New study reveals unexpected disappearance of superconducting fluctuations at super-cold temperatures

Nov 29, 2012
Brookhaven Lab physicist Ivan Bozovic with the molecular beam epitaxy system he uses to engineer atomically precise superconducting materials.

(Phys.org)—The next generation of sustainable energy systems, from magnetic storage to offshore wind turbines, hinges in part on high-temperature superconductors (HTS), which can carry current with zero loss and perfect efficiency. Unfortunately, that loss-free behavior comes at the cost of extreme and inefficient cooling, and the fundamental physics that governs the behavior of these remarkable materials remains mysterious.

Now, scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory and other collaborating institutions have discovered that could be key to solving the HTS puzzle. Rising temperature always quenches (stops) , but the new study – to be published online Nov. 18 in – reveals that extremely low temperatures can cause structural defects to produce a similar shutdown. This observation, which helps illuminate the murky emergence of superconductivity, could one day open the door for scientists to engineer inexpensive, high capacity, room-temperature superconductors.

"Superconductivity generally gets more robust as the sample's temperature is decreased," said study coauthor Ivan Bozovic, a physicist in Brookhaven Lab's and Materials Science Department. "So we were surprised to find that traces of superconductivity actually vanish completely at the lowest temperatures in certain samples."

Fluctuations and Phase Transitions

Superconductivity, even in the relative warmth of so-called high-temperature versions, only emerges in frigid and well-controlled environments. If too warm or otherwise imperfect, a can turn into an insulator or semiconductor and lose its most-desired property. Bozovic's team precisely examined the curious space where this transformation occurs in copper-oxide (cuprate) materials, an area known as the superconductor-insulator transition. 

This unexplained and exotic HTS transition actually follows some familiar stovetop behavior. When water is heated to a boil, the liquid doesn't instantaneously transform into a gas – instead, the transformation occurs gradually. Along the bottom of the pot, discrete and fleeting bubbles appear with increasing frequency as the heat rises and slowly builds to a full boil. During this transition, most of the water remains in liquid form, though it contains sporadic and isolated pockets of the vapor phase of matter.

Similarly, superconducting islands intermittently emerge and rapidly vanish in cuprate insulators near the superconductor-insulator transition. These strange and disconnected bubbles are called superconducting fluctuations. Understanding the precise conditions under which these fluctuations emerge and vanish reveals fundamental characteristics of this poorly understood phenomenon. 

Electron Traps

Imagine that electricity travels like running water, with the flow of current between electrodes resembling the motion of a river rushing downhill. In this analogy, the cuprate acts as a custom-built channel designed to carry electricity as efficiently as possible, just as a smoothly engineered canal carries water.

If the canal is poorly constructed, full of sudden and jagged pits, the water level directly impacts the quality of the flow. A high volume of water will race continuously even if occasionally given to the turbulence of crashing whitewater rapids. If, however, the water level falls below some critical value, the current will tumble into those pits and slow down or stop completely. 

In these HTS experiments, the scientists measured the flow of electricity to uncover the structure of the cuprate "canal." The water volume corresponds to the density of electrons in the system, which Bozovic was able to fine-tune with his custom atomic layer-by-layer molecular beam epitaxy (ALL-MBE) synthesis technique (see sidebar). While the films were atomically smooth, they contained deliberately built-in defects – randomly distributed strontium atoms. These imperfections act like "pits' that can trap flowing electrons, rendering them immobile.

"The traps are there all the time, but the electrons only become stuck at extremely low temperature," Bozovic said. "This behavior, called electron localization, makes the material insulating. With some heating, however, the electrons gain enough kinetic energy to jump out of the holes and maintain metallic conductivity – and, in the present case, superconductivity."

Material Memory

Probing this behavior further, the researchers not only discovered that the fluctuations vanish beyond that super-cold threshold, but that the trapping pattern subtly changes with each test. As it turns out, resistivity depends not just on temperature, but also on the material's memory of its own history – how and where the electrons were previously trapped. This phenomenon, called hysteresis, strongly indicates that the underlying mechanism behind the superconductor-insulator transition is tied to electron localization.

"Understanding the origin and behavior of superconducting fluctuations gives us a greater understanding of how superconductivity emerges, and what can quench it," Bozovic said. "Greater understanding, in turn, improves the chances to discover or design new and better superconductors."

Explore further: Impurity size affects performance of emerging superconductive material

Related Stories

Pinning Down Superconductivity to a Single Layer

Oct 29, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Using precision techniques for making superconducting thin films layer-by-layer, physicists at the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory have identified a single layer ...

Recommended for you

CERN: World-record current in a superconductor

Apr 15, 2014

In the framework of the High-Luminosity LHC project, experts from the CERN Superconductors team recently obtained a world-record current of 20 kA at 24 K in an electrical transmission line consisting of two ...

User comments : 124

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2012
"So we were surprised to find that traces of superconductivity actually vanish completely at the lowest temperatures in certain samples."


Why are they surprised? The superconducting charge-carriers form a Mott-insulator array, which, when their density is high enough super-conducts by hopping: The kinetic energy for this hopping is supplied by quantum fluctuations (*delta)E*(delta)t larger than zero). Since the energy is "virtual" and on loan, it cannot dissipate by generating entropy.

When these localized Mott-states overlap, they form delocalized electron-waves which cannot superconduct anymore. This can happen when the temperature becomes so low that their density becomes too high to stay on as localized states.

In some of the CuO ceramics one can generate the same extinction of superconduction by increasing the dopant-level until the localized charge-carriers also in this case overlap to form delocalized electron-waves.

Just discard BCS! STOP being "surprised"!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2012
When these localized Mott-states overlap, they form delocalized electron-waves which cannot superconduct anymore. This can happen when the temperature becomes so low that their density becomes too high to stay on as localized states.
Easy man. It's easy to throw out the "explanation" for everything, but it still doesn't explain, why this effect takes place in certain samples only. It's not systematical phenomena.
they form delocalized electron-waves which cannot superconduct anymore
But the formation of "delocalized orbitals" is just the model in which you're explaining the onset of superconductivity in your books. Now you just switched its meaning into pure negation of it. It seems, the "delocalized orbitals" can explain everything just with semantical rearrangement of sentences.

IMO this effect is related to the "superinsulator effect", which has been observed many times before.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2012
In some of the CuO ceramics one can generate the same extinction of superconduction by increasing the dopant-level until the localized charge-carriers also in this case overlap to form delocalized electron-waves
You're getting terribly confused here. Just the delocalization of electron-waves is the primary condition for their spreading without resistance within superconductor, i.e. for the ONSET of the superconductivity. But now you're explaining the decline of superconductivity with the same phenomena without deeper thinking about meaning of your words. This is a typical behavior for crackpots, who just found an interesting solution of some particular problem, so now they're trying to apply it for everything. I'm not saying your explanation of superconductivity is wrong - but the attempt to explain the lack of superconductivity in the same way is just a plain nonsense.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2012
@johanprins: This is the commonly accepted phase diagram of cuprates. We can see, that the superconductivity always starts, when the temperature goes down - no matter about value of doping level - so I can imagine, that your model can explain the curve above the pink area of the diagram. But at low temperatures the diagram for some cuprate samples appears differently: it pink area appears there like the water droplet sitting at the hydrophobic plate (i.e. with negative angle toward x-axis). Such a behavior effectively violates your model, instead of supporting it.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2012
Easy man. It's easy to throw out the "explanation" for everything, but it still doesn't explain, why this effect takes place in certain samples only. It's not systematical phenomena.


It is "systematical": The SAME in EVERY superconducting material: Every material has a different valence electron-energy structure, so that some phases of the mechanism are not resolved within ALL materials; even though they are present.

1. In LowTemp metals the observation of the formation of the Mott-phase while lowering the temperature is swamped by normal conduction: Therefore SC immediately sets in when the Fermi-level moves into the energy-gap within which the Mott-type orbitals are present. As soon as this happens the activation energy (AE) starts off at being zero, and increases to reach the full gap size (which is already present ABOVE the critical temperature) at absolute zero. Only a complete IDIOT will conclude that this typical Boltzmann AE is the "binding energy" of "Cooper-pairs
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2012
2. In most of the ceramics, the Mott-orbitals form BETWEEN the crystallographic layers (CL's) from electrons which are donated by donors WITHIN the CL's. Holes are left WITHIN the CL's which can conduct by means of hopping, and localized electron-states form BETWEEN the layers which can ALSO conduct by hopping. The temperature where this hopping conduction starts to dominate is called by the misnomer "pseudogap".

As soon as the density of localised orbitals BETWEEN the CL's become high enough SC initiates: This then defines the critical temperature which is known by the misnomer "SC-gap".

