Read about the phenomenon of quantum siscomboobulation here:
US patent 5110793
column 2 lines 35+
The concept accepted at present is similar (the BCS theory), and suggests that if a mobile electron propagates through a lattice structure, it will normally interact with the bound electrons of the lattice because of differences in the electron quantum-spin number. However, if two such electrons form a pair which are bound through opposite spin-pairing (Cooper pairs), then no quantum interaction of the bound pairs can occur with the electrons of the lattice (which still have an electron moment).
Also see this about oxygen free copper.
US patent 4582545 Method of producing electrical conductor
oxygen free copper
Google Patents
It appears that electrons moving through conductors can interact quantum mechanically with the crystal lattice of the conductor.
US patent 5110793
column 2 lines 35+
The concept accepted at present is similar (the BCS theory), and suggests that if a mobile electron propagates through a lattice structure, it will normally interact with the bound electrons of the lattice because of differences in the electron quantum-spin number. However, if two such electrons form a pair which are bound through opposite spin-pairing (Cooper pairs), then no quantum interaction of the bound pairs can occur with the electrons of the lattice (which still have an electron moment).
Also see this about oxygen free copper.
US patent 4582545 Method of producing electrical conductor
oxygen free copper
Google Patents
It appears that electrons moving through conductors can interact quantum mechanically with the crystal lattice of the conductor.
I'm not sure what your point is. Cooper pairs and BCS is the accepted theory for low temperature superconductors. For high temperature superconductors the theory is less clear, as BCS does not appear to work here.
It is electrons scattering off lattice defects, phonons etc. which give metals their linear Ohmic resistance. You can do a rough approximation using classical mechanics, or do it properly with quantum mechanics. I forget the details, as it was over 30 years ago when I last attended classes on solid state physics.
It is electrons scattering off lattice defects, phonons etc. which give metals their linear Ohmic resistance. You can do a rough approximation using classical mechanics, or do it properly with quantum mechanics. I forget the details, as it was over 30 years ago when I last attended classes on solid state physics.
Last edited:
Many don't believe speaker cables make a difference in sound quality. Can human hearing actually not be sensitive enough to hear it? Use the search engine and find out more. Some people seem to hint at things like quantum mechanics as being crack pot when dealing with speaker cables or even transistors. Its hard to tell what they mean.
My hunch is that using quantum mechanics to talk about speaker cables is crackpot. I believe that speaker cables make a difference, but only in terms of conventional science such as L, R and C.
Using anything other than quantum mechanics to talk about the internal operation of transistors is also crackpot - transistors are quantum devices, although not perhaps in the sense meant by nutters. You don't need to know QM to use a transistor; you need QM to understand them or design them.
Using anything other than quantum mechanics to talk about the internal operation of transistors is also crackpot - transistors are quantum devices, although not perhaps in the sense meant by nutters. You don't need to know QM to use a transistor; you need QM to understand them or design them.
Quantum interactions occur in everything all the time, speaker cables and inner ear hair follicles. They probably have more to do with the functions of many electronic devices, especially ones like our brains and cochlea, than we realize. What that has to do with audible effect in speaker cable is a bit more muddy. Remember, Newtonian mechanics are more than adequate to describe most gross phenomena, so even though quantum rules do effect pool balls and all, it just isn't noticeable.
Strange quantum phenomena in transistors.
Tubes vs. transistors & quantization distortion - AudioKarma.org Home Audio Stereo Discussion Forums
Tubes vs. transistors & quantization distortion - AudioKarma.org Home Audio Stereo Discussion Forums
I think the quick answer to the question posed in the first post there is "No", there is no quantum quantisation noise/distortion in transistors. As I said above, "transistors are quantum devices, although not perhaps in the sense meant by nutters". Because of electrostatic fields, electrons (or holes) in the base are correlated with those just outside the base. If this were not the case, transistors would suffer from bad shot noise (and valves even more so as their grid currents are smaller). I think this is just Malcolm Hawksford thinking out loud, trying to find an explanation for what he has already decided is true.
Hawksford seems to be a member of this forum.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/members/malcolm-hawksford.html
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/members/malcolm-hawksford.html
Okay, there are a lot of people running around saying how wrong Einstein's Theory of Relativity is.
It's easy to criticise, but much more difficult to do better yourself. So, lets assume for a moment that the Theory is, in some way, flawed.
How would you go about changing/improving it?
Chris
It's easy to criticise, but much more difficult to do better yourself. So, lets assume for a moment that the Theory is, in some way, flawed.
How would you go about changing/improving it?
Chris
I remember a first-year experiment to measure the muon flux at ground level (well, actually the 6th floor First Year teaching lab). Muons are created in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays. They live for about 2.2us (from memory, hope I got that right) before decaying. Even if they were travelling at the speed of light they would only travel 660m, so few would reach the ground. Lots reach the ground. This is because of time dilation. Time dilation is real, so any replacement for special relativity would have to incorporate it.
SR has been consistently experimentally verified to exquisite precision - as SR did to Newtonian laws of motion any potential successor to SR will refine and extend it into regimes where current observations do not reach, not demonstrate it to be fundamentally flawed. Let's go snort some aether and move on!
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.