So a superconductor contains no positrons?

Dear All,

The annihilation positron-electron gives two gamma rays, each of 511 keV.

The resulting from the "annihilation" process energy rest mass for the electron is at 8.1871222472e-14 J. The reported value for the electron energy rest mass is at 8.18710565e−14 J. Therefore practically a perfect match.

However, this is not in anyway I submit a proof for complete annihilation, given the known very low energy state of a Cooper pair interaction thus of the order of 10−3 eV, and thermal energy can easily break the pairs and that only at low temperatures, in metal and other substrates, are a significant number of the electrons in Cooper pairs, it would be a valid hypothesis I submit, to say that it is possible besides the contribution of the ions field in the superconductor, the positron-electron pairing to be the main reason for superconductivity at these temperatures for certain materials overcoming natural fermionic repulsion and combining to the very low energy state Copper pairs and not totally annihilate as previously believed.

After all there is no difference between the magnetic moment of a Cooper pair (see figure) and that of a theoretical existing positron-electron antiparallel pair.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

In any of the standard theories cooper pairs are two normal electrons with opposite spin, not an electron and positron.

thus the cooper pair behaves as a boson.(as in your picture). The supercurrent is charged.

Not that I think this ep condition can be totally excluded from theory, however they normally would annililate. Some mechanism would

have to prevent them getting too close. If so the current would be neutral, and no Meisner effect.(contrary to fact)

No report that I know about gamma emission from superconductors.

That a superconductor can constitute the interior of some astronomical body is also the matter of some speculation and there are gamma rays from space, but no proof of any correlation.

Gokoran

From radioactivity up to about 8Mev, maybe you are talking about astronomic sources. Annihalate two electron masses does give about 1 Mev, 500Kev per charge. Disociate a charge from an atom would require about 10 eV, more like optical range.

Dear Juan,

You wrote "Annihalate two electron masses does give about 1 Mev, 500Kev per charge."

Well, electron-positron annihilation does not give "about" 1 MeV. It gives "exactly" 1.022 MeV, because each electron and each positron has rest mass energy of "exactly" 0.511 MeV of energy.

1.022 MeV happens to be the lower asymptotic limit below which no conversion can occur.

Best Regards

André

Maybe these will enlighten you that there is in fact a measurable dramatic shift in the positron annihilation counts inside a superconductor near the superconductive transition temperature Tc, and possible correlation with Cooper pairs production at the same temperature which can not fully explained yet. The first paper is a simulation whereas the second is experimental.

https://tinyurl.com/y9v8g27o

https://tinyurl.com/y9bvhrp9

Dear Emmanouil,

You wrote: " Copper pairs are actually joint antiparallel positron-electron pairs."

Actually, from the electromagnetic perspective, the cooper pairs are likely to be produced by the same process as the covalent bound between atoms, that is by magnetic spin antiparallel electron-electron coupling, due to the inverse cube magnetic interaction overcoming the inverse square electric repulsion when electrons are forced close enough to each other.

The inverse cube magnetic spin interaction between electrons was confirmed by the Kotler et al experiment:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13403.epdf?referrer_access_token=yoC6RXrPyxwvQviChYrG0tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PdPJ4geER1fKVR1YXH8GThqECstdb6e48mZm0qQo2OMX_XYURkzBSUZCrxM8VipvnG8FofxB39P4lc-1UIKEO1

Best Regards

André

Dear André,

Thanks for the great graph and explanation of mechanism that can potentially bring close together two free electrons and even join them. therefore producing an antiparallel electron pair. Which is I believe the main reason for Cooper pair generation in a superconductor at the transition temperature and below and not primary as believed the ionic positive charge field contribution of the atoms inside the superconductor.

Yes, that is what I'm proposing. A positron-electron pair is actually two free antiparallel magnetic spin joint electrons that brought too close together under the right conditions like in a superconductor, overcoming initial fermionic natural repulsion and joint magnetically antiparallel but did not annihilate completely resulting to the Cooper pair.

In your example you are talking about the same attraction however not actually joining. The electrons are never released form the atomic lattice of the material they just "feel" attraction from a distance.

I'm talking of actual antiparallel spin joining of free electrons.

Wouldn't that produce the same energy γ radiation charge release as with the positron-electron annihilation model? And therefore conclude that positrons are just antiparallel electrons?

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

Dear Gokoran,

"Can you share soft copy of experimented paper here ?

Thanks"

Look at RG message.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

Emmanuel

Maybe you should ask the authors of this paper what this is really about.

Dear Emmanouil,

You wrote: "In your example you are talking about the same attraction however not actually joining. The electrons are never released form the atomic lattice of the material they just "feel" attraction from a distance."

Well, since electrons have individual intrinsic magnetic fields as confirmed by the Kotler et al experiment and others in the past, they are likely to be either in a repulsive or an attractive magnetic mutual relation. These are the only two possibilities.

In the Kotler et al experiment, they are forced into parallel spin alignment, and it can be observed that they repel as a function of the inverse cube of the distance separating them, just like two macroscopic magnets repelling as in my own experiment.

It seems logical then that if they are set in antiparallel magnetic spin alignment, they would attract according to the same magnetic interaction law that they obey when in parallel spin alignment.

As to whether they actually join, this seems to be the case when two hydrogen atoms join by covalent bounding to form a H2 molecule.

Indeed, this is what defines what a covalent bound is: two electrons from two different atoms joining in antiparallel spin alignment. The same for orbitals filling. Seems to me that it is a long established fact that orbitals can be filled only by electron pairs being associated via antiparallel spin alignment, in perfect conformity with QM and with electromagnetism.

