Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum modelling superconduction 2

What happened to my original thread?

Did you look for it down below? I know I didn't do anything to it.

Amaranth
Moderator

Yes I did; went through list of last 30 days and could not find it. Maybe I am blind, but I do not think so.

I don't think so either.

On the positive side ... we had wandered lightyears away from the topic.

Quite correct. Another positive side is that nobody could find a glaring fault in my model. Thus, if, as my model indicates, Cooper pairs do not form, it has serious consequences for quantum field theory. The Higg's field is based on the same principles.

I am taking a short holiday and will think about you guys when sitting on the beach.

Enjoy your beach. Wear sunscreen. The broiled look is out unless you're a steak.

JB wrote:
"The Higg's field is based on the same principles."

Personally I've never been all that keen on Higgs fields. That said ... this is SAGG ... not peer review. In other words it is essentially meaningless.

I hope you have something better to do than think of us. If not you are a very sick individual in need of a life. Enjoy!

Except for the fact that it is based on an unphysical assumption, and makes at least one more unphysical assumption in the process, and that there is no physical evidence that the theory is correct...and that many of your arguments are identical to those made for BCS...except for that, it is a fine model.

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. 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.

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.

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.

Thanks JAG for lucidly writing what I was thinking.

No doubt this is what the editor/reviewers were thinking and they were being kind to JB in the form letter they sent.

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:

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!

What you are missing JB is that writing a paper in a peer reviewed journal is not a joust.

That one subject-matter expert, JAG in this case, would state concerns, is sufficient to demonstrate that your paper contains some serious gaps.

If you want to be successful you will need to put the pride-of-ownership into the closet and do a complete rewrite that addresses the issues.

Arguing that there isn't a dead rhino in the middle of the living room doesn't make it go away.

Hate to be somewhat harsh here but the doubts are not petulant. You need to drop the attitude or find another profession.

I have no "attitude". My manuscript has been read by better scoentists than JAG; and their analyses were positive. Maybe you should drop your pedantic attitude and discuss the physics in my manuscript. Are you able to do so?

You have missed or dodged the point. Neutron diffraction would have detected your proposed lattice of electrons. The fact that no one appears to have seen this lattice--using experiments that would observe it--is evidence against your theory.


When one assumes a non-physical situation to fit data, it can not be taken as proof. Why would the number density of electrons scale as R and not R^3 for tin?

Take a single electron on a site. Why is the conduction one dimensional? It should have sites in 3D that it can "tunnel" to.

What is the distance R at, say, 2K for tin? Is this commensurate with the physical lattice? If not, why not? If so, will it still be commensurate at 3K? Given your equation for R, the answer is no. Why would an electron tunnel a distance that has no correlation with the crystal lattice?

Assume a single crystal of a non-cubic material. Do the properties of the superconductor vary depending on the direction of the current? Say the material is HCP. The nearest neighbor distance is different along the C-axis than along the basal-plane. Wouldn't Ro be different for these conduction directions?

Incommensurate electron charge-density-waves are allowed, but they are rare. If they exist, can you actually predict it? CDW's can be predicted by band-structure calculations.

CDW's have been observed in potassium. The CDW is even incommensurate with the lattice. However, a temperature dependence of the lattice parameter of the CDW is not reported.

Quick, what does your theory predict is the distance between charge carriers for potassium at 4.2K

After you post that, I'll post the citation to the paper and we can compare the numbers.

"this is done in my book"

Ah, you can predict the gaps, but you chose not to. Well, you can't defend your paper with unpublished results. Is this done correctly in your book? Do you make unphysical assumptions in your book?

"BCS is not predictive"

Bunk.

Google searches
"bcs theory predicts" 242 hits
"bcs theroy prediction" 11 hits

including
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/212_fall2003.web.dir/T.J_Barry/bcstheory.html

with the statement
"This BCS theory prediction of Cooper pair interaction with the crystal lattice has been verified experimentally by the isotope effect. "

Sounds like some evidence for Cooper pairs...

Where? I can say that I have emperical proof that BCS can exactly model every High-Tc superconductor ever produced. Does that prove that BCS is correct? No, because without *showing* my proof, it is just an empty statement.

1) even if BCS is wrong, that doesn't make you right. Drop that argument. Let your paper/work stand or fall on its own. Claiming that BCS is wrong is merely a smoke screen and it doesn't work here.

2) if a person wants to believe he/she is correct, you can't help him/her...why does this seem to be an argument that either of us can use? Since you tend to miss the point often, I will spell it out. Someone could give definite proof that your theory is nonsense and I suspect you would discount it.

3) predictions of BCS...how about the isotope effect. Very well done in BCS. You waived your hands and said that an effective mass of the charge carrierers would probably do the same thing. Well, when you calculate the effective mass, post it.

JB wrote:
"I do not understand the game you are trying to play."

This is not a game. This is someone that teaches at a university and has a degree in science telling you that you are coming across as about 80% attitude and 20% aptitude.

You've called a publisher an idiot.

You've railed against the phraseology of a rejection letter.

You've seen that there are legitimate concerns about what you wrote.

And you you continue to use phrases like:
"will remove all petulant doubts".

I know the meaning of the word petulant and I assume you used it with intent. If not here it is:

1. Unreasonably irritable or ill-tempered; peevish.
2. Contemptuous in speech or behavior.
Source:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/petulant

JAG tried to help you and you think him irritable?
JAG tried to help you and you think him ill-tempered?
JAG tried to help you and you think his behaviour contemptuous?
Really?

