On one of the previous topics the following advice was given: "If hundreds of thousands of physics grad students across the planet over 70 years have gone through this from postulates to final derived theory and nobody has found an error, including experimentalists, then you don't".
Afterwards I found out that this statement is not quite true; for example, there are a substanrial number of grad students having obtained their PhD's in Quantum Field Theory who have raised objections, and believe that they have found errors; but as soon as they propagated this viewpoint they suddenly found that they could not get their articles published in peer reviewed journals anymore. One can now reason that the reviewers proved these objections wrong; however, in general these papers have been rejected by using vague terms; for example, that the objections are "too vague" or "too speculative". No real scientific arguments were used to justify the decision. So maybe the hundreds of thousands of grad students who did not report their dissent did not do so becaause of the dire consequences they feared for their careers. Maybe peer review has become an instrument to protect the top structure of scientists through which funding is allocated to the hundres of thousands of grad students, causing them to then end up having scientific frontal lobotomies?
It made me think about the following possibility: could it not have happenned that a scientific concept becomes so dogmatically accepted that hundreds of thousands of supervisors go into appoplexy when it is challenged? And this discourages grad students to re-investigate it from first principles? This would mean that an error can go on for many years, mybe even 100 or more, without being re-examined critically in terms of basic scientific principles.
What I propose to do is to raise simple topics, which have been accepted for many years (50 or more)as having passed the test of hundreds of thousands of students (and their professors) and get the participants of this forum to re-examimine the validity of the concept from basic principles.
In this thread I start off by raising the mechanism for the generation of circular currents within a superconductor which finds itself within a magnetic field.

Consider a supercondutor across which a magnetic field is generated by switching on an electromagnet so that a magnetic field increses from zero to a value B. It has been experimentally verified many times that circular currents are generated within the superconductor. They cause an opposite magnetic field that cancels the applied magnetic field, so that there is no magnetic field within the superconductor. Now the textbook question: what is the mechanism that forces the superconducting charge carriers to move in circles? Your answers will be appreciated.

What do you say Uncle Al and D A Morgan?

Look up the difference between Type I supercons and Type II supercons. BTW, superconductivity is strictly a DC phenomenon. Ramping up an external external field or changing current must create losses.

That is not an answer to my question. I am still asking what is the mechanism responsible for creating the circular currents?

Hi Jonny Boy,

I like what you are suggesting. I am a big fan of "to re-investigate it from first principles".

I must say, however, that you run the risk of being misunderstood. As you say generations of scientists and their students have been blindly accepting many things in an uncritical manner. So when you pose the question - some - readers will tend to misunderstand what you are driving at. Rather than dig into what you have to say and formulate a meanigful response they will:
a) come up with a reply that shows they missed the point;
b) heap on the ridicule and sarcasm;
c) spew total nonsense.

Rather than these three pointless alternatives I will make an effort. First I am no expert at superconducting, so I have no particular insight into your question. Now your question is this:

"what is the mechanism that forces the superconducting charge carriers to move in circles? "

One of the basics of any problem solving or analytic activity is to ask what the object of study reminds you of.

My first level take on this is to think of charges moving in a magnetic field. This bring to mind the Lorentz force law: Fm = qv X B.

My second level take is to think about Faraday induction. This is where a magnet is thrust through a coil of wire to produce a current. I am also thinking of Lenz' law in this context.


Now I look back at the original question and notice that you said "superconducting charge carriers". Whoa! Shouldn't it be the charge carriers in the superconducting material?

Well, I guess that this is where I have to ask a question or two. The most important is what is the basic principle you wish to call into question? Maybe you could also specify what state that the superconductor is in when the B field is built up. Does it have a current in it already? Would bringing a bar magnet near the material make any difference (as opposed to a solenoid where the field is "made") in what you are asking?

What ever you do, don't take my questions in a negative way. I am only asking you to sharpen the point.

Dr R.

Dr R. you have made my day. You gave the answer that you will find in all textbooks right up to the present. The currents are induced by Faraday's law of induction; even when the magnetic field is switched on over a material that is already in the superconducting state. An equivalent way would be to push a bar magnet towards the material. Now let us quote Feynman on this issue (Feynman lectures volume III pragraph 21-6): "If, as you build up the magnetic field, any of it were to build up inside the metal (in its superconducting state), there would be a rate of change of flux which would produce an electric field, and an electric field would immediately generate a current which, by Lenz's law, would oppose the flux".

Thus it is generally accepted, even by Feynman, that these currents are generated and driven by an electric field. There is only one problem: when an electric field drives a current, the material CANNOT be a superconductor. To be a superconductor a current must flow without any electric field responsible for the flow, or else, according to Ohm's law, the potential between two contacts cannot be zero; and therefore the resistance cannot be zero.

Why did the hundred's of thousand's of PhD students and their supervisors not pick up this impossibility over the last 70 years?

I have a good reason for using "superconducting charge carriers" which I will not elaborate on just now.

Not true at all! Go to the library and read this book:

G. Rickayzen, Theory of Superconductivity (Interscience Publishers, New York, 1965).

You have to distingiush between rigorous theory and what is taught in high school and the first few years in university. The book by Rickayzen gives a rigorous derivation of the Meissner effects starting from BCS theory.

I am NOT talking about the Meissner effect here. That is a different issue that I am willing to deal with on another occasion. Do not advise me to read a book if you are not mentally capable of providing the answer yourself. Feynman stated clearly that the charge carriers react to an electric field. Do you agree or not?

By the way BCS is a misnomer; it should have been called BS theory!

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.

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.

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.

Frankly, your words "I will not elaborate on just now" seem like a dodge. How about a few hints?

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.

No the Meissner effect is precisely the effect you are talking about. It is the screening of magnetic fields inside a superconductor. You may object and say that you want to know what exactly happens when you switch on the magnetic field and how the currents arise that give rise to the screening. However, if you want to prove that the Meissner effect does indeed arise in a superconductor you must go into precisely these details and treat the dynamic problem (you want to consider what happens at late times, long after the magnetic field is whitched on). This is explained in detail in the book by Rickayzen.

Quote:

Do not advise me to read a book if you are not mentally capable of providing the answer yourself. Feynman stated clearly that the charge carriers react to an electric field. Do you agree or not?

