Superconductor Paradox

Status
Not open for further replies.

Thread Starter

Energy forever

Joined Sep 11, 2021
46
If, when we heat things, molecules/atoms/subatomic particles gain energy, then, when things cool down, molecules/atoms/subatomic particles would loose energy and slow down. So, when it comes to superconductors, this would be the same, yet, supposedly, when a current is induced into a superconducting wire, the current aka subatomic particles aka electrons disobey/do not follow the pattern of loosing energy in/to the supercooled environment, and supposedly continue to flow forever in a loop conductor. Can someone explain: Q: why the current/electrons do not loose energy to the supercooled environment? In a clear and accurate fashion, pretty please? (I understand you might say the current does loose energy but extremely small amounts over time, but if you see how fast the supercooled conductor looses its energy, then please explain: Q: why did not the electrons composing the current loose its energy at the same rate as the superconductor and the other electrons, and continue to flow, seemingly endlessly?)
 

Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
19,023
There is a distinction between classical physics and quantum mechanics. There is an apocryphal story about Richard Feynman being the only person who understood quantum mechanics. That being the case it may be difficult to explain your question to you in a knowledge appropriate way.

For starters there is more than one kind of energy. In classical physics we have kinetic energy and we have potential energy. As I understand what happens in superconductivity, there is a reduction in the thermal energy of motion and vibration, but there is also a reduction in the potential barrier for the motion of electrons. When the potential barrier is reduced, the quantum behavior of the electrons allow them to move in an unobstructed fashion. You should also notice that superconductivity occurs at temperatures that can be well above 0 °K, depending on the material we are talking about. So at the onset of superconductivity there is still a reasonable amount of thermal energy.

Like ferromagnetism and atomic spectral lines, superconductivity is a phenomenon which can only be explained by quantum mechanics. It is characterized by the Meissner effect, the complete ejection of magnetic field lines from the interior of the superconductor during its transitions into the superconducting state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity#:~:text=Like ferromagnetism and atomic spectral lines, superconductivity is,superconductor during its transitions into the superconducting state.


Finally there is a big difference between the temperature approaching 0 °K and the total energy going to 0. They are not the same thing.
 
Last edited:

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
10,135
If, when we heat things, molecules/atoms/subatomic particles gain energy, then, when things cool down, molecules/atoms/subatomic particles would loose energy and slow down. So, when it comes to superconductors, this would be the same, yet, supposedly, when a current is induced into a superconducting wire, the current aka subatomic particles aka electrons disobey/do not follow the pattern of loosing energy in/to the supercooled environment, and supposedly continue to flow forever in a loop conductor. Can someone explain: Q: why the current/electrons do not loose energy to the supercooled environment? In a clear and accurate fashion, pretty please? (I understand you might say the current does loose energy but extremely small amounts over time, but if you see how fast the supercooled conductor looses its energy, then please explain: Q: why did not the electrons composing the current loose its energy at the same rate as the superconductor and the other electrons, and continue to flow, seemingly endlessly?)
First, the electrons in any good conductor carry very little of the circuit energy to begin with as most of the circuit energy is in the fields surrounding the conductor because the electron drift speeds are low even in a superconductor.

You can think of the electrons in a superconductor wire as one giant quantum linked electron. Resistance losses in a conductor are caused by collisions between separate particles. If those particle are in a fixed spacial relationship between each other there will be no collisions and no resistance losses at the current flows. At the quantum state of each free electron it exist in a pure collision-less vacuum.

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

Thread Starter

Energy forever

Joined Sep 11, 2021
46
There is a distinction between classical physics and quantum mechanics. There is an apocryphal story about Richard Feynman being the only person who understood quantum mechanics. That being the case it may be difficult to explain your question to you in a knowledge appropriate way.

