![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Josephson energy page were merged into Josephson effect on 22 April 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
There isn't a single word about practical uses or its generic significance to further advancing physics. I mean Nobel prizes are awarded for achievements beneficial to the mankind, abstract beauty is not enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.48.245 ( talk) 11:28, 10 December 2004 (UTC)
There is nothing about what all this means! I mean, it explains the technical parts, gives the proof, shows the equation- all of which is well and good, but I came beause I heard it was being used in ultra-fast chip prototypes and other interesting devices, and the page gives me nada. -- maru
The content of the page Josephson junction has been merged into the page describing the Josephson effect, and a few words about applications have been added. All this can still be improved, feel free to do it. Filou 22:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Added a correction: the Josephson effect does not define the SI volt, it is presently used as a representation for the volt (there is a relative uncertainty of 4 x 10^-7 of the voltage generated by the Josephson effect to the SI volt.) Dalle 19:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I changed Kelvin to kelvin, to follow proper SI practice in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.9.92.145 ( talk) 17:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I just replaced one broken reference with full quotation and link to the original paper. Actually great part of the article on Jospehson effect seems to follow the Josephson's 1974 review on his own discovery done in 1962. Danko Georgiev MD 09:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I am working with Josephson junction every day, but I never saw such a strange I-V characteristic. Can this be substituted to something standard like tunnel JJ IVC or RSJ IVC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by E goldobin ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The Biography for Josephson says that he discovered the Josephson effect. The introduction for the Josephson effect (this article) says that he predicted it. Which is correct? This discrepancy should be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.7.193 ( talk) 09:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
In earlier versions, the article contained more links and comments about practical issues. Why they vanished is unclear to me ... Filou 22:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
'The Josephson effect is the phenomenon of current flow across two weakly...' shouldn't this be more specific current of cooper pairs, so not quasi particles?-- 129.125.6.1 ( talk) 10:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Is the proper constant in the equations or ? and differ by a factor of ; this article uses them interchangably. Confuted 01:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if you want to leave the reader with that confusion or at least uncertainty on the mixed use of and in this article? For the sake of clarity, please use one or the other, but not both.
Reddwarf2956 ( talk) 00:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Any other process
Apjdiehard98 ( talk) 18:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
My impression from reading other sources is that a current must be induced in the case of the DC Josephson effect. The special thing is that the current then flows across the barrier without a voltage drop. If this is accurate I think it should be mentioned in the description of the DC Josephson effect. - Beastinwith ( talk) 03:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This entry contains little in the way of physical interpretations of the Josephson effects. If anybody has some physical intuition beyond the listed equations I think that including it would improve the article. - Beastinwith ( talk) 03:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
the ac current must radiate energy so how is it replenished? just-emery ( talk) 12:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Is t in the equations the time or the thickness. At this point I think it is the time, but before reading below I interpreted it as the thickness of the gap. Would someone please state which it is? David R. Ingham ( talk) 22:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Following comment by Anderson, who may have looked in the reference list at the end and found that his paper with Rowell announcing the first experimental observation of the effect was not included, I've made the in-text reference a proper reference (is it only subjects like cold fusion that the w'pedia vigilantes give their undivided attention to?). I merely transferred the details that were there, and maybe someone with the time to spare can (a) check the reference is correct (b) include the title of the paper (c) include a suitable link, doi or whatever.-- Brian Josephson ( talk) 11:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Update: ignore the above request: I found I had the title ready to hand, and it is all fixed now! -- Brian Josephson -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 16:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I've learned that it was Anderson himself who put in the key reference. At his advanced age he can perhaps be excused for not doing it in the officially authorised way! -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 08:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The article lists 3 main effects (DC/AC/inverse AC), but the magnetic field sensitivity is equally important and should be included in the list, with a suitable accompanying graphic. -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 08:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Could Brian Josephson make his article containing the prediction of the effect openly/freely available (as a link) to all readers of the Josephson effect article in Wikipedia?