Exactly as in the case of the metals, a Mott-phase forms as a precursor to SC; except that in this case the Mott-phase IS NOT SWAMPED by normal conduction. Its formation can thus be seen to occur. When you keep on lowering the temperature the orbital density can become high enough so that delocalization of the orbitals occur and SC then stops before T reaches absolute zero!.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2012
But the formation of "delocalized orbitals" is just the model in which you're explaining the onset of superconductivity in your books.
Nowhere in ANY BOOK have I EVER claimed that SC initiates when orbitals delocalise. As I have pointed out time and again on this forum, you read without being able to understand what you are reading, and then have the arrogance to post LIES and misrepresentations based on what you think you have read. Please try and use the grey matter between your ears, and if you are not at all able to do so stop posting nonsense everywhere!

The SI is easily modeled by my mechanism. It just depends on the electronic-energy distribution in the amorphous SC, and the position of the Fermi-level. After this SI paper was published in Nature, I modeled the results quantitatively and submitted it to Nature. Karen Southwell did not even send it out for review, since the model does not require nonsense like Cooper pairs and "Josephson droplets".
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2012
You're getting terribly confused here. Just the delocalization of electron-waves is the primary condition for their spreading without resistance within superconductor, i.e. for the ONSET of the superconductivity.
When you have delocalized waves the charge-carriers MUST be wave-packets. These wave packets CANNOT convey a current without scattering!
But now you're explaining the decline of superconductivity with the same phenomena without deeper thinking about meaning of your words.
My model is not based on hand waving and plastic ducks swimming in bath foam. My model quantitatively fits all the data that I have ever seen on SC AND SI AND the pseudogap.
This is a typical behavior for crackpots,
YOU are the crackpot who cannot even read a book on physics without reaching conclusions which are not in the book!

- but the attempt to explain the lack of superconductivity in the same way is just a plain nonsense
It is not yet wrong: It fits all the known data.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2012
I know this phase diagram better than you will EVER be able to; since my mechanism models EVERY ASPECT on this diagram.

We can see, that the superconductivity always starts, when the temperature goes down - no matter about value of doping level -
You are again seeing what is NOT there, but only what you WANT to see. Look again: When the doping level is TOO LOW, there is NO SC; and when the doping level is TOO HIGH there is also no SC. Why do you have to post lies? You obviously do not have a clue what you are talking about and never will have a clue of what physics is all about! Try and do something else.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2012
When the doping level is TOO LOW, there is NO SC; and when the doping level is TOO HIGH there is also no SC
This is NOT the effect which the above article describes - it deals with temperature difference. But unfortunately you're too silly for to realize, where the problem with your model is.
As soon as the density of LOCALIZED orbitals BETWEEN the CL's become high enough SC initiates... nowhere in ANY BOOK have I EVER claimed that SC initiates when orbitals DELOCALIZE.
In this article the charge carriers of metals for conductivity are just such delocalized electrons so that the ones for superconductivity are electron pairs of s wave. This is IMO the correct explanation of HT superconductivity.

IMO the fonon mediated transport competes the above mechanism at low temperatures, which may lead to the anomaly discussed. This anomaly is actually a confirmation of Cooper-pair mechanism at low temperatures, instead of its refusal.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2012
This is NOT the effect which the above article describes - it deals with temperature difference.

If you were not such a complete certifiable idiot, you would realize that a decrease in temperature means an INCREASE in the density of Mott-orbitals; AND an increase in doping ALSO means an increase in the density of the Mott-orbitals. Thus the evidence is in FRONT of your thick bony skull. SC stops when the density of Mott-orbitals becomes too high, whether you increase this density by increasing the doping, OR decreasing the temperature, OR even applying pressure!!

You are such a crackpot of crackpots, that the mainstream crackpots who are appointed to be editors of criminal peer reviewed journals like Nature, Science etc. look like competent physicists when compared to you! Just accept it: When it comes to physics you are the crackpot of all possible crackpots who ever lived! Persons like you allow the mainstream crackpots, like Karen Southwell of Nature, to look normal.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2012
As soon as the density of localised orbitals BETWEEN the CL's become high enough SC initiates... If you were not such a complete certifiable idiot, you would realize that a decrease in temperature means an INCREASE in the density of Mott-orbitals; AND an increase in doping ALSO means an increase in the density of the Mott-orbitals.
Increase of doping therefore should therefore lead into superconductivity in the same way like the lowering of temperature - but now we are discussing exactly the opposite effect. Try it again.
SC stops when the density of Mott-orbitals becomes too high, whether you increase this density by increasing the doping, OR decreasing the temperature, OR even applying pressure
Yes, but now we are discussing the situation, when SC starts, when you increase the temperature of the sample. Try it again. Maybe I'm crackpot if you wish - but I'm not that stupid...;-)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2012
- but I'm not that stupid...;-)
You are also the biggest idiot of all who EVER lived!
Increase of doping therefore should therefore lead into superconductivity in the same way like the lowering of temperature
Correct! If you look at the phase-diagram that you have posted, you will see that: At LOW doping THERE IS NO SC WHATSOEVER! When you increase the doping you reach a critical level where you enter the SC-dome. When you keep on increasing the doping level you move horizontally through the SC dome, until the orbital density becomes TOO HIGH: YOU THEN MOVE OUT OF THE SC phase.

- but now we are discussing exactly the opposite effect.
The same happens when lowering the temperature onto the SC-dome: You first reach a high enough density of orbitals for SC to occur. You then move VERTICALLY through the SC dome so that the charge-carriers increase in density. If this density becomes TOO HIGH before you reach T=0 SC will stop. Only an idiot will be "surprised"!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2012
Yes, but now we are discussing the situation, when SC starts, when you increase the temperature of the sample. Try it again. Maybe I'm crackpot if you wish - but I'm not that stupid...;-)


It is said that a good brain only needs "half-a-word". One can deduce from this that "half-a-brain" needs never-ending words. So let me summarize again: YES!! to have SC the density of orbitals must be above a critical value and you can reach this critical value by reducing the temperature, OR increasing the doping, OR even by increasing pressure as has also been proved to the astonishment of the mainstream idiots working in the field of SC.

FURTHERMORE: When you increase the density of the orbitals you will reach a point where their density IS TOO HIGH for SC to remain. Also in this case it is possible to reach this density by increasing the doping, OR decreasing the temperature, OR even increasing the pressure!

I plead again with you: Please stop punching above your featherweight!

ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2012
You then move VERTICALLY through the SC dome so that the charge-carriers increase in density. If this density becomes TOO HIGH before you reach T=0 SC will stop.
It doesn't explain, why most of superconductors don't exhibit this effect - just a small portion of samples.
It is said that a good brain only needs "half-a-word".
A good brain doesn't spout "half-a-words". It doesn't use it at all...;-)
SC the density of orbitals must be above a critical value and you can reach this critical value by reducing the temperature, OR increasing the doping, OR even by increasing pressure
Why are you repeating these notoriously know facts all the time? I'm just discussing the exactly the opposite effect. Whole the last post of yours is therefore solely irrelevant to subject.

I of course do understand your tactic: because you've no explanation for above effect, you're arrogantly repeating the well known facts ad nauseum for not to loose the ground at least at the rhetorical level.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2012
It doesn't explain, why most of superconductors don't exhibit this effect - just a small portion of samples.


I am just astonished that there can exist a human being, like you, who is as stupid as you are. Obviously, the electron-energy spectrum is different in different materials. I have posted it TIME AND AGAIN, TIME AND AGAIN, TIME AND AGAIN: But it just cannot penetrate your brainless skull!

The highest density of charge-carriers that can be reached IS OBVIOUSLY NOT THE SAME IN ALL MATERIALS!!!! If the highest density cannot be reached then OBVIOUSLY you can reach T=0 without SC stopping: AND OBVIOUSLY you can increase the dopant level to its highest level without SC stopping, as in the case of YBCO!

It just does not matter how many times and how patiently I have tried to explain elementary physics to you and posted detailed derivations using mathematics; YOU are just unable to understand ANYTHING IN PHYSICS!!

Are you real or just trying to jerk people off?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2012
A good brain doesn't spout "half-a-words". It doesn't use it at all...;-)
I have explained all issues in such detail to you that even my goldfish will understand it if I made the same effort in explaining it to him.
Why are you repeating these notoriously know facts all the time? I'm just discussing the exactly the opposite effect.
What opposite effect?
I of course do understand your tactic:
I do not use tactics! I do not have to since I understand physics: Something you will NEVER be able to do!

because you've no explanation for above effect,
I have explained it very well. I cannot help that you are too stupid to understand physics.

you're arrogantly repeating the well known facts ad nauseum for not to loose the ground at least at the rhetorical level.
What other choice do I have if these simple facts cannot penetrate you skull. But you might be right: It is a waste of time since you probably have no brains at all.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2012
What opposite effect?
A superinsulator effect...;-) This is what the whole article is about. It's not about your silly theory of superconductivity, which nobody cares anyway. Every attempt for explanation of superconductivity is irrelevant here and it can be even interpreted as a falsification of your theory, because the superinsulation behaves in exactly the opposite way in most aspects of superconductivity.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2012
What opposite effect?
A http://en.wikiped...or...;-) This is what the whole article is about.

