This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Should my edit be allowed (see discussion in previous section, #What do others think?). Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 13:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
The history of some of the discovered superconducting compounds. Note in particular the BCS superconductors (green circles), the cuprates (blue diamonds), and the iron-based superconductors (yellow squares). Note also the change in the axes at around year 1980 and Tc ~ 50 K.I would consider the last sentence to be useful for the caption in this article, the earlier stuff being placed elsewhere. Tarl N. ( discuss) 01:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
All right, I'm putting in "above 90" and putting the explanation of the colors in the file along with a note in the caption to say so.
Eric Kvaalen (
talk)
16:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Has anyone read the paper for which we keep reverting the inappropriate additions? I don't know where to find it, and the comments being made in support of it: Their material will have superconductivity
suggest to me this is not only not peer reviewed, but speculative.
Tarl N. (
discuss)
19:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
The article in question is at arXiv:1807.08572. See also arXiv:1906.00708 and arXiv:1808.02929. Brienanni ( talk) 07:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Should we mention Migdal-Eliashberg theory : Accuracy of Migdal-Eliashberg theory and Coulomb pseudopotential 2011? Starts:
"The Migdal-Eliashberg (ME) theory provides a very successful method for describing conventional superconductors, where the pairing is driven by a phonon-induced attraction. This theory is based on Migdal’s theorem, stating that vertex corrections can be neglected if the phonon energy scale (𝜔0) is much smaller than the electronic energy scale (𝐷). This should be true even if the dimensionless effective electron-phonon coupling 𝜆 is much larger than unity, as long as (𝜔0/𝐷)𝜆 ≪ 1. Thus vertex corrections are neglected in ME theory, which is a huge simplification."
Breakdown of the Migdal approximation at Lifshitz transitions with giant zero-point motion in the H3S superconductor talks of the Migdal approximation to standard Eliashberg theory. - not sure how to summarise it ? Is it just a way to simplify the calculations within BCS ? or does it apply in any way to any of the unconventional superconductors ? If it doesn't belong in this article, where should it go ? - Rod57 ( talk) 18:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
My draft for a stub on Rutger's Formula was declined. According to a frequent editor, this was mostly due to "lack of context". I think it might work instead as a section of this article.
Is this a possibility?
Miguelmurca ( talk) 10:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, I created Template:Superconductivity which mostly contains all the links in the see also section of this article arranged in categories. I am no longer fully convinced it is needed, but thought it was a great idea when I started. (There are a lot of a articles here that relate to superconductivity and you have to follow a lot of links sometimes to find specific information) I would like to know what others think. If you like the idea, feel free to edit Template:Superconductivity to help make it more useful. Thanks! Footlessmouse ( talk) 05:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I checked few articles with similar templates. Quantum Mechanics article has an enormous one, with collapsible sections. I have to admit I don't think I ever used any of these. I wonder if "See also" sections are that important. It's the wikilinks that we like to follow, because they (should) put things in context, not just list them. Templates may be good for our bookkeeping, but articles are best linked by wikilinks... imho. Ponor ( talk) 00:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
FYI: Found this recent discussion, some interesting arguments against using the sidebars (e.g. They're missing from mobile pages, yet no complaints) @ Footlessmouse:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Sidebars_(navboxes)_should_NOT_be_used Ponor ( talk) 11:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Should my edit be allowed (see discussion in previous section, #What do others think?). Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 13:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
The history of some of the discovered superconducting compounds. Note in particular the BCS superconductors (green circles), the cuprates (blue diamonds), and the iron-based superconductors (yellow squares). Note also the change in the axes at around year 1980 and Tc ~ 50 K.I would consider the last sentence to be useful for the caption in this article, the earlier stuff being placed elsewhere. Tarl N. ( discuss) 01:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
All right, I'm putting in "above 90" and putting the explanation of the colors in the file along with a note in the caption to say so.
Eric Kvaalen (
talk)
16:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Has anyone read the paper for which we keep reverting the inappropriate additions? I don't know where to find it, and the comments being made in support of it: Their material will have superconductivity
suggest to me this is not only not peer reviewed, but speculative.
Tarl N. (
discuss)
19:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
The article in question is at arXiv:1807.08572. See also arXiv:1906.00708 and arXiv:1808.02929. Brienanni ( talk) 07:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Should we mention Migdal-Eliashberg theory : Accuracy of Migdal-Eliashberg theory and Coulomb pseudopotential 2011? Starts:
"The Migdal-Eliashberg (ME) theory provides a very successful method for describing conventional superconductors, where the pairing is driven by a phonon-induced attraction. This theory is based on Migdal’s theorem, stating that vertex corrections can be neglected if the phonon energy scale (𝜔0) is much smaller than the electronic energy scale (𝐷). This should be true even if the dimensionless effective electron-phonon coupling 𝜆 is much larger than unity, as long as (𝜔0/𝐷)𝜆 ≪ 1. Thus vertex corrections are neglected in ME theory, which is a huge simplification."
Breakdown of the Migdal approximation at Lifshitz transitions with giant zero-point motion in the H3S superconductor talks of the Migdal approximation to standard Eliashberg theory. - not sure how to summarise it ? Is it just a way to simplify the calculations within BCS ? or does it apply in any way to any of the unconventional superconductors ? If it doesn't belong in this article, where should it go ? - Rod57 ( talk) 18:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
My draft for a stub on Rutger's Formula was declined. According to a frequent editor, this was mostly due to "lack of context". I think it might work instead as a section of this article.
Is this a possibility?
Miguelmurca ( talk) 10:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, I created Template:Superconductivity which mostly contains all the links in the see also section of this article arranged in categories. I am no longer fully convinced it is needed, but thought it was a great idea when I started. (There are a lot of a articles here that relate to superconductivity and you have to follow a lot of links sometimes to find specific information) I would like to know what others think. If you like the idea, feel free to edit Template:Superconductivity to help make it more useful. Thanks! Footlessmouse ( talk) 05:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I checked few articles with similar templates. Quantum Mechanics article has an enormous one, with collapsible sections. I have to admit I don't think I ever used any of these. I wonder if "See also" sections are that important. It's the wikilinks that we like to follow, because they (should) put things in context, not just list them. Templates may be good for our bookkeeping, but articles are best linked by wikilinks... imho. Ponor ( talk) 00:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
FYI: Found this recent discussion, some interesting arguments against using the sidebars (e.g. They're missing from mobile pages, yet no complaints) @ Footlessmouse:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Sidebars_(navboxes)_should_NOT_be_used Ponor ( talk) 11:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)