There is a discussion that is underway in the field of superconductivity regarding the mechanism of cooper pair formation. The split of electron quantum properties has been hypothesized for some time now as its ultimate cause.
How can to particles with the same charge pair up and stay together for a long period of time. I might add that I believe such cooper pairing also happens in regards to protons. In these situations the coulomb is not a factor. As referenced in the article under discussion in this thread, what this research shows is that the split-up of electron quantum properties has now been verified and real as substantiated by experiment. There are various mechanisms involved with the formation of condensates of these quantum properties that cause cooper pairing. The amount the competing theories terms discussed are “slave boson formalism” or “slave Fermion formalisms”. Recently, in regard to the theory of the cuprite superconductors Patrick Lee suggests that the genuinely new idea that has been developed is: "the notion of emergence of gauge fields and fractionalized particles as low-energy phenomena in systems that did not contain them in the starting model." He suggests that this idea is of comparable importance in condensed matter theory to that of Goldstone bosons. Gauge fields emerge when the electron or spin operators are represented in an alternative manner such as in terms of Schwinger bosons, slave fermions, slave bosons, or slave rotors. But a key question is for a given model Hamiltonian, which is the appropriate representation. For quantum spin models it seems that which side of the Charles River you work on determines your preference for a particular representation? At Harvard, Subir Sachdev favours bosonic spinons, while on the opposite of the river, at MIT Patrick Lee favours fermionic spinons. It has been apparent for me in recent months that cold fusion and superconductivity are similar phenomena. I have been boning up on superconductivity theory to help in my understanding of cold fusion. As a generalist I am no expert….yet, but I smell some smoke in this wind and am looking for the fire. Regards: Axil On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> wrote: > There is nothing fundamentally new about this. A quasi particle is a state > that scatters or propagate just as it were a particle, but in fact, it > is just an interference pattern perturbation of the medium considered. In > the article, they just made and electron disturb the media by isolating > independently 2 different states that a given electron had, its spin and > its angular momentum in relation to an atom. These 2 states disturbed the > media and the media carried to the measuring device both of these states, > without mixing them. > > This kind of disturbance is generally very weak, it will be destroyed way > before it can cause a fusion process. >