Anyhow, I can't imagine what could overcome an inverse cube magnetic attraction between two magnetic objects and prevent them from actually joining when brought close enough to each other. I often got severely pinched playing with magnets in antiparallel alignment, and no doubt have you.

As to whether they actually physically join at very close quarter without converting to energy as for pairs of electron-positron, I think that such electron-electron conversion to energy never was observed.

Actually, I never thought that two free moving electron could actually join in antiparallel spin alignment while actually free moving in space, and I seem to recall that I mention this in one of my papers, but this definitely looks like it would be possible when "freely moving" within a metal latice.

I am intrigued however by the "brief gamma radiation burst" that you mention would occur during superconductivity transitions. I couldn't locate a paper on this issue. Would you have a link?

Best Regards

André

André,

I believe two free antiparallel spin electrons in a superconductor at the transition temperature can attract magnetically each other much stronger than under normal conditions since fermionic repulsion due to angular momentum subsides at these very low temperatures.

As an analogy two counter spinning gyroscopes side by side will most of the time repel hard each other when their spin is high and less when the spin is low whenever they clash.

Therefore it would be possible under these low superconducting temperature the two antiparallel electrons to be join very close and clash loosing almost all of their angular momentum thus charge in the form of gamma radiation.

That what would remain would be the relative very low energy state Cooper pair needed for superconductivity.

I believe it is not a coincidence that in the previous two papers references I've posted positron annihilation was dramatically shifted (the own words of the authors of the paper) at the superconductivity transition temperature Tc.

I believe the two phenomena, Coopper production and positron annihilation in a superconductor during the transition phase are closely correlated and is worth looking into this subject.

quote: "I am intrigued however by the "brief gamma radiation burst" that you mention would occur during superconductivity transitions. I couldn't locate a paper on this issue. Would you have a link? "

No I don't. That is why I posed this question to see if anyone did previously noticed in an superconducting experiment this, so that the connection to my hypothesis could be made. The second experimental publication I've reported induces artificially a positron rich layer on the superconducting material and wonders why the positron annihilation changed considerably inside the superconductor at the transition temperature?

Maybe this is because the superconducting material at the transition temperature produces its own additional positrons that then annihilate with electrons releasing their rest charge but not completely leaving Cooper pairs which then trigger the superconductivity in the material.

Seems to me nobody thought of measuring natural gamma emissions from the superconductor at the exact time moment when the transition temperature is reached.

I guess this effect must be very short in time and must be a gamma burst spike like an instant flash, taking place only once during the transition so it must be hard to record since we don't know the exact frequency of this possible momentary gamma emission from the superconductor.

Emmanouil

This paper here:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07256-0

Discusses microwave emissions from superconductors although seems unrelated to our discussion any emission radiation burst during the transition phase specially at the x-ray band could show a Cooper pair was formed from the clash of antiparallel spin of electrons not totally annihilating.

What could be the source of the (hypothetical) positrons ?

Positrons are not hypothertical, they can be a product of radioactive decay (positive beta rays), but usually can only be seen for a short period of time, till they annihilate with an electron. When they do, two gamma rays in opposite directions are produced.

They are the antiparticle of the electron. As such they are predicted by the Dirac model in relativistic quantum theory.

What could be the specific source of these (hypothetical) positrons[1] born upon a (superconductivity) transition[1] ?

1. in NON radioactive superconductor materials.

Dear Emmanouil,

I see that you visualize the spin of electron literally, as an actual spinning motion. I see now why the very idea that two electrons could physically join when in antiparallel spin alignment seems not to really make sense to you.

I have a different perspective on this issue. To me, the energy making up the magnetic fields of point-like behaving elementary particles such as the electron and the positron can be vectorially oriented spherically outwards or spherically inwards. To me, two such particles with vectorially oriented outwards magnetic fields or two particles with vectorially oriented inwards magnetic fields are in parallel spin orientation and will repel each other.

And two particles, one of whose magnetic fields "substance" is vectorially oriented spherically outwards while that of the other is vectorially oriented spherically inwards, are in antiparallel spin orientation and will attract each other.

Ok. For the gamma ray burst issue, you simply suspect that there might be one if I understand correctly. Well then it would be interesting indeed if such bursts have been observed. This would indeed reveal that something more needs to be understood about superconductors.

I always thought that lowering temperatures until superconduction was reached was an eventless progressive process to the end. Maybe not at that.

Best Regards

André

Fig.1 Small sphere magnets clamped together - matter would shrink under quantum magnetic attraction into a singularity with no volume, if there were no fermionic repulsion.

Dear André and Dear All,

quote: "I see that you visualize the spin of electron literally, as an actual spinning motion. I see now why the very idea that two electrons could physically join when in antiparallel spin alignment seems not to really make sense to you. "

At the contrary, two bar macro magnets with anti parallel polarity will join side by side and physically attach to each other. However in the case of the quantum electrons these are magnet gyros.

Their angular momentum (physical spin or charge) hinders most of the time two electrons to magnetically attach even when at antiparralel magnetic moment. This is the fermionic natural repulsion property necessary for matter to occupy space and have volume.

Without this physical spin angular momentum all matter and thus also electrons would crash and clams together into a singularity. The natural state of immovable static non-spinning quantum matter is to attract due to magnetism.

See at the figure of small stationary ball macro magnets. Two magnets close, left free, will always reorient themselves in space and attach to each other.

Therefore physical spin is necessary to overcome magnetic attraction. It can not be any other way. Science today not believing that electrons do physically spin on their axis was a mistake. I can show that this is done in relativistic speeds.