Where did superinsulators feature in this report? How for God's sake did you get to this?
It's not about your silly theory of superconductivity, which nobody cares anyway.


A mentally-retarded nincompoop like you who plays with plastic ducks in bath foam is too stupid to call anything "silly".
because the superinsulation behaves in exactly the opposite way in most aspects of superconductivity.


Only an infantile idiot like you will come to such a conclusion. It is EASY to model the superinsulator effect in terms of the SAME mechanism that causes SC. I have already done that years ago. I cannot help it that a moronic crackpot like Karen Southwell thinks, just as stupidly as you do, that she understands enough physics to reject without review
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2012
I have already done that years ago.
LOL, show us (link)...;-)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2012
I have already done that years ago.
LOL, show us (link)...;-)


How the hell can I link it when it is censored by crackpots like Karen Southwell at Nature?

If you send me an e-mail with your qualifications; and they are good enough, I will consider sending you a copy. If you know about the Mott transition, and Anderson-localisation which I am sure you never heard of, or even when you heard of it will NEVER be able to understand, then the explanation of the superinsulator, and the accompanying activation-energies, as reported by Baturina et al is straightforward.

But since you are too stupid to understand that SC has nothing to do with Cooper pairs, you will not be able to follow the simple mathematics. One must at least be capable of doing grade 5 algebra. A person playing with plastic ducks in bath foam and thinking that he is doing physics in this way, is way too mentally retarded to able to follow simple algebra; as you have already proved on this forum.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2012
I have already done that years ago.
LOL, show us (link)...;-)


On pages 271 to 276 of my book "The Physics Delusion" the model for the superinsulator is discussed without using mathematics. I thought you claimed that you have read my books. Just shows you again what a blatant liar you are: Disgusting!!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2012
How the hell can I link it when it is censored by crackpots like Karen Southwell at Nature?
ViXra or another preprint servers aren't censored. But I never read a "superinsulator" word in connection with your name, so for me your case is closed.
If you send me an e-mail with your qualifications; and they are good enough, I will consider sending you a copy.
This is just the approach of mainstream physics: the physicists at the Universities like Wilzcek and others consider you a troll, so they're refusing to communicate with you. You're criticizing this approach heavily at many places of the web - but you're hypocritical/stupid enough to do use the very same approach with respect to another people, like me. So you're essentially deserving your destiny, which is the dying in oblivion, as you probably realized already.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2012
ViXra or another preprint servers aren't censored.
I do not waste my time to post on these servers anymore since the mainstream immediately rejects one (unfairly) as a crackpot when you do: And in this they are probably many times correct since crackpots like you do post on these servers; since they were designed for crackpots like you.
But I never read a "superinsulator" word in connection with your name, so for me your case is closed.


I have just given you the reference above to a chapter in my book which you have claimed that you have read. Why are YOU such a blatant liar? What do you hope to gain by acting with such a total lack of integrity?

This is just the approach of mainstream physics: the physicists at the Universities like Wilzcek and others consider you a troll, so they're refusing to communicate with you.
Do you know Wilczek, or are you just again being totally dishonest as you have been all along?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2012
I have just given you the reference above to a chapter in my book which you have claimed that you have read.
I asked for link explicitly.
..do you know Wilczek, or are you just again being totally dishonest..
Of course I do know prof. Wilczek - he's a famous proponent of aether concept, so I've no problem just with him. He's opened to new ideas with compare to you.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2012
I have already done that years ago.
LOL, show us (link)...;-)

http://www.cathod...nism.pdf
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2012
Of course I do know prof. Wilczek - he's a famous proponent of http://www.scienc...f_Being, so I've no problem just with him. He's opened to new ideas with compare to you.
I know he is a crackpot like you: You do not have to confirm this fact. BUT do you know him personally so that you can claim that he intimated to you that I am troll? You are really a pathetic being: I left out the word "human" because it does not apply to you!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2012
You link doesn't contain 271 to 276 pages. Try it again.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2012
You link doesn't contain 271 to 276 pages. Try it again.
Try pages 23 to 28. It is easy to get different page numbers allocated when you extract a portion of a book. But since you have claimed that you have already read what I have written, why are you now suddenly confused. Just lying again?

You might want to try and read the whole chapter: Many people have; those with degrees in physics as well as many with just plain common sense, and they had no problem following the logic and physics. But in your case I despair!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2012
In this chapter the superinsulator state is described at few lines (not seven pages) - and it arises from "overcooling" of superconductor in similar way, like with its overdoping - is it correct?
Trigonometry
3 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2012
son, you been trolled.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2012
In this chapter the superinsulator state is described at few lines (not seven pages) - and it arises from "overcooling" of superconductor in similar way, like with its overdoping - is it correct?
You are an utter fool! It starts on page 23 and you must read the whole section 23.8 right to the end of page 27.

Obviously you are just too stupid to know that one cannot model a superinsulator within a "few lines" but must give the full history and background of the experimental data. You are the most despicable miscreant I have come across in my life. You have no shame, no integrity and no honesty and hide behind numerous aliases to waste everybody's time. I hope you soon die a horrible death. I will pray for this to happen! Why God allows you to even breath air is a mystery!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2012
It starts on page 23 and you must read the whole section 23.8 right to the end of page 27.
Nope, the first occurrence of "superinsulator" word begins just at the page 27 and after fell lines it continues with entertaining, yet solely irrelevant description of your (un)publishing story Dr. Karen Southwell and others. Of course the superinsulators cannot be explained with the same way, like the rest of HT superconductivity, because they involve superinsulating state, not common insulator state.
I hope you soon die a horrible death. I will pray for this to happen! Why God allows you to even breath air is a mystery!
Well, if nothing else, you're demonstrating for which humane purposes some bigot Christians maintain their God. You're rather entertaining, but slightly repetitive and definitely OT here. Please use the PM feature for such personal announcements, which have nothing to do with the article subject.
Q-Star
2 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2012
Am I the only person to observe the shifting syntax and phraseology in a certain poster?

But even when their affectation slips, the stupid is still consistent.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Dec 02, 2012
It starts on page 23 and you must read the whole section 23.8 right to the end of page 27.
Nope, the first occurrence of "superinsulator" word begins just at the page 27


If you knew your physics, which you have demonstrated repetitively on these forums that you do not by posting the same crackpot duck-and foam stories under different names, you would not state such nonsense.

If your mission was not to dishonestly and criminally try and create the crackpot-impression that you are different persons who think the same, you would have known that the superinsulator state was discovered in amorphous-metal superconductors. Therefore before even using the term "superinsulator" one must first model these amorphous superconductors by using the correct physics which had been developed by the rare mainstream physicists, like Mott and Anderson, who are not crackpots.

But you will not understand this: Since you are not even capable of understanding kindergarten stuff.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Dec 02, 2012
Well, if nothing else, you're demonstrating for which humane purposes some bigot Christians maintain their God.


What makes you think I am a practicing Christian? Are you one? Hardly likely when you corruptly use different aliases to mislead and lie on these forums.
You're rather entertaining, but slightly repetitive and definitely OT here.


If only I could also find YOUR repetitive "ducks and foam" hallucinations entertaining: But you are a dishonest bore who do not have enough grey matter between your ears to EVER understand even the most elementary physics one can find in primary school texts.

Yea yea yea! When are you going to invent another alias to post the same duck and foam nonsense? ValeriaT, Natello, etc. are becoming a pain in the ass!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Dec 02, 2012
OK - in another words, you've no explanation for superinsulator state and you never had - despite the claiming opposite at this forum. Now you just feel upset with me, because I revealed it patiently. IMO you're old chap full of hate, because of your feeling, your life was wasted - am I wrong?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Dec 02, 2012
But even when their affectation slips, the stupid is still consistent.


The worst thing that can happen to a successful scientist is to pick up a moron along the way who defends some of your ideas for wrong and insane reasons.

ValeriaT, Natello, or whatever, is such an embarrassment in my case. This person will always cling to his fantasies no matter how out of sync they are with experimental evidence and data.