-- 86.120.44.145 ( talk) 17:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm removing the paragraph that links the article by "I.M. Yurin". The article in question, while it is in a peer-reviewed journal, has not been cited elsewhere, and does not seem to be notable enough to warrant inclusion. The author does not appear to be associated with a notable university or research institution, and I suspect that the article author himself is the one posting this information. If the editor chooses to restore the link without commenting on this page, I will refer the matter for dispute resolution, as he has already engaged in the same behavior on the BCS theory page. PianoDan ( talk) 20:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm proposing a merge from the Josephson energy article, which seems to cover a fair amount of the same ground as this one, with additional math. If the two articles should be separate, the Josephson energy article needs to be cleaned up and have references added. I'm not familiar enough with the topic to tell if there should be separate articles or not, but it looks like this is the more comprehensive article. -- phoebe / ( talk to me) 04:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that merging is a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.130.188.188 ( talk • contribs) 02:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Article says "The critical current is an important phenomenological parameter of the device that can be affected by temperature as well as by an applied magnetic field." [How] Does it depend on the materials and dimensions of the device ? (other articles talk of a critical current density) - Rod57 ( talk) 04:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Can somebody provide a good reference for the voltage-to-curvature converter claim? I am just a layman in the fields of both QM and GR, but the claim that a Josephson junction can be used to electronically modulate spacetime curvature seems suspect to me - wouldn't that be a huge leap in our current understanding? The only source I can find for it is this arXiv article and it's by the same author that added the section to this Wikipedia page. Peter Kazakoff ( talk) 20:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
The section "Josephson equations" uses the constant e in several places. What this means is not defined in the text. In some places it's raised to a power, which makes me think it's the base of natural logarithms. But the context is electrodynamics, making me think it might be the elementary charge. Which is it? If it's one or the other in different contexts, we should distinguish the latter by using qe instead. Hairy Dude ( talk) 18:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
By definition, I(t) is proportionnal to the derivative of .
So, is proportionnal to . In case of V nul, the DC Josephson effect gives us a constant current . However, according to the formula , is proportional to which is a first order differential equation and so it is not constant.
If someone could add an explanation of that. AnthonyB20 ( talk) 22:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Probably the most common use right now, and I see no reference to it. A bit srange, maybe I am missing something. 2600:4040:9AE7:B400:9878:B6B9:D4E8:57CC ( talk) 17:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Josephson energy page were merged into Josephson effect on 22 April 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
There isn't a single word about practical uses or its generic significance to further advancing physics. I mean Nobel prizes are awarded for achievements beneficial to the mankind, abstract beauty is not enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.48.245 ( talk) 11:28, 10 December 2004 (UTC)
There is nothing about what all this means! I mean, it explains the technical parts, gives the proof, shows the equation- all of which is well and good, but I came beause I heard it was being used in ultra-fast chip prototypes and other interesting devices, and the page gives me nada. -- maru
The content of the page Josephson junction has been merged into the page describing the Josephson effect, and a few words about applications have been added. All this can still be improved, feel free to do it. Filou 22:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Added a correction: the Josephson effect does not define the SI volt, it is presently used as a representation for the volt (there is a relative uncertainty of 4 x 10^-7 of the voltage generated by the Josephson effect to the SI volt.) Dalle 19:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I changed Kelvin to kelvin, to follow proper SI practice in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.9.92.145 ( talk) 17:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I just replaced one broken reference with full quotation and link to the original paper. Actually great part of the article on Jospehson effect seems to follow the Josephson's 1974 review on his own discovery done in 1962. Danko Georgiev MD 09:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I am working with Josephson junction every day, but I never saw such a strange I-V characteristic. Can this be substituted to something standard like tunnel JJ IVC or RSJ IVC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by E goldobin ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The Biography for Josephson says that he discovered the Josephson effect. The introduction for the Josephson effect (this article) says that he predicted it. Which is correct? This discrepancy should be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.7.193 ( talk) 09:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
In earlier versions, the article contained more links and comments about practical issues. Why they vanished is unclear to me ... Filou 22:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
'The Josephson effect is the phenomenon of current flow across two weakly...' shouldn't this be more specific current of cooper pairs, so not quasi particles?-- 129.125.6.1 ( talk) 10:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Is the proper constant in the equations or ? and differ by a factor of ; this article uses them interchangably. Confuted 01:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if you want to leave the reader with that confusion or at least uncertainty on the mixed use of and in this article? For the sake of clarity, please use one or the other, but not both.
