Scientists should be more critical of even very successful theories

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Colleagues

I would like to draw your attention on my article “A problem with the
conservation law observed in macroscopic quantum phenomena is a
consequence of violation of the correspondence principle” published
recently in Chinese Journal of Physics 92, 270 - 283 (2024);
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjph.2024.09.023 . This article will be free
until November 17th. Anyone clicking on the personalized Share Link:

https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1jrRc_D8zq4tRm

before November 17, 2024 can take the final version of this article on
ScienceDirect. You can read or download this final version. No sign
up, registration or fees are required.

The graphical abstract (available at
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S057790732400368X-ga1_lrg.jpg
) and section 8. “The false conclusion made in 1933 provoked obvious
contradictions in books on superconductivity” of this article drew
attention to the obvious contradiction between the books on
superconductivity. I was shocked when I noticed this contradiction
last August. How could it be that no one, including me, has noticed
this obvious contradiction for many years? The contradiction between
books on superconductivity appeared because theorists, in their desire
to describe the observed phenomena at any cost, do not notice even
obvious contradictions.

My article points out that the contradiction of the phenomena observed
in superconductors with the law of conservation and with the
correspondence principle are related to each other. Despite the
evidence of these contradictions, no one noticed them for many years.
I noticed these contradictions and also the contradiction between
books on superconductivity thanks to my discussion with Jorge Hirsch.
Jorge Hirsch is widely known as the author of the Hirsch index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index . Among experts on
superconductivity, Hirsch is known as a professor of physics at
University of California, San Diego
http://www-physics.ucsd.edu/~jorge/jh.html who has been trying for
more than thirty years to prove that the conventional BCS theory of
superconductivity is inadequate and that only his alternative theory
of superconductivity can explain the Meissner effect.

Hirsch compares the attitude of most experts to the BCS theory with
the attitude of the characters of the fairy tale "The Emperor's New
Clothes" by Hans Christian Andersen to the emperor's new clothes in
the article “Superconductivity, what the H? The emperor has no
clothes” published in 2020 [1]. This analogy reveals the important, if
not decisive role of majority opinion in modern science: it is
difficult to admit that the Emperor is not wearing clothes when
everyone is admiring the Emperor's new clothes. This pressure of the
majority opinion takes place not only in relation to the theory of
superconductivity, but above all in relation to quantum mechanics.
Most scientists believe in quantum mechanics rather than understand
it. Numerous interpretations call quantum mechanics into question as a
scientific theory. A scientific theory should not have
interpretations, since any scientific theory should clearly and
unambiguously say what and how it describes. Quantum mechanics has
many interpretations because its creators never spoke clearly enough
about its contradiction with realism.
The contradiction of quantum mechanics with realism does not bother
most theorists since they do not understand what Einstein understood:
realism is the presupposition of every kind of physical thinking
rather than a claim which can be disproved with any experimental
results. Last year, I demonstrated in the article [2] on the example
of obvious mistakes made in the derivation of the well-known GHZ
theorem that Einstein was right: the rejection of realism by the
creators of quantum mechanics provoked the degradation of physical
thinking. Even the degradation of physical thinking does not bother
anyone.

Mass misconceptions in modern physics have been provoked by blind
faith and even superstition. The mass misconception about quantum
mechanics was provoked by the unfounded belief that our reason is able
to describe all the phenomena that we observe without contradiction.
The mass misconception about superconductivity was provoked by a faith
in thermodynamics. This blind faith forced superconductivity experts
to forget the basics of thermodynamics. The contradiction between
books on superconductivity was provoked by the fact that the authors
of most books had to forget that work should change free energy, and
the authors of a smaller number of books forgot that free energy
cannot change during a phase transition.


You do not need to be an expert on superconductivity and even on
thermodynamics in order to understand why obvious contradictions
between books on superconductivity could have appeared. Already a
hundred years ago physicists were sure that the phenomenon of
superconductivity does not contradict thermodynamics. According to
this belief, the transition to a superconducting state occurs at a
critical temperature T_{c} when the free energy of the superconducting
state F_{s0} becomes less than of the normal state F_{n0}: F_{s0} >
F_{n0} at T > T_{c} and F_{s0} < F_{n0} at T < T_{c}. It was known
from measurements more than a hundred years ago that when the magnetic
field H in the superconducting state increases at temperature T <
T_{c}, the superconductor returns to normal state at a critical
magnetic field H = H_{c}.

