The science that stumped Einstein

Jul 01, 2014 by Louise Lerner, Argonne Now
The science that stumped Einstein
These vortices appear on certain types of superconductors when they're exposed to magnetic fields. Under very cold conditions, superconductors can conduct electricity with virtually no losses - which could make them invaluable for energy; but they have limitations that make them hard to work with. Scientists are figuring out ways to make them more adaptable, such as above: slicing the superconductor into very, very thin strips that can only hold one vortex across. This helps "pin" the vortexes down so they don't interfere with superconductivity (shown in green) as much.

In 1908, the physics world woke up to a puzzle whose layers have continued to stump the greatest scientists of the century ever since. That year, Dutch physicist Kamerlingh Onnes cooled mercury down to -450° Fahrenheit and discovered—to his astonishment—that it could conduct electricity perfectly. And then for the next 50 years, no one could explain why.

Ordinary wires, even really good ones like copper, lose up to a third of the electricity they carry over long distances. But these materials, called , don't lose any energy. Ever. You could start a current in a loop of superconducting wire and it would circle around, theoretically, forever.

This phenomenon confounded the greatest minds in physics. From papers, lectures, and the reports of former students, we know that Einstein spent a lot of time thinking about it. Everyone did; it was one of the great unanswered questions, even as scientists unraveled other mysteries like the structure of atoms and the age of the universe.

But Einstein never came up with an answer. Neither did the great quantum physicist Richard Feynman, or any of the other luminaries: Niels Bohr, Lev Landau, Werner Heisenberg, Maria Goeppert Mayer. Physicist Felix Bloch crankily suggested a new theory: "Superconductivity is impossible."

In their labs, scientists continued to discover more and more superconductors, but the new materials didn't seem to follow a pattern. Some were pure elements; some were alloys. Even more oddly, it turned out that normally good conductors, like copper, were worthless as superconductors. And why did they all have to be cooled down to near absolute zero to work?

"All of the great minds had a go at figuring out the theory behind superconductors," said Argonne Distinguished Fellow and materials scientist Mike Norman. "But no one had anything good until 1957."

That year, a trio of University of Illinois physicists published an explanation called BCS theory (for Bardeen, Cooper, and Schrieffer) that explained the odd behaviors. Satisfied, scientists shelved it away under "solved mysteries."

That's why no one was prepared when, in 1986, a team from a Swiss laboratory announced it had found a superconductor that worked at much warmer temperatures —up to -280°F. Although to most of us that number sounds positively frigid, for scientists studying superconductors it was a thunderclap.

BCS theory did not explain this phenomenon. Physicists were stunned. They went back to the drawing board, and that's where they still are today, a quarter-century later. In the meantime, we've explained why the universe is expanding, documented what we're made up of down to the tiniest subatomic particles, and landed a robot on Mars; but we can't explain why these new superconductors work.

This hasn't been for lack of trying—after all, superconductors are enormously useful. Their unique properties let scientists invent technologies we'd never have otherwise. So far, they've given us cell phone tower signals, Maglev trains, and an unprecedented window into how our bodies work: they are an integral part of MRI scans to diagnose and study everything from cancer and multiple sclerosis to depression and schizophrenia.

As useful as superconductors are, they have a lot of limitations, which is why it remains important to figure out how they work. The biggest problem is that superconductors still have to be extremely cold to work. That means that if you want to put one in, say, an MRI machine or an engine, you also have to build in complex, expensive ways to cool it down. The -280° F superconductors were a big deal because you can cool them down to that temperature with liquid air, which is much less expensive than liquid helium.

But if we could craft a material that would superconduct at close to room temperature, the possibilities strain the imaginations of a roomful of engineers. Room-temperature superconductors would represent an unbelievable advance for energy: imagine wires stretching across America without ever losing any electricity, or engines that are close to 100% efficient because they lose much less energy as heat. (Ordinary engines are at best about 50% efficient—that's why they get so hot.) Superconductors could make windmills cheaper by reducing the turbines' weight. They could form the basis of ultrafast computer processors.

All this is a small taste of what superconductivity could promise us, if we could master it.

While BCS theory explains the behavior of the original low-temperature superconductors, the theory behind the so-called "high-temperature superconductors" remains stubbornly elusive, and developing one is still one of the Holy Grails of physics.

