 |
There are currently, 176 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
BCS theory of superconductivity: the world's largest Madoff scheme?
Posted on Monday, July 06, 2009 @ 20:45:30 GMT by vlad
|
|
by J. E. Hirsch
The time-tested BCS theory of superconductivity is generally accepted to be
the correct theory of conventional superconductivity by physicists and, by
extension, by the world at large. In a different realm of human activity, until
very recently Bernard Madoff's time-tested investment operation was generally
accepted as true and legitimate in the financial world. Madoff's Ponzi scheme,
where old investors were being paid off by funds contributed by new investors,
was fundamentally flawed, yet was able to thrive for decades because of many
vested interests. `Red flags' suggesting its illegitimacy were ignored. Here I
suggest that the same is true of BCS theory. There are an increasing number of
`red flags' that strongly suggest the possibility that BCS theory may be
fundamentally flawed.
For example, an ever-growing number of superconductors
are being classified as `unconventional', not described by the conventional BCS
theory and each requiring a different physical mechanism. In addition, I argue
that BCS theory is unable to explain the Meissner effect, $the$ most
fundamental property of superconductors. There are several other phenomena in
superconductors for which BCS theory provides no explanation, and BCS theory
has proven unable to predict any new superconducting compounds. From one day to
the next, Madoff's edifice came crashing down and a staggering 50 billion
dollars evaporated, and I suggest that this may also be the fate of BCS theory.
I outline an alternative theory to conventional BCS theory proposed to apply to
all superconductors, `conventional' as well as `unconventional', that offers an
explanation for the Meissner effect as well as for other puzzles and provides
clear guidelines in the search for new high temperature superconductors.
Source: http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0901.4099v1
(Thx to Jack Sarfatti for the link)
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
|
| "BCS theory of superconductivity: the world's largest Madoff scheme?" | Login/Create an Account | 4 comments | Search Discussion |
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: BCS theory of superconductivity: the world's largest Madoff scheme? (Score: 1)
by Koen on Tuesday, July 07, 2009 @ 02:33:42 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://no.nl/tesla | I just read the paper, it mentions an interesting 'alternative' theory for superconductivity: see
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~jorge/hole.html
So superconductivity is not an electron-phonon interaction, but a 'hole-pairing' mechanism.
You see, an electric current in a conductor is not only an electron current, it is also a (much slower) hole current.
Then, what is a hole current? Imagine the conductor atoms sometimes miss an electron, such that the atom has a positive charge. This missing electron is called a 'hole'. A moving hole means that a free conduction electron has to fill in a hole in one atom (it gets trapped), while another electron has to leave (go into conduction band) a neighboring atom.
Holes move much slower than the free electrons in conduction.
So superconductivity means there is a mechanism for 'holes' to move much faster: hole-pairing. This means that electrons get trapped and get freed in pairs as well. Question is: why do 'hole-pairs' move more easily? Is it easier for electrons to bond (with atoms) or to get free in pairs?
The ZPE is not specifically mentioned within this context, but this alternative model of superconductivity might speed up the quest for room-temperature superconductivity.
|
|
|
Superconductivity: Which one of these is not like the other? (Score: 1)
by vlad on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 @ 22:08:47 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com |
Superconductivity appears to
rely on very different mechanisms in two varieties of iron-based
superconductors. The insight comes from research groups that are making
bold statements about the correct description of superconductivity in
iron-based compounds in two papers about to be published in journals of
the American Physical Society.
The 2008 discovery of high-temperature superconductivity [www.physorg.com]
in iron-based compounds has led to a flood of research in the past
year. As the literature mounts on these materials, which superconduct
at temperatures as high as 55 K, two key questions are emerging: Is the
origin of superconductivity in all of the iron-based compounds the same
and are these materials similar to the copper oxide-based
high-temperature superconductors (commonly known as cuprates), which
physicists have studied for nearly twenty years but are still unable to
explain with a complete theory?... More: http://www.physorg.com/news166680373.html [www.physorg.com]
|
|
|
Re: BCS theory of superconductivity: the world's largest Madoff scheme? (Score: 1)
by Sean14 on Thursday, May 31, 2012 @ 20:51:31 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Superconductivity [www.nanogallery.info] is like any other physical phenomenon. Sometimes it can be understood using simple theory, sometimes it requires a more complicated theory. Atoms can be understood using Newton equations in some situations. Yet, if you want to understand nuclear decay or the light absorption and emission, then you need to use Heisenberg's quantum mechanics. Bardeen theory of superconductivity is good for simple metals and alloys. New materials, such as high-Tc, are too complicated to be fully described by the Bardeen theory. New theory is needed, and some young Heisenberg might invent it in the near future.
|
|
|
|
|