The general belief predominates ninety years that the superconducting
transitions is phase transitions not only in a zero magnetic field H =
0 at T = T_{c}, but also at the critical magnetic field H = H_{c} at T
< T_{c}. Free energy should not change at any phase transition: F_{s0}
= F_{n0} at T = T_{c} and F_{sH} = F_{nH} at H = H_{c} and T <
T_{c}.As it is known from thermodynamics, a work should change free
energy. The power source of the solenoid should perform work equal to
the energy of the magnetic field VBH/2 in the volume V of the
superconductor in order to create a magnetic field H. This work A
should be equal zero A = 0 in the superconducting state, when the
magnetic flux density B = 0 in the volume V of the superconductor, and
A = E_{m} = V\mu_{0}H^{2}/2 in the normal state when B = \mu_{0}H.

Thus, according to thermodynamics, free energy should not change with
magnetic field H in the superconducting state F_{sH} = F_{s0} (the
equation (13) in my manuscript) and should increase in the normal
state F_{nH} = F_{n0} + E_{m} = F_{n0} + V\mu_{0}H^{2}/2 (the equation
(12) in my article). The equality F_{sH} = F_{nH} (the equation (14)
in my article) cannot be deduced from the inequality F_{s0} < F_{n0}
and the equations (13) F_{sH} = F_{s0}, (12) F_{nH} = F_{n0} +
V\mu_{0}H^{2}/2. In order to deduce the equality F_{sH} = F_{nH} from
the inequality F_{s0} < F_{n0}, Gorter and Casimir (Ref. [71] in my
article) used in 1934 a claim that the power source of the solenoid
should create the energy -VMH/2 of magnetization M = B - \mu_{0}H
rather than the energy of the magnetic field VBH/2. The falsity of
this claim is so obvious that it is surprising that this claim could
have been done by physicists. According to this claim and contrary to
the law of energy conservation, no work is needed in order to create a
magnetic field H in the volume V of an empty solenoid, inside which M
= B - \mu_{0}H = 0 and -VHM/2 = 0.

Despite the obvious falsity of Gorter and Casimir's claim Ref. [71],
most superconductivity experts and authors of most book Ref.
[56,66,68] believed in the thermodynamics of superconductors developed
by Gorter and Casimir, according to which the magnetic field increases
the free energy of the superconducting state F_{sH} = F_{s0} + E_{m} =
F_{s0} + V\mu_{0}H^{2}/2 (the equation (16) in my article) and does
not change of the normal state F_{nH} = F_{n0} (the equation (15) in
my article). The authors only few books in the main the future Nobel
prize winners, V.L. Ginzburg Ref. [69], P.G. de Gennes Ref. [70] and
A.A. Abrikosov Ref. [67] did not follow the thermodynamics of
superconductors developed by Gorter and Casimir. V.L. Ginzburg Ref.
[69] and P.G. de Gennes Ref. [70] deduced the equations (12), (13),
(17), (18) in my article which do not contradict the law of energy
conservation. But they had to forget that free energy should not
change at a phase transition.
The theory of superconductivity, like quantum mechanics, is a very
successful theory. Obviously, because of this success, no one noticed
the contradiction between books on superconductivity for many years.
This contradiction reveals that the conventional theory of
superconductivity cannot be true, since it is based on the
thermodynamics of superconductors developed by Gorter and Casimir,
which contradicts not only the law of energy conservation, but also
the second law of thermodynamics. The invalidity of the very
successful theory of superconductivity reveals that success does not
guarantee truth. Scientists should be more critical of even very
successful theories.

[1] J. E. Hirsch, Superconductivity, what the H? The emperor has no
clothes. APS Forum on Physics and Society Newsletter, January 2020, p.
4-9; arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.09496

[2] A.V. Nikulov, Physical Thinking and the GHZ Theorem. Found. Phys.
53, 51 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-023-00693-y .

With best wishes,

Alexey

[Chantal Roth]

What an interesting paper!

I created a "podcast" out of it: (using notebooklm :-).

It basically summarizes the paper in podcast form - and it "easy" to listen to it:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jzlKsCAmbE5Rnjz7SVy-hQRoIHQS_Plx/view?usp=drive_link

I have a few more of these "podcasts" here on qm topics:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/18g0KGtKrcVPvVjud6_MOf9xXHJ6uC27Z?usp=sharing

Best wishes,

Chantal

> -- 

> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 

> Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 

> an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web visit 

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAKiL4iL-52ugS-tKnk0J7tZFBgnY50ON0Hkf4jFg7RcEF9JczQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa]

👍more windows being opened ...

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/8e5f6922-46c3-405a-bb35-612e2c093f43%40app.fastmail.com.