Our QFM theory and model requests this physical spin, thus electrons are magnetic dipoles consisting of two counter spin polar energy vortices we call Quantum Field of Magnetism (QFM) and besides its vortices the whole field in unicen is physically spinning on its magnetization axis. This combined motion and angular momentum is essential for the electron to maintain its spherical geometry field else it would break apart.

This spinning-vortexing magnetic flux energy is what we call today electric charge and wrongly describe as monopole.

Electric charge in reality is nothing more than physically spinning magnetic dipole flux and thus magnetism in motion. So in QFM theory electricity is a side effect of magnetism and not the other way around as generally believed. The intrinsic magnetic dipole spin of an electron is the proof for that.

As for gravity, in short, is the equilibrium and macroscopic net effect at any given time and space between the physical magnetic attraction of quantum matter and its fermionic repulsion.

Returning to your reply to me.

Yes free electrons always attract due to magnetism and at the same time fermionic repulse. Under special conditions like a superconductor, where fermionic repulsion is reduced, magnetic attraction takes over and can physically join and attach in antiparallel configuration two electrons (there is a difference between attraction brought more close together, and actual physical join).

The question now is if the two antiparallel electrons loose all of their angular momentum (charge) during their tight join and annihilate completely or revert to something else like a Cooper pair?

Also I believe this is a transition threshold effect almost all of the Cooper pairs inside the superconductor are formed in a flash during the transition phase at the critical temperature Tc. That is why I am suggesting the possible gamma radiation spike at the transition temperature.

copyright©Emmanouil Markoulakis TEI of Crete 2019

p.s. I wish I could perform this test but my Institution Department has not the proper apparatus to perform reliable this experiment. However I'm open to any co-authoring and collaboration suggestions.

References

Article The Quantum Field Of A Magnet Shown By A Nanomagnetic Ferrolens

Article Real Time Visualization of Dynamic Magnetic Fields with a Na...

Preprint Quantum Field of Magnetism Theory (QFM) And Experimental Evi...

wiki: https://en.everybodywiki.com/Ferrolens

Finally, seems to me that I'm not the only one who has suggested natural occurring positron-electron pair production in a superconductor. Look here at this theoretical research publication, I accidentally stumbled upon:

Arxiv pdf: https://tinyurl.com/yauqh2zq

IOP: https://tinyurl.com/y896myc7

Good to see that others share the same theory with you even if it is partially...

Also I knew it!! That it is harmful to conduct superconductor experiments!!...

The frequencies radiated reported in this reference can go up to 776x1018 Hz thus, 776x106 THz or else 776 EHz (exahertz) gamma rays!!... No wonder why this radiation was not detected previously from these deceiving "innocent" devices.

Well i guess you don't getting something for nothing... a small superconductive cancer gift :(

Also If the above is true, superconductive radiation shielding for maned spacecraft suddenly becomes less appealing.

Emmanuel

First rule out a charged supercurrent.(if you can)

Look at vortices in a type II superconductor.(the high temperature ones), and Josephson effect.

Gokoran

I have the same information as Benham, the pair size in conventional superconductors is larger than in the ceramic type,

and is about what Benham sais. You have to read more before criticising. It is roughly the difference of superconductors that

are type I or type II. What does the free electron model have to do. ? Read BCS theory and then about ceramic superconductors, the high Tc ones.

Regards, Juan

Neither the free electron model not tight binding will tell you the size of a cooper pair.

This would depend on the mechanism binding electrons with opposite spin.

That is why you must read the BCS (Bardeen Cooper Schriefer )theory. The most accepted thing is phonon exchange in

Conventional superconductors. The theory of superconductors is not easy, required years of study perhaps.

A lot of experiments, but hard to really pin things down.

In ceramic superconductors the mechanism is not settled yet, there are a number of competing ideas. Spin waves, electronic mechanism, etc. In type I the magnetic field is totally expelled, Meisner effect.(Due to the charged supercurrent which keeps the field out)That is why levitation is allowed in a magnetic field of superconducting objects.In type II the magnetic field starts to penetrate through vortices, surrounded by supercurrents. (ie that due to the pairs, as opposed to normal current.)

The closest analogy to a superconductor is that of a charged superfluid.

The relative to an electron, very small charge of the Cooper pair can slip its way through the material atomic lattice practically as if it was not there, like a neutrino. Electric resistance of the material is zeroed. The charge propagation velocity (not to be confused with electron drift velocity) from the Cooper pair-Boson inside the material medium reaches close to the light speed photons but without being absorbed by the atoms and propagates through the material.

After all a Cooper pair is not a fermion but a Boson. That is type one superconductors.

Type two superconductors are technically "slow burn" superconductors due to increased impurities in the superconducting material which is artificially doped with these. It is actually a superconductor- normal conductor hybrid which theoretically speaking I find unappealing for the purpose of my research.

Emmanouil

It is not because it has a small charge, it has a charge of 2e in my theory anyway, the usual,, which is double that of the single electron.

The usual explanation is that there is a gap in energy, right above that of the pair motion, so the motion does not cause any exitations, energy transfer (no friction if you like)This is called the superconducting gap.

Partcipants

Cooper pairs are present in both types of superconductor, but the size is smaller in type II

With the ceramics, its not the impurities but the basic material which makes it different.This does not rule out an influence due to impurities, but the whole subject is mixed in with the (the normal Coulomb) interaction effect between charges. To some extent both effects may be atenuated by a screening effect of the free electron gas, and the bare charges transformed into quasi particles. To an extent a bare charge repels away nearby charges, so the bare charge is compensated by the positive

underlying lattice, converting the whole thing into a more neutral entity, a quasiparticle. Solid state theory is not simple, especially with superconductivity. Then there is less repulsion between these quasiparticles, and the whole thing may be treated again as a nearly noninteracting gas, in which superconductivity may be allowed due to lesser repulsion.