Of course, charge carriers react to an electric field. In fact, electromagnetic fields are the only (significant) thing they can react to.

Feynman in his books is trying to explain complicated things to undergraduate students who haven't studied advanced quantum mechanics yet. You need to understand the field theoretical methods applied to many particle systems to derive the Meissner effect rigorously.

Quote:

By the way BCS is a misnomer; it should have been called BS theory!

Why then not submit your theory here ? If your paper is unfairly rejected then you can come back here and let us see the (unreasonable) referee report. B.t.w. alternative theories on superconductivity do exist and are accepted in journals like PRB, see e.g. here.

And what happens after the driving field caused by changing the magnetic field from zero to B has vanished?

Ohm's law is not a fundamental law. As Uncle Al posted here, superconductors only have zero resistance to DC currents. When you switch on fileds then you cause a response that cannot be calculated directly using some ''Ohm's Law''. You need to start from the fundamental theory that describes the electrons in the metal.

Has somebody told the git that Cooper pairs have conjugate momenta? The two electrons are traveling in opposite directions.

Google
"cooper pairs" "conjugate momenta" 55 hits
"cooper pairs" "conjugate momentum" 114 hits

Ignorance is educable, stupidity is forever. Make your choice Johnny Boy.,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/horse.htm

Great responses; just what I wanted. By using the vector potential in the Schroedinger equation to so-call "explain" the Meissner effect still assumes that the "Cooper pairs" respond to an electric field; i.e. they are accelerated to reach an appropriate velocity in order to cancel the applied magnetic field. The interaction between a charged particle, whether an electron or a boson (which internally have conjugate momenta - what ********!) is still through an induced electric field. The electric field is either induced by the magnetic field changing (Faraday effect) or by the charge moving relative to the magnetic field (F=vxB).

Now this argument is a beaut: "And what happens after the driving field caused by changing the magnetic field from zero to B has vanished?" Correct then there is no electric field and the current proceeds without an electric field being present. So this "explains" superconduction for circulating currents (well not quite; see below); however, superconducting currents also manifest linearly between two contacts, and when you increase the emf of the circuit in which the superconductor forms an element, the velocity of the carriers increases, which implies that they respond to an electric field. BUT in this case the electric field cannot go to zero because of an externally applied magnetic field becoming stationary!! So what happens to the electric field?

As indicated above there is another problem with circulating currents after the electric field disappeared: Why do the circulating currents NOT dissipate by radiating electromagnetic waves? After all, one can increase their circular velocity by increasing the magnetic field; which implies that their kinetic energy has increased. It is known that when you generate circular currents around a ring and switch off the magnetic field, you trap magnetic field energy around the ring. This means that the circulating current should radiate electromagnetic waves as long as its movement can be sustained by the presence of the trapped magnetic field. Once this energy is used up, the circulating currents should stop. Why is this not observed experimentally? It cannot be explained in terms of BCS theory.

I have submitted a paper four months ago and am still waiting for a reply. When I get it I will post it on this thread.

O yes I nearly forgot the following response: "Ohm's law is not a fundamental law. As Uncle Al posted here, superconductors only have zero resistance to DC currents. When you switch on fileds then you cause a response that cannot be calculated directly using some ''Ohm's Law''. You need to start from the fundamental theory that describes the electrons in the metal."

So what you are saying is that when the electric field changes, the reaction is not that of a superconductor. I can apply an external magnetic field so that it increases in intensity at a constant rate. The induced electric field will then be constant at all times until the magnetic field reaches its maximum value. Thus the charge carriers are accelerated by a constant electric field. One would thus expect that they will always be accelerated between two electrical contacts. This would mean that there is a potential difference between the two contacts. This, in turn, would mean that you do not have superconduction even though the carriers are not scattering within the material; this is similar to the electrons in a vacuum diode NOT forming a superconducting phase.

It seems you have already long ago made the second choice!

Johnny Boy, please visit this page.

I know about this page and have myself experienced similar situations; hoewever, I never assume upfront that the person might not have a point until after I can refute his/her arguments by sound scientific arguments. You are not doing this, and the page you referred me to does not apply to me. Please try to argue logically on your own without just referring to books and funny pages. You might start to learn some science!

Your arguments have already been refuted here. But you simply refuse to accept that and then you introduce new nonsensical arguments like that radiation should be emitted by the currents.

It is simply not possible to explain in detail why your arguments are wrong because then I would have to explain everything from basic electromagnetism to the theory of superconductivity to you. So, the link I referred you to, specifically points 15 and 16, do apply to you:

What specifically has been refuted? It is clear that you are incapable of reasoning logically! How about starting with high school physics; although it is clear to me that it will be WAAAAAY above your head! Usually when a person really understands physics it is quite easy to refute a wrong argument without having to start off with Pythagoras (he was a Greek philosopher and one of the first mathematicians-you most probably will not know that!)

Have you ever heard about Maxwell's equations? When charges are moving in a circle, they accelerate towards the centrum and therefore they have to emit electromagnetic radiation. In fact, this is the reason why the Rutherford model of the atom (do you know about it?) had to be rejected!! What is nonsensical about this???

Have you ever heard about a microwave oven? Have you ever heard about a magnetron? The magnetron generates the microwaves! How does it do it? By having electrons moving in circles. Tsk, tsk, tsk; and you want to teach ME about electromagnetism. I hope you are not a professional scientist; or else I despair about our future. Oh, and furthermore, when the electrons move in a circle within a magnetron, they do not scatter; so according to BCS they must be forming a superconducting state: Yes?

[/QUOTE]

Where have I asked these questions? I am criticising presently accepted perceptions; not asking you to "study my theory" or to "show me where MY theory is wrong". Really I think you need some professional help!

I think you are the one here who doesn't understand electromagnetism. If you did then you would know what is wrong with your argument.

Have you ever derived the formulas for radiation emitted by accelerated charges? Oviously not! If you just pick up a book like e.g. the book by Jackson then you will see that a circular current does not emit any radiation. If you have a steady current then the fields are constant and that cannot gove rise to radiation. The fact that charges are accelerated is not relevant.

If you have a single charge that is accelerated then you do have radiation. But the reason for that radiation is the way the fields from that accelerated charge behave.