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Chantal,

Many thanks for your understanding and your very interesting podcast.
Unfortunately, the attitude of most experts on superconductivity to
the problems discussed in my article is fundamentally different from
your attitude. They don't want to hear even about the contradictions
between books on superconductivity. The editors of almost all Russian
physics journals and several foreign journals refused to publish my
articles, which pointed out the contradiction between books on
superconductivity and explained the reason for the appearance of this
contradiction. They did not deny the existence of the contradiction.
But they decided that readers of their journals should not know about
this contradiction. My article “A problem with the conservation law

observed in macroscopic quantum phenomena is a consequence of

violation of the correspondence principle” was rejected by the editors
of three journals of Elsevier until it was published in the Chinese
Journal of Physics. I did not expect that censorship of believers in
scientific journals could be so unreasonable. Do the editors who
banned the publication of my articles really think that with the help
of censorship it will be possible to hide the obvious contradictions
between books on superconductivity for a long time? Although, of
course, it is surprising that no one, including me, has noticed these
obvious contradictions for many years.

I think that this strange story of contradictions between books on
superconductivity and the even stranger desire of editors of
scientific journals to hide these contradictions is provoked by the
fear of many scientists violating the second law of thermodynamics.
This fear forced experts on superconductivity to misinterpret the
Meissner effect discovered in 1933 and provoked a regression in the
understanding of thermodynamics. Superconductor was discovered in 1911
as a perfect conductor, the resistivity of which equals zero. With an
increase in the external magnetic field H, the Faraday electromotive
force induces the surface currents in the thin surface layer of the
cylinder, which does not allow the magnetic flux to penetrate deep
into the cylinder when the resistivity is zero. The transition into
the normal state with a non-zero resistivity occurs when the magnetic
field H reaches a critical value H = H_{c}.

Before the discovery of the Meissner effect physicists “assumed that
the transition in a magnetic field is substantially irreversible,
since the superconductor was considered to be a perfect conductor (in
the sense discussed in Chapter II), in which, when the
superconductivity is destroyed, the surface currents associated with
the field are damped with the generation of Joule heat" [1]. But the
Meissner effect according to this assumption is experimental evidence
of a process reverse to the process of the generation of Joule heat
which must be irreversible according to the second law of
thermodynamics. The faith in the second law of thermodynamics forced
all the experts on superconductivity to make the false conclusion that
the Meissner effect was able to make the irreversible transition
reversible.

I draw the reader's attention in the article [2] to the fact that this
conclusion primarily contradicts logic: the Meissner effect, observed
during the transition from the normal to the superconducting state,
could not change the reverse transition from the superconducting to
the normal state. The Meissner effect was not able to eliminate the
work performed by the Faraday electromotive force on the solenoid,
which maintains the magnetic field H = H_{c} when the magnetic flux
penetrates in the cylinder after its transition into the normal state,
see the equation (10) in [2]. The cylinder returns to its initial
superconducting state not because the work has stopped being
performed, but because during the reverse transition, the same work of
the opposite sign is performed, due to the Meissner effect. It is
surprising that, for fear of violating the second law of
thermodynamics, all superconductivity experts could forget that no
work can be performed during a reversible phase transition. This fear
provoked the obvious contradiction between the books on
superconductivity, see the graphical abstract available at
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S057790732400368X-ga1_lrg.jpg
.

I draw attention in the article [2] that the conservation law and the
second law of thermodynamics are violated because of quantization
observed at the macroscopic level. Most theorists not only ignored
these contradictions, but also engaged in self-deception in order not
to notice them. On the other hand, many of them easily abandoned
realism to describe paradoxical quantum phenomena. Jose Ortega y
Gasset, the great Spanish philosopher according to Schrodinger’s
opinion, called it "the barbarism of ’specialisation’" the ignoring by
many contemporary scientists of philosophical foundations of natural
sciences. He wrote in his famous book "The Revolt of the Masses"
published 1930: "The most immediate result of this unbalanced
specialisation has been that today, when there are more scientists
than ever, there are much less ’cultured men’ than, for example, about
1750", see Conclusion of my article [3].

Most modern theorists, in contrast to ’cultured men’ about 1750, do
not understand clearly enough that our a priori knowledge is more
reliable than empirical knowledge. The conclusion made by all the
experts on superconductivity after 1933 contradicts logic which
belongs to our priori knowledge. Empirical knowledge should be
distinguished from observations. The sun rises in the east and sets in
the west - this is an observation that we cannot doubt. The sun
revolves around the Earth - this is an empirical knowledge that turned
out to be false. A bulk superconductor returns to its initial
superconducting state due to the Meissner effect - this is an
observation that we cannot doubt. The confidence of all
superconductivity experts after 1933 that the superconducting
transition is a reversible phase transition - this is an empirical
knowledge that turned out to be false.

