrote:also, if the paths of a particle could be uniquely determined (i.e. god didn't play dice),

Heisenberg in using double talk admitted that the path of a particle can be uniquely determined by stating that" the path comes into existence when one observes it". Thus "by observing" you can determine the path uniquely. How does this "observing" collapse both the position wave and the momentum wave simultaneously while the official dogma tells us that this is never possible?

this is not the path, this is an eigenvalue of the operator associated with an eigenstate. and there is no way to know what eigenstate you will get. 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.

johanfprins wrote:

happyjack27 wrote:from my understanding its been proved that the feymann path integral can be mathematically equated to the shrodinger equation.

Where has this been proved ever. The Schroedinger equation (even though it is an approximation since it uses the electron mass as an input) is a harmonic wave equation and a harmonic wave's phase angle ONLY changes with position perpendicular to wave fronts. According to Feynman' path integral the phase changes along any path even backward in time . What paranormal claptrap.

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

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.

johanfprins wrote: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.

johanfprins wrote: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).

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.

johanfprins wrote:It can be shown that it is claptrap since the intensity of most Schroedinger waves gives the most likely position to find an electron at a position where the intensity of the wave is zero!l

that is neither relevant nor sensical.

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. having the least possible information - the default position - is saying that all outcomes are equally likely. saying that 1 outcome is certain is completely the opposite - it is saying that one has (and that there is) complete information. the latter is the more presumptuous of the two.

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.

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 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.

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. 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.