Of course, I cannot be very precise here so don't try to argue with me on these points based on imprecise language.

A ''Johnny Boy-type'' argument proving that General Relativity is wrong

Consider an electric charge freely floating in space. Obviously, this charge does not emit any radiation. Suppose that you are in a rocket that is accelerating. According to the equivalence principle, what you see must be the same as what you would see if you were not accelerating and there was a uniform gravitational field.

But in the latter case the charge would accelerate in a uniform gravitational field and should emit radiation. Also, it the rocket is charged then the accelerating rocket should emit radiation while a rocket at rest in a gravitaional field clearly does not emit radiation.


Needless to say, the above arguments are wrong. I just want to point out how easy it is for people with some limited knowledge of physics to come up with arguments apparently disproving well established theories.

Wow!! You ARE creating physics to suit your prejudices. The circular currents in a magnetron still radiate electromagnetic waves. So your calculation using Jackson must be wrong.

Dont put arguments in my mouth which I have NOT made. Are you becoming so desperate?

The fact still remains that you have not been able to give me a mechanism by which the charge carriers accelerate when the magnetic field is switched on, except by Farady induction. By the way, Feynman explained this in his book just BEFORE proceeding to "explain" the Meissner effect in the usual BS way. I do not believe that a man of the caliber of Feynman would publish an explanation which he knows is completely wrong, just in order to make the physics "easier". In fact, I have read the same argument in "advanced" books on superconductivity.

Then if it is the Faraday effect that accelerates the "Cooper pairs" one should also accelerate the "Cooper pairs" when applying an electric field between two contacts. This implies that there is a field and THEREFORE THERE IS NO SUPERCONDUCTION TAKING PLACE!!

TRY AND STICK TO THE TOPIC INSTEAD OF FLAUNTING YOUR IGNORANCE!

Electromagnetic radiation cannot occur when an electron is accelerated by gravitation. This fact has another surprising aspect to it which is ignored in quantum electrodynamics. I will postpone this for a later thread.

Hahahahahaha! circular currents don't have anything to do with radiation. Why not show us some calculations here about circular currents radiating EM-waves? Oh, and don't make erroneous use of Larmor's formula, derive everything from first principles.

Utter nonsense.

We did give you the intuitive arguments here. The rigorous approach to this problem is given in the book by Rickayzen. So, I did give you the correct arguments but it is not possible to write it down here.

Your debating tactics are to attack theories on subtle points. This then makes sense to lay persons. To understand in detail why your arguments are wrong requires knowledge of more advanced methods of theoretical physics.

B.t.w., Johnny Boy, isn't it time you told us about the book you want to sell us?

For some unknown reason my profile as Johnny Boy has been wiped. If it has been done because I broke a rule, I apologise severely. ASn would appreciate it very much if my previous status can be restored (Johnny Boy)

If you just postulate a circular current without taking the required forces into account which force the charge carriers to follow a circular path, you might get your result; but it is at the cost of violating Newton's first law. Similarly the :Cooper pairs" cannot just keep on following circular orbits out of their own volition after the magnetic field has stabilised. If there is no electric field appearing when they try and follow rectilinear paths, then they will do so; however, it is clear that as soon as they try and follow rectilinear paths, the magnetic field they generate will change relative to the applied magnetic field; and this will cause an induced electric field to restore equilibrium.

Electromagnetic radiation can only occurs when charges are accelerated relative to each other. This requires the electron to be accelerated by an electric field. Nonetheless this is a topic for another thread. So lets agree to disagree.

I believe that a person who does not understand physics hides behind complicated mathematics to make his point. This is what you are doing here. I know the derivation in Rickayzen's book. It does not make any physical sense. No wonder you are incapable of explaining the physics involved. All these derivations lead to an expression where the current density is given by the gradient of the phase of the so-called order parameter (or Bose-Einstein multiparticle function). This generates a conservative field. Now there is a major problem when you generate circular currents with a magnetic field; the resultant currents manifest as a circular field. Thus by equating them to the gradient of the phase you are equating a conservative field to a circular field. This violates the basic rules of the mathematics of fields. Probably only you and a selection of "highly trained theoretical physicists" (the high priesthood?) can understand how the more advanced methods of theoretical physics can override the rules of mathematics!.

The book is available. So far not a single person who have read the book could find any flaw with the physics in it. Some are willing to state it openly; others hide because they are too scared that they did not find flaws because they are too stupid. It is quite uncanny how people who attcked me openly before reading the book suddenly fall quiet and are afterwards very difficult to get hold off. Thank God there are scientist of the caliber of Prof Jan Boeyens and Prof. Dr. Peer Zalm; who are not afraid to state that they could not find any mistakes in the physics.

No you don't, as the rest of your posting proves. In the book Rickayzen points out some fallacies of other methods that ''prove'' the existence of the Meissner effect.

The best, i.e., most entertaining, way to settle an arguement like this is with pistols at dawn. That way there would be a clear cut winner.

It is still wrong. Why are you not able to explain physics without hiding behind "advanced theoretical manipulations" of mathematics. I can assure you that mathematics is the most impartial judge. When it becomes complicated, it is unlikely that it is describing actual physics. If you need to try and bypass mathematics, like for instance using dubious approaches like renormalisation, the chance is nearly one hundred percent that you are explaining physics in terms of virtual reality; i.e. that you are wrong!! Or most likely as Pauli would have said: "you are not even wrong!"

You already made clear here that you don't even understand simple electrodynamics when you claimed that a steady circular current will emit radiation because ''the charges are accelerating toward the center''. I.e. you naively apply Larmor's formula without understanding that it doesn't hold in this case.

Now you expect that someone could explain to you in a few words how the Meissner effect comes about? I think Prof. Wiles would have more success explaining his proof of Fermat's theorem to his dog.

Johnny Boy,
I don't know what happened to your profile but I'm looking into it. I don't think you did anything wrong, and we usually give ample warnings before cutting people. Stay tuned!

"Amaranth"
Moderator

Re. the profile not being there... we had some probs with the board but it's OK now. Try logging out and then back in. Is anybody else having problems?

