Talk:Josephson effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses.

1 Practical uses and follow-up
2 Practical uses and Nobel Prize worthiness
3 temperature unit
4 References
5 I-V characteristic
6 Historical question
7 Consistency in Equations

[edit] Practical uses and follow-up

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)

[edit] Practical uses and Nobel Prize worthiness

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.

Maybe his psychic quantum theory powers affected the judges enough to nominate him?

I'd have to agree; the article should mention why this was considered Nobel-worthy. --Starwed 10:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uses ?

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

I think the writer could only benefit from understanding the physical principles behind the Josephson effect, before engaging in the trivia of applications, which sadly risk becoming nothing but a mindless tabulation of data, without the deeper understanding, which lately seems to have become a dirty word. Certainly the applications are humanly and economically very important, but please spare us from having the applications promoted and discussed by fast Eddy, and other busybodies who are too eager to talk about some reality using a few memorized buzzwords, but are incapable of doing anything useful with that reality.

I have no real problem with the principles and the explanations; however, in the end all research should come back to pratical applications- science is a tool, not an art. And I have no idea what most of your comment is talk about. --maru (talk) Contribs 18:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

There is another entry, Josephson Junction , which describes a bit the applications. Maybe the content of these two articles coulb be merged in the future?

That seems like a good idea to me; the effect seems to be more embracing than the junction, so I would merge in Junction to Effect. --maru (talk) Contribs 18:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] entries merged

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)

[edit] Correction

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)

Looks to me like it is: Volt Confuted 01:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] temperature unit

I changed Kelvin to kelvin, to follow proper SI practice in English.

[edit] References

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)

[edit] I-V characteristic

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?

[edit] Historical question

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.

This bothered me too, but I imagine it's sloppy language; predicting an effect can be thought of discovering it's possibility in a theory. But even if that's what was meant, it certainly gives the wrong impression. --Starwed 10:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency in Equations

Is the proper constant in the equations $\displaystyle \frac{\hbar}{2e}$ or $\displaystyle \frac{h}{2e}$ ? $h$ and $\hbar$ differ by a factor of $2π$ ; this article uses them interchangably. Confuted 01:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)