Unfortunately, this crackpot behaviour is also found among mainstream physicists like Wilczek. The problem is that ValeriaT or what have you, makes crackpots like Wilczek with their "anyons" look "normal".
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Dec 02, 2012
OK - in another words, you've no explanation for superinsulator state and you never had - despite the claiming opposite at this forum.


It is perfectly explained in the lead I gave to you; and as I have offered, I will e-mail you the original manuscript that I submited to Nature, which crackpot Karen Southwell was too stupid to even read.

But it will probably not help since you are even more stupid: So all I will do in future is to respond to you under any alias as: Yea! Yea! Yea! Another "duck and foam" hallucination! Maybe you should try a new euphemism: What about "cock and bull"?

"Superinsulator: It should be noted that there exits a threshold density of localised states above the gap, below which Nearest-Neighbour Hopping is impossible. Thus at if a temperature T the Wigner orbitals cannot form a connective pathway from contact to contact, and if .. the density of states above the gap is too low for NNH to manifest, no charge transport is possible at all."
Minich
1 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2012
For cuprates superinsulator becomes of pseudogap.
Pseudogap is INSULATING gap in any case in some directions of elektron wave vector.
When "pseudogap" wave vectors are all wave vectors then the material becomes INSULATING. At any angle in this case there is pseudogap insulating gap. Fermi surface in this case lies between valence band and conductance band, id est in GAP completely.

Pseudogap is very simple to comprehend. We must go beyond standard "Bloch waves" and go beyond Peyerls instability. There is simple symmetry breakedown of translational crystall symmetry :)

Minich
1 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2012
When Bozovich was in Moscow i tried to meet him to suggest experiments in RTS, but in vain.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Dec 05, 2012
For cuprates superinsulator becomes of pseudogap.
Although the "pseudogap" (which is a misnomer) cannot be observed in all superconductors it does form as a precursor within ALL superconductors; also the low-temperature metals and semiconductor superconductors.
Pseudogap is INSULATING gap in any case in some directions of elektron wave vector.
At least this you got right": It is in all cases a Mott-type insulator: Such insulating phases have been modelled in terms of Mott- and Anderson-transitions.
When "pseudogap" wave vectors are all wave vectors then the material becomes INSULATING.
What do you mean all "wave-vectors"?.
At any angle in this case there is pseudogap insulating gap.
Why?

Fermi surface in this case lies between valence band and conductance band,
More specifically between the conduction band and the Mott-type localised orbitals. In p-type diamond it lies between the valence-band and Mott-type localised hole-orbitals.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2012
Pseudogap is very simple to comprehend. We must go beyond standard "Bloch waves" and go beyond Peyerls instability. There is simple symmetry breakedown of translational crystall symmetry :)
Really? So you are saying that a "pseudogap"-phase cannot form within a perfect crystal? This is utter nonsense.

It has NOTHING to do with the crystal symmetry at all. A Mott-phase can form within an electron-energy gap of a perfect crystal, when, for example doping the crystal, or by the formation of localised states within an energy-gap of a non-ideal metal (for example, the Wigner-mechanism). This is why these metals can superconduct while near-ideal metals like copper and gold cannot.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2012
I do agree with Johann in this point: the superconductivity is about the state of electrons within lattice, therefore the pseudogap phase is about state of electrons too - not about state of lattice.


Thanks!

All you still have to do is to forget about Cooper Pairs, which just like boson-force-"particles" do not exist, and to realize that WITHIN all the SC materials discovered to date a Bose-Einstein Condensate has NOTHING to do with SC.

The thermodynamic-statistics in these SC's has activation energy and is thus purely Boltzmann-statistics. Unless another phase transition occurs, the distinguishable constituents subject to Boltzmann-stats. can also end up in the SAME low energy state: Whether they are bosons or fermions is irrelevant. When their density is high enough SC occurs by hopping-conduction where the energy for hopping is NOT supplied by temperature fluctuations but by quantum fluctuations.
Minich
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2012
Parent element for "CUPRATE" type superconductor can be ANY insulator, not only Mott insulator. And not only insulator.
Favorite case is hole like electron orbitals near Fermi surface (plus Hall coefficient).

"Pseudogap" insulator has nothing to do with notorious localization of electrons. There is another "insulating" mechanism.

Pseudogap state does not perfect crystall. It is slightly (a VERY little bit) broken crystall form. Ions add additional motion to the ion's crystall lattice. This motion has already been observed :]
as line widening in ARPES experiments when pseudogap emerges. Nobody paid attention to such widening of Bragg peaks.
Minich
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2012
You can see example of line broadening in the PhD thesis of Koralek
"Koralek thesis" на Яндекс.Фотках
http://img-fotki....-1-L.jpg
Minich
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2012
Or see Vishik_review10.pdf
http://arpes.stan...ew10.pdf

Search word "broad" :)

There are such phrases as
"reveals particle–hole asymmetry and anomalous spectral broadening, which may constrain the explanation for the pseudogap"
"Remarkably, the EDCs at 160K are much sharper
than those at 10 K, opposite to conventional thermal broadening. This suggests that something
must intervene at intermediate temperatures to produce such broad features at low temperature."
And so on :)))))))

http://www.bild.m...ning.png
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2012
Parent element for "CUPRATE" type superconductor can be ANY insulator, not only Mott insulator.
If there is no precursor "insulator" consisting of localized electronic-orbitals superconduction cannot occur AT ALL!

Favorite case is hole like electron orbitals near Fermi surface (plus Hall coefficient).
In the cuprates electrons are donated from the crystallographic layers to form localised orbitals BETWEEN the layers. Holes thus remain within the crystallographic layers which can conduct in this manner.

If this conduction dominates you will NOT observe the hopping conduction between the layers until their density is high enough to dominate, or to cause superconduction. Although the holes WITHIN the layers are NOT the Mott-orbital precursor between the layers, this conduction will not be there unless the precursor MOTT-type insulator does not form!

Thus, also this hole conduction with Hall coefficient is PROOF that the MOTT-type insulating layer is forming!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2012
"Pseudogap" insulator has nothing to do with notorious localization of electrons.
NOPE! The so-called "pseudogap"-phase can only form when localised orbitals form.

In most cuprates these orbitals form BETWEEN the crystallographic layers. The hole conduction WITHIN the layers is thus PROOF that this MOTT-insulator is forming BETWEEN the layers.

Pseudogap state does not perfect crystall. It is slightly (a VERY little bit) broken crystall form.


Most of the CuO ceramics are non-stochiometric, and are "doped" by changing the stochiometry. The more non-stochiometric, the less perfect the crystal will be.

This, however, DOES NOT prove that the precursor to the SC phase is not a Mott-type insulating phase. Obviously normal hopping through this MOTT-phase will only be measured when there is NOT another conducting mechanism dominating, as you have in lo-temp metals, and in ceramics where hole conduction within the crystallographic-layers dominate.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2012
You can see example of line broadening in the PhD thesis of Koralek
"Koralek thesis" на Яндекс.Фотках
http://img-fotki....-1-L.jpg


So what?

Or see Vishik_review10.pdf


Again so what? These results DO NOT PROVE that the precursor phase is NOT a Mott-insulator.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2012
"Remarkably, the EDCs at 160K are much sharper than those at 10 K, opposite to conventional thermal broadening. This suggests that something must intervene at intermediate temperatures to produce such broad features at low temperature."


At high temperature the donors within the crystallographic layers have donated fewer electrons to form localised orbitals between the layers. At low temperatures, these electrons are more and have thus formed a much higher density of localised orbitals between the crystallographic layers; and in addition left a high density of holes behind within the layers.

Although holes and orbitals are only electronic-flaws, their presence acts like "defects" which can distort the crystal-lattice. Since there are more of these defects present at low temperature than at high temperature, there is nothing "remarkable" about having "sharper" data at 160 K than at 10 K.
Minich
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2012
To johanfprins
Don't be such a stupid man :)

Your explanations of the nature of pseudagap and superconductivity are not founded on quantum mechanics. I know what i say. By the way, i graduated QUANTUM MECHANICS department, headed by Vladimir Fock at the beginning of 1970. Do you know "Fock space", "Hartree-Fock method" and so on?

Your knowledge of quantum mechanics is alike knowledge of a pupil in ordinary rural secondary school, excuse me, please.

The Fock's department was very hard to get to. It was 1 of 75 others who could get to this department in competition at my time. It was not help any money to get to, only talent and ability to cope with the hardest programm in physics and mathematics of Fock department.

BTW, George Gamow, Lev Landau, our Presidents Putin and Medvedev (Law Faculty) are my alumni. Mendeleev was the professor of our Leningrad State University...