On the other hand some ceramics seem to thrive on this repulsion, and the electron gas is not in the nearly free limit, so

there is also a lot of discussion about these cases. There is also the case that usually they are nearly two dimensional, with adjacent layers almost decoupled, and this calles out the need of nearly two dimensional theory.

Dear Juan,

quote: "It is not because it has a small charge, it has a charge of 2e in my theory anyway, the usual,, which is double that of the single electron."

By the book, since a Boson, Copper pairs don't have charge. So no, by the official theory Cooper pairs can not have 2e charge. However, the explanation I previously have given in my post is my physical interpretation of the phenomenon according to the hypothesis I presented in this thread here and based on the fact that Cooper pairs very little to not at all interact with the atomic lattice of the material and just pass through with no fermionic or magnetic interaction. This would imply that they carry a minuscule charge. By the book also they bond energy inside the Cooper pair is at the 10-3 eV scale, thus very small!

Actually, without being able to prove it yet, I believe this very small Boson energy bond of the Cooper pair of the 10-3 eV is the one which passes unhindered through the material and is mediated by the Cooper pair as a cascade function.

quote: "The usual explanation is that there is a gap in energy, right above that of the pair motion, so the motion does not cause any exitations, energy transfer (no friction if you like)This is called the superconducting gap."

I agree with this official explanation. More or less the same thing with different words.

Emmanouil

Dear Gokaran,

Electric current is not caused by drifting velocity of charged particles inside the medium but by the Bosons mediated through them. It is a charge cascade effect with drift velocity of individual particles to be rather slow. In other words electric current energy is not transferred through the medium by the fermions but by the Bosons thus photons in a normal conductor and the Cooper-pair Boson in a superconductor.

As for the 2e alleged combined charge of the Cooper pair, I believe this to be false and a misunderstanding. Cooper pairs will be initially formed by two antiparallel spin electrons but this does not imply that the final charge, if any, of the Cooper pair is 2e . They loose most of their individual charge during the join in the form of EM radiation. If each electron in the pair would retain its rest charge, the Cooper would strongly interact with the atomic lattice thus electric resistance and superconductivity would not be possible.

The formula you are giving fj= 2eV/h is for the Josephson AC frequency of the Josephson junction quantum phenomena although related with SC can not accounted in any way to prove that a Cooper pair has charge of 2e. Remember there is no superconducting material at the region where the dielectric material junction is, just normal electrons. The Cooper pair Boson passing through due quantum tunneling is interacting with the dielectric (which is an insulator) producing the oscillation.

Emmanouil

Indeed, charge is quantized. no charge was ever experimentally measured anywhere for current that was not an exact multiple of the electron charge, whatever the temperature.

Dear Emmanouil,

I refer to your point “If each electron in the pair would retain its rest charge, the Cooper would strongly interact with the atomic lattice thus electric resistance and superconductivity would not be possible.”

There is a case that the point is not true. If the electronic pairs (as bosons) form a Bose-Einstein-Condensate (BEC), then below a condensation temperature (TBEC) the motion of the pair becomes non-dissipative (absolutely the same case is the superfluidity of Helium-4). The explanation of the fact is very easy: every condensated boson can increase its energy by a finite (non arbitrarily small) value.

Many physicists advocate the BEC – approach of superconductivity (P. Anderson etc.)

Dear Stanislav,

quote:

There is a case that the point is not true. If the electronic pairs (as bosons) form a Bose-Einstein-Condensate (BEC), then below a condensation temperature (TBEC) the motion of the pair becomes non-dissipative (absolutely the same case is the superfluidity of Helium-4). The explanation of the fact is very easy: every condensated boson can increase its energy by a finite (non arbitrarily small) value.

Many physicists advocate the BEC – approach of superconductivity (P. Anderson etc.)

Interesting BEC explanation for the SC. Yes this I believe could be possible if the SC critical temperature was not much higher than the BEC needed temperature. In general any attempt fror explaining SC with BEC has failed as far as I know and the established theory for SC is the BCS one. If this was the case type II high temperature SC should not exist. Superconductivity is similar to superfluid and not BEC I submit.

Dear Gokaran,

qoute: "If you lookup London equation (see for example page 737 Ashcroft and Mermin) then you will realise that he indeed uses drifting speed equation of motion for superconducting electron."

If you stop thinking the Cooper pair as being a fermion and albeit to the accepted theory for sc thus the BCS theory then the Cooper pair is a Boson and Bosons don;t drift. It may physically from a model standpoint look like a fermion but it behaves and is a Boson.

" The factor 2 appear in numerator validated that Cooper pair indeed has 2e. "

Again no. Factor 2 in this analysis shows only that the Cooper pair was initially formed by two antiparallel electrons it doesn't say anything about the charge of the Cooper pair. In general you don't assign a charge property to Bosons.

Show me one straight reference in the literature that assigns a definitive charge value for the Cooper pair? I know SC is strange, it is an anomaly, but is a unique field for me for understanding truly the nature of EM.

Emmanouil

Dear Andre,

quote:

"Indeed, charge is quantized. no charge was ever experimentally measured anywhere for current that was not an exact multiple of the electron charge, whatever the temperature."

I agree. You have made a very strong point here no electric charge can be less than e. So how can a Cooper pair have charge less than e?

To answer this question I have to ask you another:

How many Coulombs is the color charge of quarks?

