As with so many other things, there is no good theory of superconductivity. Physics now claims to know almost everything, but the number of good physical (mechanical) answers it has to questions is approaching zero.

Superconductivity is currently said to be explained by two theories: the Ginzburg-Landau theory (1950) and the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer theory (1957). Notice first of all that one theory is 60 years old and the other is 53 years old. No theoretical progress in 53 years. It gets even worse when you look at the theories. GL theory is not a theory, it is just a lot of math. Even Wikipedia admits that GL is a mathematical model, not a physical theory, and that it "does not purport to explain the microscopic mechanisms giving rise to superconductivity." So we will pass it by without comment. No, I will pass it by with only this comment: this is the same Landau I critiqued in my paper on the Landau pole. He loves to bury problems under bad math. But since we are looking for an explanation, not math, we won't even pause to pull apart his math here.

BCS theory begins with this:

At sufficiently low temperatures, electrons near the Fermi surface become unstable against the formation of Cooper pairs.

What is a Fermi surface?

The Fermi surface is an abstract boundary useful for predicting the thermal, electrical, magnetic, and optical properties of metals, semimetals, and doped semiconductors.

What are Cooper pairs?

Cooper showed that an arbitrarily small attraction between electrons in a metal can cause a paired state of electrons to have a lower energy than the Fermi energy, which implies that the pair is bound. In conventional superconductors, this attraction is due to the electron–phonon interaction.

I hope you can see that we aren't in the presence of a mechanical theory here either. The Fermi surface is an abstract boundary, which means the theorists just made it up. We have no data confirming a Fermi surface, and we have no mechanical cause of the surface, so it is completely heuristic. The same can be said of Cooper pairs. Cooper proposes an arbitrarily small attraction, but provides no mechanical cause for it. It is a virtual attraction, in other words, a borrowing of attraction from the void. We see the state of the theory from this paragraph:

Although Cooper pairing is a quantum effect, the reason for the pairing can be seen from a simplified classical explanation. An electron in a metal normally behaves as a free particle. The electron is repelled from other electrons due to their negative charge, but it also attracts the positive ions that make up the rigid lattice of the metal. This attraction distorts the ion lattice, moving the ions slightly toward the electron, increasing the positive charge density of the lattice in the vicinity. This positive charge can attract other electrons. At long distances this attraction between electrons due to the displaced ions can overcome the electrons' repulsion due to their negative charge, and cause them to pair up. The rigorous quantum mechanical explanation shows that the effect is due to electron–phonon interactions.

That is not "a simplifed classical explanation," it is transparent sophistry. Here we have negative charge “increasing the positive charge density.” So we are being told that negative charge can INCREASE positive charge, which would be energy from nothing. The increased positive charge then attracts other electrons, so we have electrons attracting other electrons by this mechanism. They "pair up." Each sentence is a new miracle. Not one statement in that paragraph follows from the previous statement.

Good lord, how did we ever come to such a pass, that physicists can write and read drivel like that? We are told that the quantum mechanical explanation is rigorous, but if you believe that you aren't paying attention. How could the “rigorous” explanation be good when the simplified explanation is preposterous? Just as an example, we are told that the rigorous explanation depends on the phonon. What is a phonon? It is a quasiparticle. What is a quasiparticle?

It is one of the few known ways of simplifying the quantum mechanical many-body problem (and as such, it is applicable to any number of other many-body systems). The most well known quasiparticles are the so-called electron holes, which can be thought of as "missing electrons."

As always, the further you go, the worse it gets. It does not get more rigorous, it only gets more ridiculous. A phonon is a way to fill a hole, in other words. It is a thing that fits the hole in your theory, and then you call that thing a particle.

But enough of that. If I wanted to be slapped in the face by a wet fish, I would have gone to the clown market. I want a physical answer to the question, "What causes superconductivity?" If the answer were really that difficult, I would understand all the misdirection. But it turns out the answer is fairly simple. All you need is the charge field. To get a charge field, all you do is let the photon that transmits charge be real instead of virtual. You let it have moving mass, radius, and spin. Since charge is real, it cannot be transmitted by virtual particles with no size or energy in the field. We don't have to propose a phonon to fill a hole in our theory. No, we just have to propose that the particles that our equations give us are real. I mean these old equations:

e = 1.602 x 10^-19 C

1C = 2 x 10^-7 kg/s (see the definition of the Ampere to find this number in the mainstream)

e = 3.204 x 10^-26 kg/s

Those equations tells us that charge has mass, and they tell us how much. The fundamental charge is that much mass per second, which I simply apply to the charge field and the photons that are in it. Charge is then the motion of these real photons, not some mystical attraction or repulsion of ions.

This solves the superconductivity problem because conductivity is defined as the ability of a substance to let charge pass. Obviously, charge will pass most easily when it is blocked the least, and it is blocked the least when particles aren't getting in the way. In other words, charge photons will pass through still matter more easily than they will pass through vibrating matter. A lack of conductivity is explained by photons colliding with matter, and energetic matter will collide with more photons.

We must also remember that in normal circumstances, the field of charge photons is recycled by all matter. It is recycled via spin. Each particle is spinning, and this spin pulls in photons at the poles and spits them out at the equator. But when heat approaches absolute zero, motions slow down near a stop. When motions slow down, collisions decrease, and when collisions decrease, the spins cannot be maintained. The baryons and electrons slow their spins, and nearly stop recycling the charge field. Since the photons are not being sucked in, they are free to pass. The vortices around all particles are diminished, and the field has less resistance. The substance minimizes its collisions, and the charge field therefore maximizes its efficiency. If the charge field is carrying ions of its own, these ions will pass through the substance with minimal collision.

Notice that all my terms here are mechanical terms. My resistance is mechanical, not heuristic, since it is explained directly by real particles and their collisions. The same would be true of potential. Potential in my theory is not an abstract field principle, it is a direct outcome of particle densities. For instance, I will be asked why photons would be sucked into a baryon at the pole? Isn't that a heuristic field statement? No, it is caused by real field densities. Any spherical particle spinning about a pole would tend to fling off excess matter at its equator, because that is where the greatest velocities are. So, IF photons were recycled by protons, they would be emitted at the equator more than anywhere else. Since photons are real, the field density beyond the equator would be greater than at the poles: any external photons passing by the equator would be likely to hit an emitted photon, and would be driven off. External photons passing by the poles would not be driven off, since no photons are being emitted there. This simple mechanism creates potentials: a passing photon has a high potential to be driven off near the equator and a low potential to be driven off near the poles. From a distance, this would create the appearance of attraction at the poles. If people are driven off from all houses but yours, they will seem to be attracted to your house.

In this way, superconductivity can be explained with poolball mechanics. Current theory just doesn't have the right balls.

If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.