Understanding the Working of Superconductors and Ordinary Conductors - Explained

  • Thread starter Thread starter Salvador
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Superconductor
AI Thread Summary
Superconductors and ordinary conductors both consist of metals or metal alloys with ion lattices and mobile electrons. In ordinary conductors, higher kinetic energy electrons collide with the ion lattice, generating heat. In contrast, superconductors have lower kinetic energy, allowing electrons to form Cooper pairs, which flow without scattering and thus do not lose energy. The BCS Theory explains that this pairing creates a gap in the energy spectrum, preventing small excitations from disrupting the superconducting state. The discussion raises questions about other potential mechanisms for achieving low kinetic energy conducive to Cooper pair formation.
Salvador
Messages
505
Reaction score
70
Hi, I did a forum search on the topic , but from all the threads I went through I still have doubts about my understanding , please correct me.

Both superconductors and ordinary conductors are metals or metal alloys.Both have ion lattice and electrons that are the moving , current , heat carrying parts.
In ordinary conductor the electrons have higher kinetic energy at room temperature and when current flows they hit the ion lattice and so impart some of their energy to the lattice which results as heat.
in superconductor the electrons have much lower kinetic energy so electrons form pairs and the whole current in the length of the conductor is more like a solid stream , the electron current becomes a little ion lattice like?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Not really. For normal metals which become superconductive at very low temperatures, the key lies in the fact that when the momentum of the electrons is low enough, they can bind together in pairs. Since it takes energy to break this bond, there is a minimum amount of work that must be done on them by any disturbance to break them apart, which forbids small disturbances like scattering from stealing energy from them.

A more accurate description involves energy states. Per wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_pair

Cooper originally considered only the case of an isolated pair's formation in a metal. When one considers the more realistic state of many electronic pair formations, as is elucidated in the full BCS Theory, one finds that the pairing opens a gap in the continuous spectrum of allowed energy states of the electrons, meaning that all excitations of the system must possesses some minimum amount of energy. This gap to excitations leads to superconductivity, since small excitations such as scattering of electrons are forbidden.[6] The gap appears due to many-body effects between electrons feeling the attraction.
 
so it means that the only basic variable for superconductivity in metals is temperature which is a measure of the kinetic energy of the electrons?

is there any other know or theorized way in which the electrons could have low enough kinetic energy for Cooper pairs to form?
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Is the Poynting Vector Field the Only Factor in Energy Flow in Circuits?
Replies
16
Views
3K
I Why does increasing resistance in a conductor decrease power dissipation?
Replies
7
Views
2K
I Superconductor momentum conservation
Replies
3
Views
2K
B Can Cooper Pairs Have Different Orientations in a Superconductor?
Replies
10
Views
2K
Why does superconductors don't radiate?
Replies
35
Views
11K
Semi-conductors and how they work?
Replies
8
Views
3K
I EM Faraday tensor transformation for conductor carrying current
Replies
9
Views
1K
I Understanding dissipation of energy in a resistor through the Drude model
Replies
1
Views
2K
Exploring Conductive Liquids and Superconductors: Questions and Possibilities
Replies
2
Views
1K
Chemistry How does this example of electroplating tungsten onto base metal work?
Replies
5
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top