Stages of superconductivity: Researchers' insight on 'pseudogap' an important advance

Jul 30, 2012 By Peter Reuell
In an effort to better understand the phase, called the “pseudogap,” Associate Professor of Physics Jenny Hoffman (right) and Ilija Zeljkovic, a graduate student working in Hoffman’s lab, began studying where oxygen atoms — a critical element added (“doped”) to a copper-based ceramic to create the superconducting material —are located in the material’s crystal structure. Credit: Jon Chase/Harvard Staff Photographer

More than two decades after scientists discovered a new type of copper-based high-temperature superconductor — energy-efficient material that can carry electricity without waste — Harvard physicists say they have unlocked the chemical secret that controls its “fool’s gold” phase, which mimics, but doesn’t have all the advantageous properties of, superconductivity.

In an effort to better understand the phase, called the “pseudogap,” Associate Professor of Physics Jenny Hoffman and Ilija Zeljkovic, a graduate student working in Hoffman’s lab, began studying where — a critical element added (“doped”) to a -based ceramic to create the superconducting material —are located in the material’s crystal structure.

As reported July 20 in Science, their surprising finding is that it isn’t oxygen, but a lack of it, that appears to be most strongly related to the pseudogap. The finding, Hoffman said, should give researchers the understanding to begin designing materials to act as superconductors at even higher temperatures.

“The important finding here is that we believe we have the chemical handle on what is controlling the local pseudogap,” Hoffman said. “The goal is to get to a place where we can say we understand these copper-based superconductors, and then take the next step to achieving higher temperatures. I’m extremely optimistic that we are going to get to room-temperature superconductors someday, but I think we’re probably still a couple decades away.”

Discovered in 1988, the copper-based material Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+x (called “bisco” by researchers) may be one of the keys to creating higher-temperature superconductors.

A flaky, black material, bisco is capable of acting as a superconductor, but that useful property is accompanied by several frustrating problems, Hoffman said. For example, bisco is not ductile, it works poorly in magnetic fields, and current flows well through the material only in certain directions.

“The bottom line is: Despite technical challenges, copper-based superconductors are great, they were a breath of fresh air in superconductivity research when they were discovered,” Hoffman said. “It’s really tantalizing — we feel as if these materials suggest that there may be something better out there, but we don’t understand them well enough to get from here to whatever it is out there that’s better.”

Stages of superconductivity
The microscope used in their superconductor is pictured here. Photo by Ilija Zeljkovic

For a decade and a half, Hoffman said, much of that work has been focused on the pseudogap, an unusual rearrangement of the electron energy levels in the material that can mimic superconductivity, which has divided researchers.

“There has been a tremendous amount of work focused on trying to understand the pseudogap, for two reasons,” Hoffman said. “There is one school of thought that argues that this pseudogap might actually be superconductivity that’s simply being foiled in some way. The alternate theory is that the pseudogap is actually a competing phase, one that must be defeated to achieve superconductivity.”

Earlier studies hinted at a link between the oxygen dopants and the pseudogap, but the results were far from definitive, Hoffman said, because researchers had only been able to image about one-third of the oxygen dopants in the material. To get a fuller picture, she and Zeljkovic were able to turn up the energy range on a piece of equipment designed to capture atomic-scale images of the material: a scanning tunneling microscope.

The microscope, built by Zeljkovic and two other graduate students, Liz Main and Adam Pivonka, works by positioning its needlelike tip several angstroms from a sample. By measuring the electrical current that flows between the tip and the sample, researchers are able to image individual atoms in the material. Using the device, however, comes with significant technical challenges.

“The idea is to keep the tip at a constant distance from the sample as you sweep it across the surface, similar to the way the read-head on a computer hard drive works, but 100 times closer,” Zeljkovic said. “The challenge is that angstroms are really, really small — about one ten-billionth of a meter — so you need a tremendous amount of vibration isolation. Basically, everything in the room — even the room itself — is built to limit vibrations that can ruin a scan.”

By slowly sweeping the microscope tip over a 35-nanometer-square area over six hours, Hoffman and Zeljkovic were able to create a map of every oxygen dopant in the top three atomic layers of the material. When that map was compared with data that showed the local strength of the pseudogap, they found a surprise.

Rather than being correlated with any of the interstitial oxygen atoms — those dopants intentionally added to the metal to give it superconducting properties — the pseudogap seemed to be connected with defects in the material caused by removing oxygen atoms from positions immediately adjacent to copper atoms.

“This is the first time we’ve been able to look at all the oxygen interstitials and vacancies at the same time,” Hoffman said. “What Ilija has done is to correlate the oxygen locations with the strength of the pseudogap. Now, for the first time, we can make a statement about the exact chemistry that’s affecting the pseudogap, and we have a chemical handle on how to control something that everyone in this field has been focusing on for the last 15 years.”

Hoffman and Zeljkovic are also working to understand what causes the pseudogap in the first place. They recently invented an algorithm to increase the effective spatial resolution of the same microscope to the picometer level — one-trillionth of a meter. Their new resolution allows them to rule out one possible cause of the pseudogap: a minute structural distortion that breaks the inversion symmetry of the crystal. This work was also reported this month, in Nature Materials.

“The reason we’re so interested in the pseudogap is because we believe it’s competing with superconductivity,” Hoffman continued. “But even if you don’t agree that it’s competing, you still want to know what it is, and how to control it. Until now, we didn’t have any practical knobs to turn to modify the pseudogap. How could we begin to understand superconductivity in these if we didn’t have a way to tune this alternate phase that seems to arise out of?”

Explore further: Researchers find first direct evidence of 'spin symmetry' in atoms

Related Stories

Closing the 'Pseudogap' on Superconductivity

Mar 13, 2008

One of the biggest mysteries in studying high-temperature (Tc) superconductors - materials that conduct electrical current with no resistance below a certain transition temperature - is the origin of a gap in the energy level ...

Recommended for you

Water window imaging opportunity

11 hours ago

Ever heard of the water window? It consists of radiations in the 3.3 to 4.4 nanometre range, which are not absorbed by the water in biological tissues. New theoretical findings show that it is possible to ...

User comments : 132

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Tausch
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 30, 2012
Hut ab - congrulations to the reseachers' research.
Satene
1 / 5 (13) Jul 30, 2012
Pseudogap is quite easy to understand: it's the phase/state of superconductor, which is full of superconductive islands already, but these islands aren't connected mutually, so that the material doesn't exhibit resistance drop, Meissner effect and another phenomena connected with bulk superconductivity. The physicists should focus to real achievements demonstrated with J.F.Prins and Joe Eyck before years and stop to steal money of tax payers for their useless and dumb research without actual results...
Jeddy_Mctedder
3 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2012
Im extremely optimistic that we are going to get to room-temperature superconductors someday, but I think were probably still a couple decades away.

i'm not saying sc research is fusion research. but quotes like this are bad luck.
Bewia
1 / 5 (9) Jul 30, 2012
i'm not saying sc research is fusion research.
IMO this similarity is not accidental at all. The superconductivity research is similar to (cold) fusion research just in the point, the outsiders in this area demonstrated more coherent approach and corresponding success, than the mainstream physicists, who transformed this area of research into neverending job & salary generator without effort to help the rest of people. The first step in the understanding of this situation is to realize, here are people who really understand, how superconductivity work (no matter they have formal model developed for it or not) and who are able to use their knowledge for streamlined design of room temperature superconductors.
ZachAdams
5 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2012
Um, superconductivity is real, we know it occurs at certain temperatures, so the research to find the right materials for room temperature superconductivity has a lot of validity even if it turns out to not be possible.