You already made clear here that you don't even understand simple electrodynamics when you claimed that a steady circular current will emit radiation because ''the charges are accelerating toward the center''. I.e. you naively apply Larmor's formula without understanding that it doesn't hold in this case.

Now you expect that someone could explain to you in a few words how the Meissner effect comes about? I think Prof. Wiles would have more success explaining his proof of Fermat's theorem to his dog. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nice of you; however, whether a circulating current radiates or not has nothing to do with the original question with which this thread has been opened. So I do not want us to proceed arguing at a tangent. Therefore I am returning to the original topic. You have continuously avoided to give a straight answer but rather resorted to insults and subterfuge.

The fact is that when you switch on a magnetic field over a superconductor, currents start to flow exactly as one would expect if they are generated by the induced electric field. You deny that the electric field is responsible for this and stated that:
(i) Feynman deliberately misled his students because the mechanism is so complicated.
(ii) Then you argued that the mechanism is driven by some obscure "advanced mathematics" which you are unable to explain.

Wow what a physics discussion! No wonder physics has been in a quaqmire for more than 70 years. Einstein, Schroedinger, why have you left us with a bunch of scientific midgets?

Thanks I have my profile back. It is nice to see myself in the mirror again!

I lost my profile again this morning. Thanks Kate it is back.

Let's read this thread from the start. I'm going to list all the insults I encounter from the start of the thread.

Insult nr.1:

Count Iblis II ignores this insult and replies in a civil manner.

When Johnny Boy claims that circulating currents should radiate em radiation I do refer him to:

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

I don't count this as an insult, because that page was written for people like you.

Insult nr.2:
Insult nr.3:

That's not true. Of course, it is the induced electric field that causes the screening currents. However, you have to show that the screening currents that will be generated will indeed expell the magnetic field completely. That requires a non trivial calculation using advanced methods of theoretical physics which the average undergraduate physics student isn't familiar with, let alone a person who thinks that a circular steady current will radiate em-waves beause ''the charges are accelerating toward the center''.

Thank you, for at last admitting that it is the induced electric field that is driving the currents. Of course these currents must expel the applied magnetic field completely when the charge carriers are not scattering; this is just simple first year physics (Lenz' law- have you heard about it?) and do not require a "non-trivial" calculation based on virtual physics; based in turn on manipulations of the phase of a so-called order parameter (Bose-Einstein condensate) which, by the way, does not even form and is NOT required to explain superconduction.

If you are willing to argue so force-fully for your "non-trivial" calculation, you should be able to explain why this calculation is at all required and what it achieves. If not, you do not understand physics at all.

The arguments based on London theory which uses the order parameter is pretty simple. They are not real derivations because by writing down the effective theory you almost put in the effect by hand. This is similar to the Higgs effect: Photons become effectively massive and em-fields don't propagate inside the superconductor.

I'm talking about a derivation from a funbdamental theory like BCS theory, see e.g. here.

You can't just say: Let's assume that the electrons don't scatter. Then you also put in the desired result in by hand. You have to start from some realistic microscopic model that describes the electrons in the metal and then show that you indeed have the Meissner effect. This is done in the book by Rickayzen (and in many other books, but I happened to have read that book).

Firstly the BCS theory IS NOT a fundamental theory. It is only descriptive because it cannot be used to predict what one should do to a material in order to make it superconductive (As Pauli would have remarked: "It is not even wrong"). This has been pointed out by many experimentalists that worked on superconduction; I rather believe experiment than an "advanced theory" which you are clearly not capable of understanding to such an extent that you can explain it in terms of the physics involved.

Secondly you keep on bringing in the Meissner effect into the discussion. It has nothing to do with this thread. If you go back to your undergraduate books (which I recommend that you do before reading books with "advanced mathematics" which you are clearly not able to explain in terms of physics) you will realise that Kamerlingh-Onnes generated non-dissipative circular currents at least 15 years before the Meissner effect was discovered. To generate these currents by switching on a magnetic field that increases to a maximum value so that an opposite and equal magnetic field is established such that the currents keep on going, proves zero resistance and NOT that the material is a perfect diamagnet.The Meissner effect manifests when a static magnetic field is established before cooling the superconductor through its critical temperature. It was expected from basic electrodynamics that the magnetic field within the material will become trapped as soon as the material becomes superconducting. It was thus a great surprise when the material expelled the field.

Since I started this discussion I discussed the situation when a magnetic field is switched on to increase over a material that is already in the superconducting state. This IS NOT the Meissner effect; but for some strange reason you are unable to understand this simple fact. Please go back to your undergraduate books and FIRST try and understand them before trying to meddle with "advanced mathematics" which you are obviously incapable of interpreting in terms of physics.

To conclude with, I confirm that you have agreed that the circular currents which establish themselves when you switch on a magnetic field OVER AN EXISTING SUPERCONDUCTOR, ARE CAUSED BY THE INDUCED ELECTRIC FIELD. Just like Feynman has explained !

Oh yes; has the Higgs' effect been proved experimentally? Some of you guys becomes so wrapped up in your "advanced mathematics" that it does not occur to you that theoretical models ARE ONLY VALID ONCE PROVED BY EXPERIMENT!

I have to apologise that I have missed this posting. dr_rocket your reasoning is absolutely correct and superb.
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.

Again you are correct. It is my intention to address this after we all have agreed about the contradiction I amk trying to illustrate.

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.

You are correct, it has been a dodge. As mentioned above I hope to correct it at the end of this thread.

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!

No, you simply lack the education to understand it. Why don't you learn the theory?

BCS theory is also descriptive but at a deeper level. It does make nontrivial predictions.

You are wrong about what you write about the Meissner effect and you have zero credibility because you think that a steady circular current will radiate EM radiaton because ''the charges are accelerating toward the center''. Now you tell me to study undergraduate physics?

Yes you do need to study some real physics. Guessing a Hamilton-operator and getting descriptive results does not mean you are actually doing physics.

You have accepted that it is the induced electric field that creates the circular currents; did you not? Is it then not logical to deduce that the current generated between two contacts to a superconductor must also be generated by the applied electric field? Or is logic above your ability? In fact it must be, because when you increase the emf in such a circuit the velocity of the superconducting charge carriers increases. Yet, you do not measure a potential difference between the two contacts when a current is flowing. What does this experimentally verifiable fact tells you about the properties of a superconductor? Try and give an answer that does not rely on an obscure Hamilton-operator, but on actual physics.