And then you accuse me of "game ... play"? Get an attitude adjustment. No more help from me but an apology to JAG is certainly due.

JB wrote:
"I do not understand the game you are trying to play."

This is not a game. This is someone that teaches at a university and has a degree in science telling you that you are coming across as about 80% attitude and 20% aptitude.

You've called a publisher an idiot.

You've railed against the phraseology of a rejection letter.

You've seen that there are legitimate concerns about what you wrote.

And you you continue to use phrases like:
"will remove all petulant doubts".

I know the meaning of the word petulant and I assume you used it with intent. If not here it is:

1. Unreasonably irritable or ill-tempered; peevish.
2. Contemptuous in speech or behavior.
Source:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/petulant

JAG tried to help you and you think him irritable?
JAG tried to help you and you think him ill-tempered?
JAG tried to help you and you think his behaviour contemptuous?
Really?

And then you accuse me of "game ... play"? Get an attitude adjustment. No more help from me but an apology to JAG is certainly due.

This may come across as being part of the stodgy old establishment, but it is a fact.

If I have the option of believing that a Nobel Prize winning theory that has been in constant use for decades over a new theory which has been rejected twice by peer review...I will pick the Nobel Prize winning theory.

I'll probably be correct 99.99999% of the time. If I could get odds like that in Vegas, I'd be a rich man.

The burden of proof is on you. I believe you haven't met it. This is at least as valid as your belief that your theory is going to be earth shattering.

This may come across as being part of the stodgy old establishment, but it is a fact.

If I have the option of believing that a Nobel Prize winning theory that has been in constant use for decades over a new theory which has been rejected twice by peer review...I will pick the Nobel Prize winning theory.

I'll probably be correct 99.99999% of the time. If I could get odds like that in Vegas, I'd be a rich man.

The burden of proof is on you. I believe you haven't met it. This is at least as valid as your belief that your theory is going to be earth shattering. [/QUOTE]

Why am I not surprised. Those people who are not willing to use scientific sense judge on probabilty. You have now proved without any doubt that you are, and NEVER can be, a scientist. It is not "probabilty" which should lead a scientist, but scientific principles. I have challenged you to explain how BCS models superconduction between two contacts. The burden of the proof is on YOU! Why do you not do so? Because you BELIEVE that BCS MUST be correct; and are incapapble of discussing science logically. Nothing has changed since the time of Galileo!! Talking about Las Vegas; how much are you willing to bet on the BCS model? Put your money where your mouth is! BEING SO SURE OF YOURSELF YOU WILL OF COURSE GIVE ME ODDS OF 99.99999999% Well I will be gracious: $1000 from me for $1000,000 from you! How's that?

I apologise for the many postings; but I continually got messages of rejection and thus had to try again.

I apologise for the many postings; but I continually got messages of rejection and thus had to try again.

I have only now seen the postings og JAG on the previous page: I am not going to even try and answqer all the nonsense JAG has posted, except to ask one question: IF Cooper Pairs are the required charge-carriers for suoperconduction, why do the "high-temperature" superconductors not show an isotope effect. JAG try to act and reason like a scientist; PLEASE.

You are subtle, but I gather you disagree with my last post.

Yes, people believe that BCS is correct--or is at least a workable theory. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people have used the BCS theory with success.

Do people believe that BCS is the all encompassing theory that explains all there is to say about superconducivity? Nope.

Here's something that shouldn't be news to you. No theory is correct. All of these mathematical constructs are just our way of modelling what nature does. Sometimes they work really well, but they are still just tool. Anyone who completely believes any theory is a true description of reality is a fool. My guess is that Bardeen, Cooper and Schriefer would all agree that their theory is not a complete description of superconductivity.


Look up who made this quote. And, no, I don't think I am in the same league as this gentleman.

"The de Broglie-Schrodinger wave fields were not to be interpreted as a mathematical description of how an event actually takes place in time and space, though, of course, they have reference to such an event. Rather they are a mathematical description of what we can actually know about the system. They serve only to make statistical statements and predictions of the results of all measurements which we can carry out upon the system."

By the way, I have used more than probability. I have used my education, experience and common sense. You asked for people to read and critique your paper. I did so. I notice that you are not addressing my technical concerns with your paper.

You are not Gallieo. Do yourself a favor, drop that line. It really, seriously, honestly, doesn't help your case. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Drop the whole, "the establishment is against new ideas" line as well. Sorry, but the establishment is actually hungry for new ideas. A good one you would have to keep from being stolen.

By the way, probability should definitely lead a scientist. Probability is the basis of statistical mechanics. The same person who made the quote noted above supposedly considered this to be one of the most elegant forms of physics.

You have been reading Uncle Al's posts and taking him at his word. This is a dangerous practice.

There is an isotope effect in High-Tc superconductors. It is often lower than expected. Sometimes it is negative. It has been attacked using BCS as a basis. One feature is that the phonons important are only in the CuO sheets. So, changing the isotope of, say, La, doesn't have the effect one would expect from a simple application of BCS.

That said, scientists start by doing a literature search.

As an expert in superconductivity, I am sure you have read this paper:

Interplay of electron-phonon interaction and strong correlations: the possible way to high-temperature superconductivity
by M.L. Kulic in Physics Letters (338, pg 1-264 (2000).

Here are some quotes from the abstract.