Cold fusion is a total fantasy which has not been proven to exist under any circumstances. Comparing the two lines of inquiry is stupid.
Bewia
1 / 5 (9) Jul 30, 2012
which has not been proven to exist under any circumstances
Tell it to NASA, MIT or DEP, not me. BTW If you haven't understood it, I'm not comparing the superconductivity research with fusion research, but I'm comparing the room temperature superconductivity with cold fusion. We have no theory for both of them and the existence of both is ignored with mainstream physics.
ZachAdams
5 / 5 (5) Jul 30, 2012
No, you are being delusional about the existence of cold fusion. Superconductivity exists and the current researchers are attempting to establish the temperature ranges and materials which allow it to occur. Cold fusion is a con game, a hoax.
Bewia
1 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2012
I'm not delusional about anything, it's not my habit. The finding of room temperature superconductivity of J.F.Prins or Joe Eyck is ignored with mainstream physics for many years in the same way, like the finding of cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel.
Eoprime
5 / 5 (1) Jul 30, 2012
i'm not saying sc research is fusion research.
IMO .. quack quack cold fusion quack quack wateripples - Zeph

Get lost and take your socketpuppet with you.
Ryker
5 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2012
The challenge is that angstroms are really, really small about one ten-billionth of a meter [...]
Ugh, this is nitpicking, but what exactly do they mean by "about"? Why use wish-washy terms, it's not like that odd layman who comes here and doesn't know what an angstrom is pictures it better by that "one ten-billionth of a meter" anyway.
Satene
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2012
their surprising finding is that it isnt oxygen, but a lack of it, that appears to be most strongly related to the pseudogap
At first, it's known notoriously from previous studies. As the doping level increases, pseudogap regions spread and connect, making the whole sample a superconductor. The doping is just based on violation of stoichiometry with oxygen atom removal. The remaining positive places of lattice attract the electrons like the hens to the feeder and the islands of dense packed electrons form a superconductive phase here: their repulsive forces overlap and compensate mutually, so that the electrons are moving freely. This explains, why all superconductive cuprates are Mott insulators at the same moment.
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2012
Pseudogap is quite easy to understand: it is insulating electron gap in some direction :)
Usually we have N possible electron states (levels) in one band. If number of electrons = 2*N we have insulator.
If we diminish (by doping) the number of ELECTRONS in a band by x value less then 2*N, the ion lattice smoothly reconstucts and the number of available electron LEVELS in a band diminishes by x/2.
It is almost impossible to reconstuct ion lattice in ALL directions, so we have pseudogap in two directions and metal or supeconductor in other directions.
BCS theory is (BRED SIVOI Kobyli ) incorrect. Pseudogap for phonon order parameter is impossible (ie for conventional superconductors).
Bewia
1 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2012
BCS theory is (BRED SIVOI Kobyli ) incorrect. Pseudogap for phonon order parameter is impossible.
The tendency for spin pairing is observable even for HT superconductors. Holes at the edges of adjacent blocks are magnetically paired, and the superconductivity occurs at the places where hole-pairs march collectively along the channels, like trams on pairs of tramlines running between the blocks of houses. Aaccording to the Humpreys model, there is one hole on each tramline and the pairs of holes move down the channels, hopping from oxygen to oxygen via adjacent copper sites. It means, there is a smooth transition between low-temperature superconductivity driven with phonon pairing and high-temperature superconductors driven with Mott insulating state. This picture illustrates underdoped, pseudogap and superconductive state of electrons within cuprate accordingly.
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2012
"spin pairing", "Holes at the edges... are magnetically paired" and so on is INCORRECT picture on superconductivity.
My beloved Bardeen made bullshit error, Nobel Commitee made bullshit error, and all students in theoretical physics are ready to make bullshit error :)

Why we are so blind and can't see, that there is not cooper paring and there is not any BEC in superconductivity and superfluidity at all?

"The Emperor's New Clothes" (Danish: Kejserens nye Klæder) is a short tale by Hans Christian Andersen about two weavers who promise an Emperor a new suit of clothes that is invisible to those unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent. When the Emperor parades before his subjects in his new clothes, a child cries out, "But he isn't wearing anything at all!"

Where is a child for BCS theory?!!!!
Satene
1 / 5 (1) Aug 01, 2012
..there is not any BEC in superconductivity and superfluidity at all..
Wait, wait... We can observe the quantum vortices in both superconductors, both superfluids, both BE condensates directly under the microscope. You can hardly beat such an evidence.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2012
A superconducting phase is a Mott-insulator which has a high enough density of localised orbitals so that they can conduct a current by hopping; where this hoppingis driven by quantum fluctuations. The "pseudogap" is a misnomer, since it does not indicate the onset of a gap, but the onset of the formation of the required Mott-insulator which at first has too low a density of orbitals to superconduct. By decreasing the temperature the density of orbitals increases until at the critical temperature this density is high enough to allow superconduction. This is also not the formation of a "gap". The density of the orbitals is determined by Boltzmann statistics (NOT Bose-Einstein) so that the superconducting phase should be called a Boltzmann Quantum-Condensate. Superconduction at room temperature has already been achieved in 2000 by increasing the density of extracted electrons between a cathode and an anode to form a single holistic matter-wave.
Satene
1 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2012
The Cooper pair model is more problematic and I don't perceive it as the primary cause of superconductivity - rather manifestation of spin coupling at low temperatures. This coupling cannot be avoided even at the room temperatures, but because its rather subtle and fragile force, its role becomes the less significant, the more the electrons are condensing and the higher the temperature is. Note that BCS theory doesn't explain, why some material become superconductive and other not - it just relates the thermodynamics of superconductive transition and experimentally determined lattice structure. It may serve as a first evidence, there is a deeper underlying mechanism behind it, whereas the BCS description remains low temperature approximation of it. In similar way, like the Newtonian physics is low energy approximation of relativity.
Satene
1 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2012
the "pseudogap" is a misnomer, since it does not indicate the onset of a gap, but the onset of the formation of the required Mott-insulator
IMO the Mott insulator is formed already, the pseudogap phase just indicates the state, when first islands of superconductive phase are formed in it. Pseudogap state actually shares many common properties with the superconducting state: for example the form (d-wave) of the gap in the electron spectrum is the same (nothing "pseudo" about it.) The common view is that pseudogap is the region where the battle between two different types of order (Mott insulator and SC) is fought. On the opposite side of the phase at a very high doping and temperature there is a cross-over to the normal (Fermi liquid) behavior. http://www.pha.jh...stanev1/
Satene
1 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2012
Actually just this very recent study deals with mechanism of this transition rather closely. The journalists still call the pseudogap a "mystery", but the physicists are quite aware of what actually happens there already. This transition is just too difficult to describe with formal math (Hubbard model in particular) - which essentially means, the physicists "don't understand" it from perspective of formal rigor. And of course, there are still many alternative models, the proponents of which don't want to accept the common truth for not to lose their influence in their field of research. The physicists aren't very motivated into acceleration of research from outside, from both sociopsychological, both economical reasons, as the research projects are planned into advance.
Satene
1 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2012
Note that the moment, when some idea becomes intersubjectivelly accepted with mainstream and becomes "superfluous" would correspond the supercritical transition. The number of indicia and evidences rises above the critical level - and after then even the most resistant skeptics are forced to accept it. Now the community of superconductor physicists resides in its "pseudogap state", when many research group share the common view of superconductivity already, but it's still not shared fluently because of various personal and economical barriers. The individuals, who still refuse to contribute to the shared theory are locked in "Mott insulating state" with their own private opinion in this matter. From the perspective of outsiders (journalists and laymans) such a situation appears like no progress in the reality understanding, i.e. like the "mystery".

It's essentially very simple situation - what is complex is its formal description, because of its intrinsic hyperdimensional nature.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2012
Satene, You are spouting garbage: Just accept that pairing is not necessary for superconduction to occur and get out of the quagmire of Voodoo physics: PLEASE!!!! How long are we still going to cling to the BCS model which cannot explain why inelastic neutron scatteriing shows that the full gap measured at T=0 is already present in lead far above the critical temperature. As Einstein said a single fact like this discredits a theory!! BCS also fails miserably when it comes to the ceramics, and in most cases where it is claimed that it actually models superconduction, the mathematics had to be fudged,
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 01, 2012
..there is not any BEC in superconductivity and superfluidity at all..Wait, wait... We can observe the quantum vortices in both superconductors, both superfluids, both BE condensates directly under the microscope. You can hardly beat such an evidence.

We have NO(!!!) evidence at all!!!!

In particle physics we have electron-pozitron PAIRS!!!! And have experimental evidence in coincidence electronics events. But where did you have coincidence electronics events for Cooper pairing? ARPES is ONE(!!!) electron experiment technics.

Heisenberg and Landau approach to superfluids was analogous to ferromagnetism: spectrer of normal coordinates is responsible for superfluid behavior. But Heisenberg and Landau could not find the solution, so could not Feynman.

Superfluids have "superfluid" levels of energy of normal coordinates (electron levels in superconductors and "superfluid" atomic levels of helium atoms). The main feature of "superfluid" levels is dependence of energy(p)!!!
Bewia
1 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2012
Just accept that pairing is not necessary for superconduction to occur and get out of the quagmire of Voodoo physics
I've no illusions about mainstream physics and you know about it in the same way like me. But it's because I'm adhering on facts instead of politics and the fact is, the electrons are interacting through their spin and this interaction is visible even inside of highTC superconductors. Because it's weak, it does contribute to lowTC superconductivity only. I can agree with you, that the Cooper pairing is not primary cause of superconductivity.
BCS also fails miserably when it comes to the ceramics
But the "ceramics" is not niobium, the lowTC superconductors differs from highTC ones significantly. The theory which works well for one group of material may not work well for other ones - and vice-versa.
Bewia
1 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2012
..We have NO(!!!) evidence at all!!
I linked you three videos of quantum vortices in three different systems - if you're still telling me, it's not evidence at all, then I've nothing to add. You're locked in your private Mott insulating state.
where did you have coincidence electronics events for Cooper pairing
We observed Cooper pairs in optical lattice of boson condensaye, these are responsible for the superfluidity of helium-3 at low temperatures. Therefore the existence of Cooper pairs was proven for both superconductors, superfluids or BEC and Fermi gases. The isotope effect observed in superconductors illustrates the lattice effect exactly in agreement with Cooper pair model: heavier ions are harder to move they would be less able to attract the electrons resulting in a smaller binding energy for Cooper pairs.
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2012
The theory which works well for one group of material may not work well for other ones - and vice-versa.