Johnny Boy, R=0 only in case of steady currents. So, you set up a current and then see if
Delta V = 0 in the limit t --> infinity. Superconductors don't have zero resistance to nonsteady curents.

How do you verify that R=0? You take a normal metal wire with R>0 and you let a current flow through it. You then connect a supeconductor between two points of the wire. There is a voltage difference between the two point before you connect the superconductor. After you connect it the current will flow through the superconductor and bypass the wire. If you then measure the voltage between the two points you find that it is zero.

So, even though the initial voltage difference was needed to cause the current to flow through the superconductor, once the current flows through it, the voltage difference is zero.


I admit that my knowledge of superconductivity is incomplete. I don't work in the field and I studied this topic a long time ago. However, you don't understand some of the the basics of electrodynamics which makes any criticism you have about superconductivity highly suspect.

Congratulations! At last we are getting to a real discussion. Your analysis is correct to a point; 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. From BCS theory, or any other previous model, there is NO physical reason why this should happen. So you have not answered my question fully! I will give you so far a mark of 25%. Let us try for 100%. You are coming along impressively well: good work, keep it up!

This is explained in detail in textbooks such as the one by Rickayzen.

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.

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.

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.

That is a blatant lie!

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.

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.

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!!

PLEASE do not SHOUT. It's unmannerly.

Amaranth
Moderator

I apologise with deep regret.
I have posted the previous message at three o'clock in the morning because I could not sleep, I was irritated and went overboard. I also apologise that it seems as if I am accusing Count IblissII as a deliberate liar. Calling him a fool is also not mannerly. He probably believes what he has posted; although it is not true, and therefore I hold him to prove it. In my mind if he cannot do so he does not know enough about the subject to comment on it as if he knows. Thanks for reprimanding me; however, a scientific argument cannot be brought to a satisfactory conclusion if one of the participants refer to books which he himself cannot explain. Such an argument has religious overtones; i.e. "the Bible has all the truth so who are you to question?"

Apology accepted.

"Amaranth"

No more posts or objections? So let me summarise all the properties of a superconductor, which have to be explained by the correct model:

1. The charge carriers must not scatter (even BCS concede this)

2. Once an equilibrium current flows, the superconductor must be a perfect dielectric.

3. When the emf increases, the charge carriers must be able to increase their drift velocity WITHOUT increasing their kinetic energy (It is strange that John Bardeen, the co-inventor of the transistor did not pick this up).

No more arguments and insults? It seems that you all agree that there can be issues which hundreds of thousands of graduate students and their professors have missed; eve a giant like John Bardeen!

I will now open a thread on another issue which I believe hundreds of thousands of students and their professors have missed; i.e. the elctric field energy of a solitary electron.

Johnny Boy, I'm open to the idea that you can have superconductors for which BCS theory doesn't apply. In fact, We know that for high temperature superconductors BSC theory doesn't apply, so this must be true.

As I wrote earlier here, I'm not an expert in these matters, I read the book by Rickayzen a long time ago. However, if you claim that all of the BCS superconductors are in fact not correctly decribed by BCS theory, you also need to explain why BCS theory does make correct predictions, like e.g. the isotope effect etc.

You are of course correct (to acertain extent); however, such an analysis will be far too long for a BB. So I am not going to concentrate on critisizing BCS; except to note that it is amazing that the BCS theory seems to be consistent and useful when modelling the low temperature metals. I have wondered about this frequently; however there is a LOT about superconduction BCS cannot explain!

Having analysed all the superconductors discovered to date; i.e. low temperature metals, CuO ceramics and semiconductor superconductors; I have found that I can model all of them with the same (one single) mechanism. Thus my model must be better, because BCS cannot model the CuO ceramics.

Going back in the literature, I came to the conclusion that Eugene Wigner has solved superconduction already in the 1930's; without realising it. Wigner looked at the mean-field approach when the metal being modelled is not a "perfect" metal so that the nearly-free electron cannot be used (exactly the metals in which SC manifests). He then found that at a low enough temperature, the electrons will localise to form a crystalline arrangement. The electrons or electron pairs that form can be modelled in terms of Gaussian functions (zero-point vibrational functions). Such an array has become known as a Wigner crystal. In order to form such an array, the electrons must lose energy by de-exciting from one energy level to a lower one. They are then anchored at the site where they form by positive charges. This is why Wigner predicted that the formation of such an array will define a metal-insulator transition.

The point to notice is that such an array forms a dielectric structure. When an external electric field is applied, the now localised electron orbitals become polarised relative to the positive charges that anchor them and cancels the electric applied electric field. Furthermore, they all have the same energy although they are NOT a Bose-Einstein condensate. They are more like marbles on a Chinese Checkers board.

But can these orbitals convey a current? Yes they can if the distances between them becomes small enough. How? they can march coherently from one anchor point to another by "tunnelling". I do not like the term tunnelling here because it implies that electrons move "through" barrier. I believe this is impossible. What really happens is that each orbital borrows the required energy for a time interval, as allowed by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle for energy and time. Thus the kinetic energy when moving from one anchor point to the next is also on loan. For this reason the charge carriers can move at a speed v without gaining kinetic energy.

Now what about the isotope effect? In such a metal the Wigner orbitals are a superpostion of Bloch waves (quasi particles) and the energy levels are not purely electronic but vibronic. Thus when changing the isotope ratio you also change the energy interval between the two vibronic levels over which the electrons have to lose energy in order to form the Wigner orbitals. This is the cause of the isotope effect; not the exchange of virtual phonons (what BS).

In the CuO ceramics the concomitant orbitals form BETWEEN the crystallographic layers. They are in effect covalent bonds forming an array. When their density becomes high enough, superconduction initiates in exactly the same way as in the low temperature metals. In this case the orbitals do not couple as strongly with the phonons in the crystallographic layers; and therefore the isotope effect is minimal.

In highly doped p-time diamond one can also get superconduction at low temperatures. In this case the charge carriers are holes (fermions) tunnelling from one acceptor site to another.