"However, there are experimental evidences that the electron-phonon (E-P) interaction together with strong electronic correlations plays a decisive role in the formation of the normal state and superconductivity."


"The tunneling experiments show also that almost all phonons contribute to the pairing interaction and the E-P interaction is sufficiently large to produce T-c similar to 100 K. The strong E-P interaction is due to (a) the layered and almost ionic-metallic structure of HTS oxides; (b) the almost two-dimensional motion of conduction carriers, which give rise to large contribution of the Madelung energy in the E-P interaction, especially for axial phonons. "

Sounds like a lot of evidence is out there for electron-phonon interaction in High-Tc superconductors. Does your theory match the tunneling spectroscopy data?

You've the patience of a saint JAG.

After the way he treated you I wouldn't respond to him if he was up to his neck in quicksand.

People that rail against "the establishment" may or may not have a point. But they are always setting themselves up for failure.

Actually, I was not pleased with statements in the previous thread. I asked some questions, and JB made responses. I didn't agree with them, but didn't have time to make a post. He implied that my silence somehow implied that he had convinced me. I want to be very clear this time.

I must say that I find his recent arguments odd.

His theory has nothing to say on the isotope effect at all. He has suggested some handwaving arguments in this forum.

BCS explains the isotope effect well in standard materials but not so well in High-Tc.

Therefore, we are to conclude that BCS is wrong and he is correct.

I was taught that anyone proposing a new theory MUST explain how what they write is consistent with the current art and further explain how it may differ from current art.

To have not discussed some of the issues you've brought up is a major shortcoming.

JAG: "There is an isotope effect in High-Tc superconductors. It is often lower than expected. Sometimes it is negative. It has been attacked using BCS as a basis. One feature is that the phonons important are only in the CuO sheets. So, changing the isotope of, say, La, doesn't have the effect one would expect from a simple application of BCS."

I am aware of this and if you go back to what I have posted on the isotope effect you will see that I have said that the coupling with phonons is weaker in the CuO ceramics because the charge-carriers are formed between the layers where the electrons are bonded together by the standard exchange force (similar to the covalent bond). The phonons are within the layers. This does not totally exclude any interaction between the phonons and the charge carriers, but it will be much weaker than in the low temperature metals where both the charge carriers and phonons are internal to the material.

JAG: "That said, scientists start by doing a literature search."

I have and I am still doing so. I must admit that I am still catching up. I have been helped by buying a pair of hellish expensive books from Cambridge U in which the work on high temperature superconductors have been summarised. I am aware of the tunnelling experiments and they are commensurate with my model. Unfortunately I do not have access to STEM; however, I have other data that are commensurate with the tunnelling data. Unfortunately I have not yet obtained the go-ahead from my patent attorneys to publish. Hopefully I will be able to place it on arxive before the end of this year. BTW if you go to my article on my model which I have posted on arxive you will find that I have tried to accomodate your comments which I considered as useful; I also deal with the isotope effect.

DA: "After the way he treated you I wouldn't respond to him if he was up to his neck in quicksand."

If you share this feeling JAG, then I apologise because it has not been my intention to treat you badly.

JAG: " must say that I find his recent arguments odd.

His theory has nothing to say on the isotope effect at all. He has suggested some handwaving arguments in this forum.

BCS explains the isotope effect well in standard materials but not so well in High-Tc."

AS I have just now posted, the isotope effect is discussed in the version of my manuscript on arxive. My model explains the isotope effect well in all materials. If you go back to Wigner's treatment which predicts the formation of a Wigner crystal, you will find that the energy of the electron orbitals that form will depend on the isotope mass. Furthermore, it also gives a reason why superconduction do not accur in good conductors like gold and copper. In these materials the mean-field theory applies well. A Wigner crystal manifests when the mean-field approach breaks down. This is what one expects for a superconductor and this is also borne out by the tunneling experiments you have quoted above. This is another argument against BCS: it is a mean-field theory (patched together with fudge factors called "coherence lengths"); and thus, most probably, a very crude approximation of what the mechanism really is.

DA: "I was taught that anyone proposing a new theory MUST explain how what they write is consistent with the current art and further explain how it may differ from current art.

To have not discussed some of the issues you've brought up is a major shortcoming."

What you say I MUST do, is exactly what I have done in my manuscript; and I have addressed the issues raised by JAG; I even made modifications in my manuscript which I finally posted on arxive.

My whole article has a basic thrust which both JAG and DA ignore completely (why?): this is the following:

BCS cannot model a superconducting current that flows between two contacts; because it has to explain the following; which it cannot:

1. How the charge carriers can increase their velocities without manifesting kinetic energy: if they manifest kinetic energy, they will scatter within the contact they are moving into and this will register as a resistance (just as in the case for electrons in a vacuum diode).

2. In order for the charge-carriers not to accelerate, which must manifest kinetic energy when it occurs, the superconducting phase must "expel" any applied electric field: i.e. the material MUST be a perfect dielectric. BCS does not give a mechanism for this.

My model explains both these requirements and it fits experimental results that have been measured for ALL types of superconductors discovered to date. This is exactly where my model differs from "current art" which cannot explain high Tc superconductors. Thus to accuse me of what you accuse me of above is untrue and petulant.

In addition to the fact that the BCS model cannot explain SC between two contacts (and thus not any superconduction); it is a very complicated model. My model is simpler and can model everything BCS can supposedly model and more. What does Occam's razor tell you?