... I believe you understand where I am going to? :)

I think it would suffice to say, without telling that no one has really figured out SC, that Cooper pairs are not fermions but Bosons (charge carriers) and that in a superconductor there is no electron current but Cooper current!!.... hahahahahahahaa!

Emmanouil

p.s. Again I have missed some of your post because the stupid "show previous answers" RG button :(

Excellent literature referencing and analysis! No doubt.

Still, these are all deductions not necessarily albeit to the BCS theory.

Can you provide me with a link that definitively states the charge of the the Cooper pair?

Emmanuel

That a Cooper pair is not charged because it is a Boson.?

For your information, there are plenty of charged bosons.(revise in your books)

pi +, pi - are the better known.

Dear Emmanouil,

You wrote: "I agree. You have made a very strong point here no electric charge can be less than e. So how can a Cooper pair have charge less than e?"

The experimental fact is that Cooper pairs can only be electron pairs, so it is not possible for them to have less than twice the charge of an electron.

The reason why no other possibility exists, is that the only freely moving elementary charge carriers in any material are electrons. Protons, which are the only other charged component of any atom, do not travel freely in materials.

For quarks, color charge is a theory, QCD, that never could formulate exact equations for nucleons.

I know of only two physically existing quark types that have been experimentally confirmed to exist inside nuclei via scattering. Detected by non-destructive scattering at the SLAC facility in its first years of operation (1966-1968). The charge of the up quark was measured as +1.068117641E-19 Coulomb and that of the down quark at -5.340588207E-20 Coulomb.

But these do not move freely anywhere.

Of course, Cooper pairs can be "thought about" as if they were bosons and mentally visualize it as Cooper current, just like we could think about the two electrons that bind two hydrogen atoms into a molecule as if they were bosons, but by nature, in reality, they can only be electron pairs momentarily related by antiparallel magnetic spin coupling. There simply is no other physically identifiable possibility.

Best Regards

André

Thanks for the information you provided. I found the accepted physical interpretation I needed here:

http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/webprojects2000/igrant/bcstheory.html

quote:

"

The formation of Cooper pairs is supported by the fact that BCS and the Ginzburg-Landau theories predict the charge and mass of the supercurrent 'particle' to be 2e and 2Me respectively.

Cooper Pairs - BCS Theory Supercurrent Carriers

The Cooper pairs within the superconductor are what carry the supercurrent, but why do they experience such perfect conductivity? Mathematically, because the Cooper pair is more stable than a single electron within the lattice, it experiences less resistance (although the superconducting state cannot be made up entirely of Cooper pairs as this would lead to the collapse of the state). Physically, the Cooper pair is more resistant to vibrations within the lattice as the attraction to its partner will keep it 'on course' - therefore, Cooper pairs move through the lattice relatively unaffected by thermal vibrations (electron-phonon interactions) below the critical temperature. Play the animations below by clicking the 'play' icon in the corner to compare Cooper pair superconduction and normal conduction."

Not really satisfying physical explanation since thermal vibration will increase also the EM fluctuations of the atomic lattice and therefore the relative large 2e charge of the Cooper pair would be more susceptible to fermionic repulsion and magnetic attraction from the lattice.

I guess not satisfying theory is a synonym for SC?...

I've been following this thread. The idea that charge is a basic property of the electron seems like an assumption. The fundamental property of an electron is either a magnetic OR a electric . Motion of either produces the other. But it cannot be both. So, is there any experiment that can differentiate whether it is a charge whose motion produces a magnetic field or a magnet whose motion produces an electric charge (coulomb) field?

I think, subject to argument and enlightenment, the Stern-Gerlach shows electron basic property is magnetic. But, ....

Dear Emmanouil,

Yes, all current theories try to explain the pairing mechanism of 2 electrons, but the question “why a boson is non-dissipative ?” remains largely open. I also hear often that BE-condensation fails to explain the pairing process, however, BEC is not the pairing mechanism, BEC is a cause of the non-dissipative motion of bosons (otherwise the bosonic motion is always dissipative, independently of the boson’s charge).

Stanislav

Dear John,

you wrote: " So, is there any experiment that can differentiate whether it is a charge whose motion produces a magnetic field or a magnet whose motion produces an electric charge (coulomb) field?"

This is very basic electricity. Among other proofs, electron current in electric wires generate a magnetic field about the wire, and electric generators generate electric current by moving magnets about wires. This has been known for centuries. Faraday was instrumental in deepening our now long established knowledge about this.

LRC oscillators use this principle of mutual electric vs magnetic induction. All modern applications are grounded on electromagnetic interaction.

Electrons are "electromagnetic" particles. so they have both properties. Long established also.

Best Regards

André

Dear André,

I know that Cooper pairs are initially are made of by two antiparallel electrons. However my suggestion from the beginning of this thread is that in a relative tight coupled electron pair could due to initial fermionic clash when brought together result on each electron to loose most of its momentum thus charge in the form of radiation without being destroyed and therefore the pair to revert to a minimum charge state electron pair of experimentally uncharted matter we call Cooper pair.

Since the Cooper pair charge was never experimentally measured please forgive me if I have my doubts about the 2e charge argument. Also I have suggested the possibility that the 10-3 eV weak interaction energy of the two particles in the Cooper pair which is I believe the real Boson in the pair is the energy which is cascaded unhidered through the material.

However I believe the difficulty arises when trying to explain SC with particles.

Again I believe the hydrodynamics vortex model for EM and first proposed by me QFM modon dipole model for the electron would be a better model for describing SC.

Q: Assuming the relative calm water surface of a pool emulating the superconducting solid material frozen to subzero temperatures, what kind of charge (kinetic distortion) geometry would make it further along the pool without dissipating in energy, unhindered and without loosing its initial geometry?