Why i like Newton is his theory of mechanics which works well for ANY group of material!!!!

And i like quantum mechanics which works well for ANY group of material!!!!

And some contemporary physisists think that it is sufficient to have MILLIONS DIFFERENT superfluid THEORIES for any one of millions of materials :]

We have no imagination, that of Newton and that of Sroedinger to handle such a simple topic as superfluid matter!!!
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2012
..We have NO(!!!) evidence at all!!
I linked you three videos of quantum vortices in three different systems - if you're still telling me, it's not evidence at all, then I've nothing to add. You're locked in your private Mott insulating state.
{q]

Mott insulating state is not nesessary to have superconductivity!!!
Why Mott?!!!! ANY insulating state can be parent material for superconductor :)

The ONLY condition: negative mass of energy levels near fermi energy in some directions!!!!

It is world famous Chapnik empirical rule for superconductors.

Isotopic effect has no effect in the most of superconductors!!!! See ruthenium.

Satene
1 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2012
Isotopic effect has no effect in the most of superconductors!
If it doesn't affect lattice vibrations, then it even cannot have effect.
ANY insulating state can be parent material for superconductor
I doubt it. Without free, but immobilized electrons in conductive band you have nothing to superconduct...
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2012
We observed Cooper pairs in optical lattice of boson condensaye,
No you did not! You saw the formation of a Mott-array of atoms with large distances between the entities, since the optical lattice kept them apart: This has NOTHING to do with Cooper pairs.
these are responsible for the superfluidity of helium-3 at low temperatures.
No they are not!! Superfluidity occurs when the atome reach a high enough density, no matter whether these atoms are bosons or fermions: And this density is NOT determined by Bose-Einstein staistics, since Boltzmann statistics determine the density of the helium atoms for both He4 and He3, as it does for all gases and liquids consisting of separately distinguishable atoms. A Bose Enstein Condensate only forms when the atoms lose their separate identities: It seems that you do not know what a BEC is!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2012
We observed Cooper pairs in optical lattice of boson condensaye,
No you did not! You saw the formation of a Mott-array of atoms with large distances between the entities, since the optical lattice kept them apart: This has NOTHING to do with Cooper pairs.
these are responsible for the superfluidity of helium-3 at low temperatures.
No they are not!! Superfluidity occurs when the atome reach a high enough density, no matter whether these atoms are bosons or fermions: And this density is NOT determined by Bose-Einstein staistics, since Boltzmann statistics determine the density of the helium atoms for both He4 and He3, as it does for all gases and liquids consisting of separately distinguishable atoms. A Bose Enstein Condensate only forms when the atoms lose their separate identities: It seems that you do not know what a BEC is!
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2012
Isotopic effect has no effect in the most of superconductors!
If it doesn't affect lattice vibrations, then it even cannot have effect.
ANY insulating state can be parent material for superconductor
I doubt it. Without free, but immobilized electrons in conductive band you have nothing to superconduct...


I know two order parameters for superconductors.

The first is superradiant phonon mode. It works usually when conductance band is about half filled.

The second is special motion of ion lattice, it is responsible for superconductivity in cuprates, pniktides and so on. In some sense it is responsible for superdluidity of helium II.

You can doubt anything.
In two dimensional layers immobilized electrons in some two directions (antinodal) coudnt prevent have mobilized free electrons in other directions of wave vector of electron. In some directions can exist "superconducting" levels for "superconducting" electrons and it are not Bloch wave levels!!!!!!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2012
We observed Cooper pairs in optical lattice of boson condensaye,
No you did not! You saw the formation of a Mott-array of atoms with large distances between the entities, since the optical lattice kept them apart: This has NOTHING to do with Cooper pairs.
these are responsible for the superfluidity of helium-3 at low temperatures.
No they are not!! Superfluidity occurs when the atome reach a high enough density, no matter whether these atoms are bosons or fermions: And this density is NOT determined by Bose-Einstein staistics, since Boltzmann statistics determine the density of the helium atoms for both He4 and He3, as it does for all gases and liquids consisting of separately distinguishable atoms. A Bose Enstein Condensate only forms when the atoms lose their separate identities: It seems that you do not know what a BEC is!
Satene
1 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2012
We observed Cooper pairs in optical lattice of boson condensate ..No you did not!
Me not but physicists did 1, 2)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2012
We observed Cooper pairs in optical lattice of boson condensate,
No you did not! You saw the formation of a Mott-array of atoms with large distances between the entities, since the optical lattice kept them apart: This has NOTHING to do with Cooper pairs.
these are responsible for the superfluidity of helium-3 at low temperatures.
No they are not!! Superfluidity occurs when the atoms reach a high enough density, no matter whether these atoms are bosons or fermions: And this density is NOT determined by Bose-Einstein statistics, since Boltzmann statistics determine the density of the helium atoms for both He4 and He3, as it does for all gases and liquids consisting of separately distinguishable atoms. A Bose Einstein Condensate only forms when the atoms lose their separate identities: It seems that you do not know what a BEC is!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2012
The isotope effect observed in superconductors illustrates the lattice effect exactly in agreement with Cooper pair model:
No it does not! It only proves that the charge-carriers are localised states each generating a localised phonon: This can be observed in many materials which are not superconductors.
heavier ions are harder to move they would be less able to attract the electrons resulting in a smaller binding energy for Cooper pairs.
BS! BS! BS!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2012
We observed Cooper pairs in optical lattice of boson condensate ..No you did not!
Me not but physicists did http://www.scienc...bstract)
They did not: They used to optical lattice to separate the atoms forming the condensate into distinguishable entities, s that they formed a Mott-array. Where does Cooper Pairs feature in this experiment???
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2012
Sorry for my repetitive posting above: I did not see that there is a second page. I will npot be able to respond for the next week, since I will not have easy access to the internet. But as the terminator said: "I will be back". We must terminate the Voodoo physics which was founded at the Solvay conference in 1927.
Satene
1 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2012
My experience is, the frontiers of new physics are repeating the same mistake, like the proponents of mainstream one. They're accusing the mainstream from ignorance but they're behaving in the same way. It's sorta arrogance and the belief, every new idea must burrow all older ones definitely. But the physics doesn't work so with respect to correspondence principle. The older theories still must retain their connection both with reality, both with existing theories at the moment, when they were supported with experiments (isotope effect, for example). There are many forces which lead to the condensation of electrons within superconductors and the lattice mediated spin coupling is one of them. These forces indeed wouldn't disappear just because some new theory for new class material was invented and it's working well for them.
Satene
1 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2012
We must terminate the Voodoo physics which was founded at the Solvay conference in 1927
IMO not, "we" should connect it with our everyday experience and with intuitive understanding, which is based on it. The formal approach to physics is apparently reductionistic and incomplete, but not essentially wrong. We just shouldn't extrapolate it outside of its validity scope.
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2012
We observed Cooper pairs in optical lattice of boson condensate ..No you did not!
Me not but physicists did http://www.scienc...bstract)


Why do you think,that "Observation of pseudogap behaviour in a strongly interacting Fermi gas" that this strongly unteracting Fermi gas is SUPERFLUID????

We have molecular H2 gas, H2 molecule has a "gap", but it is not superflud.
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2012
I must say that unified theory of ANY superconductivity and ANY superfluidity will be known this 2012 year!!!

This event will begin new era in the world. We knew Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age and now Superconductor Age begines in 2012.

We dont need new quantum mechanics. All for creating room temperature superconductor was already known in 1930, except very simple idea. In five years world will be changed.
Bewia
1 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2012
J.F.Prins created room temperature conductor in 2001 already. His experiments were never attempted to replicate. Why do you expect, that 2012 year will be an exception?
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2012
J.F.Prins created room temperature conductor http://www.newsci...ch.html. His experiments were never attempted to replicate. Why do you expect, that 2012 year will be an exception?


1. J.F.Prins experiment in 2001 i think can be the first experiment with room temperature superconductor. It can be and it cannot be. The language of J.F.Prins aricle is very hard to follow.