I have only now seen this posting on the previous page:

I am insulted by this posting; You do not need to lecture me on the limitations of physics: I probably am way ahead of you when it comes to this topic. Therefore I am always open-minded when new ideas are mooted. Why are you not? It seems to me that you do not practise what you preach.

And further:

I am glad you have brought up that quote; because it lies at the root of the problems we have had in modern physics for over 80 years. I have come to the conclusion that this is an incorrect interpretation of the statistical nature of some quantum mechanical processes like radio-active decay and wave-collapse. The statistics of these processes does not relate to the wave-function representing a probability distribution; but to Heisenberg's Uncerainty Relationship for energy and time; as well as the ability of the wave to morph when the boundary conditions change. I have posted another manuscript on arxive which in my opinion addresses these aspects.

What you should use when reading a manuscript is your ability to do science. In your case it is clear to me that your "education, experience and common sense" is not enough. Having written this, I want to confirm that this is not meant as an insult to you. In fact I am grateful that you did put in the effort and did come back with arguments. This is how a scientific critique must be handled (DA should take note). Thus I want to thank you very much; however, I do not know which technical aspects you claim that I have not addressed. From my viewpoint it is you who are not addressing the technical and scientific aspects in my manuscript. See two postings up.

You keep bringing this up, but it makes no sense. Perhaps to you it does, but if that is the case, you are not communicating it well.

An electron moves from a superconductor to a normal conductor contact. It scatters, creating resistance--IN THE NORMAL METAL. Wow, there is resistance in a normal metal in contact with a superconductor. Let's throw BCS out the door!

Quote:

2. In order for the charge-carriers not to accelerate, which must manifest kinetic energy when it occurs, the superconducting phase must "expel" any applied electric field: i.e. the material MUST be a perfect dielectric. BCS does not give a mechanism for this.

No, charge carriers do accelerate in superconductors. One can even measure it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query...p;dopt=Abstract

You want to expell all electric field? You need a perfect conductor. Read part 2 of Halliday and Resnick. There is a section on capacitors.

Quote:

My model explains both these requirements and it fits experimental results that have been measured for ALL types of superconductors discovered to date. This is exactly where my model differs from "current art" which cannot explain high Tc superconductors. Thus to accuse me of what you accuse me of above is untrue and petulant.

"...and it fits experimental results that have been measured for ALL types of superconductors discovered to date"

I'm sorry, where did your model actually fit the isotope effect in, say, tin? I don't recall that figure in your paper. I.e. where is a quantitative analysis of the isotope effect for a simple superconductor? You don't have it, so don't make this claim.

Quote:

In addition to the fact that the BCS model cannot explain SC between two contacts (and thus not any superconduction); it is a very complicated model. My model is simpler and can model everything BCS can supposedly model and more. What does Occam's razor tell you?

Your model is high school algebra applied to unphysical assumptions. Two experts in the field have told you it is incorrect. Occam's razor tells me that the easiest decision was to take their advice and not read your paper--i.e. you are wrong. Not being a lazy scientist, I chose to read your paper.

Have fun with Occam's razor in your work.

Here's a trick for those of us second rate scientists who measure resistance of materials on a daily basis. Use a 4-point probe. You are making grandiose claims based on the fact that there is a resistance in your 2-point model. PRL would have rejected Bednorz and Mueller with their 4-point measurements. You can imagine that 2-point measurements wouldn't have gotten them into any journal.

OK, I have answered your questions. Yes, I can predict the future and tell that you disagree with my statements. Oh well, I am crushed.

Now, back to one (of many) problems in your theory that you never want to address.

You state that the number denisty of superconducting electrons goes down with temperature. Thus, the average distance between conduction electrons increases.

From this, you make the leap that the distance between available sites increases.

Occam's razor (and most of solid state physics) would have your first explore that the site occupancy decreases with temperature. I.e. the distance between allowed sites for electrons remains nominally the same, but the probability (ooh that bad word) of a charge carrier being on a site goes down.

So, the distance a carrier would have to tunnel in your model would remain the same. This would negate much of your conclusions.

Explain how you make the leap from reduced site occupancy to your Wigner lattice (or whatever lattice of charge carriers) expanding.

For bonus points, explain why it makes sense for charge carriers to "tunnel" from site to site--if all the sites are occupied! If the charge carriers are Fermions, it can't happen. You must have <100% site occupancy.

JAG: "You keep bringing this up, but it makes no sense. Perhaps to you it does, but if that is the case, you are not communicating it well
An electron moves from a superconductor to a normal conductor contact. It scatters, creating resistance--IN THE NORMAL METAL. Wow, there is resistance in a normal metal in contact with a superconductor. Let's throw BCS out the door!"

JB: It makes perfect sense if you are able to understand simple physics. As I have pointed out in my MANUSCRIPT and HERE electrons in a vacuum diode also do not scatter but the voltage is not zero over the anode and cathode: i.e. the resistance is not zero. Resistance means dissipation of energy and generation of heat (look it up in any secondary school handbook on physics). Where do the vacuum electrons generate this resistance and heat? By scattering within the anode. This would be the case for any non-scattering charge carriers which have kinetic energy; they will scatter in the contact that they move into and this will register as energy disipation and a voltage must then be present over the contacts QED.


