Reply to Comment on 'The Law of Entropy Increase and the Meissner Effect'

TL;DR

This paper argues that experimental evidence supports the conventional theory of superconductivity and that Hirsch's alternative theory and thermodynamic claims are flawed, reaffirming the contradiction between the Meissner effect and the second law of thermodynamics.

Contribution

The paper critiques Hirsch's interpretation of the Meissner effect, emphasizing experimental facts and exposing errors in his thermodynamic reasoning.

Findings

Persistent currents can exist after resistance appears, contradicting Hirsch's claims.

Hirsch's proof contains mistakes due to misinterpretation of thermodynamic cycles.

Experimental facts support the conventional theory over Hirsch's alternative.

Abstract

Jorge Hirsch, in his Comment on my article published in Entropy, agrees that the conventional BCS theory of superconductivity contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. He tries to prove that this theory cannot be valid because of this contradiction, since the Meissner effect is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics, according to his alternative theory of superconductivity, which can explain how the persistent currents can be annihilated before the resistance appearance. First of all I draw attention on experimental facts according to which the persistent currents observed in rings can be not annihilated not only before but even after the resistance appearance, in accordance with the conventional theory of superconductivity and contrary to the second law of thermodynamics. Hirsch's proof of the consistency of the Meissner effect with the second law of thermodynamics is based on mistakes provoked by ignoring the contradictions between books on superconductivity and the false analogy of the Gorter cycle with the Carnot cycle. In fact, Hirsch did not refute, but confirmed the conclusion made in my article about the contradiction of the Meissner effect to the second law of thermodynamics.