2. J.F.Prins "theory" of his experiment can be estimated AT LEAST as childish ( J.F. excuse me, please).

3. Now i can predict two the most technological processes for Room Temperature Superconductors. They are analogous to polimers tiny cables, and nanowires. They dont need vacuum. Those processes can be organized to give millions tonns of RTS a year. I know industrial capability of USSR defense industry :)

USA DOE invited wrong specialists from Russia to Argonne National Lab (Abricosov,...) after Reagan superconductivity 1986
Bewia
not rated yet Aug 02, 2012
Now i can predict two the most technological processes
Predict or guess? Prediction considers reproducible sequence of logically consistent steps.
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2012
Now i can predict two the most technological processes
Predict or guess? Prediction considers reproducible sequence of logically consistent steps.


:)
Predict.
Technologically the most appropriate method obtaining Room Temperature Superconductor Cable nanowire is two layers of material.
The first layer has the maximum pseudogap, close to room temperature insulator.
The second layer is overdoped HTSC.

There is a name already for this type of superconductivity: INTERFACE SUPERCONDUCTIVITY. But the inventor of this type of superconductivity, Bozovich from Brookhaven National Lab, is unaware of the nature of superconductivity.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2012
My experience is, the frontiers of new physics are repeating the same mistake, like the proponents of mainstream one. They're accusing the mainstream from ignorance but they're behaving in the same way.
As long as the mainstream believes in Cooper pairs they will be wallowing in the quagmire that Dirac created with his absurd "relativistic equation" in 1928. AS I have stated, I only have limited access to internet at present, but I will return to this equally absurd posting by you.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2012
J.F.Prins His experiments were never attempted to replicate.
It has been replicated but the scientist refuse to try and publish since he does not want to be branded as a "crackpot" as I have been branded.

1. J.F.Prins experiment in 2001 i think can be the first experiment with room temperature superconductor. The language of J.F.Prins aricle is very hard to follow. If you understand Solid State Electronics it is not hard to follow.

2. J.F.Prins "theory" of his experiment can be estimated AT LEAST as childish ( J.F. excuse me, please).
It comes out of a text book on Solid State Electronics: But I can make it simpler for you: A dipole layer forms across the surface of the diamond in order to CANCEL the electric field within the dipole: So there CANNOT be an electric-field even though one can send a current through the dipole: It is the FIRST experiment EVER that proves that a current is flowing while it is impossible for an electric field to be present.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2012
Predict.
The first layer has the maximum pseudogap, close to room temperature insulator.
The second layer is overdoped HTSC.
Wrong!! The second layer is a doped insulator!!!

There is a name already for this type of superconductivity: INTERFACE SUPERCONDUCTIVITY. But the inventor of this type of superconductivity, Bozovich from Brookhaven National Lab, is unaware of the nature of superconductivity.
I already discovered "interface superconductivity" more than 10 years ago.
Bewia
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2012
Apparently three chaps, who "understand" the superconductivity aren't still able to agree mutually. IMO Both of you are correct and wrong at the same moment, if you take a look at the Eyck's superconductors: The single layers of copper III oxide are layered with many spacer layers of metallic oxides. Such a structure can be fabricated with nanolitography and the copper layer is "close to room temperature insulator", as Minich says But it corresponds rather Prins's mechanism of superconductivity: the excessive electrons are held with copper layer like the oxygen vacancies inside of diamond, whereas the innert layer corresponds the vacuum. It's not doped (IMO Johan inverted the meaning of layers). IMO the future superconductors will be nanofabricated materials, whereas Prins finding opens the way for "ideal switch" in addition. I.e. to the vacuum or solid-state device, which is superconducting in its open state with no voltage drop.
Bewia
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2012
The reason, why Eyck is using a mixture of three heavy atoms for oxide in his spacer layer is similar to technology of metallic glasses, which are formed with mixtures of atoms of slightly different diameter. Such an atoms tend to form sparse crystalline structures. What we need is entropic disadvantageous state of crystal: in normal crystal the atoms tend to form as homogeneous mixture, as possible - not sparse layers.
The wide distances between layers pose a problem for all cooked superconductors of Joe Eck: due the dislocation and grain boundaries it's rather difficult to achieve high current in superconductive state, because the doped layers cannot form a continuous phase across the lattice. They're still sorta pseudogap materials. We need to prepare a pure monocrystal of such materials.
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2012
1. J.F.Prins experiment in 2001 i think can be the first experiment with room temperature superconductor. The language of J.F.Prins aricle is very hard to follow.
If you understand Solid State Electronics it is not hard to follow.


Even if i don't understand anything, the language of J.F.Prins aricle is very hard for ME to follow. The construction of all is not clear. Doping is poor identified. What is measured?
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2012
2. J.F.Prins "theory" of his experiment can be estimated AT LEAST as childish ( J.F. excuse me, please).
It comes out of a text book on Solid State Electronics: But I can make it simpler for you: A dipole layer forms across the surface of the diamond in order to CANCEL the electric field within the dipole: So there CANNOT be an electric-field even though one can send a current through the dipole: It is the FIRST experiment EVER that proves that a current is flowing while it is impossible for an electric field to be pr....


And what does it mean? Can You formulate: what is it SUPERCONDUCTIVITY? Let us begin at origin, not De Beers.
Minich
1 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2012
I don't need any help of textbooks on solid state electronics. I can WRITE such textbooks :]

My first textbook in quantum mechanics was the original textbook of Vladimir Fock in quantum mechanics published in 1930. ORIGINAL!!!
And last time i saw Vladimir Fock was november 1974, two months before he died in december 1974. He discussed SECOND edition of his textbook with Demkov and Veselov.

By the way Lev Landau and Gamow, Mendeleev, fore rulers of Russia are my alumni, for a example Lenin and Putin :)
Bewia
1 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2012
@Minich: So, what the SUPERCONDUCTIVITY really is? We'll see, if you can REALLY understand the subject...;-)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2012
And what does it mean? Can You formulate: what is it SUPERCONDUCTIVITY? Let us begin at origin,


There is only one definition for superconduction: Superconduction occurs through an element of an electric circuit when a current flows around the circuit while there is no electric-field within the element.

That this is possible has NEVER been experimentally proved, except for the phase I have formed between the interfaces of an anode and diamond. Since the electrons within the gap forms part of a dipole which forms to cancel the electric-field within the dipole; and since I can pass an equilibriumn-current through the dipole while it is physicallly impossible for an electric-field to be within the dipole, a current is flowing through the phase without an electric-field being present: QED.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2012
I don't need any help of textbooks on solid state electronics. I can WRITE such textbooks :]
I hope do not: If you cannot even understand the simple physics of dipole formation across an interface, your book will not be worth much.

By the way Lev Landau and Gamow, Mendeleev, my alumni,

NO wonder you cannot understand superconduction: The Ginsberg-Landau model is just as irrelevant as the BCS model.
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2012
Bewia @Minich: So, what the SUPERCONDUCTIVITY really is? We'll see, if you can REALLY understand the subject...;-)

To Bewia

The superconductivity is thermally stabilized motion of electric charges in some direction, as a rule of individual electrons. Ions as a rule contribute nothing to superconducting current (adiabatic approximation), but they are nessesary element of SUPERCONDUCTING order parameter for ANY superconductor. The main element is IONS MOVING, not STAYING in some place :)
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2012
I don't need any help of textbooks on solid state electronics. I can WRITE such textbooks :]
I hope do not: If you cannot even understand the simple physics of dipole formation across an interface, your book will not be worth much.

"dipole formation across an interface" does not needed for SUPERCONDUCTIVITY :)

By the way Lev Landau and Gamow, Mendeleev, my alumni,

NO wonder you cannot understand superconduction: The Ginsberg-Landau model is just as irrelevant as the BCS model.


"The Ginsberg-Landau model" is quite well for PHENOMENOLOGICAL theory. And this theory was connected to BCS by some mad physisists. Ginzburg and Landau are not guilty!!! Especially Ginzburg!!! with Ginzburg effective e*=2.3e
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2012
"dipole formation across an interface" does not needed for SUPERCONDUCTIVITY :)
In my case it does cause superconduction. This phase does not exist of separate charge-carriers as in the case of superconduction within a material. In the latter case superconduction requires the formation of a Mott-insulator: Only when the distances between the Mott-orbitals become small enough does superconduction occur, The larger the activation energy that has to be overcome the smaller these distances have to be.
"The Ginsberg-Landau model" is quite well for PHENOMENOLOGICAL theory.
No it is not: It is a phenomenological FUDGE with no relevance to the actual physics involved
And this theory was connected to BCS by some mad physisists.
I agree with you here!!
Ginzburg and Landau are not guilty!!! Especially Ginzburg!!! with Ginzburg effective e*=2.3e
Ginzberg seems to be a very pleasant person: Unfortunately, his model is irrelevant nonsense!
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2012
Minich: "dipole formation across an interface" does not needed for SUPERCONDUCTIVITY :)

Prins: In my case it does cause superconduction.