"I've met people from all kinds of specialties, from string theorists to metallurgists, who all have their own pet theories about what will really prove to be the key," Norman said. Superconductivity has such high practical potential that the U.S. Department of Energy established a special institute to study it called the Center for Emergent Superconductivity, an Energy Frontier Research Center headed by Brookhaven National Laboratory with Argonne and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign as partners. The program studies superconductivity with the triple goal of studying superconductor theory, making new superconductors, and improving current superconductor technology.

The reason the field is so obsessed with theory is that it's difficult to make breakthroughs without a fundamental understanding of how the electrons in a superconductor behave. "A lot of it is still serendipity," Norman said, "which is not where we want to be."

"It's become clear that superconductors involve a highly correlated electron system," said Argonne physicist Wai Kwok. "It's what we call a many-body problem, which makes it hard to model. We don't have the math to do this yet."

We do have the theory more or less worked out for the first wave of superconductors, called conventional superconductors. Electricity is really just electrons moving around, so scientists had to figure out why they got around so easily in these particular materials.

The next few paragraphs contain more than Einstein ever knew about superconductors.

You probably know that as the temperature rises, atoms get more and more excited and bounce around all over the place. But at close to absolute zero, atoms get very, very still.

At these very cold temperatures, the atoms in the superconductor form a stiff lattice. An electric current sends electrons running through the lattice. As they sail through, the positive protons in the lattice are a tiny bit attracted to the negative electrons, so they move slightly toward the electron. The resulting increased positive charge pulls the next electron forward a little faster. Imagine dolphins riding the wave created by the wake of a ship. In ordinary materials, electrons bounce off the lattice and are lost as heat. But the wake effect helps the electrons move along in an orderly fashion.

Unfortunately, this fragile effect breaks down very easily as the material gets warmer. So we know this phenomenon can't explain unconventional superconductors, the kind that work at much higher temperatures and thus are used for most practical superconductor applications.

Besides needing to be very cold, two other properties make superconductors hard to work with. First, if you bend them too much, the internal grains and crystals become so misaligned that they won't superconduct anymore.

Scientists hope to find a superconducting material that is isotropic—which means that it will continue to superconduct even when it's twisted into a coil, a necessary condition for use in engines and other tight spaces. "All kinds of cables and electromagnets are made by twisting," Norman said.

The problem is that magnetic fields affect the performance of a superconductor. If a scientist tries to apply a , the superconductor will repel it by creating its own field that runs exactly counter to it. If the magnetic field is too strong, the superconductor will throw up its hands and stop being a superconductor altogether.

Furthermore, the superconductor's capacity changes depending on whether the magnetic field is parallel or perpendicular to it. This is particularly problematic when trying to use superconductors in engines, since the magnetic field orientation can change with each turn of the motor. So researchers want to figure out a way to keep a superconductor working smoothly even while there's a magnetic field in the vicinity.

One of Argonne's principal superconductivity studies focuses on the reason why magnetic fields impair the functioning of superconductors. "When you apply a magnetic field to a high-temperature superconductor, these little pockets of non-superconductivity called vortices form," said Kwok. "They start out as just a few nanometers across, but get bigger as the temperature increases. Eventually, these vortices overlap and eliminate superconductivity altogether."

Likewise, when you increase the magnetic field, the number of vortices increases. When you apply an electric current to such a superconductor, it pushes the vortices around.

The moving vortices create a voltage across the superconductor, causing electrical resistance and energy loss. The more the vortices move, the worse the problem gets. So Argonne scientists want to pin them down.

Kwok and his team knew that vortices like to sit at defects in the material. So they created artificial defects by bombarding the superconductor with lead ions. "The lead ions act like cannonballs, punching through the superconductor and leaving column-shaped defects behind," Kwok said. "These attract the vortices and help make them stay put, which significantly improves the superconductor's current capacity."

Elsewhere at Argonne, Distinguished Fellow Valerii Vinokour took a different approach. He and his colleagues worked with extremely thin superconducting wires that are just 50 nanometers across. (For scale, your fingernails grow at the rate of one nanometer per second.) They are so thin that only one row of vortices can fit on them.

Then they applied an external magnetic field—and found that the material stayed superconducting at temperatures and field strengths where no one had been able to pin vortices before.