Leningrad State University (St. Petersburg) was and is the best University in the Russian Empire then and now!
Minich
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2012
"Koralek thesis" http://img-fotki....-1-L.jpg So what? Or see Vishik_review10.pdf

Broadening of Bragg peaks in underdoped cuprate and anomalous thermo broadening at Vishik rewiew is consequence of breakedown in translational crystall symmetry, if you have no imagination.
Minich
1 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2012
It is interesting, that in Korean journal
http://icpr.snu.a...0001.pdf
Schrieffer exactly wrote down the reason why BCS could not predict High Temperature Superconductors. Becouse Bardeen and CS thought, that "electrons and phonons do not couple through uniformly translation of the lattice". And BCS were and are WRONG! :)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2012
To johanfprins
Don't be such a stupid man :)

Your explanations of the nature of pseudagap and superconductivity are not founded on quantum mechanics.
YOU are the MOST stupid man (except for ValeriaT) who I have EVER come across. My model is completely based on quantum mechanics. The formation of MOTT-orbitals has been modeled by Mott ONLY in terms of quantum mechanics, and quantum fluctuations which allow these orbitals to move and superconduct are purely quantum mechanical: i.e. (delta)E*delta(t).

I know what i say.
Nonsense
By the way, i graduated QUANTUM MECHANICS department, headed by Vladimir Fock at the beginning of 1970. Do you know "Fock space", "Hartree-Fock method" and so on?
Yes I do. I was even stupid enough to teach the SAME claptrap to my students during the 1970's. NOTE it is now 2012: What we thought was valid in 1970 is totally outdated after the work by by REAL physicists like Mott.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2012
Your knowledge of quantum mechanics is alike knowledge of a pupil in ordinary rural secondary school
You are a certifiable crackpot to make such a statement without any proof.
The Fock's department was very hard to get to.
This does not mean that Fock knew what he was doing!
It was 1 of 75 others who could get to this department in competition at my time. It was not help any money to get to, only talent and ability to cope with the hardest programm in physics and mathematics of Fock department.
A pity that you wasted your time AND money to study such claptrap. (Complicated maths)=(wrong physics)!

George Gamow, Lev Landau, our Presidents Putin and Medvedev (Law Faculty) are my alumni. Mendeleev was the professor of our Leningrad State University...
Only crackpots throw around names to enhance their own stature. If you are so good, post your publications. My model on SC is on my webpage. If you do not agree with it, criticize it in terms of REAL physics.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2012
Leningrad State University (St. Petersburg) was and is the best University in the Russian Empire then and now!
But is this the best in the world? I do not think so. I personally know Russian physicists for whom I have the greatest respect; but it is worrying that so much of Russian theoretical physics is based on phenomenology. Using such a model is an admission that you do not know what the hell you are really doing. The Ginsberg-Landau model for SC is such a useless model. It explains nothing!

Broadening of Bragg peaks in underdoped cuprate and anomalous thermo broadening at Vishik rewiew is consequence of breakedown in translational crystall symmetry, if you have no imagination.
So? If you cannot explain WHY there is this "breakdown" you do not know the mechanism involved; which is exactly the case for all mainstream theories on SC, from Ginsberg-Landau, to BCS right-p to the claptrap that was spouted by Eliashberg.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2012
Schrieffer exactly wrote down the reason why BCS could not predict High Temperature Superconductors. Becouse Bardeen and CS thought, that "electrons and phonons do not couple through uniformly translation of the lattice". And BCS were and are WRONG! :)
BCS is not wrong because of this reason: It is wrong because one does not need electron-phonon interaction to have superconduction. Electron-coupling by "phonon-exchange" only occurs in Alice's Wonderland!

Superconduction also occurs when the charge-carriers are singly charged.

ValeriaT
1 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2012
Your knowledge of quantum mechanics is alike knowledge of a pupil in ordinary rural secondary school
You are a certifiable crackpot to make such a statement without any proof.
Given the fact, you never understood the particle-wave duality of QM, I tend to agree with Minich in this matter.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2012
Given the fact, you never understood the particle-wave duality of QM, I tend to agree with Minich in this matter.


Why must I "understand" something that only exists in the minds of crackpots?

There is NO "wave-particle duality". Everything in the world, whether on the macro-scale or the quantum-scale consists of EM-waves: NOTHING ELSE!

And all differential wave equations, including Schroedinger's equation, are equations for EM energy: i.e. they are Maxwell's equations.

As I have posted over and over on this forum WITH PROOF: If you start with the SAME relativistic equation that Dirac had started with and use THE same calculus substitutions for momentum and energy, and then use NORMAL algebra (which does not allow you to replace a square root with matrices, as Dirac has done for no logical reason whatsoever) you obtain Maxwell's equation for EM-energy moving with a speed v which is less than the speed of light. Thus, a freely-moving electron is a coherent EM-wave.
Minich
1 / 5 (3) Dec 07, 2012
:))))
Mott has done NOTHING in REAL superconductivity theory.
So did NOTHING in REAL superconductivity theory Gorkov and Eliashberg, they had WRONG idea.
Almost nobody in the west does know RUSSIAN physisists :)
West knows mainly JEW soviet physisist :)
such as Landau, Halatnikov, Gorkov, Lipshits and so on...

In USSR and in nowadays Russia there exist JEW mafia in theoretical phyics.

JEW mafia exist also in economics. Almost all Russia billionears are JEW :))))
Read Forbes for example :0
Compare, we in Russia have 3% (three percent!!!!) of jews of all population.
Of course all russians are alcoholic and disabled :))))
Minich
1 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2012
I know the real mechanism of ANY superconductivity since 1980.
I know the real mechanism of pseudogap since september 2009.

I worked in defence industry of USSR more than 20 years. It was impossible publish ANYTHING those days for me. My job was not connected with superconductivity, it was robotics and real time operating systems. I made OS like qnx.com and Android in 1979.

We in Russia are preparing programm for RTS analoguos to Reagan initiative 1988:
http://www.fas.or...9024.pdf

My alumni and Russia President Putin, i think, has the ability to implement our hopes and beat americans in RTS race.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2012
:))))
Mott has done NOTHING in REAL superconductivity theory.
He laid the basis for the correct model without realizing it.

So did NOTHING in REAL superconductivity theory Gorkov and Eliashberg, they had WRONG idea.
At least on this we agree: All models from Russia on superconduction have been claptrap!

Almost nobody in the west does know RUSSIAN physisists :)
West knows mainly JEW soviet physisist :)
such as Landau, Halatnikov, Gorkov, Lipshits and so on...
You are again spouting absolute nonsense without ANY proof whatsoever.

In USSR and in nowadays Russia there exist JEW mafia in theoretical phyics.
I am not interested in your demented racism.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2012
I know the real mechanism of ANY superconductivity since 1980.
I know the real mechanism of pseudogap since september 2009.
According to the claptrap you are spouting here, you do not even understand Ohm's law: So how the hell can you understand SC.

I worked in defence industry of USSR more than 20 years. It was impossible publish ANYTHING those days for me. My job was not connected with superconductivity, it was robotics and real time operating systems. I made OS like qnx.com and Android in 1979.
So what!!

We in Russia are preparing programm for RTS analoguos to Reagan initiative 1988:
http://www.fas.or...9024.pdf

My alumni and Russia President Putin, i think, has the ability to implement our hopes and beat americans in RTS race.


You are hallucinating! Both the Americans and you are barking up the same wrong tree. Neither of you know enough physics to recognize a RTS even when it falls into your laps. Go and see a psychiatrist!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2012
Your knowledge of quantum mechanics is alike knowledge of a pupil in ordinary rural secondary school
Schroedinger's equation, are equations for EM energy: i.e. they are Maxwell's equations.

I'd say "primary school" instead - but I may be biased...
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2012
I'd say "primary school" instead - but I may be biased...


I posted physics and a mathematical derivation using the same starting equation as Dirac has used, and the same calculus operators that Dirac has used and I derive Maxwell's equation.

Not once did you come back and criticize my quantitative physics based on logical and impeccable mathematics: Most probably because you are too stupid and incapable of doing secondary school algebra and are too busy playing with your plastic ducks while madly splashing around in the foam of your baby bathtubs.

You have not yet even reached "primary school" but are clearly still in Kindergarten: Most probably still in your nappies!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2012
@ ValeriaT: Let me try again to get something through your thick skull.

(m*c^2)^2=p^2*c^2.plus.(m(e)*c^2)^2

For difference in m and m(e) small write m=m(e).plus.(delta)m,

Substitute and neglect higher order terms of (delta)m, and you obtain that:

E=((delta)m*c^2)= p^2/(2*m(e)): Replace E with i*(d/dt) and p=-i*(DEL) and you obtain Schroedinger's equation.

If you DO NOT derive by setting higher order terms to zero, you get Maxwell's equation for the electron. Thus, Schroedinger's equation IS Maxwell's equation when the difference between m and m(e) is small.