So you do not need a Bose-Einstein condensate. Neither do you need bosons.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION POSTED BY EDIT:

My model leads to a simple quadratic equation of the speed of the charge carriers that explains ALL superconductors; no perturbation theory, no Feynman diagrams etc. What does Occams Razor tells you?

Furthermore, Bardeen pointed out that Josephson tunnelling is not possible for Cooper pairs. He was right. It is not possible. Josephson tunnelling is a natural consequence of my model. Which model is the best? The one with "epicycles" or the one that does not need ad-hoc corrections like coherence lenghts?

I have promised that I will post the report by the "peer reviewer" on my manuscript about the mechanism of superconduction. The "peer reviewer" took four months to write the following:

Editor, Physica C
encloure
Ref Report
In the present manuscript :" Superconductivity: coherent "tunnelling"
by a dielectric array of charge-carriers" the author proposed a
"new mechanism" for superconductivity. This mechanism is not based
on the requirement that electrons create Cooper pairs below the transition
point.

1) The microscopic mechanism for the description of low temperature
superconductors (s-pairing) is known since 1957. This mechanism
describes well all known experimental data on low temperature
superconductors and it is a text book material. Therefore there is no
need to consider a "new mechanism" for the low temperature
superconductors.

2) The microscopic mechanism for high temperature superconductors is indeed
not known. However, in the present manuscript I can see several important
missing points:
i) It is not shown explicitly that the proposed "new mechanism" provides a smaller
value for the ground state energy of the superconducting state in comparison with
the value of the ground state energy of the normal state.
ii) There are no comparisons with the numerous experimental data on
thermodynamic properties of high temperature superconductors.
iii) It is not clear what are the new predictions which follow from the proposed
mechanism and what kind of experiments are necessary to check a
validity of this mechanism.

In conclusion I do not recommend this

It does not require a brilliant IQ to realise that the "peer reviewer" is blocking the paper in order to protect the status quo; i.e his own publications in this field. So one has to respond. See next posting.

THE RESPONSE:

Ms. Ref. No.: PHYSC-D-06-00046
Title: Superconductivity: coherent "tunnelling" by a dielectric array of
charge-carriers
Physica C

Dear Dr. Kwok,

I am not happy with the way your reviewer has treated me. No reviewer needs
4 months to write such inconsequential tripe (see below). Are you sure
he/she is a scientist? Only a religious freak could have written the
following sentence: "The microscopic mechanism for the description of low
temperature superconductors (s-pairing) is known since 1957. This mechanism
describes well all known experimental data on low temperature
superconductors and it is a text book material. Therefore there is no need
to consider a "new mechanism" for the low temperature superconductors." A
real scientist should know that scientific models are not dogma; a
scientific model is always open to scrutiny and amendment when required.
Furthermore, your reviewer is telling a deliberate lie. In my manuscript I
have argued cogently and logically that the BCS model cannot describe all
known experimental data, even for the low temperature superconductors. As
pointed out in the manuscript, the BCS model does not give a mechanism that
explains why the electric field within a superconductor falls to zero
between two contacts; neither does it explains why the charge carriers
moving with a velocity v, which can be increased at will (below a maximum),
do not scatter when entering the contact they are moving to.

The fact is that I have postulated a single mechanism that models all
superconducting materials discovered to date; i.e. the low temperature
metals, the CuO ceramics as well as the superconducting semiconductors. I
have also given examples of how well this mechanism models the
superconducting behaviour in each of the three cases. Compared to BCS, my
mechanism gives a far better fit to the experimental data that had been
measured for low-temperature metals. One would have thought that the
scientific community would be delighted to find that there could be a single
mechanism that explains all types of superconductors. But no, your reviewer
reacts like the Vatican in the time of Galileo. Something along the line:
"The model of Ptolemy is known since antiquity and is already textbook
material. Therefore there is no need to consider a "new Copernican
mechanism" for the Universe. It is clearly poppycock.

The same can be said of the rest of his/her arguments. 2(i) The
experimental data would not fit if there is not an energy gap involved with
a lower energy. Furthermore, as pointed out, low temperature superconduction
sets in
when the electrons form a Wigner crystal. Wigner already showed in the
1930's that there is an energy gap. It has also been pointed out that in the
CuO ceramics the charge carriers form between the layers as quazi covalent
bonds; and a reference is given to another publication where this mechanism
has been modelled in detail. 2(ii) If you have an energy gap which acts as
an activation energy then the change from one phase to the other (i.e. the
thermodynamic properties) can be derived by a sophomore even when he/she has
a below average IQ. 2(ii) This third argument is of course also poppycock.
It is shown in detail in the manuscript that the model can explain published
experimental data that had been measured for low-temperature metals (Ta and
Sn), for YBCO and for overdoped diamond. Any real scientist, even a below
average one, will easily be able to see from the manuscript what the model
predicts.

It is my conclusion that your reviewer is just acting to suppress new ideas
in physics so as to protect the status quo. No wonder little progress has
been achieved in superconduction modelling since the 1980's. It is becoming
more and more clear that the peer review system is being systematically
abused by editors and reviewers to protect their own ideas instead of
allowing publication of ideas which might threaten what they want to
believe. Therefore I am also going to forward this letter to other parties
so that they can see and verify what has happened here.

Faithfully yours,

I know the rules here, but you have made some pretty serious allegations here. The statements below are not a direct attack, but an observation of the facts so far. I hope the moderators allow some leeway here.

I am sorry, but your work has all the hallmarks of crank science.

a) work self-published on a website
b) claims that well established theories are incorrect
c) claims that the theory supposedly covers many diverse topics
http://www.cathodixx.com/pdfs/topics.pdf
d) claims that the establishment is trying to keep your theories from becoming public.
e) comparing yourself to Copernicus is a classic marker of a crank.

The part that really makes this look like nonsense is your claim that you can predict structures with any critical temperature

"This patent covers the design, optimization and manufacture of superconducting artifacts. The patent covers all materials that superconduct above 200?K. The design criteria allow the designer to select any critical temperature. The design logic allows one to determine if a specific chosen material can be optimized to be superconducting at the chosen critical temperature."

I'm sorry, if you could produce a superconductor with a Tc above 200K, you would have the data to back up some claims.