For starters there is more than one kind of energy. In classical physics we have kinetic energy and we have potential energy. As I understand what happens in superconductivity, there is a reduction in the thermal energy of motion and vibration, but there is also a reduction in the potential barrier for the motion of electrons. When the potential barrier is reduced, the quantum behavior of the electrons allow them to move in an unobstructed fashion. You should also notice that superconductivity occurs at temperatures that can be well above 0 °K, depending on the material we are talking about. So at the onset of superconductivity there is still a reasonable amount of thermal energy.

Like ferromagnetism and atomic spectral lines, superconductivity is a phenomenon which can only be explained by quantum mechanics. It is characterized by the Meissner effect, the complete ejection of magnetic field lines from the interior of the superconductor during its transitions into the superconducting state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity#:~:text=Like ferromagnetism and atomic spectral lines, superconductivity is,superconductor during its transitions into the superconducting state.


Finally there is a big difference between the temperature approaching 0 °K and the total energy going to 0. They are not the same thing.
Nice reply, i think it got me thinking. I came up with a simple drawing which illustrates electrons are composed of electromagnet energy, whatever that really is, but then i thought more, and it would appear, at least to me, that Einstein equation is saying everything is essentially condesed "energy". Whatever energy really is
 

Attachments

Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
19,023
Nice reply, i think it got me thinking. I came up with a simple drawing which illustrates electrons are composed of electromagnet energy, whatever that really is, but then i thought more, and it would appear, at least to me, that Einstein equation is saying everything is essentially condesed "energy". Whatever energy really is
Are you familiar with the concept that electrons exhibit "wave-particle" duality? That is sometimes they behave like particles with mass and kinetic energy (energy of motion), but they also behave as if they were waves as they do in the double slit experiment. There is no need to consider "magical" constructs, because they can be understood in terms of well established theory and experiment.
 

Thread Starter

Energy forever

Joined Sep 11, 2021
46
Are you familiar with the concept that electrons exhibit "wave-particle" duality? That is sometimes they behave like particles with mass and kinetic energy (energy of motion), but they also behave as if they were waves as they do in the double slit experiment. There is no need to consider "magical" constructs, because they can be understood in terms of well established theory and experiment.
I briefly read an article about how people think electrons behave like light, which is why i responded with my drawing, which illustrates electrons are composed of light, among other forms of "energy". After a quick google you can see too that others yield a photon from two electrons colliding. Not sure why you posted what you said. Maybe you are more confused than i
 

Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
19,023
I briefly read an article about how people think electrons behave like light, which is why i responded with my drawing, which illustrates electrons are composed of light, among other forms of "energy". After a quick google you can see too that others yield a photon from two electrons colliding. Not sure why you posted what you said. Maybe you are more confused than i
I posted what I did because your notions seem whimsical at best and quite removed from reality. I'm encouraging trying to learn more actual physics instead of making it up as you go along.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
10,135
I briefly read an article about how people think electrons behave like light, which is why i responded with my drawing, which illustrates electrons are composed of light, among other forms of "energy". After a quick google you can see too that others yield a photon from two electrons colliding. Not sure why you posted what you said. Maybe you are more confused than i
I think you need a little homework.
https://www.grandinetti.org/quantum-theory-light
 

Ya’akov

Joined Jan 27, 2019
6,289
What genius wasn't considered crazy
It is a strange sort of error to imagine that because some revolutionary ideas were initially dismissed that ideas which are dismissed are, therefore, necessarily revolutionary.

There are some ways to tell if "crazy" ideas are simply misunderstood genius or are simply just bad ideas arising from ignorance and hubris. One of them is productivity: predictive theories and practical devices are excellent indications of substance.
 

Thread Starter

Energy forever

Joined Sep 11, 2021
46
Y'all are just peanut butter and jellyous that concept difficult to you are easy to me, so easy i can draw them in a way a kindergartener could understand. Yet, yall act like you cant understand. Wonder what that makes y'all lmao
 

Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
19,023
Y'all are just peanut butter and jellyous that concept difficult to you are easy to me, so easy i can draw them in a way a kindergartener could understand. Yet, yall act like you cant understand. Wonder what that makes y'all lmao
Maybe the difference is that you have yet to progress past the stage of your drawings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top