Are you able to get this through your THICK BONY SKULL?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2012
You can derive mathematically, the Sun is revolving the Earth around epicycles and/or the Earth has a hollow inside it, with a small sun (1.000 km across) at the centre, providing light and warmth for an inner-Earth civilization. After all, we have mathematical evidence of particle-wave duality or Big bang theories too. It's just one math against another one. Bonus: proof, that the electron is close-looped photon.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2012
You can derive mathematically, the http://astro.unl....aic.swf.


No wonder that the foam around you in you bathtub is brown and smelly!

Do you accept that the way that Schroedinger got to his wave equation, for a free electron, has been a very good approach? So good that Dirac tried to follow the same route; except that Dirac was an autistic fool who not only thought, but also advocated, that mathematics can be fudged to get the physics you want.

I do not believe the latter, and found that WITHOUT doing this, and following the rules that both Schroedinger and Dirac have followed, I get a Maxwell's equation for a free electron moving with ANY speed less than the speed of light.

If my derivation is wrong, then Schroedinger;s derivation is wrong! Do you state that we should not use Schroedinger's equation?

For nearly 80 years, the application of this equation was the ONLY positive advance in QM. Notwithstanding crackpot notions like "w-p" duality.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2012
@ ValeriaT,

Why the hell do I keep on arguing with a troll like you.

EA! YEA! YEA! Epicycles are real, wave=particle reality is real, diffraction by particles is real, multiverses are real, a participating universe is real, physics is Voodoo, like you want to believe. So just F-OFF!!

How about changing your nappies more often to keep your ducks and foam clesn?
Minich
1 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2012
Who can explain Chapnik rule for superconductivity correlated with pozirive Hall COEFFICIENT??? He-He-He...
http://www.bild.m...1962.png
Or phase diagramm for cuprates???

Go, johanfprins. Hehehe.
Minich
1 / 5 (3) Dec 07, 2012
By the way I.M.Chapnik is of russian origin. His famous work of 1962y [2] was published in Russia:
References
[l] J.O. Linde and 6. Rapp, Phys. Lett. 70A (1979) 147.
[2] I.M. Chapnik, Sov. Phys. Dokl. 6 (1962) 988.
[3] J.P. Jan, Solid State Physics, Vol. 5 (Academic Press, New
York, 1957). p. 1.
[4] C.M. Hurd, The Hall effect of metals and alloys (Plenum,
New York, 1972).
256
Minich
1 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2012
See also Hirsch: http://physics.uc...sym2.pdf
Though Hirsch's efforts to give "hole superconductivity theory" are rather childish and are smiling at.
http://www-physic...hall.gif
http://frolih.nar...band.jpg
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 08, 2012
Who can explain Chapnik rule for superconductivity correlated with pozirive Hall COEFFICIENT??? He-He-He...


You only posted the first page and I cannot afford to buy the whole article on my pension money. There is NO Chapnik Rule on the first page.

All that the Hall cooefficient at room temperature proves is that the majority carriers for NORMAL conduction are negatively-charged wave-packets or positively-charged wave-packets: So what?

Or phase diagramm for cuprates???
The phase diagram for the cuprates is easily modelled in terms of the fact that the superconducting charge-carriers must be Mott-type orbitals which exceeds a critical density. I have already explained to you above how its works; but it seems that it cannot penetrate the ossified bone between your ears! Are the majority of Russian physicists as stupid as you are?

Go, johanfprins. Hehehe.
I have already done what you asked more than 8 years ago.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 08, 2012
See also Hirsch:


Quote from Hirsch's abstract: "No such explanation is provided
by most proposed superconductivity mechanisms including the electron-phonon interaction".

Thus he admits that the accepted mainstream models based on pair formation cannot model all the aspects of superconduction. In contrast my model can. That this is so is posted in summarized format on my website. Why do you not read what I have written and criticize rather than posting articles by crackpots like Chapnik and Hirsh? Oh of course, I forgot, you are an incompetent Russian physicist!

Hirsch's explanation is nothing else than POPPYCOCK!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 08, 2012
Why, in God's name has it become impossible to discuss physics as it is supposed to be discussed? Just look at crackpots like ValeriaT and Minich on this thread!

All physicists are supposed to know that any new idea might be wrong, BUT ALSO THAT ANY ACCEPTED IDEA, NO MATTER FOR HOW LONG IT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED TO BE CORRECT, MIGHT BE WRONG!

I am not claiming that I am correct in my ideas, but why are my models, which perfectly fit the data that the the mainstream models cannot fit, consistently being censored by editors WITHOUT giving any reason based on the physics content of the manuscript, other than to protest that it contradicts what the mainstream believes is correct.

You are not allowed to publish by any of the the nincompoops in control of the "peer-reviewed" journals and when you try to get your ideas across by other means, you are ignored as a "crackpot" since your manuscripts have not been accepted by these journals.

CAN ANY SYSTEM DEVISED BY MANKINd BE MORE CORRUPT?
Minich
1 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2012
"I am not claiming that I am correct in my ideas"
I see.
And I am shure, I am correct.
My ideas will be published soon. But AFTER my letter to our President Putin be sent.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2012
"I am not claiming that I am correct in my ideas"
I see.
And I am shure, I am correct.
Yes I know that you believe this! This is why you are not a physicist's ASShole. The golden rule in physics is that no matter how well your theory fits experimental data (which your theory does not even do) you must always be ready to accept that new data might prove you wrong. If you do not live by this rule, you are the crackpot of crackpots in physics. We already have too many of your kind in charge of modern physics!

My ideas will be published soon. But AFTER my letter to our President Putin be sent.
Not even Putin can change the fact that you are a crackpot!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (1) Dec 10, 2012
Guys, your mutual interactions had become so intensive, you're getting separated from the subjects of this thread in similar way, like the motion of Cooper pair from the rest of superconductor lattice...
rubberman
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2012
I figured I would pop over to the physics forum and see how you were doing Johan.... This new russian nazi guy seems a little off.

"Given the fact, you never understood the particle-wave duality of QM, I tend to agree with Minich in this matter." - VT

Hi Val. It isn't that he didn't understand it, he rightfully put the notion in it's place. When a working model of the universe that can be tested and verified, or at least modelled to match observation is finally produced, it will be based around wave interaction and charge as much as gravity.
Minich
1 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2012
To rubberman
I am not nazi. All people are equal in their rights to be happy. I am against CRIMINAL ETHNIC GROUPS, slavic, russian, jew or ukranian...
I have jew friends, by the way.
How i can be nazi, if i love my homeland? My dad had been lost near Stalingrad in WW2, my uncle had oficcially documented shot dead two german nazies and attacked Berlin, my dad's brother had fighted with luftvaffe as a pilot, broked leg, was decorated by Red Star Order...
Be carefull with your lips.
Minich
1 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2012
To johanfprins
I see, your linguistics is closer to asshole than to physics.
Are you a guy?
Minich
1 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2012
To professional in physics (quantum mechanics).
All the experimental data, published in Nature or Science on HTS, for last 4 years are in good accodance with my ideas and calculations. I don't know even one fact in published experimental papers, that i can't explain.

And my ideas work not only for HTS, but also for superfluidity, quantum fractional hall effect and even as model notorious expanding Universe :)

Putin is neaded for Room temperature superconducting race between USA and Russia. It much more influent race than MOON race.
Transistor revolution is a mouse revolition compared to RTS revolution. And not only in superconductivity. Neutrons also can change the Nuclear pouwer stations energy world, nuclear submarine world, spacecrafts world, sea ships, airplane world...
There is pseudogaps and superfluidity for neutron propagating waves. See at pulsar neutron stars shake. It is not superfluid, it is pseudogap neutron shake.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Dec 11, 2012
All the experimental data, published in Nature or Science on HTS, for last 4 years are in good accodance with my ideas and calculations. I don't know even one fact in published experimental papers, that i can't explain.
My model does the same AND it explains where the kinetic-energy comes from for the charge-carriers to move without the kinetic-energy dissipating. Your models cannot!

And my ideas work not only for HTS, but also for superfluidity, quantum fractional hall effect and even as model notorious expanding Universe :)
So does mine! And this is not occurring owing to the formation of a Bose-Einstein condensate but owing to a Boltzmann-Quantum condensate. YOU DO NOT NEED BOSONS!!!!

Putin is neaded for Room temperature superconducting race between USA and Russia. It much more influent race than MOON race.
If Putin wants to win this race he will be well-advised NOT to listen to you. You provide the best chance that the USA will win!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Dec 11, 2012
... This new russian nazi guy seems a little off.
He is the crackpots of crackpots!
Hi Val. It isn't that he didn't understand it, he rightfully put the notion in it's place. When a working model of the universe that can be tested and verified, or at least modelled to match observation is finally produced, it will be based around wave interaction and charge as much as gravity.


