Quote:
Originally posted by Count Iblis II:
Quote:
however, you have not given me a reason WHY the electric field falls to zero once an equilibrium current has been reached between two contacts.
This is explained in detail in textbooks such as the one by Rickayzen.
That is a blatant lie!

Quote:
From BCS theory, or any other previous model, there is NO physical reason why this should happen.
Nonsense. Read the book by Rickayzen or any other book on this topic. I have to admit that I studied the topic a long time ago and I don't know the details anymore.[/QB][/QUOTE]

That is no lie! You clearly do not know Artha from Martha when it comes to superconduction. Dont send ME to find it in your "bible" written by Rickaysen. Prove to me why the electric field goes to zero when the current becomes steady state. It CANNOT be derived rigorously from BCS theory as you maintain.

Quote:
All the elementary properties of low temperature superconductors have been derived rigorously from theory. You are claiming that BCS theory is flawed, so it is up to you to show exactly where BCS theory goes wrong.[/QB]
Another lie! you cannot derive rigorously from BCS theory why the electric field between two contacts become zero when the current reaches steady state. Furthermore, the BCS model fits the experimental data very poorly. See, for example the data measured for tin Phys. Rev. 28 (1962) 591. For a person who do not know much about experimental accuracy (like theoreticians that think by guessing Hamilton-operators is the same as doing physics) it might be interpreted as a small deviation; however I can assure that it is an enormous discrepancy.

Quote:
Of course, the theory is only an effective description of a superconductor, but that doesn't prove that the theory is fundamentally flawed. Also, the fact that I can't explain here how you can derive from BCS theory all the properties of a superconductor isn't a valid argument that BCS theory is wrong. [/QB]
If it is only an effectivevdescription the chance that you can derive all the properties of a superconductor
"rigorously" from it is remote. It is one of those theories that is not even wrong. All yopu are proving is that you are a fool, because you claim things that you cannot prove. If you cannot prove what you claim you should first go and do your homework instead of wasting everybody's time with your inane stupidity.

Let me give you the first part of the answer:

A superconductor has to be a PERFECT dielectric EVEN WHILE A CURRENT FLOWS THROUGH IT.

Now prove that from BCS; and then proceed to explain the properties of the CuO ceramics. OR ELSE TRY AND PUT YOUR BRAIN INTO GEAR BEFORE POSTING ANY MORE UNPROVEN NONSENSE, BASED ON RECITING VERSES FROM RICKAYSEN WHICH ARE NOT EVEN IN THE BOOK!!