Minich: I think IT may cause correct "superconducting, ie holelike" dispersion for electron levels and this dispersion cause superconductivity, but not yours dipole formation... . Thowgh it might be corrected (tried) ones more.

I am sure in it. If we have holelike levels, it is very likely we have superconductivity (Chapnik-Kikoin rule, see Hirsch internet site).

PS. Kikoin is not wright person in this rule. He did not expressed NEGATIVE sign of Hall effect.
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2012
Prins: Ginzbe(U)rg seems to be a very pleasant person: Unfortunately, his model is irrelevant nonsense!

Minich: He is already died :(
At any rate he was very good physisist, but jew. In USSR theoretical physics was and is now almost exclusively Jew. Halatnikov, the director of Landau Theoretical Phisics Institute said me one time that with my family name (Russian name) i never woud be work in this institute.
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2012
Minich: Excuse me my error, instead of

PS. Kikoin is not wright person in this rule. He did not expressed NEGATIVE sign of Hall effect.

Should be read:
PS. Kikoin is not right person in this rule. He did not expressed POSITIVE sign of Hall effect.
Bewia
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2012
That this is possible has NEVER been experimentally proved
IMO it was demonstrated from the very beginning of superconductor experiments - with drawing a magnet trough superconductive ring. The ring retains its magnetism due the eddy currents revolving it.
The main element is IONS MOVING, not STAYING in some place
Ions cannot move at low temperatures. After all, in metals like the niobium, no ions can be present. You're a big experts both of you...;-)
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2012
Bewia: Ions cannot move at low temperatures. After all, in metals like the niobium, no ions can be present. You're a big experts both of you...;-)

Minich:
Excuse, Bewia. Dont be stupid.
Ions can move at any temperature. Look at the sky as native neandertal :)
Comets and so on...

Ions are present in any atom with nuclears. Where did you come from? Have you ever taught in secondary school?

Every child in USSR knew:
http://en.wikiped...therford
and
http://en.wikiped...endeleev
Bewia
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2012
Look at the sky as native neandertal
But, but.... sky isn't superconductive...;-)
Ions are present in any atom with nuclears .. child in USSR knew
Maybe this is the reason, why USSR doesn't exist anymore...
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2012
Look at the sky as native neandertal
But, but.... sky isn't superconductive...;-)
Ions are present in any atom with nuclears .. child in USSR knew
Maybe this is the reason, why USSR doesn't exist anymore...


You are probably the girl..
I an not intend dispute with a girl :)
1. It is useless.
2. See the first point.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2012
That this is possible has NEVER been experimentally proved
IMO it was demonstrated from the very beginning of superconductor experiments - with drawing a magnet trough superconductive ring.
How does drawing a magnet through a ring prove that there is no electric-field within a superconducting element which forms part of a circuit?
The main element is IONS MOVING, not STAYING in some place
Where has ANYBODY claimed that IONS are moving? You are really confused are you not?
Bewia
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2012
How does drawing a magnet through a ring prove that there is no electric-field within a superconducting element which forms part of a circuit?
Because this ring becomes a source of permanent magnetic field after pulling-off the magnet.
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2012
Prins:
The main element is IONS MOVING, not STAYING in some place Where has ANYBODY claimed that IONS are moving? You are really confused are you not?

Minich:
See youself. Who did clamed that Earth is moving around Sun before Copernicus?
Take it easy.
Superconductivity is TINY problem, as tiny woman :)

ION'S MOVING is the key, as in Messbauer case :)
eachus
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2012
No, you are being delusional about the existence of cold fusion. Superconductivity exists and the current researchers are attempting to establish the temperature ranges and materials which allow it to occur. Cold fusion is a con game, a hoax.


This is stupid. Think about dark matter for a moment. About six times (in mass) of the baryonic matter in the Universe, and we have no idea what it is. Could "cold fusion" involve a dark matter catalyst? Sure. The numbers are ROM (rough order of magnitude) correct. A WIMP (one proposed form of dark matter) could interact with a deuterium nucleus, and transfer a neutron (but not in the form of a neutron) to another nucleus.

Am I saying that that is what CF is? No. Just pointing out that there are things that go bump in the night, and a deuterium BEC (Bose-Einstein Condensate) in Palladium may turn out to be a great dark matter detector--once we know what dark matter is.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2012
How does drawing a magnet through a ring prove that there is no electric-field within a superconducting element which forms part of a circuit?
Because this ring becomes a source of permanent magnetic field after pulling-off the magnet.

This is BS. The electric-field within the ring is caused by Faraday induction and THEREFORE the EMF around the ring disappears when the magnetic field does not change anymore: The source for the electric-field switches off. For an element within a circuit, the electric-field within the element must disappear even though the source (battery) maintains the EMF around the circuit. How is this achieved? Not a single model on SC can explain this; except my model!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2012
Prins:
The main element is IONS MOVING, not STAYING in some place Where has ANYBODY claimed that IONS are moving? You are really confused are you not?
Ions can only move through a liquid or a salt: There is no superconductor which is a liquid or a salt. The charge-carriers are localised electronic-states which move by hopping, where the energy for hopping is supplied by quantum fluctuations (deltaE)(deltat)=g(hbar) where g must be larger than one half.

Aster using the energy (deltaE) to hop within a timne-interval (deltat) this energy is returned: Thus there is no energy which can dissipate.

Furthermore, it is well-known that localised electronic states show an isotope relationship.
Bewia
1 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2012
The electric-field within the ring is caused by Faraday induction and THEREFORE the EMF around the ring disappears when the magnetic field does not change anymore: The source for the electric-field switches off.
IMO you're confused. The current in superconductor doesn't emerge spontaneously - you should always induce some minute EM force to create it. After then the current flows without additional need of EM force and it was proven many times with superconductive rings. After all, such a rings are commonly used as a sources of EM field in medical NMR's. Get a magnetic resonance imaging, and you'll get the experimental confirmation of this fact for yourself.
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2012
Prins:
Ions can only move through a liquid or a salt: There is no superconductor which is a liquid or a salt.


Minich: Ions don't need to MOVE TROUGH. For supercondutivity it is sufficient for ION'S matter wave to move ALONG :)

For superfluidity it is sufficient for helium's matter wave to move ALONG :)

There is minimum of full energy in both cases. The plus in MOVING energy is more than compensated by MINUS in potential energy.
Bewia
1 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2012
For supercondutivity it is sufficient for ION'S matter wave to move ALONG
IMO Prins is right - at first, the classical superconductors contain no ions, being formed with metals. At second, it doesn't matter whether ions are moving along or through (along what actually?) - at low temperatures the mobility of ions converges to zero for all materials, whereas the superconductivity raises instead. IMO you're spreading a complete nonsense here.
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2012
Prins:
Ions can only move through a liquid or a salt: There is no superconductor which is a liquid or a salt.


Minich: Ions don't need to MOVE THROUGH. For supercondutivity it is sufficient for ION'S matter wave to move ALONG :)

For superfluidity it is sufficient for helium's matter wave to move ALONG :)

There is minimum of full energy in both cases. The plus in MOVING energy is more than compensated by MINUS in potential energy.
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2012
For supercondutivity it is sufficient for ION'S matter wave to move ALONG
IMO Prins is right - at first, the classical superconductors contain no ions, being formed with metals. At second, it doesn't matter whether ions are moving along or through (along what actually?) - at low temperatures the mobility of ions converges to zero for all materials, whereas the superconductivity raises instead. IMO you're spreading a complete nonsense here.


BEWIA, Excuse, what a nonsense do you write!!!!
Go to street, throw any stone.
Any stone has so much ions...
And those ions are flying ALONG the tragectory of the stone :)

It seems that you are not even woman. It seems you are a child from jungles.
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2012
I hope everybody understand that ions are moving and electrons near ions are also moving :)

The wave function of electron for moving ion can be different from wave function of electron for unmoving ions, as in the case of superconductivity.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2012
The electric-field within the ring is caused by Faraday induction... etc.
IMO you're confused. The current in superconductor doesn't emerge spontaneously - you should always induce some minute EM force to create it.
No you do not need a minute EM force to create it. For example, you can first switch on a magnetic-field along the axis of a ring when it is above the critical temperature; let the EMF disappear, then cool the ring through the critical temperature to get the SAME current; which only depend on the equilibrium magnitude of the M-fireld.
After all, such a rings are commonly used as a sources of EM field in medical NMR's.
I know this, but your argument that this proves that an EMF is required to "kick-start" superconduction is WRONG!! Superconducting charge-carriers CANNOT be accelerated at all: If they could, one would not measure zero voltage across a SC element! QED
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2012
Prins:
Ions .... which is a liquid or a salt.