It is just a simple fact that an electron which passes by at a high speed must according to Einstein's STR have an increase in mass from rest mass m(e) to m larger than m(e): Furthermore, if you correct Einstein's derivation of a contracting rod, you will find that the electron becomes longer, and that it develops a phase angle along its length which gives it a frequency (omega) so that (hbar)*(omega)=m*c^2, as it must be.

Einstein's STR has already proved that a moving electron must itself be an EM-wave; within which the EM-energy (mass-energy) increases as the electron's speed increases.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Dec 11, 2012
do you know about vortex rings?

Yes.
Are these artifacts waves or rather particles?

They are circular fields which differ from conservative fields.
Do you consider yourself wave or rather particle phenomenologically?
I am totally composed of EM energy-fields, which, when stationary within an inertial reference-frame (IRF), constitute my rest-mass, AND since I am moving relative to all the other IRF's, my EM-energy is higher within these IRF's so that I have additional dynamic mass when measured within one of these IRF's.
Does the atom, atom nuclei or Sun, stars and planet appear like waves or rather like particles?

First define what you mean by "appear like a particle"?
Does the particle concept exist for you at all?

Not anymore! Why do you need a "particle" when the energy of an EM-field, whether stationary or not acts as distributed mass with a center-of-mass: How will you prove by a falsifiable exp. that an electron is a "particle"?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 11, 2012
If an entity has. a center-of-mass MUST ...
It can be soliton too. i.e. mixture of waves.

Then it is still a wave-field: But a moving electron is not a soliton, it is a coherent wave or else it would not diffract.
But it cannot be wave, because the wave has no beginning nor end.
Prove this to me experimentally: You keep on claiming this nonsense while we know experimentally that it IS physically possible to have a coherent wave of a finite length.
Wave can never have rest mass.

A wave-field that moves with a speed less than the speed of light MUST have rest-mass: It is possible for an IRF to move with such a wave: The wave's EM energy is then stationary within this IRF and MUST thus be the wave's rest-energy=rest-mass.
Particles always have rest mass.
I ask you again to explain how you are going to determine whether an entity with a center-of-mass is "particle" and not something else! Please TRY and THINK! It is difficult, but can be very rewarding!
rubberman
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 11, 2012
To rubberman
I am not nazi. All people are equal in their rights to be happy. I am against CRIMINAL ETHNIC GROUPS, slavic, russian, jew or ukranian...
I have jew friends, by the way.
How i can be nazi, if i love my homeland? My dad had been lost near Stalingrad in WW2, my uncle had oficcially documented shot dead two german nazies and attacked Berlin, my dad's brother had fighted with luftvaffe as a pilot, broked leg, was decorated by Red Star Order...
Be carefull with your lips.


Heed your own advice then Minich. The race of anyone carries far less meaning in todays world, as you have just said and demonstrated by example.
Minich
1 / 5 (2) Dec 11, 2012
To rubberman

The race of ANYONE carries nothing at all :)
The race of CRIMINAL GROUP carries ALL.

For example Jew Criminal Group is well organized in banking area, education, science,...
Russian Criminal Group is famous for keeping the word
Chinese... Chechen.... Tatar... Muslim..

SO, the race of anyone carries far MUCH meaning in todays world!!!!!!

Remember apartheid in South Africa, racist regime in Israel, QQQ in USA,...
Minich
1 / 5 (2) Dec 11, 2012
To johanfprins
"My model does the same"

Excuse, Your model? I did not noticed any model. Must i have a a very huge microscope to notice your model?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 11, 2012
To johanfprins
"My model does the same"

Excuse, Your model? I did not noticed any model. Must i have a a very huge microscope to notice your model?
No! You just have to open your stupid eyes: I will again post where you can find it in summarized form.

http://www.cathod...nism.pdf
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 11, 2012
To johanfprins
"My model does the same"

Excuse, Your model? I did not noticed any model. Must i have a a very huge microscope to notice your model?
BTW: Where is your so-called "perfect" model? With Vladimir Putin?
rubberman
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 11, 2012
To rubberman

The race of ANYONE carries nothing at all :)
The race of CRIMINAL GROUP carries ALL.

For example Jew Criminal Group is well organized in banking area, education, science,...
Russian Criminal Group is famous for keeping the word
Chinese... Chechen.... Tatar... Muslim..

SO, the race of anyone carries far MUCH meaning in todays world!!!!!!

Remember apartheid in South Africa, racist regime in Israel, QQQ in USA,...


Crime is crime, whether the "masterminds" behind criminal groups are all of one decent or not, they do not only target one group for their crimes, this is why these groups go by names rather than racial designations, regardless of their membership, The KKK accept all white members and target all non whites...and some whites. The russian mafia has black members, islamists...anyone looking to do "that kind of work". The chinese have the triads, with white affiliates here in NA...the hells angels just require that you ride a Harley...
Minich
1 / 5 (2) Dec 11, 2012
To johanfprins
Your link to "your model" is the link to humanitarian educated in jungles.
The Black Square by Malevich is more talanted superconductivity model than johanfprins's so called "model":
Google black square malevich

Where is hamiltonian of your model and the wave function solution?
Russian usually say for such models: water, water, water...
You should better stay good experimentalist than bad theoretician... in mankind memory.
Minich
1 / 5 (2) Dec 11, 2012
Our the world-famous Vladimir Fock prefered phrase "Hamilton function" and not "Hamilton-ian".
Our Orthodox Chirch armenian people as a rule have "ian" in their family names in the end.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 11, 2012
Where is hamiltonian of your model and the wave function solution?
If you know your physics, which you obviously do not, you will know the derivations of Mott and Anderson about localized states and NOT be such a complete Asshole!
Russian usually say for such models: water, water, water...
Only a "Russian like you" who is a certifiable crackpot idiot. Thank God I personally know, and have known Russian physicists with brains, or else I would have, with you as an example, considered Russian physicists as sub-human: This is what you are!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 11, 2012
Our the world-famous Vladimir Fock prefered phrase "Hamilton function" and not "Hamilton-ian".
Fock was a confused Fock-up. His books were claptrap! His thoughts were garbled and absolutely useless! So PLEASE base your arguments on PHYSICS, not on the writings of a confused idiot!
Minich
1 / 5 (2) Dec 12, 2012
To "Asshole" in quantum mechanics :)
You'd rather not to combine Nevill Mott and PW Anderson to your asshole company.

They (Mott and Andeson) could be the second or third to discover the origin of superconductivity, but failed, unfortunately for them. Your "asshole" tong smell. Whom do you want to talk to? To asshole? Asshole is the main YOUR problem communicating with decent people.

Fare thee well
And if forever
Still foreever
Fare thee well
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 12, 2012
To "Asshole" in quantum mechanics :)


You are criminally dishonest and deceitful. You claim to have a perfect model for superconduction based on a concocted Fock-Hamilton-operator; but it is nowhere to be found.

I gave you a link to my mechanism, and in this link there are three examples which cannot be modeled by BCS or any other model I have ever seen. Look at the data on Lead, YBCO, and p-type diamond. Then give me the equations, derived from your so-called model that can fit this data. The proof is in the eating: Not by throwing around names like that of Putin and what have you!.

If you do not post a link to your model, and fit your model to this data, it will be incontrovertible proof that it is an insult to an asshole to call you one! An asshole still performs a useful function: You serve no useful purpose at all!


Minich
1 / 5 (2) Dec 12, 2012
To specialist in assholed quantum mechanics
BCS theory is not correct theory, it is rather WRONG theory, so do WRONG theories of superfluidity by N.N. Bogoliubov and by Lev Landau. But my aim is not to prove that BCS (Landau,...) theories are wrong theories. My aim is to give CORRECT theory, which can:
1. Explain main experimental facts in superfluid/supersolid/superconducting events on ONE BASIC priciple. For electron liquid, for Helium 4 and Helium 3 liquids, for neutrons in neutron stars (pulsars), for neutrons in neutron optics devices... 2. Can help to design NEW CHEAP room temperature superconductors (carbon organics artificial polymers,...)
3. Can help to design NEW materials for retention, reflection and manipulation of neutron fluids in nuclear power reactors.
4. Can help to invent new models of elementary particles, beside Standard model.
5. Can help explain photon ageing, expanding Universe...

Full publication of my results is MY right, it is not my duty. Russia be first!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 12, 2012
@ Minich,

So you do not have a model which you are willing to produce, but you have the arrogance to attack my model without giving any argument based on real physics.