People do need to challenge the "status quo". People need to challenge well established theories. However, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.

I can sympathise with your approach. But not all people are cranks you know. Although I have made mistakes, my track record diamond physics is very good. Good enough that I have been asked to write chapters for encyclopeadias. Why would I now suddenly want to turn into a crank when I retire. So that I can be the laughing stock of the world? I was forced to first write a book because I could not get editors to even send my work for peer review. The only exception was Richard B. Jackman who allowed publication of my intitial two papers, in which I demonstrate that a current can flow between a diamond's surface and an anode without an electric field being present; i.e. clearly superconduction at and above room temperature. He justified his decision as follows: "[These papers] are included here so that the reader can consider the approach developed......., perhaps thinking how this impacts on their own work, even if the end conclusions are open to debate. Indeed, it is hoped that this debate will be opened up through their publication, enabling this area of thought to be more widely explored and critically examined."

This was three years ago. So far there has been no criticism or response from other scientists whatsoever. I know from bitter experience that if anybody could have found fault with the physics, they would have jumped on me. The fact that it has not happened means that my claims are still unchallenged.

In the case of my manuscript in Physica C, I took great care not to make any claims which can be construed by pompous asses as being cranky. All I did was to point out that when circular currents are established by switching on a magnetic field the charge carriers are accelerated by the induced electric field. Only after equilibrium has been reached does the induced electric field disappear and the reason for this is that the magnetic field is not changing anymore. I then point out that when you switch on an electric field between two contacts the charge carriers should also be accelerated by the field; HOWEVER, in this case these is no mechanism known (especially from BCS theory) that can explain why the electric field goes to zero. I then propose a mechanism which will cause this and show that this mechanism can model all superconducting materials discovered to date very well. It even models low-temperature metals better than the BCS theory. What is cranky about this?

There is a problem with scientists today. They think that they are such "Gods" that no worthwhile ideas can come from outside the incestious company they keep within their discipline. Yes there are many cranks; but I usually follow up their ideas to see where the fault is. If you as a scientist cannot find the fault in crank ideas then you should not be practising science. Furthermore, this egotistical approach to science is estranging people from science. Why should a person be insulted everytime he approaches a scientist with an idea? I am usually delighted when this happens because it tests my skills to explain science.

So J. Arthur God; according to you I have the hallmarks of a crank. According to me scientists like you are harming science.

I have more results backing up my claims but has been advised by my patent lawyers to keep it under wraps for a while longer. However, these claims do not impact at all on the claims I have made in the manuscript which I have submitted to Physica C. They did not reject the manuscript by stating that it has obviously been written by a "crank". The reason for rejection given is that they will not tolerate a mechanism that challenges BCS theory. After all BCS is already in "textbooks" (the holy bibles of physics?) and if you challenge such "holy scripture" you must be a heretic (crank?) and should preferably be burned at the stake. Wow, and then one finds scientists who point fingers at the church!!!

Johnny Boy, why not put your article on arXiv.org, then we can all read your article?

The referee report wasn't that negative. I have received a similar refreee report myself too some time ago and was still able to publish my paper in another journal.

You need to explicitely address the points raised by the referee in your article, even if you feel it is unnecessary. So, your theory may have the answers, but to the referee this isn't clear. Often it is best to modify the introduction of the paper and incorporate the points raised by the referee to explain what you are going to do and why.

Your advice makes good sense. I have started to modify the introduction because I felt that I might not have kept it short ande simple enough. I am still considering whether I should resubmit it. After all it took 4 months to get this response.

Being a retired old coot, I do not know much about arXiv.org. Pasti also gave me the same advice; however, when I tried to access this portal I could not find any information of the procedure I have to follow. If you guys can tell me step-by-step what to do, I will gladly post it on arXiv.org for your comments. Is it correct that I can then still later submit it to a peer reviewed journal?

This is such a common complaint. "they don't like it because it challenges them". "They don't like it because it was "not invented here"".

Guess what--people read journals and go to conferences to get new ideas. A single good paper can make a conference memorable. Whole teams of scientists are just waiting to jump on a new area and do the incremental studies that push it forward until the next breakthrough.

Both sides can be argued and defended.

I look forward to hearing these results. I do not look forward to reading about vague promises of results. Somehow, I fear I will experience the latter.

If you read my papers in Semiconductor Science and Technology vol. 18 (2003) S125 and S131; and you are capable of understanding band theory, interface theory (p-n-junctions, Schottky junctions, etc.) then you will see there is no vague promises there. Except if you want to insult my experimental acumen by saying that "it must be contamination" you will see that the physics cannot be faulted. In fact the physics predicts that in the circumstances charge transfer must occur from the diamond to tha anode without an electric field being present. This is the first time that it could be proved that there can be no electric field between two contacts while charge transfer is occurring. There is no proof whatsoever in the scientific literature that it is the case for any the other superconducting phases discovered to date.

Nobody could fault my physics in those papers to date; but nobody immediately jumped on the bandwagon as you assumed they will. I have presented it at three conferences and nobody "was looking for new ideas there". In fact scientists who have worked in the field of superconduction rather became abusive and walked away, instead of discussing the physics involved. It must be a shock for them to discover that the BCS model might be totally wrong.

I have been willing to prepare diamond samples for them so that they could repeat the experiment; but no takers came forward. Last year Prof. Terry Doyle of the University of Natal retired as chairman of the physics department. He had then free time and asked me to prepare samples for him because he wants to find the "real cause for the results and prove why my conclusions must be wrong". He designed and constructed his own apparatus and found that he reproduced all the results I have measured and even more. He could even see the superconducting phase with a microscope. It is in the form of a pitch black cylinder of about 1 micron diameter. He could send a current through the circuit which would even have caused a bundle of nanotubes to glow white hot. The cylider stayed black up to the point when the anode (stainless steel) started to melt. Prof. Doyle is at present planning further measurements and I hope that he will publish before the end of this year.

I am sure my patent attorneys are not stupid; and if they tell me to first keep material under wraps, I will do it notwithstanding being insulted by anyone.

"In the case of my manuscript in Physica C, I took great care not to make any claims which can be construed by pompous asses as being cranky. "

Let's be a little more careful with our language and refrain from implying that our colleagues are anything other than "esteemed colleagues". It's bad enough from where I sit to call one another "cranks". Let's respect one another at least to the extent that we can keep this forum free from libel charges.