These advances are useful for several industry applications—for instance, Kwok and his team work directly with industrial partners to improve their superconductivity-based products, such as superconducting wire.

Kwok and others at Argonne, along with their industrial partners, are continuing to explore a variety of approaches. One interesting angle involves exploring nanoparticles as a way of creating customizable defects. Nanoparticles are good at self-assembling, so one idea is to have them assemble into columns that would serve as defects to pin the vortices.

The science that stumped Einstein is now 112 years old and counting, and the Holy Grail is still waiting for someone to claim it. But the physics world thrives on challenges, and our modern world relies on the technology that physics creates to solve those challenges; handy things like MRIs, the web, and GPS satellites all owe their gears and genes to physicists and other scientists studying fundamental properties. Superconductors no doubt have a lot more to give the world—if we can tease out their secrets.

Explore further: Superconducting secrets solved after 30 years

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Superconducting secrets solved after 30 years

Jun 17, 2014

(Phys.org) —A breakthrough has been made in identifying the origin of superconductivity in high-temperature superconductors, which has puzzled researchers for the past three decades.

Recommended for you

Three-dimensional metamaterials with a natural bent

7 hours ago

Metamaterials, a hot area of research today, are artificial materials engineered with resonant elements to display properties that are not found in natural materials. By organizing materials in a specific way, scientists ...

Scientists develop compact medical imaging device

Oct 23, 2014

Scientists at the MIRA research institute, in collaboration with various companies, have developed a prototype of a handy device that combines echoscopy (ultrasound) with photoacoustics. Combining these two ...

User comments : 48

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Egleton
1.2 / 5 (25) Jul 01, 2014
"Superconductivity is impossible."
Like Cold Fusion.
Empirical evidence trumps Theory. That is the Scientific way. (Or should be.)
So don't tell me how Cold Fusion violates some blessed model of yours. Reality does not care about how many years you have wasted learning rubbish.
Toughen up Scientist.
https://www.youtu...MRUX4mo0

arom
1 / 5 (15) Jul 01, 2014
While BCS theory explains the behavior of the original low-temperature superconductors, the theory behind the so-called "high-temperature superconductors" remains stubbornly elusive, and developing one is still one of the Holy Grails of physics.

The reason the field is so obsessed with theory is that it's difficult to make breakthroughs without a fundamental understanding of how the electrons in a superconductor behave. "A lot of it is still serendipity," Norman said, "which is not where we want to be."

The science that stumped Einstein is now 112 years old and counting, and the Holy Grail is still waiting for someone to claim it. But the physics world thrives on challenges, and our modern world relies on the technology that physics creates to solve those challenges; handy things like MRIs, the web, and GPS satellites all owe their gears and genes to physicists and other scientists studying fundamental properties. Superconductors no doubt have a lot more to give the world—if we can tease out their secrets.


It seems that the crucial problem is about our knowledge is mainly based on experiments rather than the theoretical research; maybe this idea could give some hint ….
http://www.vacuum...=4〈=en
Gimp
1.5 / 5 (13) Jul 01, 2014
Why not look at all materials who's melting point is above 1370 F, some of these materials would feel simply frigid at room temperature.
Doiea
Jul 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
Jul 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
axemaster
3.6 / 5 (8) Jul 01, 2014
Wow. This is a profoundly inaccurate article.

Ordinary wires, even really good ones like copper, lose up to a third of the electricity they carry over long distances.

Anyone who has passed even high school physics will understand why this statement is completely incorrect.

Scientists hope to find a superconducting material that is isotropic—which means that it will continue to superconduct even when it's twisted into a coil, a necessary condition for use in engines and other tight spaces. "All kinds of cables and electromagnets are made by twisting," Norman said.

Again, totally incorrect. We already have superconducting solenoids and have for decades.

Moreover, the talk about how superconductors will revolutionize engines... not really. Copper cabling is already extremely efficient, the main losses are in the batteries, which cannot be superconducting.

