Why do superconductors superconduct current?

[granpa]

I'm not being flippant. I thought by mentioning the Fermi energy, it is obvious that it requires charge charriers!
.

i can see how fermi energy could play a role. what's interesting to me is where the energy comes from for a diamagnetic material to exclude an externally applied magnetic field.
not sure what 'it' is that requires charge carriers.

my mistake if you weren't being flippant. the 'Zz' at the bottom of your posts doesn't help much. its used by a well know troll on craigslist.

Then you shouldn't be asking me about the diamagnetism requirment since this is your "model".
.

you must be one of those people that takes every word people say literally. i was simply asking about superconductors. i used the word diamagnetic as a hint. it was supposed to stimulate discussion.

Then you are formulating your own personal theory. You should also not ignore TRIPLET superconductors such as the ruthenates which completely destroys your scenrios of cooper pairs made up only of electrons with "opposite spins".

The "bonding" in conventional superconductors is due to phonons. You see the phonon coupling clearly in McMillen-Rowell reconstruction of in the tunneling density of states, in the electron-phonon coupling strength, and in the isotope effect (which you have not addressed).

Zz.

triplets? not sure i buy that. i think it is the complete absence of the magnetic field that allows the electrons to move without resistance. except of course for things like molecule size wires which i heard can sometimes exhibit superconductor-like properties.

phonons. that's interesting. but i figured it had to be something. like i said i don't think its a simple matter of the electrons bonding magnetically.

 

[ZapperZ]

i can see how fermi energy could play a role. what's interesting to me is where the energy comes from for a diamagnetic material to exclude an externally applied magnetic field.
not sure what 'it' is that requires charge carriers.

my mistake if you weren't being flippant. the 'Zz' at the bottom of your posts doesn't help much. its used by a well know troll on craigslist.



you must be one of those people that takes every word people say literally. i was simply asking about superconductors. i used the word diamagnetic as a hint. it was supposed to stimulate discussion.



triplets? not sure i buy that. i think it is the complete absence of the magnetic field that allows the electrons to move without resistance. except of course for things like molecule size wires which i heard can sometimes exhibit superconductor-like properties.

phonons. that's interesting. but i figured it had to be something. like i said i don't think its a simple matter of the electrons bonding magnetically.

There's so many things wrong in here, I don't know where to start.

1. Please familiarize yourself with the ruthenates superconductor.

2. Please familiarize yourself with BCS superconductivity AND the phonon mechanism. This should NOT be a "surprise" to you when your intention is to come up with your own personal theory.

3. No one is claiming any "electrons bonding magnetically" except you.

4. This thread has deteriorated in unverified personal speculation that is in violation of the PF Guidelines. Therefore, it is done. If the OP has any follow-up question, he/she is welcome to PM me and I will reopen the thread.

Zz.