JAG: "No, charge carriers do accelerate in superconductors. One can even measure it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9976680&dopt=Abstract"

JB: Of course they have to increase their velocity when the current increases. If this occurs through acceleration it is easy to prove by using Newton's laws (even nowadays available in secondary school textbooks - look it up) that their kinetic energy will increase. They will then scatter in the anodic contact and register a resistance. QED.

JAG: "You want to expell all electric field? You need a perfect conductor. Read part 2 of Halliday and Resnick. There is a section on capacitors."

JB: Very funny. It again proves that you are not understanding elementary physics. A perfect metal only acts as a perfect dielectric when an external electric field is applied; NOT when an electric field is applied by contacts so that a current flows through it. In the case of a superconductor the material MUST act as a pewrfect dielectric WHILE a current is flowing through it, or else the charge carriers will accelerate, scatter and register a resitance. QED.


JAG:"...and it fits experimental results that have been measured for ALL types of superconductors discovered to date" I'm sorry, where did your model actually fit the isotope effect in, say, tin? I don't recall that figure in your paper. I.e. where is a quantitative analysis of the isotope effect for a simple superconductor? You don't have it, so don't make this claim."

In order to do so one has to fit tin to Wigner's theory. This is not a new theory and by doing such an analysis would have made my manuscript too long and would have diluted its main thrust. For the Wigner orbitals to form, two localised energy levels must manifest at each orbital; with an energy gap between them (so you see also in this case an energy gap is predicted) to bind the electrons manifesting the orbital. As anybody witrh some knowledge of physics should know, localised electronic energy levels are mostly "vibronic": i.e. their values change with isotope mass. In fact, it is a standard method that is used in Solid State Physics to analyse such states; change the istope mass and measure the change in energy. Please read up on these aspects: it is clear that you have never encountered them before; but are notwithstanding criticizing me. You should be embarassed with yourself.

JAG: "Your model is high school algebra applied to unphysical assumptions. Two experts in the field have told you it is incorrect. Occam's razor tells me that the easiest decision was to take their advice and not read your paper--i.e. you are wrong. Not being a lazy scientist, I chose to read your paper."

JB: "If high school algebra is enough why use complicated Feynmann diagrams? As I have just now proved to you my assumptions are not unphysical; the fact that you think so rather illustrate to me that you should not have passed secondary school physics. The assumptions are simple and perfectly logical. "Two expertts" in the field DID NOT prove that my manuscript is wrong. REAL experts will not just state that my model is wrong but also give the reasons why. At least you tried, but you are obviously not an expert in Solid State Physics; nonetheless thanks for your efforts.

JAG: "Here's a trick for those of us second rate scientists who measure resistance of materials on a daily basis. Use a 4-point probe. You are making grandiose claims based on the fact that there is a resistance in your 2-point model. PRL would have rejected Bednorz and Mueller with their 4-point measurements. You can imagine that 2-point measurements wouldn't have gotten them into any journal."

JB: It seems that you do not understand even four-point measurements. Two are used to measure the voltage and it is then assumed that no current flows into these contacts. The other two are still used to inject and extract current, You will still have scatterring in the end contact so that an electric field will be present which can be measured with the voltmeter over the other two contacts.

I am embarrassed.

I wish I could get the part of my life back that was spent on your manuscript and this discussion.

You have been asked to present a quantitative calculation of how the isotope effect in Tin can be fit using your model. Instead you waive your hands furiously and hope that the uneducated will think you understand what you are talking about. Here's a hint, there are probably only 3 people reading this thread anymore. 2 of them aren't fooled by this.

You haven't and can't fit the isotope effect quantitatively using your model. Hence you have no standing to complain if there are deficits with BCS. Let your model stand or fall on its own merits. The BCS complaint is a smokescreen.

Dang, where did I put my Cardinal's hat now, Gallieo?

So, as I pointed out before, there is a voltage in the normal metal contacts. [Sarcasm]You are obviously the first person to note this.[/Sarcasm]

JAG: OK, I have answered your questions. Yes, I can predict the future and tell that you disagree with my statements. Oh well, I am crushed.

JB: You are trying hard I must admit. I disagree with your statements because they violate basic physics which is nowadays available in secondary school texts.

JAG: Now, back to one (of many) problems in your theory that you never want to address.

You state that the number denisty of superconducting electrons goes down with temperature. Thus, the average distance between conduction electrons increases.

From this, you make the leap that the distance between available sites increases.

Occam's razor (and most of solid state physics) would have your first explore that the site occupancy decreases with temperature. I.e. the distance between allowed sites for electrons remains nominally the same, but the probability (ooh that bad word) of a charge carrier being on a site goes down.

So, the distance a carrier would have to tunnel in your model would remain the same. This would negate much of your conclusions.

Explain how you make the leap from reduced site occupancy to your Wigner lattice (or whatever lattice of charge carriers) expanding.

For bonus points, explain why it makes sense for charge carriers to "tunnel" from site to site--if all the sites are occupied! If the charge carriers are Fermions, it can't happen. You must have <100% site occupancy.

JB: Yes I have noted from the start that you became unstuck on this issue. Therefore I have expanded on it in my manuscript which is now available on arxive. I have definitely NOT tried NOT to address it. If you take the time to understand the formation of a Wigner crystal, you will see that it forms when the mean field approximation breaks down. Before that happens, there are no positively-charged anchor points for the electrons to form localised orbitals. Thus when the first orbital forms the posive charges forming the anchor point appears at the same time. This is the lower energy state. If it should happen that the electrons are thermally excited back to the higher energy state, the positive charges are neutralised by them. Thus your statement that : "the distance between allowed sites for electrons remains nominally the same" does not apply.