Honestly, I feel like this article is a book report written by a 3rd grader.
lancecraft
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 01, 2014
Watch, I have a sneaky suspicion pilot wave theory applies here too. I bet if you tested the superconductor's quatum frequency it would in each case match that of a necessary pilot wave for the electrons. The electrons are riding perfectly tuned pilot waves. If the lattice is too large or small (or other) or there are too many anomalies/vortices it disturbs the tuning. As would magnetic fields or any other disturbance. In fact, I also bet that if this were the case, you could actually use properly tuned magnetic fields to ASSIST in stabilizing superconductivity. This would allow warmer and warmer examples or even stretch the effect over distance, around corners, twisted, etc.
Just a thought. Discuss.
sandler
1 / 5 (6) Jul 01, 2014
Why not look at all materials who's melting point is above 1370 F, some of these materials would feel simply frigid at room temperature.


I think so too. The higher temperature superconducting materials discovered in 1986 were ceramics which are known for highest melting point and lowest corrosion. May be it's possible to further "cure" ceramics by high pressure, temperature and non corrosive metals like silver.
Uncle Ira
2.8 / 5 (13) Jul 01, 2014
Watch,


Watch what Skippy? You left out the link thing for watching.

Just a thought.


Is that what it is? Just the thought?

Discuss.


Maybe there is nobody here wants to discuss it all by him self. So maybe you should ask them if they want to discuss with you. Instead of telling them to discuss. Makes you sound like the little kid's teacher telling everybody that.

That is not the good way to join in with your very first never before postum since you are new and never been here before with some old name you are ashamed of. How's that for just thought Cher?
otero
Jul 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (13) Jul 01, 2014
I have a sneaky suspicion pilot wave theory applies here too.
It's true and it could be modeled with https://www.youtu...v5dqSKk. Inside the superconductors the electrons are getting entangled with their interfering pilot waves in the same way, like the jumping droplets at the water surface.


@ Socratic-Skippy, you forgot the ducks Cher. It do not work right without the ducks.
DonGateley
4 / 5 (4) Jul 01, 2014
@Uncle Ira: ya know, the rate at which the Skippy-Skippy cuts and pastes scientific terms into naively realistic phrases he has a finite probability of hitting on a basis for the real theory of everything. (You only need one monkey if you have infinite time.) Problem is he won't recognize it in his ignorance and will skip right over it to get to his next nonsense amalgam. Since it's so unlikely that anyone who might understand will continue reading until he gets to it, it will be lost forever.
Uncle Ira
1 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2014
@Uncle Ira: ya know, the rate at which the Skippy-Skippy cuts and pastes scientific terms into naively realistic phrases he has a finite probability of hitting on a basis for the real theory of everything. (You only need one monkey if you have infinite time.) Problem is he won't recognize it in his ignorance and will skip right over it to get to his next nonsense amalgam. Since it's so unlikely that anyone who might understand will continue reading until he gets to it, it will be lost forever.


I got a neighbor that has a pet monkey, he won it in a card game about five years ago. He didn't make a lot sense either. The monkey I mean. Well ol man Bergeron, he owns the monkey, he don't make a lot of sense most of the time either no, but I think that is because he spend so much time when he was younger over in Thibodaux, Thibodaux is known far and wide for the odd men them.
IanC1811
5 / 5 (1) Jul 01, 2014
@axemaster: For a partial understanding of the significance of isotropic superconductors in the manufacture of solenoids and other applications needing tightly wound wire read this - http://www.magnet...4090.pdf
Pay particular attention to the section which talks about "React and Wind" versus "Wind and React" For those who don't have the time to dig through technical articles, essentially the strains induced in the surface of the wires by winding them into coils disrupts the superconducting properties. By heat treating (reacting) the windings after they have been wound the strain is relieved but it is a lot easier to heat treat the wire before it is wound. Heat treating after winding means that anything embedded in the windings has to be able to withstand the heat treating process which restricts the possibilities of what can be inside the windings and the geometries of assemblages.
exBrit
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 01, 2014
No competent physicist or engineer would write an article using degrees F rather than C or K. Let's condemn and stop this now, once and for all.
Secondly, current operational Maglev trains do not use superconductors. They would if they could, but the technology is not yet there.
Whydening Gyre
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 01, 2014
No competent physicist or engineer would write an article using degrees F rather than C or K. Let's condemn and stop this now, once and for all.

Hey, Brit. Get off your high horse. If you can't do a simple conversion, then the problem is yours, not the authors...
someone11235813
5 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2014
...we've explained why the universe is expanding...