Minich: Ions don't need to MOVE TROUGH. For supercondutivity it is sufficient for ION'S matter wave to move ALONG :)
This is utter senseless nonsense.

For superfluidity it is sufficient for helium's matter wave to move ALONG :)
Although superfluidity of helium has certain facets which can be compared with SC, one should avoid believing that one is exactly the same as the other: THIS IS FALSE!In fact, there is NOT a matter-wave, which can be equated with a BEC, which is moving along. The staistics that applies is Boltzmann-statistics.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2012
For supercondutivity it is sufficient for ION'S matter wave to move ALONG
IMO Prins is right - at first, the classical superconductors contain no ions, being formed with metals. At second, it doesn't matter whether ions are moving along or through (along what actually?) - at low temperatures the mobility of ions converges to zero for all materials, whereas the superconductivity raises instead. IMO you're spreading a complete nonsense here.

WELL STATED: BRAVO!
Bewia
1 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2012
..you can first switch on a magnetic-field along the axis of a ring when it is above the critical temperature; let the EMF disappear, then cool the ring through the critical temperature to get the SAME current..
What creates the current in superconductor under such a situation is the removal of magnet from superconductor ring and EM force induced during this. Without change of magnetic field you have no way, how to create a macroscopic current in superconductor and in this aspect it doesn't differ from normal conductors. It's this electromotive force required for overcoming of the inertia of electrons and subtle voltage created with it, which induces the eddy current in it, after then.
Bewia
1 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2012
there is NOT a matter-wave, which can be equated with a BEC
Electrons within superconductor do share the matter wave - they do change into system of Cooper pairs (or anyons of fractional charge in general case), which are losing their effective charge, thus behaving like the bosons with respect to the atom lattice. I'm illustrating this concept with the following picture: A par of skiers can overcome the irregularities of terrain without exertion of energy at the moment, when they're connected at distance, which is multiple of lattice constant. This is the mechanism, in which the formation of electron pairs contributes to the superconductivity at low temperatures.
Bewia
1 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2012
The principle of superconductivity is remotely similar to cold fusion just in the aspect, the electrons are somehow convinced to ignore the repulsive Coulombic barriers, which are prohibiting them in free motion between another electrons. It's like the walking between cages full of tigers - you should overcome your fear of tigers for not to remain trapped in free spaces between cages in so-called Mott's insulating state. And the underlying principle of superconductivity is just in the application of this mechanism. What forces the movable electrons to lost their fear from electrons fixed around atoms? When I visited the Zoo, i never visited the cages with tigers alone. But when I was in large group of another children with teachers, I had no other option, than just walk with them, because I avoided the teachers in the group in the same way, like the tigers itself. In essence, my fear of teachers helped me to overcome the fear of tigers. How does it work at the geometric level?
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2012
Minich: Ions don't need to MOVE TROUGH. For supercondutivity it is sufficient for ION'S matter wave to move ALONG :)


Prins: This is utter senseless nonsense.

Minich: It seems that you don't know such topic of theoretical physics as WAVES IN MOVING MEDIA.

Thouhg it seems, that the number of competent physicsists in this topic nowadays is streaming to zero :(
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2012
Prins: Although superfluidity of helium has certain facets which can be compared with SC, one should avoid believing that one is exactly the same as the other


Minich: I am sure You are wrong.
The superfluidity and any kind of superconductivity have the same origin:
Negative effective mass of a large number of quasiparticles in normal state. When the temperature is lowered, some quasiparticles are restructered, they find more lowered in energy states.

Those lowered in energy quasiparticles we name superdluid part of the fluid (let us remember two fluid models).
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2012
..you can first switch .... etc.
What creates the current in superconductor under such a situation is the removal of magnet from superconductor ring and EM force induced during this.
BS. It is not possible, since this requires that the charge-carriers must be accelerated by an applied electric-field. If this is possibe YOU CANNOT MEASURE A ZERO VOLTAGE EVER!!
Without change of magnetic field you have no way, how to create a macroscopic current in superconductor
The induced electric-field CANNOT create a superconducting current, since an electric-field CANNOT accelerate superconducting charge-carriers.
It's this electromotive force required for overcoming of the inertia of electrons and subtle voltage created with it, which induces the eddy current in it, after then.
So why does the EMF stop to accelerate the charge-carriers when it is still present around a circuit in which the superconductor forms an element?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2012
there is NOT a matter-wave, which can be equated with a BEC Electrons within superconductor do share the matter wave
This is true for all charge-carriers within a material; whether the material is a superconductor or not
- they do change into system of Cooper pairs (or anyons of fractional charge in general case), thus behaving like the bosons with respect to the atom lattice.
No they do not: A BEC has nothing to do with this': "Anyons" is Wilczek smoking opium in Alice's Wonderland.
A par of skiers can overcome the irregularities of terrain without exertion of energy at the moment, when they're connected at distance, which is multiple of lattice constant.'
The same BS you have repeatedly posted under a million names on this forum: Please grow up!
This is the mechanism, in which the formation of electron pairs ocontributes to the superconductivity at low temperatures.
No it is not!!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2012
Prins: Although superfluidity of helium has certain facets which can be compared with SC, one should avoid believing that one is exactly the same as the other


Minich: I am sure You are wrong.
The superfluidity and any kind of superconductivity have the same origin:
Superfluidity consists of separate atoms moving while superconduction consists of charge-carriers moving: The helium atons are neutrally-charged and the charge-carriers are negatively charged. As I have posted, there are similarities but the two situations are not the exact same.
Negative effective mass of a large number of quasiparticles in normal state. When the temperature is lowered, some quasiparticles are restructered, they find more lowered in energy states.

Those lowered in energy quasiparticles we name superdluid part of the fluid (let us remember two fluid models).
This is, unfortunately, unadulterated BS.
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2012
Prins:
Superfluidity consists of seprate atoms moving while suoerconduction consists of charge-carriers moving: The helium atons are neutrally-charged and tghe charge-carriers area negativdely charged. As I have posted, thre are similarities but only an idiot will argue that the two situations are the same.
In superfluid liquid main is MASS transfer with quasiparticles in SUPERFLUID wave orbital states, expressed by the solution of Schroedinger equation.

If quasiparticle have electric charge (for example holelike with q*=-2.3e} mass transfer is accompanyied by current :)

Helium quasiparticles have NO charge :)

Ie only idiot :) can think another way :)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2012
In superfluid liquid main is MASS transfer with quasiparticles ....etc.
In He you have helium-atoms: Not quasi-particles.

If quasiparticle have electric charge, mass transfer is accompanyied by current :)
Obviously all charge-carriers have mass, but this does not equate them to He atoms.

In ANY conductor the charge-carriers are ALWAYS quasi-particles. In a normal conductor these quasi-particles are wave-packets which acclerate (a voltage is measured): In a superconductor the quasi-particles are localised Mott-states which cannot be accelerated by an applied electric-field; therefore you cannot measure a voltage: These charge-carriers only move when charge-carriers are injected to replace them so that they hop through the SC without generating an increse in kinetic-energy. This is the ONLY way in which SC without a voltage is possible. Voltage does not play a role in superfluidity. If the He atoms could be charged they will be accelerated even though they form a SF.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2012
I might be unable to make an internet connection for the next week.

Regards,
Johan F Prins
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 06, 2012
in He you have helium-atoms: Not quasi-particles. {/q]
Quasiparticle can be anywhere, especially in any helium liguid.

Obviously all charge-carriers have mass, but this does not equate them to He atoms.
If the equations are similar it is make sense.
In a superconductor the quasi-particles are localised Mott-states which cannot be accelerated by an applied electric-field; therefore you cannot measure a voltage
In superconductor we can have NON Mott states!!! And we can measure ANY voltage!!!

I consider your experiment in 2001 to be possible true becouse it can be true in general case:
diamond is a GOOD insulator
when hole doped it can become superconductor
the mass of carbon atom is is not heavy
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2012
In superconductor we can have NON Mott states!!!
Only in the superconductor I have generated are there non Mott-states. In all other superconductors within any material, Mott-states must be present for superconduction to occur.
And we can measure ANY voltage!!!
Which voltage are you measuring? The voltage across a superconductor is zero when the current is flowing.

I consider your experiment in 2001 to be possible true becouse it can be true in general case:
diamond is a GOOD insulator
when hole doped it can become superconductor
the mass of carbon atom is is not heavy
This has NOTHING to do with my superconductor. My superconductor is the only SC which is really a condensate of electrons within which the electrons totally lose their distinguishability. It is akin to a Laser beam which forms by the fusion of photons to form a single wave-entity.
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2012
Excuse, johanfprins, but i am shure, that you EVEN doesn't imagine what is superfluidity (including superconductivity of charged particles) as a common physical effect.

