See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324909823

Symmetry Breaking and the Law of Entropy Increase

Article in Symmetry Culture and Science · January 2005

CITATION READS

1 280

1 author:

Alexey Nikulov
Russian Academy of Sciences
147 PUBLICATIONS 852 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Alexey Nikulov on 03 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Published in the thematic special issue “Order, Entropy and Symmetry” of the journal “Symmetry:
Culture and Science”, Vol. 16, Num. 1, pp. 47-69 (2005).

Symmetry Breaking and the Law of Entropy Increase

for the special issue on Order, Entropy and Symmetry.

Alexey Nikulov

Institute of Microelectronics Technology and High Purity Materials, Russian Academy of Sciences,
142432 Chernogolovka, Moscow Region, Russia. E-mail: nikulov@ipmt-hpm.ac.ru

The law of entropy increase, i.e. the second law of thermodynamics, breaks symmetry of
time direction in physics. On the other hand the absolute status of the second law is based on
a postulate of symmetry of any equilibrium motion. Since an actual violation of the second
law should be accompanied by a directed transformation of energy from one to other part of
system it can be only at a breach of a right-left symmetry. On the other hand an intrinsic
breach only clockwise – anti-clockwise symmetry of a circular motion can be logically under
equilibrium conditions. Therefore an actual violation of the second law can be only at the
breach of two symmetries. The main object of the present paper is to draw reader’s attention
to an experimental evidence of an intrinsic breach of the clockwise – anti-clockwise
symmetry of a circular equilibrium motion called persistent current which is observed in
mesoscopic normal metal and superconductor loops. This intrinsic breach takes place
because of the discrete spectrum of the permitted states of quantum charged particles in
closed loop. The breach of the right-left symmetry and the actual violation of the second law
may be and is observed in asymmetric loops.

1. Introduction.

The problem of symmetry is closely connected with some most fundamental problems. One of they
is the problem of time. According to our everyday experience the time has an undoubted direction. This
irreversibility of time of our life was put by G. Bruno into melancholy words “Life passes forever
without any hope to return”. But on the other hand almost all laws of physics are symmetric relatively
time direction. One may oppose the melancholy words by G. Bruno with Poincare’s theorem on return.
This theorem has a general character and asserts that in the closed system any moving point returns
repeatedly in any vicinity of its initial conditions. Only law of classical physics violating the symmetry
of time direction is the law of entropy increase, i.e. the second law of thermodynamics.
The second law of thermodynamics is peculiar law of physics. Lieb Elliott and Jakob Yngvason
write in [1] about the second law: “The law has caught the attention of poets and philosophers and has
been called the greatest scientific achievement of the nineteenth century. Engels disliked it, for it
supported opposition to dialectical materialism, while Pope Pius XII regarded it as proving the
 2

existence of a higher being». The second law is important both for our Weltanschauung and practice.
We should expand a fuel in our car only in order to maintain a temperature difference because of the
second law according to which the efficiency of any heat engine should be zero without the
temperature difference. «The world's energy problems would be solved at one stroke» [1] when the
second law will be broken. Therefore, «any reproducible violation of it, however small, would bring
the discoverer great riches as well as a trip to Stockholm» [1]. But, “It is not possible to find any other
law (except, perhaps, for super selection rules such as charge conservation) for which a proposed
violation would bring more skepticism than this one» [1]. Arthur Eddington wrote [2]: “The second
law of thermodynamics holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone
points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations -
then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation, well,
these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but collapse in deepest
humiliation”.
These words express an almost mystical view of the second law typical for most scientists. The
second law is rather a subject of the implicit faith than of scientific research. Although the second law
does not have a fully satisfactory theoretical proof, nor has it been fully tested experimentally, it is
widely believed to be absolute and inviolable. Most scientists consider any doubt in the second law as
no scientific problem. Such attitude may be explained by the basis and the history of the second law.

