Originally posted by Johnny Boy:
Have neutron diffraction showed Cooper Pairs? What experimental proof do you have for these unlikely entities?
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.
Originally posted by Johnny Boy:
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.
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.
Originally posted by Johnny Boy:
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.
"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...
Originally posted by Johnny Boy:
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?
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.
Originally posted by Johnny Boy:
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!
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.
