I am having a wonderful holiday; and succeeded to get a (expensive) connection to the internet. Thus I will not be able to respond regularly; however I feel I must respond to what JAG wrote above:
Originally posted by J. Arthur God:
Let's see, your model is based on the idea that electrons form a lattice and jump from site to site. No one has observed such a lattice in a suprconductor even with tons of neutron diffraction work done.
Have neutron diffraction showed Cooper Pairs? What experimental proof do you have for these unlikely entities?
[/QB][/QUOTE]
You assume that the density of carriers is based on a 1-D model that is modified to fit the data. Many of your supporting arguments have to do with how the kinetic energy of the electrons can push them out of the gap, destroying superconductivity---identical qualitative arguements made for BCS.[/QB][/QUOTE]
Obviously there could be qualitative similarities in my model and BCS. In my model the movement of the carriers are effetively one-dimensional owing to the tunnelling mechanism that applies. When calculating the ratio of carriers along such a linear chain as a function of temperature, you get the correct formula; which also fits the experimental results for BOTH the low-temperature SC's and the "high temp." SC's. BCS cannot do so.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
Let's see, BCS can actual predict a gap energy, you can fit the data and get a similar number...if you modifiy the number density to fit.[/QB][/QUOTE]
Can it predict which materials will form energy gaps?. Most definitely NOT. BCS is not predictive and therefore fails the primary property that an acceptable physical theory should have. In my model, you can either calculate the energy gap (this is done in my book) or you can measure it experimentally and then PREDICT whether the material would be a superconductor or not; as one expects from a real physical theory.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
Yes, except for those points, and possibly more, there are no glaring errors.
Even your optimistic presentation doesn't prove--or even imply--that your theory is correct.
Predict something not in BCS and get some emprical proof. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I have empirical proof that my theory can model the CuO ceramics. Show me that BCS can do so. Which should be consideredd the better theory?
Before the end of the year I will publish some additional experimental results that hopefully will remove all petulant doubts; however when a person wants to believe that the Kaiser is wearing clothes, you cannot help him/her. Those with open minds, watch this space!