Look for yourself the answer here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnbJEg9r1o8

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

Dear Emmanouil,

I see that you associate the level of charge to the momentum of the electron. This cannot be the case. If the electron charge was not invariant irrespective of its momentum energy, the equations used to guide electron beams in high energy accelerators would not work. These calculations depend on the charge of individual electrons being invariant. And they work perfectly with the highest precision.

Old style CRT tv screens worked on this principle.

Best Regards

André

Gokaran, Andre:

Both of these involve motion. Therefore, NOT definitive. S, we're left with assuming one as the property. So, the assumption is has been around for a long time. BTW the Biot-Savart (Faraday) law is partly false and I think ends in concluding the magnetic character of electrons - but that is an assumption that better explains experiment.

Emmanouil: Great video.

Dear John,

I can only recommend that you get hold somehow of textbooks that clearly explain all about electricity and magnetism.

None of our technology would work if this was not correctly understood. Including the quite complex hardware that allows us to hold the present conversation.

Best Regards

André

The motion of one produces the other , fine, so they both exist.

The motion of a car produces a wind, but the car and the wind exist. A changing quantity does not cease to exist simply because it is changing.

So I dont follow your reasoning

Maybe it is because you think in a quantum way, cannot have speed and position well defined together.? In Newtonian mechanics both speed and position are well defined together on each point of the trajectory.

Maxwell is not a quantum theory, but a macroscopic Classical one.

PS. There is a more quantum interpretation of fields in QED, but this should not concern us here. Then there is a frame dependence of the fields you percieve in special relativity, this should not concern us either.

If there is a current along two parallel wires, the wires will either repel, or attract depending on the relative disposition of the two

currents (equal or opposite). One wire produces a magnetic field, and the charges which move in the other wire feel the Lorenz force exerted. If you read a book like Frances Kipp, electricity and magnetism, it is all well explained.

The electron has both a charge, and magnetic moment, and produces a magnetic field in motion, and has mass, and leads to an electric field. If the charge is static it produces a radial electric field coming out in all radial directions. This electric field produces the coulomb force on another charge. You know, like charges repel, unlike attract.

The magnetic moment part gives a magnetic field , extremly weak compared to the magnetic fields you would get from charge motion, it is of quantum origin, and only in collective effects in solids could these magnetic moments produce a significant magnetic field.

Of course it happens, in magnets, but for a single electron, you can forget it exists.

Electric and magnetic fields are of course totally different. An electric field is born of charges and ends on charges (souce and sink) A magnetic field born from a current has no souce or sink, it just goes around and closes on itself like a snake.

Mathematically div(D) = rho, div(B)=0, rho is charge denisty, D related to electric field. There is no magnetic charge per se,

only magnetic dipoles.

Dear Juan,

The motion of a car produces a wind, but the motion of a wind does not produce a car. So I don't see how this can be compared.

Again, I can only suggest getting hold of textbooks that clearly explain the basics of electricity and magnetism.

Reference works meant for engineering are particularly adequate and give all the equations with resolved examples. But you need a pocket calculator to resolve them and verify for yourself whether or not they make sense. But even if you do not conclude that they do, they are actually the math used to design all the "successfully working" equipment that we "successfully" use.

I personally need no other proof of physical reality of the underlying principles than successful application of the equations stemming from these principles, that by the way, were established from data experimentally obtained from physically carried out experiments .

Best Regards

André

Andre

I know what Im talking about, shure the relation can go two ways, but just because you have a pair of

coupled equations does not mean that the quantities cease to exist. So the reasoning is the same.

Sometimes you solve both equations and get the result (analytically, no pocket calculator)

This is done for an electromagnetic field, using Maxwells equations

So both fields are rolled up in one wave, but you can still talk about the separate fields.

(look up this calculation, if you like) You need vector analysis.

If you have a different sort of argument i would like to hear about it so maybe I could then understand you and john

(so far incomprehensible)

Best regards, juan

Dear Juan,

You wrote: "So both fields are rolled up in one wave, but you can still talk about the separate fields."

You just said it yourself. What else is there to understand?"

Established by Maxwell 160 years ago.

Pairs of massive and charged electron-positron are known since the 1930's (Blackett and Occhialini) to be generated when massless electromagnetic photons of energy 1.022 MeV or more are destabilized into converting into such pairs and that such pairs can convert back into electromagnetic photons.

If the photon was electromagnetic, there is no way that the electron and the positron would not also be, or do you think that one leaves with the charge and the other with the magnetic aspect?

Both elementary particles can only be electromagnetic in nature. Simple logic.

What else could they be?

What other argument but plain logic do you need? This is (it was anyway before) taught in all elementary electricity and magnetism courses for the past century.

Nothing new has been discovered about this since. Available in countless textbooks in all languages.

This will remain incomprehensible to anyone who does not study electricity and magnetism proper references that have been around for the past hundred years.

Even textbooks of the early 1900's will give you the real story. Electric motors would not exist if this was not conform to reality, even if you don't believe it.

Behnam suggest to study the proper references to understand the relations between electrons and superconduction.

Similarly, the only argument I have is simply "study electricity and magnetism" from proper sources to understand the electromagnetic nature of electrons.

Best Regards

André

Andre and Juan,

If the car stops moving it produces no wind thus no charge.

However I agree the that the analogy is not entirely applicable for the electron. Since the electron is a moving magnet.

