Abstract
It is shown that the physical mechanisms underlying the two energy terms E1 and E2 in Frohlich's theory are very different. E1 is largely the energy change due to a modification of the lattice vibration frequencies caused by the adiabatic deformation of the electrons; E2 is on the other hand a dynamical term, representing the energy change due to virtual collisions between lattice oscillations and electrons. A proof is given that certain inadmissible consequences of the theory, pointed out recently by Wentzel, derive from the energy term E1; the superconductive behaviour discussed by Frohlich arises however entirely from the term E2. Although both terms follow from the same perturbation treatment, the analysis given makes it seem not unlikely that whatever mechanism actually inhibits E1 will leave the superconductive behaviour deduced from E2 not substantially affected.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