Have we? I know we have discovered *that* the universe is expanding but I am not so sure if the "why" bit is explained.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (1) Jul 02, 2014
If In 1908 Kamerlingh Onnes had in his notes, written the measured temperature in Fahrenheit, then I'd support the article in using the original terminology as a reflection of the actual historical data. However, despite my best efforts, even resorting to Dutch texts, I believe Kamerlingh Onnes documented his research measurements in Kelvin. So WG, it's not exBrit that needs a lesson in simple conversion, it's Louise Lerner author of the article that should be advised to avoid pointless conversions. I am taking too much medication?
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2014
While BCS theory explains the behavior of the original low-temperature superconductors, the theory behind the so-called "high-temperature superconductors" remains stubbornly elusive, and developing one is still one of the Holy Grails of physics.


As long as the "experts" stick to BCS for so-called "conventional" superconductors (they should dig up Pippard's corpse and execute him for this red herring) they will never understand the simple mechanism that is responsible for all superconduction within all superconducting materials. This model has been available for 10 years but is rejected by all editors and referees, since it also explains the "conventional" superconductors WITHOUT invoking BCS claptrap!

Superconduction at room temperature has already been demonstrated 14 years ago, but it is rejected since it does not require "pair-formation" by means of "phonons"

So they rather keep on throwing money at Argonne and waste the money of tax payers.

Doiea
Jul 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Technophebe
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2014
This is supposed to be a science website. Kelvin or celsius, for the love of god not fahrenheit!
bluehigh
3 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2014
Louise Lerner does not profess to be a scientist. She is a writer, journalist and editor of newsletters. Phys.org is a science *news* website and although they may have qualified people in the editorial staff, they don't go vetting every article. Time is money and its hard making a living out of adverts and donations.

So, go ahead and email Louise Lerner - ( Google her email, it is easily found ) - if you are so offended and leave the overworked and underpaid physorg staff to do the best they can.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2014
If In 1908 Kamerlingh Onnes had in his notes, written the measured temperature in Fahrenheit, then I'd support the article in using the original terminology as a reflection of the actual historical data. However, despite my best efforts, even resorting to Dutch texts, I believe Kamerlingh Onnes documented his research measurements in Kelvin. So WG, it's not exBrit that needs a lesson in simple conversion, it's Louise Lerner author of the article that should be advised to avoid pointless conversions. I am taking too much medication?

If it's a good bourbon - no...
Doiea
Jul 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
sandler
1 / 5 (1) Jul 02, 2014
These engineers found ways around issue with deterring magnetic fields and vortice like obstacles. http://tinyurl.com/pvyv6z2
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2014
Superconduction at room temperature has already been demonstrated 14 years ago, but it is rejected since it does not require "pair-formation" by means of "phonons"
It was actually demonstrated in http://www.jetple...185.pdf, i.e. before thirty three years and its origin has been explained correctly during it. You're right about reason of the dismissal of this explanation, though.


Thank you Zephyr! I will look at this article with interest. If it is SC they were not able to give the mechanism. In my case I have the mechanism and it is patented.
Doiea
Jul 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
no fate
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
LOL, you cannot patent the physical laws and mechanisms: the patent office will indeed give you patent for everything, if it would profit from it, but your money are wasted. This mechanism is known http://pesn.com/2...hain.jpg and it's public source.


I believe that Johan's patent covers the method in which he obtained SC...the materials were his call and results are unique.
otero
Jul 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MrPressure
Jul 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 04, 2014
LOL, you cannot patent the physical laws and mechanisms: the patent office will indeed give you patent for everything, if it would profit from it, but your money are wasted. This mechanism is known http://pesn.com/2...hain.jpg and it's public source.