I consider this effect is characterized by:
1. Elementary particle CAN MOVE in one (so called superfluid state) direction and CAN NOT MOVE in opposite direction, ie there are no quantum states for such particle for moving in oppozite direction. More exactly: particle's quantum state for moving in opposite direction has greater energy (repulsion of energy levels, it was known already in 1929, Wigner von Neumann theorem)

J. von Neumann, E. Wigner, Phys. Z., 30 (1929)

And thats all!!! :)

And i can show that. Wait a little bit for official report.
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2012
Though i must admit, that somebody must have imagination (as was noted by Feynman) to use Wigner-Neuman theorem to superconductivity.

This theorem was given to me and my alumnies at the third year in Fock Department Of Quantum Mechanics in 1972. And then world famous Fock was alive and adopted the program of education in the department.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2012
It is akin to a Laser beam which forms by the fusion of photons to form a single wave-entity
This is just what the BEC is. The atoms are just massive, so they require the cooling for to keep them at place.
Minich
1 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2012
It is akin to a Laser beam which forms by the fusion of photons to form a single wave-entity
This is just what the BEC is. The atoms are just massive, so they require the cooling for to keep them at place.
:)

Imagine, that we REPHRASE your's:
they require the cooling for to keep them at CONSTANT VELOCITY

:)
Aerodynamics!!!! What is the temperature of a gas with the the flow velocity of 120000 km per second?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2012
It is akin to a Laser beam which forms by the fusion of photons to form a single wave-entity
This is just what the BEC is. The atoms are just massive, so they require the cooling for to keep them at place.

I could not have access to the internet the last two weeks: You do not require Bose-Einstein statistics to model separate atoms to form a state in which they each one has the same lowest energy thateach one of them can have: Boltzmann stats is quite adequate for that. Since for a superconductor within a material the charge-carriers are also separate entities, they also follow Boltzmann statistics. When a laser beam forms, the separata photons lose their individual identities to form a SINGLE stationary wave within the laser cavity which does NOT require a critical temperature to form. It is a Bose-Resonant-Condensate. My superconducting phase is also a BRC. Therefore it forms at temperatures up to 600 C.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2012
My superconducting phase is also a BRC. Therefore it forms at temperatures up to 600 C.
Did you publish some new evidence for it? Your last publication is talking about 100 C only.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2012
My superconducting phase is also a BRC. Therefore it forms at temperatures up to 600 C.
Did you publish some new evidence for it? Your last publication is talking about 100 C only.
Since those publications I could not get a single publication past the editors and reviewers. I will quote an example(there are many) what bigots they are: In a manuscript I submitted to Proc. Roy. Soc., in which I proved that the BCS model cannot explain how an applied electric-field is cancelled within a superconductor the reviewer rejected my manuscript with the comment: "I am not an expert but I will be suprised if the present model cannot explain this". Fisrtly, how is it possible that a person who admits that he is not an expert can have the arrogance to consider him/herself competent to reject the manuscript. Even worse the editor Sir Prof. M Berry acccepted this. Physics is at present controlled by "berry" fools.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2012
I'm sorry, it seems you didn't understand my question. I asked you for evidence of your BRC at 600 C. No less, no more. If you cannot answer such a question in brief, matter of facts answer, you shouldn't be surprised if you will be considered a twaddler in another matter. You're just pissing in your own nest by now.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2012
I'm sorry, it seems you didn't understand my question. I asked you for evidence of your BRC at 600 C.
I have always believed that a good mind only needs half a word, but it seems that in your case half a mind needs a very good word. Of course I have evidence for this claim or else I will not claim it. At 600 C my diamond surface starts to graphitise and then I cannot extract the superconducting phase anymore. I have also proved this experimentally. It starts to deteriorate from about 500 C and if you are lucky you can reach 600 C. Since my phase is a BRC it does not have a critical temperature; it will stay intact for as long as the materials which generate and sustain it stay intact!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2012
I'm sorry, it seems you didn't understand my question. I asked you for evidence of your BRC at 600 C. No less, no more.
I decided to go back to your question: You asked whether I "published" NOT whether I have the evidence. I thus told you why I cannot get any evidence published; no matter how good the evidence is: And by telling you this YOU became abusive. I MUST protest!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Aug 21, 2012
why I cannot get any evidence published; no matter how good the evidence is
Oh, come on... What prohibits you to upload just another article at ArXiv.org or ViXra.org or somewhere else? Look, if I should wait for the publishing of my ideas in peer-reviewed press, I would prefer to die. F*ck the mainstream information channels for ever and just publish, what you can prove.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2012
why I cannot get any evidence published; no matter how good the evidence is
Oh, come on... What prohibits you to upload just another article at ArXiv.org or ViXra.org or somewhere else? Look, if I should wait for the publishing of my ideas in peer-reviewed press, I would prefer to die. F*ck the mainstream information channels for ever and just publish, what you can prove.

Nobody takes any notice when you upload on ArXive. I have tried. Furthermore the idiotic dogma is that one must only take notice when it is published in "peer reviewed journals". It is catch 22 all the way. If you write mediocre stuff and quote the leading knuckleheads in the field, you get published without any problems. If you have information that indicates that these knuckleheads might be wrong, you have no chance. NOTHING UNITES BETTER THAN MEDIOCRITY. Furthermore it is obvious that the anonymous peer review system is open to abuse: and corruption has become the norm.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2012
the whole claim of yours remains exactly what it is: a blurb at anonymous forum,
A lie! The SC has been very well explained in the original publications: It has also been posted in simpler language on my website. For 10 years the knuckleheads in the field of SC could not understand that a dipole layer forms to cancel an electric-field. In my experiment an electric-field is cancelled in this way, but even so an electric-current can flow when injecting electrons into it. If the IQ's of the SC researchers are so low that they cannot follow this, then it will not help to post on Arxiv.
Look, if you're so lazy, that you even cannot publish your own results,
Another lie. I have not been lazy! Make sure of your facts before mouthing off!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2012
We aren't discussing your private theory of SC (which I personally don't value too much)
Probably because you do not understand quantum mechanics and bielieve in Feynman's ludicrous path integrals along which wave-fronts cannot have parallel wave-fronts as they MUST have along ANY PATH.
- but the experimental evidence of your findings (which I do consider a way more interesting and worth of further publishing).
Should I write a whole paper to describe the experiment again just to state that the table on which the substrate was mounted was heated to 600 C? This is not worth a new publication. It only needs a statement that it is so and that the phase disappeared when the diamond graphitised. This is so damn obvious!!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2012
My experience is, the experimental guys aren't very good in formulation of theories and vice-versa: even the brilliant theorists remain often confused with experiments.
I am good with BOTH. That is why it makes me sick that people can take Alioe-in-Wonderland concepts like "Cooper-pairs", and Higgs bosons seriously. The theoreticians are out of contact with reality, and the experimentalists are too scared to challenge them. Thank God there have been, and still are exceptions like Bernd Matthias and Carver Mead.

BTW, What is your background?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2012
Work Finish Publish or Perish
Minich
3 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2012
To johanfprins
Never mind, see at phys.org
"UQ Global Change Institute research fellow John Cook said reporting evidence that is perceived to threaten a person's view of the world can actually backfire. ?People derive a large part of their sense of identity from their world view, how they see the world. So they react defensively to any information that threatens their world view,? he said.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...iew.html "
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 22, 2012
I think (so did Nobel russian winner Kapitsa), that experiment is BRILLIANT (jewelry).

May be, You, johanfprins, have made the BRILLIANT experiment.

To my mind, it is better to let it without your incorrect theory. Sooner or later everybody accept it, but in correct form.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2012
To johanfprins
People derive a large part of their sense of identity from their world view, how they see the world. So they react defensively to any information that threatens their world view,
This is correct! The problem is that physicists claim they are NOT like this and THEREFORE physics is supposedly self-correcting. Thus if a physicist reacts like this, he/she is a TRAITOR to the cause of physics. This is so serious that suvh a physicist deserves the death penalty.