Maybe a better analogy would be a swinging fan blower. The fan blows air (magnetism) and when its starts swinging it produces currents of air (electricity)

Gokaran,

Perfect explanation about the range of fermion repulsion 1/r2 vs magnetic dipole attraction 1/r3 I though it also myself. However, check it out in BCS theory the say that the particles in the Cooper pair is in the order of 10-5 cm apart which is relative a huge distance!! How the cirrcumvent this problem in their theory is best demonstrated here from a Stanford University Professor:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROwLS0cKUN4&t=3704s

Dear Emmanouil,

Interesting explanation from S. Kivelson.

I note however that he speaks of the moving electrons (the current), but does not highlight the fact that the positive ions are actually atoms missing only one or two electrons on their outer layers (those that are in motion), so that the ions are mostly electrons remaining captive of the outer orbitals of the atoms.

So it is quite possible also that the magnetic fields of the moving electron be in constant interaction with these captive electrons that they are grazing. I easily see them easily swiveling to antiparallel orientation with respect to a succession of captive electrons along the way, and that the 10-5 cm distance might be some sort of average distance of the constantly changing successive magnetic pairings between the moving electrons and the fixed electrons of the ions.

This would make each the Cooper pairs existing fleetingly involving a moving electron momentarily in antiparallel relation with a fixed electron, but that observed from our macroscopic perspective would appear to be moving Cooper pairs.

A simple hypothesis, grounded on the very fact that the moving electrons are moving through a field of captive electrons making up the outer shells of all ions in the materials.

Best Regards

André

Emmanuel

Of course this argument about the classic electric and magnetic fields does not extend to things like the electron, because then things start to go quantum, reality becomes a much more fuzzy thing.

If two identical electrons, both in space, you can never really distinguish one from another for example. Statistics become Fermi, quantum statistics.

Dear André,

Interesting hypothesis and explanation. However, too much interaction and play this would increase time delay overall. Bottomline for me the best way to explain SC is by minimum interference and interaction. Charge just slips through and along the atomic lattice of the material like an ice skater or a charged superfluid with zero electric resistance in its path. The fact that supeconductors type one are a dramatic abrupt threshold event at the critical temperature Tc, indicates that an energy barrier is broken.

It could be that alleged 2e charge of Coopper pairs becomes too "heavy" to be stopped by the atomic lattice or too insignificant small and passes unnoticed the atomic lattice. I incline more to the second explanation but this would imply a superconductor charge quanta less than e. Maybe it is this weak 10-3 eV energy bond inside the Cooper pair which cascades unhindered through the atomic lattice of the material?

A big heavy bug would break a spider web and pass right through it. A very small bug would probably pass through the web unaffected...take your pick?

Emmanouil

Gokoran

To me it sounds like you have not been in the buisnes of superconductivity long enough yet, to learn it in one week is impossible. Too short for lattice vibrations to come into play, but a lot of overlap.

Dear all,

Our long discussion clearly demonstrates that there is no plausible explanation for superconductivity. I guess the confusion started with the BCS-recognition, so one should return to basic principles of quantum dynamics, developed in 1920-1930. That is done in the paper “Formation of Cooper Pairs as a Consequence of Exchange Interaction”

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1501/1501.04978.pdf

Most of “magic” experimental results follow directly from the Pauli Principle and Bose-Einstein-condensation.

Stanislav.

���ɜ�

They don't want to admit it yet because the implications on SR but the experimental proof is undeniable, conservation of angular momentum doesn't lie:

https://phys.org/news/2019-01-einsteinde-haas-effect-insight-puzzling.html

Article The Ultrafast Einstein-De Haas Effect

arxiv pdf: https://tinyurl.com/yayamxac

The electrons physically spin on their magnetization axis.

I told you so... electrons are magnet spinning tops:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4h8nrU1dsQ

This here demonstrates fermionc repulsion (physical angular spin) and magnetic moment attraction equilibrium meat resulting to stabilization in space:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu1jEWLZVug

This physical spin of the magnetic dipole field is also shown in the ferrolens as a static imprint of a light Doppler shift effect (lighthouse effect). Notice left half of the field flux appears more illuminated than right hand side suggesting relative ccw rotation of the magnetic dipole field of the permanent magnet. Also notice the dip on the right arm of the field indicating flux whirling into the screen and coming out from the left, see figure 2.

We can say it is a spinning magnetic moment... the problem is that they don't aknowledge actual axial spin for the electron although they use it in their semantics thus magnetic spin!!...it is a paradox.

Dear Gokaran,

I completely agree (Angular Spin and magnetic moment are not separated to each other for any material in nature.)

As I recently mentioned in another thread, cyclic reciprocal motion and angular momentum can be described with exactly the same equations. This even removes the need to consider a spacewise "rotation" to explain spin and allows for the possibility of a timewise cyclic reciprocal motion as in the trispatial geometry.

Note also that this is in harmony with the observation that in fundamental electromagnetism and in LC systems that the magnetic aspect would be time varying.

Ref: Sears, Zemansky and Young (1984) University Physics, Addison Wesley. USA, p. 696.

Best Regards

André

Keplers second law is simply conservation of angular momentum for central forces.

In the case of the electron, you miss the g factor. Dirac theory gives g=2, very close to the real value.