The mechanism that you posted is wrong: It cannot be responsible for super-conduction. I obviously cannot patent the mechanism; which is a stupid rule made by stupid lawyers. But I have patented what you must generate to obtain super-conduction and demonstrated a method to do this. There are other possibilities to generate the same density of charge-carriers, but these are now also covered by my patent.
Technico
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 04, 2014
The mechanism that you posted is wrong: It cannot be responsible for super-conduction
And you're wrong with about it with the same factual relevance. I know about You already quite well - so it's perfectly clear for me, what you'll oppose. Unfortunately your instinctive stance about it is irrelevant - only logical reasoning based on matter of fact arguments is what counts there. So I'm not interested about some screams "RIGHT!" "WRONG!" here at all. BTW just before few hours you apparently didn't know about ultraconductors at all - so you can be hardly expert in this subject. So I'd kindly recommend you to review your stance once again for to save my time for future.
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
The mechanism that you posted is wrong: It cannot be responsible for super-conduction
And you're wrong with about it with the same factual relevance. I know about You already quite well - so it's perfectly clear for me, what you'll oppose. Unfortunately your instinctive stance about it is irrelevant - only logical reasoning based on matter of fact arguments is what counts there. So I'm not interested about some screams "RIGHT!" "WRONG!" here at all. BTW just before few hours you apparently didn't know about ultraconductors at all - so you can be hardly expert in this subject. So I'd kindly recommend you to review your stance once again for to save my time for future.


Zephyr you are getting boring with your stupid posts under a myriad names; using badly constructed English. Go and feed your farting ducks! I have known about ultra-conductors for quite a few years; and even had telephone conversations with Golding. So go and feed your ducks!! Their models are wrong!
Doiea
Jul 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Doiea
Jul 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MrPressure
Jul 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MrPressure
Jul 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
What if energy is an illusion?

Observea paradox. If you have a system where Momentum appears to be conserved, you can do the math and find that energy is not conserved. If you find that energy is conserved, you will then find momentum is not conserved.

This can be desmonstrated in a thought experiment using a solar sail and photons. Each photon bounces off the sail, ideally delivering 2p worth of momentum. What's the problem?

Well, if a photon delivers 2p worth of momentum, and the solar sail starts at a velocity 0 with respect to some local point, then 2p worth of momentum increases the velocity by v'.

Adding 2p worth of momentum always increases velocity by v', no mater what the velocity already is, because the speed of light is the same for every inertial reference frame.

Now imagine v2 = 2*v1)

Ek @ v2 should equal 4 times Ek @ v1, but momentum only doubled.

How is it that the photons increasing from v1 to v2 had thrice as much "kinetic energy" as the ones from v0 to v1?!
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
They have the same momentum, becuase they are he same type of photon, but according to the equations, it takes 3 times as much "kinetic Energy" to go from v1 to v2 as to go from v0 to v1.

It makes no sense that the same exact photons mystically impart an average of thrice as much energy for no apparent reason.

momenta is linear, but "energy" is quadratic, yet photons have the same of each every time....

How do you explain this?!

Something is wrong in physics....something very, very fundamental.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2014
Something is wrong in physics....something very, very fundamental.


Well Skippy, it's a good thing the nice peoples here at physorg gives you the place work. Now we know it's going to get fixed up real quick now that Returnering-Skippy is on the job.
MrPressure
Jul 05, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2014
@johanfprins: Boring or not, I do always require the thorough explanation/reasoning of ad-hoced stance, if someone's trying to oppose me.
No you do not since you are totally incapable of understanding science and to argue logically: "Ducks farting in a non-existent aether" is not physics!

Or you will behave like many other mainstream physicists, who https://www.youtu...Pe-DwULM to answer the "WHY" question, thus masking their incompetence.
Sometimes the mainstream gets it right and there is enough publications of mine that prove that sometimes I also get it right. So far you have NEVER got anything right since you just post hallucinations.

Otherwise I can just agree with you: yes, the consequential thinking and argumentation is tedious boring job at times. How much easier and joyful the hand-waving and plain negativism actually is!
The latter is exactly what you are consistently doing: Does it give you joy?

johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2014
Nope, you didn't, as you already told me " I will look at this article with interest".. :-) WTF this is supposed to mean? This article is the groundbreaking and the very first experimental work dedicated to ultraconductors, all other articles are citing it. It's like to pretending to be an expert in special relativity, while being surprised with existence of the very first Einstein's article about it. The actual expertise in subject considers, you're familiar with all fundamental works about it at the first line - not just with your ones.
The fact that I missed this article does not mean that I did not know about this work. I did not claim to be an expert. You claimed that I never heard of this. I answered your stupid claim. Only a person like you will draw such an illogical conclusion. Keep on farting with you ducks: maybe your brain will clear up one day; although I will not bet on it!
MrPressure
Jul 05, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MrPressure
Jul 05, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MrPressure
Jul 05, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MrPressure
Jul 05, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
my2cts
5 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2014
What happened to moderation? Many posts above are in breach of the guidelines.
my2cts
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2014
Editor, please avoid the use of the name "Einstein" in future articles. This as a rule causes a flurry of crackpot posts that apparently overwhelms your moderation capacity.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2014
Ordinary wires, even really good ones like copper, lose up to a third of the electricity they carry over long distances.
Anyone who has passed even high school physics will understand why this statement is completely incorrect.
Youre right.