The Royal Society of London was formed during the 17th century specifically to advocate that it is a mortal sin for scientists to act in this manner. Since then the Royal Society has totally betrayed these ideals of its founding fathers: Therefore the Royal Societ of London should be closed down and liquidated in disgrace.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2012
To my mind, it is better to let it without your incorrect theory.
Nobody has proved that my theory is incorrect. If you want to claim this, you must give reasons based on REAL physics logic why it is incorrect. You are not doing this and is thus responding like a person whose world view is being threatened: i.e. like a REAL physicist should not be responding. As I have pointed out above this is TREASON against everything that science should stand for.
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 23, 2012
Nobody has proved that my theory is incorrect

My experience is that NOBODY wants PROVE or DISPROVE somebody's theory.
By Felix Bloch: Every theory of superconductivity can be disproved.
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 23, 2012
To johanfprins
To begin with: Where i can read your theory in one paper?
May be i am wrong with my opinion of your theory to be incorrect?
What are the basic equations of your theory?
What is pseudogap? Why do elemental superconductors have no pseudogap?
Why does empirical Chapnik-Kikoin rule is real?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2012
OK, could you present a list: Without such a fixed postulate list your theory could predict virtually everything and nothing at the same moment

Superconducting phase within a material:
1. SC must be preceded by the formation of Mott-insulator phase; sometimes observable as a "pseudogap".
2. When the orbitals of this Mott-phase reach a critical density, superconduction can occur.
3. An orbital can then move by means of a quantum fluctuation (QF): i.e. by borrowing energy (delta)E for a time interval (delta)t as allowed by Heisenberg's relationship for energy and time, using this energy to move, and then returning the energy totally.
4. When injecting a charge-carrier it replaces an orbital at the injection contact, which by means of a QF replaces the next orbital, which by means QF replaces the next etc., until an orbital at the other contact is ejected.

See next post

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2012
4. Since there is no net gain in energy with every hop of an orbital, there is no energy which requires dissipation. The orbitals move without encountering any resistance.
5. Since the motion does not require acceleration by an applied electric-field, no voltage develop across the contacts.
6. By injecting many orbitals so that a current flows, the current encounters no resistance and generates no voltage drop. Ergo: SUPERCONDUCTION OCCURS.
7. This same mechanism models superconduction within all materials; except my superconducting phase generated within a vacuum, since the latter does not exist of Mott-orbitals.
8. This mechnanism explains the aspects which to date could not be explained by BCS.

Do you want any more postulates?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2012
By Felix Bloch: Every theory of superconductivity can be disproved.
Felix Bloch was correct since ALL the models before the one I have just postulated are fundamentally flawed: NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM CAN EXPLAIN WHY THE CHARGE-CARRIERS ARE NOT BEING ACCELERAtED BY AN APPLIED ELECTRIC FIELD: ONLY MINE CAN.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2012
To johanfprins
To begin with: Where i can read your theory in one paper?
On my website as an extract of section 23 from my latest book "The Physics Delusion".
What are the basic equations of your theory?
It is a simple quadratic equation which any high school student can understand: See section 23. This simple equation gives a single mechanism for all superconducting materials.
What is pseudogap? Why do elemental superconductors have no pseudogap?
You cannot see the pseudigap in elemental superconductorsa since metallic conduction is still occurring while the Mott-orbitals are forming. The ceramics are not metals, so that the formation of the pseudogap is not cloaked by metallic conduction.
Why does empirical Chapnik-Kikoin rule is real?
I must have missed this rule in my reading: Can you give a reference so that I can try and interpret it?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2012
But pseudogap is NOT a Mott insulator state: these two states http://www.nature...8-f1.jpg at the phase diagram of cuprates.
So the formation of a Mott-insulator is NOT a phase change? My God! Please go back to high school and learn some real physics
You're mixing a postulates and theorem: the postulate is the assumption, the theorems are predictions/conclusions. The postulates don't contain the words like "when, since, thus" and another implicates. They're singular tautologies.
I did it the way I did since I cannot write down "pure postulates" and then derive and post the whole subsequent thesis on a discussion forum. Pleas stop playing stupid games by nitpicking!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2012
...superconductive ring example - such a ring will not generate the magnetic field without induction of current from outside with external electromotoric force.
WRONG again. The current around a SC ring cannot be established by Faraday induction. It only forms to keep the SC in an SC state. That is why a current does NOT IMMEDIATELY flow when inducing it with a time-dependent magnetic field. It only starts to flow when the applied magnetic-field reaches a point at which it will destroy the SC phase. Only then a current starts to flow in order to oppose the applied magnetic field so that the SC state can be maintained.
No superconductor can accelerate its carrier WITHOUT such an electromotoric force.
If a SC charge-carrier can be accelerated the potential across a SC element CAN NEVER BE ZERO!! Ask any grade 6 pupil.
You're apparent crackpot in this matter.
Maybe, but I am not stupid like you are!
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 23, 2012
"Do you want any more postulates?"
I don't need any postulates.
I need only ordinary quantum theory, as a basis for superfluidity of helium 4 and electrons at Tc....

I don't see anything quantum in johanfprins's theory in 23 section of his book.
My boss V.Fock wrote a book in russian in 1929 (may be the first in the world textbook!!!), it is second edition in english:
http://frolih.nar...978.djvu
Can You, johanprins, give your theory of superconductivity in accodance with Fock standards? See for example Part IV of this book, equation (2.1)... and so on.
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Aug 23, 2012
Last time i saw Vladimir Fock when he discussed second edition of this book in russian at our department in october of 1974 in Leningrad State University. Now our department of quantum mechanics has Fock name.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2012
"Do you want any more postulates?"
I don't need any postulates.
I need only ordinary quantum theory, as a basis for superfluidity of helium 4 and electrons at Tc....

I don't see anything quantum in johanfprins's theory in 23 section of his book.
My boss V.Fock wrote a book in russian in 1929 (may be the first in the world textbook!!!), it is second edition in english:
http://frolih.nar...978.djvu
Can You, johanprins, give your theory of superconductivity in accodance with Fock standards?
No I cannot because Fock has made a Fock-UP. No wonder his name is Fock!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2012
Last time i saw Vladimir Fock when he discussed second edition of this book in russian at our department in october of 1974 in Leningrad State University. Now our department of quantum mechanics has Fock name.

No wonder you cannot understand simple first year physics! the only QM you require is Mott's derivation of his insulating phase and that (delta)E*(delta)t=g(hbar) where g>1/2 For He you ONLY require the latter. The Russian theories on superfluidity and SC are all Bullshit!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2012
[Nope, if you insist on your statement that Mott-insulator phase is sometimes observable as a "pseudogap". If the pseudogap is equivalent to Mott insulator state, then no phase change would be required for its formation.
Please go and read the vast literature based on the work of Mott and Anderson and stop being such an utter stupid fool. Have you EVER heard about a metal-insulator PHASE transition? I thought not!!!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2012
npe, just the keeping of frozen mercury ring in its SC state doesn't make it magnetic,
Who the EFFEN hell has claimed this? Can you read and understand simple English?
Nope...:-) The current inside of frozen SC ring can be induced without destruction of SC state.
Exactly! THAT IS WHY THE CURRENT FORMS: IN ORDER TO KEEP THE RING IN A SC STATE!! SHEESH!
appear completely confused in this matter.

You do not have the neccessary intelligence to judge my "confusion".If you cannot even understand that if the charge-carriers can be accelerated there cannot be superconduction, then you are so stupid that you should refrain from even trying to argue any physics at all!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2012
Have you EVER heard about a metal-insulator PHASE transition?
The metal-Mott insulator phase transition is different from pseudogap-Mott insulator phase transition.
Nope! It is exactly the same!
You know what? I'll not discuss any aspect of your "theory" anymore, until I can read it published at some ArXiv or ViXra article.
You have not even noticed that I have already publishd in ArXive in 2005. So why must I post in it AGAIN?
The "postulate" list of yours doesn't count,
You asked for it, and now that you cannot use physics-logic against it since you are too STUPID, you come up with silly excuses.

You are really pathetic to say the least!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2012
Now our department of quantum mechanics has Fock name.

So you are all a bunch of Fockers?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2012
Well, it isn't. Which is why they're named differently, after all. The nickel oxide is known as a Mott insulator and it still doesn't exhibit the pseudogap (why?).
Since it is not a layered structure.
Most of cuprates are Mott insulators, but only few of them exhibit pseudogap (why?)
The Mott-i which SC forms BETWEEN the crytallographic layers (CL). You can also hvae a Mott-I WITHIN the CL. AT high temperatures the conduction WITHIN the layers dominates. If normal conduction BETWEEN the layers start to dominate BEFORE SC starts, you have a pseudogap. If not you can have SC without a pseudogap. It is really VERY simple to understand.

If the BIGOTS in control of SC research allows it to be published you will see for yourself. Alternatively, if you can give an e-mail address I can attach a copy. Not that I have any hope that you will be able to follow the elementary physics involved!! one needs to at least know that if the carriers can be accelerated you cannot have SC
Minich
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2012
Now our department of quantum mechanics has Fock name.

So you are all a bunch of Fockers?
To use dirty english never was the advantage of any physisist. As a matter of fact i do not intend to have deal with anybody having language of a whore.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2012
Now our department of quantum mechanics has Fock name.

So you are all a bunch of Fockers?
To use dirty english never was the advantage of any physisist. As a matter of fact i do not intend to have deal with anybody having language of a whore.

So the MOVIE "Meet the Fockers" was made by a whore? Thank you for informing me!! Have you got no sense of humour?