I ask you again to use your model in order to fit the data on lead, YBCO and p-type diamond, which I use as examples; and which cannot be modeled by any other model I know of. YOU CANNOT: Because you are a liar! If I were a Russian I would be terribly ashamed of you.

Model the data or shut up!
Minich
1 / 5 (2) Dec 12, 2012
To assholed specialist.
I already modeled my model of superconductor in 1980. The story about it you can read in russian on my personal site:
http://love.minich.ru
Mezhov-Deglin from Chernogolovka Institute of Solid State Physics of Russan Academy of Sciences remembers our talk. We even exchanged some email about it recently. He defended former Director of Landau Institute of Theoretical Physics, former Lev Landau pupil I.M. Halatnikov. Halatnikov refused me in entrance exams (Landau theoretical-minimum) to LITP on the reason that I am russian (not jew). But I am direct evidence :)

The pseudogap idea came much later. See about it there:
http://forum.lebe...p?t=2866

I already have pdf file electronically signed by me and Acrobat.com partner
https://www.echos...ome.html
That was done of priority reason, to fix date and article content.

But why do i must to be in a hurry? :)
I don't see anybody competitor :)
Minich
1 / 5 (2) Dec 12, 2012
I'll do my best for my Russia and then for other countries.
Now i prepare my suggestions to initiate Government State Programm on RTS to Putin. When it be done and sent, i can bother about me personally. And sent my full paper to internet and Nature.com
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 12, 2012
I'll do my best for my Russia and then for other countries.
Now i prepare my suggestions to initiate Government State Programm on RTS to Putin. When it be done and sent, i can bother about me personally. And sent my full paper to internet and Nature.com


I hope Putin is not such a fool that he takes YOU seriously. I again challenge you to model known data on superconduction with your model and show us how well it fits. I am sure you cannot! All you want to do is to try and bamboozle the Russian government out of money. I hope that once Putin realizes this he will have a Stalin moment: YOU deserve it!
Minich
1 / 5 (2) Dec 12, 2012
Stalin and russian people won the heaviest war in the world.
Russians took over Berlin and half of Europe. Why do you think USA and Greate Britain could not do it (take over Berlin)?
By the way we, Russia, celebrate 200 years victory over Napoleon in 1812. Our cossaks entered Paris in that war. We fired Moscow then, but won the war.
Be careful with your lips about Stalin. He was the leader of our country in the WW2 and WON the WAR!!!
Putin and I graduated Leningrad State University both in 1975 and have some common friends in the past. I think Putin decides himself whom to listen to :)
And even if President Putin postpone his decision why do you bother?
Your so called "model" is already published and exposed to everybody to laugh at. Take it easy. My publication is MY problem. And it is MY problem to fight for MY publication in Nature.com with editors and referees. Why cycling on FIGHT?
I.d better publish my electronically signed pdf in internet on my web site.
Minich
1 / 5 (2) Dec 12, 2012
To be correct theory it is not necessary to reconsile the interest with everybody :)

With Scalapino, Mike Norman, PW Anderson, johanfprins..
:))))))))))))
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 13, 2012
Your so called "model" is already published and exposed to everybody to laugh at.


So far, my model fits all published data on superconduction which I could lay my hands on. NO other model I know of can claim this. In contrast, you have no experimental proof whatsoever except your Nazi-like rantings on this website.

If you can motivate why you are laughing, one can have a real scientific discussion; But it is clear that you are far too much of a REAL crackpot to discuss real physics with.
Minich
1 / 5 (2) Dec 13, 2012
To so called "modellist".
Which electrons are "superconducting" in your "model"? Derive their number, for example, in one-dimensional Kronig-Penny model :))))
Get T* (pseudogap temperature of pseudogap phase transition) for two-dimensional Kronig-Penny model.
http://love.minic...y-2d.htm

Get the heat capacity of helium-4 liquid near lambda point, get the number of superfluid helium atoms at T=0

All facts, you speak, nu-nu
:)))))
Minich
1 / 5 (2) Dec 13, 2012
Minich
1 / 5 (2) Dec 13, 2012
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 13, 2012
Thanks for posting these references: But all I see in them is pure speculation and not a single equation that is fitted to any data. If you think that you are doing physics, you still have along way to go!

The data, not measured by me, on lead (a metal), YBCO (a ceramic) and p-type diamond (a semiconductor), are mathematically modeled and fitted in the chapter of my book for which I have given a direct reference above; so that you can access it on internet.

Please give me YOUR formulas, derived from YOUR theory and fit these formulas to this data. Before you can do this you do not understand superconduction: In fact I doubt whether you understand any physics at all!
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Dec 15, 2012
Do you fitted your results to another theories?
Negative-energy waves? http://www.colora...1977.pdf

There many instabilities in plasma of solids and vacuum tubes and quantum liquids and supersolids :)
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Dec 15, 2012
A diocotron instability http://en.wikiped...tability

Kelvin-Helmholtz instability in fluid mechanics (quantum liquids an supefluis and supersolids)???
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Dec 16, 2012
Do you fitted your results to another theories?
My model fits all the data on superconduction that I have analysed so farthat have been measured
Negative-energy waves? http://www.colora...1977.pdf
What the hell has this to do with superconduction? Are you crazy?

There many instabilities in plasma of solids and vacuum tubes and quantum liquids and supersolids :)
Again, what has this to do with superconduction?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Dec 16, 2012
A diocotron instability http://en.wikiped...tability


What the hell has this to do with superconduction?

Kelvin-Helmholtz instability in fluid mechanics (quantum liquids an supefluis and supersolids)???


What the hell has this to do with superconduction?
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Dec 17, 2012
Negative-energy waves? http://www.colora...1977.pdf
What the hell has this to do with superconduction? Are you crazy?

There many instabilities in plasma of solids and vacuum tubes and quantum liquids and supersolids :)
Again, what has this to do with superconduction?

You must be a little bit crazy to have the correct theory
:)))

You are the poor thinker :((((
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Dec 17, 2012
You are the poor thinker :((((


YOU are the idiot who raises all types of issues which have NOTHING to do with superconduction. I ask you again: You have a conductor which has charge-carriers WITHOUT an electric-field: So they are not moving from one contact to the other even when you inject charge-carriers at a contact: This is so since there is NO electric-field that can accelerate them to gain the necessary kinetic energy to move.

In a superconductor the charge-carriers do gain kinetic-energy to move from the injection contact to the ejection contact EVEN THOUGH the charge carriers are STILL NOT being accelerated. Where does the kinetic-energy, which is required for them to move from one contact to the other, come from WITHIN the superconductor so that this energy IS NOT present at either one of the contacts?
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Dec 17, 2012
Only idiot (your language) can think about charge-carriers WITHOUT an electric-field, hehehe

Electric field is everywhere inside the solid!!!! But this electric field is not constant, but varies in time and coordinates :)

The source of electric field is electrons and ions which are MOVING particles!!!

Where had you got such idiot's stuff?
In Pretoria jungles?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2012
@Minich,

Clearly you do not understand Solid State Physics and how the delocalized waves form wave-packets when you apply an electric field across contacts. Although there are charges on the ions and the valence-electrons before applying an external electric field, these charges arrange themselves to cancel the electric-interactions until an external electric-field is applied. The electron-waves then form wave-packets which move in an attempt to also cancel the applied electric-field. YOU ARE A REAL IDIOT! Thank God I know Russian scientists who are not, or else, your antics would have convinced me that Russians are all idiots.
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2012
To johanfprins
Russian scientists?
Of course, they are JEW scientists. Only JEW scientists have the right to get to know johanfprins.

Nobel winner of 2003 jew Abrikosov adviced USA government to freeze help to RUSSIAN scientists. Russian scientists better be died out than alive.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2012
@Minich,

Well thank God you do have these jews or else Russia would mostly have had idiots like you trying to do physics.

Minich
1 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2012
Thank God we have permitted them to emigrate.
Russian proverb:
баба с возу - кобыле легче посл. — ≈ good riddance to bad rubbish
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Dec 19, 2012
Thank God we have permitted them to emigrate.
Russian proverb:
баба с возу - кобыле легче посл. — ≈ good riddance to bad rubbish


Yes! For the same reason I would like too get RID of YOU!!
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Dec 20, 2012
It is better for you be the cock of the village in superconductivity, than the last in the theory :)

Khehehe

More news stories

Growing app industry has developers racing to keep up

Smartphone application developers say they are challenged by the glut of apps as well as the need to update their software to keep up with evolving phone technology, making creative pricing strategies essential to finding ...

Making graphene in your kitchen

Graphene has been touted as a wonder material—the world's thinnest substance, but super-strong. Now scientists say it is so easy to make you could produce some in your kitchen.