For the CuO ceramics the process is slightly different but still in principle the same: The electrons de-excite from donor levels within the crystallographic layers to form the required charge-carriers between the layers. They are then anchored by the donor charges within the crystallographic layers. When they are excited back into the donors, they cancel the charges on the donors and thus the positive anchor charges. Again your statement does NOT apply.

In the case of SC p-type diamond, the charge carriers are holes on acceptors which have a suitable energy above the valence band. As the temperature goes up more and more of the holes on the acceptors are neutralised by excited electrons and the hole density decreases. Although surrounding electrons neutralising holes on other acceptors can tunnel into existing holes, this action does not change the average hole density at a given temperature. Thus again you statement does not apply.

Bosons AND fermions can tunnel. There is no such thing as tunnelling of an electron or an electron-pair "through" a barrier. This is prevented by the Pauli principle. Only a magician can do so. Tunnelling can only occur when a charge-carrier can borrow enough energy for a long enough time to scale an energy barrier. This is controlled by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relationship for energy and time. To tunnel and carry a current, a charge-carrier must be able to borrow enough energy to break free from its anchor point and have in addition enough speed in order to reach another charge carrier position within the allowed time interval. In this case the aanchor charges do not disappear because they stay "dynamically:" anchored by the charges on the charge-carriers. The latter ensures that the material acts at the same time as a perfect dielectric.

I hope that I have succeeded in explaining it better!

JB wrote:
"I do not believe that there is such a thing as tunnelling of an electron or an electron-pair "through" a barrier"

And an electron tunelling microscope? Another name for Swiss cheese?

You might want to try google. No need to go to the library.

Since you apparantly do not understant my statements phrased in many different ways, let's try something very simple.

I am stuck on this issue because you NEVER address it. You never state why R is temperature dependent.

You give qualitative verbage but no calculations or experimental evidence.

"This superconduction ensues when the distances between orbitals (which form a Wigner crystal) become small enough for tunneling to be possible.

I.e. the distance the charge carriers jump is the distance between orbitals in a Wigner crystal.

I.e. R must be related to the lattice parameter of a Wigner Crystal.

therefore, for your model to work, the lattice parameter of a Wigner crystal must have a temperature dependence that matches that you assume for R.

Please, since I am ignorant of anything beyond grade-school math and science, educate me.

What is the equation (including temperature) for the lattice parameter of a Wigner crystal. Derive it or show a reference.

Compare this to the temperature dependence of R in your paper.

If they are not the same, you are in trouble.

There is no evidence that I can find--theoretically or experimentally--for a Wigner crystal in common superconductors such as Nb, Sn, Ta, etc.. I don't expect you to be able to find the temperature dependence.

My understanding (and, take this from someone who doesn't know anything beyond grade-school math and science) is that the problem isn't "tunneling" but "through".

He would argue that the mechanism isn't due to the wave function having a finite value on the opposite side of the barrier. Most of us would figure based on Freshman or Sophomore physics (which I hope to take someday) gives a finite probablity that the particle will move "through" the barrier and appear on the other side. Something having to do with the square of the wave function.

Instead, he proposes that the mechanism is that the particle approaches the barrier and gains the energy to overcome the barrier temprarily via the uncertainty principle. This propels the particle "over" the barrier.

It is a model that treats the particle as only a particle.

He doesn't give a quantitative explanation of this idea.

If, in the end, they give the same quantitative answer, they are likely in reality the same physics.

For what it is worth, they are the same physics, in my mind.

Whether you think of a particle with a delta-E, or a particle/wave with a little delta-X or a wave-packet with a probability of being on the other side, the physics is the same.

I seem to recall that you can derive the Heisenberg uncertainty relationships assuming a gaussian wave-packet for a particle. So, if you claim that it is the uncertainty principle, you are using the same physics.

[please see the post below where I point out the error in the above]

If anyone wishes to dissect this further then the very least then can do is:

Define "BARRIER"

Actually, on further thought, the physics is not necessarily the same for the methods I mentioned.

take an electron with energy E at a barrier with a height of 1eV. In JB's formalism, the electron temporarily is promoted to an energy above the barrier--i.e. it gains >1eV--through the uncertainty principle. It easily travels across the barrier since it has enough energy.

I.e. the electron enters the second electrode with an energy of E'>E+1eV

Now, consider these two cases

1) the material at the other side of the barrier has states available at this energy, E'. The electron can pass into the electrode.

2) the second electrode has no states available at E'. I.e. the density of states (DOS) is zero at E'. The electron is scattered or reflected back to the first electrode.

I.e there is a clear method to distinguish the two descriptions of tunneling (through vs. over the barrier).

If JB's description of tunneling were correct, tunneling spectroscopy wouldn't work.

For those who tend to misinterpret what I say, I am disagreeing with JB and claiming that much experimental data shows him to be wrong.

You are funny I must say; but it is clear that you do not know your solid state physics. To calculation to do the isotope effect on the energy levels in tin, you need to know the elastic constants of tin (which I am sure are available) and then you have to derive spring constants etc. It is quite a lengthy calculation; but it works and has been done many times in, for example. diamond. There are experts that can do this better than I can; unless I spend a lot of time strudying up the required mathematics. I know in principle how this can be done; but have more important issues on my plate right now. In this case D A Morgan's suggestion of having a co-author, who do such calculations on a daily basis, would apply.

