Megascopic Quantum Phenomena
317
pairing correlations, and the electric current in the normal state is carried by carriers
with effective mass m* rather than bare mass m, so BCS theory is in disagreement
with experiment. Furthermore, BCS theory attributes the pairing of the carriers to
the electron-phonon interaction, which is completely inconsistent with the evidence
that superfluid carriers become free of interactions with the ionic lattice.”
Hirsch further proposes the concept of mesoscopic orbits as a possible solution
for the mass problem in the London moment. As already mentioned, no one has
found any microscopic wave function describing such mesoscopic orbits, since it is
impossible to derive from the mathematical aspects of crystal symmetry. Does there
exist some microscopic explanations in favor of the bare mass? Naturally one cannot
avoid the universal concept of Bloch states for the description of carriers, and it does
not matter if these carriers are paired or unpaired. If they represent original electrons
or are replaced by polarons, bipolarons etc., we will always arrive at the effective mass
which contradicts the experimental facts of the bare mass in the London moment.
For the third time we conclude that Bohr’s principle of correspondence is broken for
superconductors and quantum physics is unable to explain them.
Finally we turn our attention to the experimental constituent in Eq. (9.1). While
the macroscopic current is measurable, the density and velocity of carriers are not. In
his last paper [87] Hirsch proposes a method for the velocity measurement: “Experimentally the speed of the supercurrent in superconductors has never been measured
and has been argued to be non-measurable, however we point out that it is in principle
measurable by a Compton scattering experiment. We predict that such experiments
will show that superfluid carriers respond to an applied magnetic field according to
their bare mass, in other words, that they respond as free electrons, undressed from
the electron-ion interaction, rather than as Bloch electrons.”
If superconductivity is going to have a microscopic explanation, Hirsch’s request
is absolutely legitimate. The velocity of carriers in superconductors must be measurable in the same manner as in conductors. Does this indicate that experimental
physicists are lazy, incompetent or badly equipped? Certainly not! They must have
deeper reasons why such measurements are infeasible. Hence, for the fourth time we
conclude that for superconductors Bohr’s principle of correspondence is broken and
quantum physics is unable to explain them.
Since the discovery of high-T c superconductivity dozens, of various microscopic
theories have been proposed. Every theory starts from some effective Hamiltonian,
from which the macroscopic phase of the supercurrent should be derived. To the
present day there is no agreement among scientists, which one is natural, correct,
proper, exact or authentic. Every theory attempts to see something in place of the
supercurrent carriers. We argue that a true microscopic theory must not see anything,
i.e. must describe superconductors as insulators, because the explanation of teleological traits in the phenomenon of superconductivity goes beyond quantum physics
as being limited by the Copenhagen interpretation.
In this section we have discussed various attempts to explain and understand the
Meissner effect, requiring always some ad hoc extension beyond either the classical
or the quantum physical formulation. Moreover, if looking at any author, who tries
to find some causal origin of the Meissner effect, one always sees huge complicated
317
pairing correlations, and the electric current in the normal state is carried by carriers
with effective mass m* rather than bare mass m, so BCS theory is in disagreement
with experiment. Furthermore, BCS theory attributes the pairing of the carriers to
the electron-phonon interaction, which is completely inconsistent with the evidence
that superfluid carriers become free of interactions with the ionic lattice.”
Hirsch further proposes the concept of mesoscopic orbits as a possible solution
for the mass problem in the London moment. As already mentioned, no one has
found any microscopic wave function describing such mesoscopic orbits, since it is
impossible to derive from the mathematical aspects of crystal symmetry. Does there
exist some microscopic explanations in favor of the bare mass? Naturally one cannot
avoid the universal concept of Bloch states for the description of carriers, and it does
not matter if these carriers are paired or unpaired. If they represent original electrons
or are replaced by polarons, bipolarons etc., we will always arrive at the effective mass
which contradicts the experimental facts of the bare mass in the London moment.
For the third time we conclude that Bohr’s principle of correspondence is broken for
superconductors and quantum physics is unable to explain them.
Finally we turn our attention to the experimental constituent in Eq. (9.1). While
the macroscopic current is measurable, the density and velocity of carriers are not. In
his last paper [87] Hirsch proposes a method for the velocity measurement: “Experimentally the speed of the supercurrent in superconductors has never been measured
and has been argued to be non-measurable, however we point out that it is in principle
measurable by a Compton scattering experiment. We predict that such experiments
will show that superfluid carriers respond to an applied magnetic field according to
their bare mass, in other words, that they respond as free electrons, undressed from
the electron-ion interaction, rather than as Bloch electrons.”
If superconductivity is going to have a microscopic explanation, Hirsch’s request
is absolutely legitimate. The velocity of carriers in superconductors must be measurable in the same manner as in conductors. Does this indicate that experimental
physicists are lazy, incompetent or badly equipped? Certainly not! They must have
deeper reasons why such measurements are infeasible. Hence, for the fourth time we
conclude that for superconductors Bohr’s principle of correspondence is broken and
quantum physics is unable to explain them.
Since the discovery of high-T c superconductivity dozens, of various microscopic
theories have been proposed. Every theory starts from some effective Hamiltonian,
from which the macroscopic phase of the supercurrent should be derived. To the
present day there is no agreement among scientists, which one is natural, correct,
proper, exact or authentic. Every theory attempts to see something in place of the
supercurrent carriers. We argue that a true microscopic theory must not see anything,
i.e. must describe superconductors as insulators, because the explanation of teleological traits in the phenomenon of superconductivity goes beyond quantum physics
as being limited by the Copenhagen interpretation.
In this section we have discussed various attempts to explain and understand the
Meissner effect, requiring always some ad hoc extension beyond either the classical
or the quantum physical formulation. Moreover, if looking at any author, who tries
to find some causal origin of the Meissner effect, one always sees huge complicated