"The technical losses are due to energy dissipated in the conductors, equipment used for transmission line, transformer, subtransmission line and distribution line and magnetic losses in transformers.

"Technical losses are normally 22.5%, and directly depend on the network characteristics and the mode of operation."

-It's probably more than a third.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2014
momenta is linear, but "energy" is quadratic, yet photons have the same of each every time....

How do you explain this?!
Easy. Psychoneurosis coupled with chronic substance abuse.
Something is wrong in physics....something very, very fundamental.
Why does Lrrkrrr misconstrue the very most basic of physics calcs and then conclude that the entire physics community, which after all is full of people much smarter and saner than he, must be wrong? Why doesn't he just do a little research to find out what it is they know that he obviously doesn't?

More fun to pretend you're the genius of the century I guess.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2014
Something is wrong in physics....something very, very fundamental.
Actually I just figured out what this is. Physics is too complicated for you to understand. Who is responsible for this egregious situation Lrrkrrr? It's certainly not YOUR doing is it? Nevertheless someone should be held accountable for devising a discipline which is beyond the abilities and attention span of a bonafide genius such as yourself.
MrPressure
Jul 05, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
frostedpanda
1 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2014
It is about the condensing, the core of the atom having greater/lessor mass shrinks with the result of excess charge, that did not condense at the same rate, if at all. The separation between charge on an electron and an 'electron' are about differing states of energy and actual physical matter. As well photons are circulating in magnets through their 'aligned' vorticies when a superconducting field is subjected to these photons create vorticies cross the flow and stop the superconductivity. If the core of the atom can be "shrink" made by lowering the melting point by zero gravity with space metallurgy, or mixing with elements that will contract to a greater degree over another, forcing its nucleus to condense and arresting in that state, room temperature superconductive materials can be made.
my2cts
5 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2014
Something is wrong in phys.org.
No moderation. Crackpots taking over.
Serious physicist are turning away. So am I.
So long.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2014
Something is wrong in phys.org.
No moderation. Crackpots taking over.
Serious physicist are turning away. So am I.
So long.
I understand your reaction as the administrators of phys.org totally disrespect their readers by allowing crackpottery and less then acceptable level of language on their website. I can see only one reason for that and it would be customer/hour publicity revenue. If I am right this is really pathetic.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
Something is wrong in phys.org.
No moderation. Crackpots taking over.
Serious physicist are turning away. So am I.
So long.


I am not a crackpot.

Even the owner/moderator of Physforum admitted I was right in that the definition of Energy is problematic. He later banned me because of an attempt to prove a point about mathematics and physics (such that a model is only a model, and not reality itself). However, the point is I've actually had people with a PhD in physics agree in principle with what I wrote above, and these guys absolutely hate me.

What I wrote above is a basic example, and I used the photon on a solar sail example because it ties in the rigged nature of light in the present Standard Model plus Relativity paradigm.

It can be demonstrated that when the momentum reaches 2v, the kinetic energy is 4 time greater than at 1v, that's basic physics.

The problem is it takes the same number of photons to go from 1v to 2v, and the photons are identical. from where is 3Ek?.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2014
I understand your reaction as the administrators of phys.org totally disrespect their readers by allowing crackpottery and less then acceptable level of language on their website. I can see only one reason for that and it would be customer/hour publicity revenue. If I am right this is really pathetic.


The moderators don't ban me any more for several reasons:

1, They've actually SEEN some of my predictions and counter-arguments validated by now, either in the area of technology, or in the area of cosmology and materials science.
2, I avoid topics they find most offensive lately.
3, My posts are well-reasoned. Even posts that I later disagree with are well reasoned.
4, Most of my posts are actually about meta-cognition, or mathematical discrepancies, or theory error, the theory of theory if you will. Almost all theories are flawed in some way, yet THEY insist on infallibility.