My model does stand on the merit that it calculates aspects that BCS theory just cannot do. As I have said BCS cannot explain how a current can flow so that the charge carriers have a velocity without having kinetic energy. If they have kinetic energy, this energy has to be dissipated and this is the source of resistance as any schoolboy should know.

Of course there is a contact resistance between different materials; however, you are still missing the point completely. I will thus try and explain it on a simpler level. Resistance within a normal conductor is caused by scattering of the charge carriers. The charge carriers are accelerated for an average distance (say L) and then scatter; they are then again accelerated and scatterred etc. When they reach the contact they are also scattered in the contact; so as to lose the last bit of kinetic energy they have generated on their way from one contact to the other. In other words, resistance manifest because all the kinetic energy generated during the transit of the charge carriers are dissipated.

Now assume that one makes the length of the material less than L: The charge carriers will then on average not scatter within the material. Does this mean that the material is now a superconductor? Obviously not!! The kinetic energy that was generated during their journey from one contact to the other is still dissipated completely (now mostly within the contact) and resistive energy is still "wasted". Now it should be obvious that if non-scattering charge carriers require kinetic energy to move from one contact to another, all this energy will be dissipated within the contact; BUT THIS MEANS THAT ALL THE KINETIC ENERGY GENERATED DURING TRANSIT IS STILL DISSIPATED (JUST AS IN THE CASE OF A NORMAL CONDUCTOR). SO YOU DO NOT HAVE A RESISTANCE FREE FLOW OF CHARGE CARRIERS: I.E. YOU DO NOT HAVE SUPERCONDUCTION!!

Thus the most important property of a superconductor is that its charge carriers must be ablE to manifest a velocity without requiring kinetic energy. BCS cannoT model this. In fact BCS accepts that the charge carriers can increase their kinetic energies: This iS why it cannot model superconduction at all. The fact that it seems to give reasonable results for the low temperature metals is interesting; but, most probably, fortuitous.

There are two ways to explain tunnelling: 1. is to assume the electron can move through a barrier (Copenhagen magic"; 2. to assume that Heisneberg's Uncertainty relationship for energy and time allows an electron orbital to temporary borrow the required energy to scale the energy barrier. The two give the same result when applied to tunnelling and thus also to the tunnelling microscope. You should be able to pick this up in any elementary textbook on QM. I do not believe Copenhagen magic and therefore favour the second interpretation.

What you state here is nonsense. The formation of a Wigner crystal constitutes a metal-insulator transition; as anybody with Solid State knowledge should know that such a transition is temperature dependent; i.e. a phase transition occurs requiring an activation energy. This means that not all the electrons suddenly de-activates to form Wigner-type orbitals. Some will be in the higher mean-free states and others will be in the lower energy states. This is treated very clearly in my manuscript. It should also be clear that at higher temperatures the density of Wigner orbitals will be less than at lower temperature; i.e. the distances between them will be larger at higher temperatures. By using these assumptions I can generate excellent fits to available experimental data.

You are now playing a game, by challenging me to do in effect ab initio calculations on Wigner crystals before you will accept that my model might have merit. If this is the norm that is required Solid State Physics would never have developed. It seems you even though you lectured me on the validity of models, you are not following what you are preaching. We have BCS and I point out that I have a mechanism that seems to model all superconductors discovered to date. This in itself should make the model interesting so that it has to be published. This gives other researchers in the field the opportunity to either disprove me or find additional results in support. To expect from me that i should first do all possible calculations before the model is published is patently unfair.

Nobody has looked for it have they? Everybody accepted Cooper pairs. It is amazing how you can sometimes only look for what you expect. So this is not a good argument you have raised. It falls in the same league as the arguments that were used against poor Ludwig Boltzmann: "atoms do not exist because we have not seen them and probably never will".

JB wrote:
"Thus the most important property of a superconductor is that its charge carriers must be ablE to manifest a velocity without requiring kinetic energy."

Precisely why do you think that your assumptions can ONLY point to this single solution? I see nothing that supports the leap from premise to conclusion.

JB wrote:
"I do not believe Copenhagen magic"

I don't either. But you specifically stated "I do not believe that there is such a thing as tunnelling of an electron or an electron-pair"

It seems your answer contradicts your statement. Can you reconcile them?

I understand what you are trying to explain; and if the current Copenhagen dogma is correct I will be willing to agree with you; however, I believe and am sure that I will be vindicated in the future that the wave intensity does NOT represent a probability distribution in the sense that Born postulated. It is for this reason that the "tunneling tail" cannot depict a probabilty that the "particle" can magically appear on the other side of the barrier; however, let us rather stick to superconduction.

Your last sentence is incorrect, and this also causes the rest of your reasoning to be incorrect. The electron only borrows the energy while it tunnels. The amount of energy it borrows determines the time it can spend during tunnelling (subject to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relationship for energy and time). When it reaches the other side of the barrier, its "time is up" to have this extra energy, and it thus has the same energy that it has had before tunnelling. As I admitted above this is equivalent to "tunnelling through"; but tunnelling through requires one to accept the Copenhagen interpretation to be correct. After believing in it for years I have now lost faith in it.

Thanks for asking a scientific question.

I have oulined my reasoning on this aspect to JAG above by comparing resistance in a normal conductor to to resistance in a conductor with no scattering.

