New Reply

Are superconductivity and melting not understood?

 
Share Thread
Aug7-12, 01:43 AM   #1
 

Are superconductivity and melting not understood?


Hi all,

I've been told from a couple different people something along the lines of "we don't fully understand how melting (the phase transition) works". Same with superconductivity.

But I thought melting was fairly straightforward: The molecules in the material keep gaining energy until they break free from their crystal intermolecular bonds, and then they have some weaker bonds holding them together.

I also thought superconductivity was explained by BCS theory.

Is there any truth to this? I assume if there is, it's something much deeper and more mathematical, and that we have the general idea but there's still something more technical not understood.
PhysOrg.com physics news on PhysOrg.com

>> Surprising turns in magnetic thin films could lead to better data storage
>> Novel synthesis technique for high efficiency conversion of source gas to diamond
>> Scientists capture crystallization of materials in nanoseconds
Aug7-12, 02:23 AM   #2
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
The BCS theory works for standard superconductivity, but not high temperature superconductivity. (Or it at least doesn't fully explain high temp SC)

As for melting, I have never heard anyone say that before.
Aug7-12, 03:53 AM   #3
 
Recognitions:
Science Advisor Science Advisor
Quote by VortexLattice View Post
But I thought melting was fairly straightforward: The molecules in the material keep gaining energy until they break free from their crystal intermolecular bonds, and then they have some weaker bonds holding them together.
It is not that trivial. While describing melting from the thermodynamical point of view works reasonably well, a microscopic description of what is happening is significantly harder if you want all the details to be reproduced well. For examle liquids do not show long-range order like crystals, but are typically not completely disordered as well - they show short-range order. Trying to get this and similar effects from first principles is a major pain and takes long computation times. The role of defects may also be crucial.

See for example U. Gasser et al., "Melting of Crystals in Two Dimensions", ChemPhysChem, Volume 11, Issue 5, pages 963–970, April 6, 2010 for a review article.
You will find: 2D melting is already hard to describe - 3d melting may become a nightmare.
Aug7-12, 10:04 AM   #4
 

Are superconductivity and melting not understood?


Quote by Drakkith View Post
The BCS theory works for standard superconductivity, but not high temperature superconductivity. (Or it at least doesn't fully explain high temp SC)

As for melting, I have never heard anyone say that before.
Sorry, "high temp" being the ones that can work in LN2, or fabled room temp ones?
Aug7-12, 10:04 AM   #5
 
Quote by Cthugha View Post
It is not that trivial. While describing melting from the thermodynamical point of view works reasonably well, a microscopic description of what is happening is significantly harder if you want all the details to be reproduced well. For examle liquids do not show long-range order like crystals, but are typically not completely disordered as well - they show short-range order. Trying to get this and similar effects from first principles is a major pain and takes long computation times. The role of defects may also be crucial.

See for example U. Gasser et al., "Melting of Crystals in Two Dimensions", ChemPhysChem, Volume 11, Issue 5, pages 963–970, April 6, 2010 for a review article.
You will find: 2D melting is already hard to describe - 3d melting may become a nightmare.
Ah, I think this is what they meant. For a bit I was looking at a colloids lab that was trying to figure out melting in 2D using small, mechanical beads or something.
Aug7-12, 11:35 AM   #6
 
Mentor
Blog Entries: 28
Quote by VortexLattice View Post
Sorry, "high temp" being the ones that can work in LN2, or fabled room temp ones?
These are the cuprate and pnictide superconductors.

Zz.
New Reply

Similar discussions for: Are superconductivity and melting not understood?
Thread Forum Replies
Have i understood correctly? Quantum Physics 9
Universe age!?, I never really understood that General Astronomy 18
Why is turbulence so little understood? General Physics 7
Torque. I thought i understood it. Obv I don't. Introductory Physics Homework 8
I thought I understood... Introductory Physics Homework 13