*Why doesn't spell check recognize this? I get tired of being a better speller than the spell check.
Lex Talonis
Jul 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Lex Talonis
Jul 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
George_Rajna
Jul 07, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bob Osaka
5 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2014
So, to sum up. Everyone here is stumped too.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2014
So, to sum up. Everyone here is stumped too.
Nope!

ALL SC has a single quantum mechanical mechanism which is determined by Heisenberg's relationship for energy and time (which has NOTHING to do with "uncertainty") . This is fully described in chapter 23 of my book (THE PHYSICS DELUSION)where the mechanism is shown to fit all superconducting phases that have been discovered to date. You do not have to buy the book to read chapter 23 since it is reproduced on the website www.cathodixx.com

Electron pairing is not required and not even the low temperature metals require Cooper pairs!
Technico
not rated yet Jul 07, 2014
The high temperature superconductivity is essentially classical effect, which is apparent from the fact, that inside of polymer cavities the electron travel at room pressure without ohmic lost (or with quite minimal one). At low temperatures the quantum effects and Cooper pair formation effects become dominant though, which is visible for example from the way, in which the electrons tunnel across Josephson barrier. Such a behavior is difficult to explain without pair formation.
swordsman
1 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2014
Here is the answer: At temperatures above absolute zero, atoms collide with one another. At high temperatures, the collisions are violent and result in non-coherent actions. Near absolute zero, the collisions are moderate, and with an applied electric field the movements of the electrons can be controlled.

Very simple. However, most scientists have forgotten about Planck's theory of black radiation and thermodynamics. Planck derived the spectrum of white noise, but he did not realize it at the time. See "Planck's Columbia Lectures", "The Original Quantum Radiation Theory by the World's Greatest Pactical Scientific Theorist".for details.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2014
The high temperature superconductivity is essentially classical effect, which is apparent from the fact, that inside of polymer cavities the electron http://www.jetple...7185.pdf without ohmic lost (or with quite minimal one). At low temperatures the quantum effects and Cooper pair formation effects become dominant though, which is visible for example from the way, in which the electrons tunnel across Josephson barrier. Such a behavior is difficult to explain without pair formation.
Dear Zephyr,

Why do you enjoy flaunting your massive ignorance. Super-conduction has ONLY ONE mechanism that is the same for ALL superconductors and it is quantum mechanical; or rather wave-mechanical. Super-conduction HAS NOTHING to do with Cooper pairs, and Josephson's model is WRONG! Cooper pairs, if they could have formed, which they do not, would not be able to tunnel at all. This is described and mathematically modelled in my book without invoking farting ducks!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2014
Here is the answer: At temperatures above absolute zero, atoms collide with one another. At high temperatures, the collisions are violent and result in non-coherent actions. Near absolute zero, the collisions are moderate, and with an applied electric field the movements of the electrons can be controlled.


In SC it is not just a question of why the charge-carriers do not scatter, but why they move when there is no electric-field that can accelerate them. If it was only an absence of scattering WITHIN the material, the charge-carriers will still scatter within the contact into which they are moving, and the heat they will dissipate will be the same amount as the heat that they would have dissipated when moving within the material. In the case of a vacuum tube this heat dissipation is called the "vacuum-resistance".

Superconductors do not have the equivalent of a vacuum resistance which they would have had have if they conducted by means of Cooper-pairs.
kelman66
5 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2014
If you figure out superconductivity, you find the Unified Theory.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2014
If you figure out superconductivity, you find the Unified Theory.
You are correct: They go hand in hand.

In fact, after Maxwell's equations, physics has been unified. One can derive the de Broglie wavelength directly from Maxwell's equations. A photon is an EM-wave with the lowest energy that can be emitted by a source and detected by a detector. It is not a "particle". Therefore it can split to move through two slits as any SINGLE coherent EM wave can do without becoming two separate waves.

An electron is likewise a stationary EM wave within its own inertial reference frame. When observed from a passing inertial reference-frame, the electron-wave becomes longer (YES NOT SHORTER AS EINSTEIN INCORRECTLY DEDUCED) and it develops a phase-time along the direction in which it moves. This phase time is that of the de Broglie wavelength.
George_Rajna
Jul 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.