What I say is that I do not believe that the entity moves through the barrier when it tunnels but rather scales the barrier by borrowing energy for the time interval that it moves across the barrier. I suppose that whatever the actual mechanism is, we are stuck with the term "tunnelling" when referring to it.

It isn't a matter of faith, it is a matter of science.

Either there is a difference in what the two methodologies predict, or they are equally valid. Present an experiment which determines the difference between the two interpretations or admit you have been wating my time.

You obviously value your time less than I do.

We must agree to disagree. You think you theory is valid. Have fun with it.

For the record--this means I don't believe your counter-arguments are valid. Go ahead and have your last word and let's let this thread die.

At present they are equally valid provided one accepts the Copenhagen interpretation; in the same sense that Ptolemy's model of the soalr system is equally valid to that of Copernicus, provided one accepts that the earth is stationary. So why pick on this minor issue? There is no experiment at present that can unequovically decide between the two except that the energy-time interpretation can be used for quantitative calculations as I have done in my manuscript (it is also used in QED in a related mannet). Similarly the sun-centred solar system can be more easily used for quantitative calculations. One never knows; maybe Ptolemy has been correct all the time?? But unlikely.

JB wrote:
"I have oulined my reasoning on this aspect to JAG above by comparing resistance in a normal conductor to to resistance in a conductor with no scattering."

I've read that but I don't see that it does what you suggest. Your argument supports the premise that the Bohr interpretation is incorrect. Something I personally agree with. But your leap on the other side of the equation to "therefore it must equal what I say it does" does not follow. Let me give you a simple illustration.

It has been proposed that there might be a macroscopic dimension that does not intersect with time. For the moment assume it exists. It explains tunneling and it explains the old "spooky action at a distance."

Is there any experimental evidence pointing to this extra dimension? Not a shred. It is just an alternative to Bohr that "might" be correct. How is that different from what you have proposed?

I'm going to agree with JAG here. This thread has run its course.

My last piece of advice, JB, is one I've already given ... you need to get a coauthor. And there is much of substance that person can provide if you let them.

If science is a matter of faith to you instad of reason; so be it. I note that you are not able to counter the argument that the charge-carriers of a superconducting current cannot have kinetic energy even though they must move with a speed v in order to transport a current. If they do need kinetic energy to move from one contact to the other, this energy must dissipate, and therefore one will not be able to have zero resistance. If this thread irritates you, probably because it is going against your dogmatic "faith" then do not read it; but please do not try and intimidate me to give up my freedom of speech. If it has to die, I will definitely not allow it to do so just because you are not able to argue logically on science.

Nonetheless, I thank you again for your input. It did help me to hone my arguments and to convince me that my science is correct[ i.e. you were not able to really give a compelling argument against my model. Remember energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be converted from one form to another. For superconduction to occur the charge-carriers must always be in the lowest energy state and that is a state without kinetic energy.

You are wrong again. I have experimental evidence in the form of a macro-wave comprising electrons that form between a diamond's surface and an anode. It is a single holistic wave within which time does not exist, similar to a laser beam except that it is now a staionary wave through which electrons can be teleported. We have photographs of this phase as a pitch-black cylinder. So watch this space.

Your statement: "I've read that but I don't see that it does what you suggest." has two possible interpretations: 1. that you really have valid reasons to reject it (which, however, you are for some reason not willing to share with us), or 2. that you are not able to follow the physics and are just petulant. From what you have posted on this BB I have to conclude that it is the latter.

You are welcome to believe that this thread has run its course and to stop contributing to it. But I do note that you, just like JAG, are trying to intimidate me not to make any more postings. Do you believe in freedom of speech? It does not seem so. It will be a relief if people who are scientifically more adept than you and JAG would be willing to go into discussion with me. So I hope you both stick to your decision that you are not capable to add value to this thread. The problem is, however, with you, not with me.

Of course I disagree totally with your last sentence.What you are basically saying is that I will not get new ideas published unless I suck up to a person established in the field of superconduction. This is immoral and corrupt to say the least. No wonder physics is in a quaqmire.

JB wrote:
"But I do note that you, just like JAG, are trying to intimidate me not to make any more postings."

You are wholly incorrect in your assessment.

Rather I am of the opinion that you are not interested in being helped.

Feel free to disagree. You've disagreed with every other bit of guidance you have received too.

What guidance? You could have fooled me!

Get a friend of yours to read these threads. Especially the posts where recommendations were made as to how to work with publishers, getting a coauthor, etc.

Perhaps not. They likely wouldn't remain your friend for long.

Seems the problem here is that you didn't see them as guidance. Perhaps you should stop using a microscope and start using a telescope.

Either way I will henceforth ignore anything in this thread. Here's your chance to get in the last word. By all means take it.

My friends have read it. They are just as shocked as I am about your advice. Science is about science not about "attitude". As I have already pointed out, Newton is known to have had the worst attitude ever. If the scientsists at that time thought like you do, then we would not have had classical mechanics. So please look past "attitude" and judge science objectively (or do you grade your students on attitude and not ability; or pass a student provided he gives somebody else the credit?). There is no reason why I should suck up to a "co-author" or to an editor who is clearly an idiot. In the interest of science it should be pointed out when an editor is incompetent; as it has been in the case of Superconductor Science and Technology. One should not be an editor if you do not have the knowledge, ability and dedication to science required for the job.