Ballistic conduction and Superconductivity

NewtonApple
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
Ballistic conduction occurs when the length of the conductor is smaller than the mean free path of the electron.

Ballistic conduction differs from superconductivity due to the absence of the Meissner effect in the material. A ballistic conductor would stop conducting if the driving force is turned off, whereas in a superconductor current would continue to flow after the driving supply is disconnected.

Can anyone elaborate it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think it's a wrong forum. I'm re posting it at another forum.
 
Maybe the solid state forum would be better suited.
But anyhow. Even in the balistic regime, you have residual resistance, so that some current in a current loop would decay.
The Meissner effect means something different. If you cool a conductor, it will expell the magnetic field when it becomes superconducting while if it doesn't become superconducting, but only looses resistivity, it won't expell the magnetic field.
 
  • Like
Likes NewtonApple
thx! I'm re-posting it at Solid State forum.
 
Better use the "report" button and ask staff to move it!
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top