"Amaranth"

Sorry it seems that I have made a mistake. It was not intended as a direct insult to J. Arthur God or to Physica C, but a general complaint that editors and reviewers should be more sensitive, and not conclude that any result which does not fall within the mainstream ideas that hold sway MUST be cranky. I always thought that physics has to do with new paradigm shifts. A paradigm shift always appears cranky at first to those who have become used to thinking within the present paradigm. To me it is a pompous attitude to just declare that a person is a crank, or just reject a mnuscript without adequate scientific investigation and justification. Unfortunately, it has become the norm nowadays to do so; and I suspect that in some cases the baby is thrown out with the bath water.

Questions:

1) is the electron crystal the same structure as the nuclear crystal?

2) if the structure is the same, is the electron crystal commensurate with the nuclear lattice? I.e. do the lattice parameters match?

Excellent questions: Eugene Wigner did not eloborate on this in his paper. He only extrapolated from the "free-electron" model. Furthermore, he was a genius and made some large jumps when he wrote this article.

It seems to me, however, clear that the electron crystal must in some way conform to the nuclear crystal. Probably not on a one to one basis but on a three-dimensional "epitaxial-like" basis. It is possible to have an "epitaxial" relationship between different crystal structures. What Wigner, however, demonstrated to my satisfaction is that a lattice of localised electron "orbitals" can form within metals which are not "ideal" metals. This conforms to my model on superconduction where these electrons can "tunnel" coherently when the spacing between them becomes small enough. This means that they can move with a speed v without gaining kinetic energy thjus maintaining a minimum energy state as is required for superconduction. If I am correct, it also explains why ideal metals, like Cu Au etc., do not superconduct. They cannot form Wigner crystals.

If you are looking at conduction in low dimensional (e.g. 2D or quasi-2D) systems, a lot of work has already been done on this. In particular, much work has been done on charge density waves where the electron periodicity is incommensurate with the nuclear lattice. This leads to a type of conduction very similar to superconductivity (at least in theory).

Back to your proposals. You are stating that a Wigner Crystal--a 2D or 1D lattice of electrons-- is responsible for all superconductivity?

You realize that a Wigner crystal can be observed with neutron diffraction. e.g.

"Wigner-crystal and bi-stripe models for the magnetic and crystallographic superstructures of La0.333Ca0.667MnO3 "
PHYSICAL REVIEW B 59 (22): 14440-14450 JUN 1 1999

I don't see any report of Wigner crystals being observed by neutrons in superconductors.

Does your paper cite

A possible mechanism of superconductivity based on Wigner crystal and BEC

By J.X. Dai, W. Tao, P. Hor, X.X. Dai

in:
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MODERN PHYSICS B 13 (29-31): 3499-3504 DEC 20 1999

The abstract would imply that they have suggested your mechanism for superconductivity:

"A new possible mechanism is suggested based on the Wigner crystal and Bose-Einstein condensation. Our previous studies on the singular states showed that Loudon's singular ground state is rejected by the orthogonality criteria. It is shown that 2D Wigner crystal can exist and to be a possible mechanism for HTS."

I read that you do not believe that a Bose condensate is required, but they seem to have much of what you are proposing.

I am not stating that Wigner crystals are responsible for all superconduction; but only surmise that this is the case for the low-temperature metals. As far as my knowledge goes, in order to observe a Wigner crystal it has to form an insulating array; i.e. as Wigner surmised, the formation of a Wigner crystal should cause a metal-insulator transition. What he missed, and what I am lifting out in my model, is that the electrons (or electron pairs) forming such a crystal can initiate superconduction as soon as the distance between them (and this can be in a single direction) becomes small enough for coherent tunnelling to occur. This tunnelling is limited by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relationshipin energy and time.

What you require for superconduction to occur is an array of dielectric centres; i.e. centres which can be polarised when an external electric field is applied. If this is not possible, you cannot have a zero electric field between two contacts as is observed. In the case of a Wigner crystal, the electron-orbitals have to be bound by positive charges in order to form stationary centres. They can thus be polarised. In the case of the CuO ceramics, the dielectric arrays are bi-electron orbitals that form between the crystallographic layers. It is for this reason that the metals have a strong isotope effect while the ceramics have a small or negligible isotope effect. The electron-orbitals foming a Wigner crystal are pseudo-"particles", the energy of which is affected by vibronic states in the material. In the case of the CuO ceramics, the electron-orbitals between the layers are similar to covalent bonds. They do not couple strongly with the phonons within the layers.

I am enjoying this discussion. Thanks for your input.

Does your paper cite

A possible mechanism of superconductivity based on Wigner crystal and BEC

By J.X. Dai, W. Tao, P. Hor, X.X. Dai

in:
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MODERN PHYSICS B 13 (29-31): 3499-3504 DEC 20 1999

The abstract would imply that they have suggested your mechanism for superconductivity:

"A new possible mechanism is suggested based on the Wigner crystal and Bose-Einstein condensation. Our previous studies on the singular states showed that Loudon's singular ground state is rejected by the orthogonality criteria. It is shown that 2D Wigner crystal can exist and to be a possible mechanism for HTS."

I read that you do not believe that a Bose condensate is required, but they seem to have much of what you are proposing. [/QUOTE]

I was not aware of this paper. Thanks for directing me to it. I will get it and read it; however, my model is more general than only relying on a Wigner crystal. As discussed above, my model relies on the formation of a dielectroc array which under suitable circumstances can cause coherent tunnelling. The dielectric array can form in different ways. I believe that in the low-temperature metals the arrays are Wigner crystals; in the CuO ceramics they are akin to covalent bonds between the crystallographic layer (donors within the layers donate the required electron); In the semiconductors they are the donors or acceptors. BY accepting this principle I acn model ALL superconductors discovered to date. What is fascinating is that when I model superconduction in highly-doped p-type diamond it turns out that the charge-carriers are single hole (fermions).

And oh, by the way, the dielectric array is NOT a BEC as in the accepted sense. It is more an array of separate (localised entities) quantum mechanical entities. One does not require a macro-wave to model such an array.