Reddwarf2956 ( talk) 00:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Any other process
Apjdiehard98 ( talk) 18:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
My impression from reading other sources is that a current must be induced in the case of the DC Josephson effect. The special thing is that the current then flows across the barrier without a voltage drop. If this is accurate I think it should be mentioned in the description of the DC Josephson effect. - Beastinwith ( talk) 03:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This entry contains little in the way of physical interpretations of the Josephson effects. If anybody has some physical intuition beyond the listed equations I think that including it would improve the article. - Beastinwith ( talk) 03:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
the ac current must radiate energy so how is it replenished? just-emery ( talk) 12:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Is t in the equations the time or the thickness. At this point I think it is the time, but before reading below I interpreted it as the thickness of the gap. Would someone please state which it is? David R. Ingham ( talk) 22:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Following comment by Anderson, who may have looked in the reference list at the end and found that his paper with Rowell announcing the first experimental observation of the effect was not included, I've made the in-text reference a proper reference (is it only subjects like cold fusion that the w'pedia vigilantes give their undivided attention to?). I merely transferred the details that were there, and maybe someone with the time to spare can (a) check the reference is correct (b) include the title of the paper (c) include a suitable link, doi or whatever.-- Brian Josephson ( talk) 11:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Update: ignore the above request: I found I had the title ready to hand, and it is all fixed now! -- Brian Josephson -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 16:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I've learned that it was Anderson himself who put in the key reference. At his advanced age he can perhaps be excused for not doing it in the officially authorised way! -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 08:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The article lists 3 main effects (DC/AC/inverse AC), but the magnetic field sensitivity is equally important and should be included in the list, with a suitable accompanying graphic. -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 08:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Could Brian Josephson make his article containing the prediction of the effect openly/freely available (as a link) to all readers of the Josephson effect article in Wikipedia?-- 86.120.44.145 ( talk) 17:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm removing the paragraph that links the article by "I.M. Yurin". The article in question, while it is in a peer-reviewed journal, has not been cited elsewhere, and does not seem to be notable enough to warrant inclusion. The author does not appear to be associated with a notable university or research institution, and I suspect that the article author himself is the one posting this information. If the editor chooses to restore the link without commenting on this page, I will refer the matter for dispute resolution, as he has already engaged in the same behavior on the BCS theory page. PianoDan ( talk) 20:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm proposing a merge from the Josephson energy article, which seems to cover a fair amount of the same ground as this one, with additional math. If the two articles should be separate, the Josephson energy article needs to be cleaned up and have references added. I'm not familiar enough with the topic to tell if there should be separate articles or not, but it looks like this is the more comprehensive article. -- phoebe / ( talk to me) 04:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that merging is a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.130.188.188 ( talk • contribs) 02:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Article says "The critical current is an important phenomenological parameter of the device that can be affected by temperature as well as by an applied magnetic field." [How] Does it depend on the materials and dimensions of the device ? (other articles talk of a critical current density) - Rod57 ( talk) 04:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Can somebody provide a good reference for the voltage-to-curvature converter claim? I am just a layman in the fields of both QM and GR, but the claim that a Josephson junction can be used to electronically modulate spacetime curvature seems suspect to me - wouldn't that be a huge leap in our current understanding? The only source I can find for it is this arXiv article and it's by the same author that added the section to this Wikipedia page. Peter Kazakoff ( talk) 20:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
The section "Josephson equations" uses the constant e in several places. What this means is not defined in the text. In some places it's raised to a power, which makes me think it's the base of natural logarithms. But the context is electrodynamics, making me think it might be the elementary charge. Which is it? If it's one or the other in different contexts, we should distinguish the latter by using qe instead. Hairy Dude ( talk) 18:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
By definition, I(t) is proportionnal to the derivative of .
So, is proportionnal to . In case of V nul, the DC Josephson effect gives us a constant current . However, according to the formula , is proportional to which is a first order differential equation and so it is not constant.
If someone could add an explanation of that. AnthonyB20 ( talk) 22:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Probably the most common use right now, and I see no reference to it. A bit srange, maybe I am missing something. 2600:4040:9AE7:B400:9878:B6B9:D4E8:57CC ( talk) 17:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)