I remind readers in the Introduction to the article [3] that according
to Kant’s philosophy realism is the regulative principle of our
reason, which determines the very possibility of empirical cognition
of Nature and belongs to our a priori knowledge. It is easy to
understand without philosophy why realism determines the very
possibility of empirical cognition. Realism states that the moon
exists even if no one looks at it. Therefore, we must explain how our
mind creates the moon when observing if we reject realism. Obviously,
we can't explain how our mind creates the moon or a quantum state.
Therefore, Einstein spoke "I like to think that the moon is there even
if I don’t look at it" to explain his denial of quantum mechanics.

[1] D. Shoenberg, Superconductivity. Cambridge, 1938

[2] A.V. Nikulov, A problem with the conservation law observed in

macroscopic quantum phenomena is a consequence of violation of the

correspondence principle. Chinese Journal of Physics 92, 270 - 283
(2024); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjph.2024.09.023 .

[3] A.V. Nikulov, Physical Thinking and the GHZ Theorem. Found. Phys.

53, 51 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-023-00693-y .

With best wishes,

Alexey

сб, 12 окт. 2024 г. в 13:30, GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa
<geraldo...@gmail.com>:

[Austin Fearnley]

I do not know enough to comment on Alexey's paper.

However, there may be a simiarity with Penrose's Cyclical Conformal Cosmology. Penrose says that the mysterious part is at the end of a cycle of the universe when the universe is at high entropy but then re-boots to a state of very low energy.  I like the CCC model as I can believe the re-booting follows a Rasch model of creating metrics, so that the universe's metric is emergent.  [My paper at viXra:1609.0329 2016    Pseudo-Random Data Testing The Scales Used In Rasch Pairs Analysis/ Adaptive Comparative Judgement]

Comments about the podcast, which are independent of my view of Alexey's paper and are only about the nature of the podcast:
Who or what directed the podcast to be supportive of the paper?  
Is AI going to determine the value of papers?
I found the style unduly like an OTT persuasive advert, which automatically irritated me.

Austin 

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Austin,

The podcast was created by Chantal rather than AI. Chantal understood
the essence of my article very well and highlighted in the podcast the
main contradictions and puzzles that this article draws attention to.

My article has nothing to do with Penrose's Cyclic Conformal
Cosmology, which I consider to be meaningless metaphysical fantasies.
My article may relate to Penrose only in the sense that Penrose, like
most people, believes in the law of entropy increase. My article draws
attention to the fact that blind faith in this law provoked a false
understanding of the phenomenon of superconductivity, which manifested
itself in particular in the contradictions between books on
superconductivity. Because of this blind faith, no one noticed for
many years that the conventional theory of superconductivity, for
which two Nobel Prizes in physics were awarded, contradicts the law of
entropy increase. I draw attention to this obvious fact in the article
[1]. Earlier, Jorge Hirsch drew attention to the contradiction of the
conventional BCS theory of superconductivity to the laws of
thermodynamics [2-4].

I agree with Jorge Hirsch that the conventional theory of
superconductivity contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. But we
have disagreements on what is false. Jorge Hirsch argues that the
conventional theory of superconductivity is false since he is sure
that his alternative theory of superconductivity can explain how the
persistent current can stop without generation of Joule heat. I am
sure that the second law of thermodynamics is false since the
generation of Joule heat at the transition from superconducting state
to the normal state is an experimental fact, which is observed in
accordance with the conventional theory of superconductivity.

Penrose, like most people, believes also in quantum mechanics. He does
not understand that quantum mechanics cannot be a scientific theory
because of its contradiction with realism and determinism. Quantum
mechanics is certainly a very successful theory. That's why almost
everyone believes in it. But the rejection of realism by the creators
of quantum mechanics led to the degradation of physical thinking. The
fact of the degradation is demonstrated in the article [5] by the
example of obvious errors made in the derivation of the GHZ theorem.
Now, strict physical thinking has been replaced by unrestrained
fantasies, which are especially unlimited in the field of cosmology.

[1] A. V. Nikulov, The Law of Entropy Increase and the Meissner
Effect. Entropy 24, 83 (2022); https://doi.org/10.3390/e24010083 ;
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/24/1/83 .

[2] J.E. Hirsch, Inconsistency of the conventional theory of
superconductivity. EPL 130, 17006 (2020).

[3] J.E. Hirsch, Joule heating in the normal-superconductor phase
transition in a magnetic field. Physica C 576, 1353687 (2020).

[4] J.E. Hirsch, Thermodynamic inconsistency of the conventional
theory of superconductivity. Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 34, 2050175 (2020).

[5] A.V. Nikulov, Physical Thinking and the GHZ Theorem. Found. Phys.

53, 51 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-023-00693-y .

With best wishes,

Alexey

ср, 16 окт. 2024 г. в 22:45, Austin Fearnley <ben...@hotmail.com>:

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/402da1f2-2892-4fdb-8534-d535a6b681cbn%40googlegroups.com.