Welcome
Username or Email:

Password:


Missing Code




[ ]
[ ]
Online
  • Guests: 84
  • Members: 0
  • Newest Member: omjtest
  • Most ever online: 396
    Guests: 396, Members: 0 on 12 Jan : 12:51
Members Birthdays:
All today's birthdays', congrats!
Download (31)
ScottH (37)


Next birthdays
11/03 Electroguy (94)
11/04 nitromarsjipan (2024)
11/04 mb (31)
Contact
If you need assistance, please send an email to forum at 4hv dot org. To ensure your email is not marked as spam, please include the phrase "4hv help" in the subject line. You can also find assistance via IRC, at irc.shadowworld.net, room #hvcomm.
Support 4hv.org!
Donate:
4hv.org is hosted on a dedicated server. Unfortunately, this server costs and we rely on the help of site members to keep 4hv.org running. Please consider donating. We will place your name on the thanks list and you'll be helping to keep 4hv.org alive and free for everyone. Members whose names appear in red bold have donated recently. Green bold denotes those who have recently donated to keep the server carbon neutral.


Special Thanks To:
  • Aaron Holmes
  • Aaron Wheeler
  • Adam Horden
  • Alan Scrimgeour
  • Andre
  • Andrew Haynes
  • Anonymous000
  • asabase
  • Austin Weil
  • barney
  • Barry
  • Bert Hickman
  • Bill Kukowski
  • Blitzorn
  • Brandon Paradelas
  • Bruce Bowling
  • BubeeMike
  • Byong Park
  • Cesiumsponge
  • Chris F.
  • Chris Hooper
  • Corey Worthington
  • Derek Woodroffe
  • Dalus
  • Dan Strother
  • Daniel Davis
  • Daniel Uhrenholt
  • datasheetarchive
  • Dave Billington
  • Dave Marshall
  • David F.
  • Dennis Rogers
  • drelectrix
  • Dr. John Gudenas
  • Dr. Spark
  • E.TexasTesla
  • eastvoltresearch
  • Eirik Taylor
  • Erik Dyakov
  • Erlend^SE
  • Finn Hammer
  • Firebug24k
  • GalliumMan
  • Gary Peterson
  • George Slade
  • GhostNull
  • Gordon Mcknight
  • Graham Armitage
  • Grant
  • GreySoul
  • Henry H
  • IamSmooth
  • In memory of Leo Powning
  • Jacob Cash
  • James Howells
  • James Pawson
  • Jeff Greenfield
  • Jeff Thomas
  • Jesse Frost
  • Jim Mitchell
  • jlr134
  • Joe Mastroianni
  • John Forcina
  • John Oberg
  • John Willcutt
  • Jon Newcomb
  • klugesmith
  • Leslie Wright
  • Lutz Hoffman
  • Mads Barnkob
  • Martin King
  • Mats Karlsson
  • Matt Gibson
  • Matthew Guidry
  • mbd
  • Michael D'Angelo
  • Mikkel
  • mileswaldron
  • mister_rf
  • Neil Foster
  • Nick de Smith
  • Nick Soroka
  • nicklenorp
  • Nik
  • Norman Stanley
  • Patrick Coleman
  • Paul Brodie
  • Paul Jordan
  • Paul Montgomery
  • Ped
  • Peter Krogen
  • Peter Terren
  • PhilGood
  • Richard Feldman
  • Robert Bush
  • Royce Bailey
  • Scott Fusare
  • Scott Newman
  • smiffy
  • Stella
  • Steven Busic
  • Steve Conner
  • Steve Jones
  • Steve Ward
  • Sulaiman
  • Thomas Coyle
  • Thomas A. Wallace
  • Thomas W
  • Timo
  • Torch
  • Ulf Jonsson
  • vasil
  • Vaxian
  • vladi mazzilli
  • wastehl
  • Weston
  • William Kim
  • William N.
  • William Stehl
  • Wesley Venis
The aforementioned have contributed financially to the continuing triumph of 4hv.org. They are deserving of my most heartfelt thanks.
Forums
4hv.org :: Forums :: General Science and Electronics
« Previous topic | Next topic »   

Antiparticle Cooper pairs?

Move Thread LAN_403
Conundrum
Mon Dec 06 2010, 11:05PM Print
Conundrum Registered Member #96 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 05:37PM
Location: CI, Earth
Posts: 4061
Hi all.
During recent discussions I came up with a theory which was written down a month or so ago.

the theory is that under certain conditions positrons (the antiparticles of electrons) could under certain conditions form Cooper pairs and therefore their interaction with normal matter would change.

an experiment to test this would be to form thin channels within a superconducting Type 2 material such as BSCCO or one of the more exotic Sn-In-CuO compounds and flood these with FDG (fluorodeoxyglucose) suspended in an inert carrier liquid (a positron emitting isotope)
According to my theory at or below the Tc the positrons should form Cooper pair analogs and therefore their interaction with normal matter should change.

this should occur because in a superconductor the Cooper pairs flow without resistance which implies a lack of interaction with the material and therefore no resistance, so positron pairs should behave in the same or a very similar way.

The effect of this should be a detectable drop in gamma emission at the critical temperature (Tc) of the specific ceramic used, with the emission recovering to normal minus the expected radioactive decay loss once the temperature rises above Tc.

This is quite feasible to detect using off the shelf equipment but the specialised radioactive material needed (FDG) would be outside the scope of the home experimenter.

Update:- actually K-40 if a way could be found to separate it from natural potassium would serve as a positron source...


Any ideas?

-A
Back to top
Ash Small
Mon Dec 06 2010, 11:54PM
Ash Small Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245
This reminds me of another thread I read recently on another site:

Link2

Not sure if it is relevant, as I certainly don't claim to know about these things.

What puzzles me is that anti-matter is supposed to travel backwards in time and matter travels forwards in time. If this is the case, how can either of these theories be justified?

(I'm just asking questions, I don't have any answers.)
Back to top
Dr. Shark
Tue Dec 07 2010, 03:36AM
Dr. Shark Registered Member #75 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 09:30AM
Location: Montana, USA
Posts: 711
I think where you are going wrong is "Cooper pairs flow without resistance which implies a lack of interaction with the material". The textbook version is that they do in fact interact, but the phonons (basically sound waves) created by collisions of one electron with the lattice are absorbed by the second electron in the pair, so there is no net energy dissipation. If rather than creating vibrations in the lattice, the whole positron is annihilated, I don't think there is a mechanism the debris of the reaction could be captured by the second positron.
Back to top
Conundrum
Tue Dec 07 2010, 09:28AM
Conundrum Registered Member #96 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 05:37PM
Location: CI, Earth
Posts: 4061
hmm, ok..

one wonders if this experiment would be a way to gain knowledge of the superconducting mechanism itself, by determining which of n mechanisms is most likely.

finding a useable positron emitting isotope to test would be the main problem here,
Link2
(detectable effect here)
according to this page the effect is caused by the positron and electron wave functions overlapping.

however if the effect of dropping gamma emission with Tc holds with several isotopes then this could be very interesting indeed.
-A

Link2
Link2
Link2
Back to top

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob

Go to:

Powered by e107 Forum System
 
Legal Information
This site is powered by e107, which is released under the GNU GPL License. All work on this site, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. By submitting any information to this site, you agree that anything submitted will be so licensed. Please read our Disclaimer and Policies page for information on your rights and responsibilities regarding this site.