I have to apologise that I have missed this posting. dr_rocket your reasoning is absolutely correct and superb.
Originally posted by dr_rocket:
I have to agree with Count Iblis II on this one. When one is proposing a novel theory to replace another, some things are absolutely required. The first is a solid knowledge of the theory you mean to replace. You should be able to say exactly what is wrong with the current theory and how yours is going to fix it. Your theory, or any theory for that matter, should be based on matters of fact, i.e., experiments or careful observation.
Yes this would the preferred procedure; however, this thread has not been started to critisize the BCS theory in depth. I do that in my book and in a publication I have submitted four months ago. This thread is only meant to point out a contradiction that has not been picked up the hundreds of thousands of PhD students.
Originally posted by dr_rocket:
It is one thing to say that Bardeen's idea of electron-phonon coupling is BS and another to say explicitely what is wrong with it. Quite a bit could be said in this regard as it is clearly not a perfect or complete theory.
Again you are correct. It is my intention to address this after we all have agreed about the contradiction I amk trying to illustrate.
Originally posted by dr_rocket:
You need to be careful about using terms like "superconducting charge carriers". It is too easily misunderstood. A charge carrier is an electron, proton, ion etc. and their motions constitute a current. The quoted phrase seems to indicate that charge carriers have an additional property beside the electric charge.
Probably correct; what I intend to say is that the charge carriers are of a type that they can sustain superconduction. We all agree that the charge carriers must have a special property. At pr4esent it is erroneouisly accepted that they must be Cooper pairs.
Originally posted by dr_rocket:
Frankly, your words "I will not elaborate on just now" seem like a dodge. How about a few hints?
You are correct, it has been a dodge. As mentioned above I hope to correct it at the end of this thread.
Originally posted by dr_rocket:
Having said that, I will not deny that textbooks can be very wrong and that doddering old university profs have gone insensitive to new possibilities.
There are two essential properties a superconductor must have which the BCS theory cannot explain. Once we agree on the contradiction I am trying to lift out, I will post these properties and you will see for yourself that BCS cannot explain superconduction at all. We are getting somewhere now that Count Iblis II has conceded that the induced electric field is causing the circular currents when switching on a magnetic field over al already superconducting material. I AM JUST WAITING FOR HIM TO CONFIRM IT!