The concept of spin in the Stern-Gerlach experiment is only a mathematical imposition on the data. The observation of only spots on the screen then required the quantization of spin. (Still more imposed assumptions.) If one were to describe the experiment result with our world observations (macro-size), one could employ magnetic moments and some means to try to keep the electron oriented in some direction. Quantazation then happens because a magnetic moment has a very specific orientation. This seems a far more satisfactory description because it doesn't involve weirdness.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329130715_Structure_and_spin_of_the_neutrino_electron_and_positron

The Stern-Gerlach experiment tend to exert a force to turn the electron. A gyroscope action ensues to give the electron 2 possible net orientations relative to the travel direction and a 720 degree symmetry (rotation around one axis then the other).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329130599_STOE_model_of_the_electron_spin_12_observation

The Biot-savart (Ampere's) Law is slightly disproved by experiment.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329371487_Magnetostatics_relation_to_gravity_with_experiment_that_rejects_Biot-Savart_Law

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327157853_Another_experiment_rejects_Ampere's_Law_and_supports_the_STOE_model?_sg=DfAC4PaSc4FGHQieNzeuMrV0NQ4ZJpTmealAa5XZBW4gIGIPtJhmsoeTq5ndm_5hvFxFrGrJ2LAgz6Os52-Z9HEmfosmbJkwxbUID45d.GP3CuPqCoiuPrqUMv5O_Jwo4M0d-9jZ_kN6VMqD1LHLbl_loKqRl9nRPYS09qgky8s25ruMGTzPZYKaK7rYhzg

Gokoran

Your derivation gave you e/2m, not ge/2m , what could be more clear?

Yes, for electrons that is the result. That is why many say that relativistic ideas are involved and the Dirac relativistic

quantum mechanics predicts g=2. Actually this is not the end, because it is really a bit larger than 2, and this has taken to

QED where very accurate prediction is eventually found.

No.

Dear Professor N. K. Jaggi ,

That is the best answer specifically answering the title of this question thread here.

However I am motivated to ask you please what specific measurements of radiation you did during your superconducting experiments? It was proposed in this thread here that a single very short spike of possible gamma radiation up to many hundreds of 1018 Hz exahertz will be radiated from the superconductor during the Tc temperature transient. This spike would appear only once. What frequency range you were scanning for and what was the minimum pulse response time threshold or else time resolution of your apparatus used during these experiments?

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

Prof. Markoulakis,

I have NOT looked for them.

Narendra

Ongoing modeling efforts that ENGINEERINGINC TEI PLATFORM proceeding have power to show that quantum decoherence is a local effect while quantum entanglement typically a global phenomena. What it will mean all for magnetic electron superconductivity will be that.......

. Cooper pairs are quantum entangled globally - evidently they're capable of 10 cm. or so apart!!.....like modons!!.....

. lowering temperature much closer to zero will minimize or totally eliminate quantum decoherence, thereby zeroing resistance to electron travel across lattice structure, near the absolute zero for a typical superconducting material.

These are only conjectures, however, two aspects stated above can contribute to highly superconductive electron pair giving credibility with quantum field magnetic behavior providing integrating quantifiability experimentally&theoretically

Dear Dr. Rajan Iyer,

All of your observations are correct I believe, the modon energy transfer pattern is the most energy efficient way in nature for joint particles to travel unhindered through the atomic lattice of the superconductor. Let me just add since an electron is a 3D modon by itself we will have two joint modons forming essentially in 3D space a single vortex ring traversing through the medium:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj9irzI-Pzw

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

Ha, ha, all very transparent, hods, modons, any more inventions?

But perhaps not more strange than holons and spinons.(Spin decomposing into)

Now seriously,

A vortex going through a type II superconductor is a penetrating magnetic field, which is entirely excluded in a type I, with a quantized flux.

BA, where A is area. This points to a more gradual breakdown of superconductivity with magnetic field (second order phase transition) in a type II, as compared to type I (first order phase transition).

Why? B tends to align all spins, and this breaks apart cooper pairs, a pair with opposite spin.

Superconducting materials are perfect diamagnets, that set up internal currents that oppose a penetrating B field.

After a critical value Hc an external magnetic field will eventually destroy superconductivity and penetrate the material. This value Hc for the external magnetic field is relative small for type 1 SC and higher for type 2I but nontheless there.

In order SC to work whatever energy is propagated through must be penetrative to the material's atomic structure energy barriers. There is no way around it.

following

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFdq6IecUJc

A classic

Turns out after all that there is state of matter consisting of an positron-electron Boson pair with integer magnetic spin which does not annihilate or fermionic scatter, namely positronium:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronium

These are light bonded not joint (from a distance like the Cooper electron pair 10-5 cm) positron-electron pairs but are unstable with little life time since they always result in annihilation or scattering.

More references here:

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/e+e-.pdf

https://tinyurl.com/y9wpzcmb

https://tinyurl.com/ybkut7r5

https://tinyurl.com/yc6d2wvy

http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.hdl_11089_15891/c/APS1W_SWIATKOWSKI_55_62.pdf

https://www.e-periodica.ch/cntmng?pid=hpa-001:1988:61::1183

However, what if at these very low temperatures positroniums are generated all the time with life time long enough to make it along the material?

Seems to me that a positronium has the same properties of an Cooper antiparallel spin electron light bond pair. Personally I have a hard time to distinguish between these two. Wikipedia says the a positronium Boson has half of the mass of na electron me/2, maybe that's the only difference with the Cooper pair which however would make positronium a much better candidate for SC than a electron pair.

Yes, the energy does not dissipate because of the superconducting gap. No positrons for me, and I should point out that the combination with the electron should be neutral rather than charged? After you think about this, look at the evidence. Do you think there would be superconducting magnets?

Piezoelectric Induced Room Temperature Superconductivity (RTSC)

Piezoelectric Induced Room Temperature Superconductivity (RTSC) US NAVY Patent 2017 Author: Salvatore Cezar Pais see attached pdf or download link here: https://tinyurl.com/y3d72wza Note: I believe the US Navy has already implemented as a Black Project, RTSC by the above patent.

~ sigh

If Cooper pairs are susceptible to γ - radiation then it possible might be as well that they depend on it.