2. History of the belief in the second law.

Most scientists believe in absolute status of the second law because of the connection of this
problem with perpetuum mobile. It is very difficult for most scientists to assume any possibility of
perpetuum mobile after the five centuries of the belief in its impossibility. The perpetuum mobile is
one of the oldest problems of science. First attempts to invent a perpetuum mobile were known
beginning with 13 century but already Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) stigmatized its inventors equally
with alchemists. Stivin (1548-1620) postulated first the principle of impossibility of any perpetuum
mobile. Because of such history most people interpret perpetuum mobile as a problem of the ignorant
Middle Ages on a level with alchemy. Such attitude had an strong influence on the progress of physical
knowledge and is bases of some modern physical laws. This history confirms the statement expressed
as long ago as in two century by one of the first apologists of Christianity - Kliment from Alexandria
that any knowledge is founded on a belief. The belief in impossibility of perpetuum mobile directed the
development of thermodynamics in the 19 century and fixed some principles of statistical physics.
The Carnot's principle, "which we call since Clausius time the second law of thermodynamics" (the
citation from [3]), was postulated in 1824 when the belief in the impossibility of perpetuum mobile
was unquestionable. The Paris Academy of Sciences has decided in 1775 year to do not consider any
project of perpetuum mobile. Sadi Carnot, in his work of a genius [4] «Reflection on driving force of
 3

fire and on machines capable of creating this force» published in 1824, wrote that any useful work can
not be obtained from the heat without a temperature difference since such possibility means a
possibility of perpetuum mobile. Our physical knowledge has changed very strongly since the Carnot’s
time but the connection between the second law and perpetuum mobile remains since it is obvious both
in that time and our time that a cart or a car bring to a stop because their kinetic energy dissipates to
heat energy.
There is important to emphasize that the problem of the perpetuum mobile is connected with the
problem of thermodynamic arrows of time. It was obvious already in the Carnot’s time that in order the
perpetuum mobile could be impossible an irreversible behavior should be observed in nature. Carnot
wrote in [4] "Everyone knows that heat can produce motion". And “everyone” knew already in that
time that a cart bring to a stop without any motive power since their kinetic energy is transformed to
the heat. It is followed from this knowledge both in that time and our time that if this energy
transformation could be reversible then the perpetuum mobile is inevitable. Because of this the
irreversibility has become an integral part of thermodynamics.
In order to safeguard the impossibility of the perpetuum mobile Sadi Carnot postulated that the
efficiency Ef = W/Q of any heat engine can not exceed a maximum value Ef ≤ (1 –Tmin/Tmax). Where Q
is the heat energy expanded in the heater of the heat engine in order to obtain the work W; Tmax and Tmin
are the temperature of heater and cooler of the heat engine. Clausius formalized this statement. He
defined the quantity entropy and coined the word, from a Greek word meaning "transformation".
The concept of entropy is convenient for formulation the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy
(or more specifically, increase in entropy ∆S = Q/T) is defined by Clausius as heat Q absorbed by a
system, divided by the absolute temperature T of the system at the time the heat is absorbed. Absolute
temperature is the coldest temperature that can exist. When heat is absorbed Qmin > 0 in a system, for
example in a cooler with a temperature Tmin, its entropy increases ∆Smin = Qmin/Tmin > 0; when heat
flows out of a system -Qmax < 0, for example out of a heater with a temperature Tmax, its entropy
decreases ∆Smax = -Qmax/Tmax < 0. The total change of the entropy in the heat engine ∆Smin + ∆Smax =
Qmin/Tmin - Qmax/Tmax = (Qmax – W)/Tmin - Qmax/Tmax = Qmax/Tmin(1 – W/Qmax - Tmin/Tmax) = Qmax/Tmin(1 -
Tmin/Tmax – Ef) ≥ 0 can not decrease at Ef ≤ (1 –Tmin/Tmax). Therefore we may say that perpetuum mobile
can be impossible if the total entropy can not decrease. Modern formulation of the second law is “the
total entropy can not be systematically reduced”. That is, only irreversible increase of the total entropy
can be in the Nature.
The most popular formulations of the second law were proposed by Rudolph Clausius and William
Thomson (Lord Kelvin) in 1850 and 1851. According to the Thomson’s formulation: "There is no
natural process the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work." The
Clausius’s formulation is “It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body
without any work having been done to accomplish this flow”. Some physicists, for example Marian
Smoluchowski [3] and Richard Feynman [5] understood that the Catnot’s principle is already the full
formulation of the second law and there is not new statements in the Thomson’s and Clausius’s
 4

formulations. Both the Catnot’s principle and these formulations state in fact that some thermodynamic
processes are irreversible and they state this in order to exclude a possibility of perpetuum mobile. The
common formulation of the second law may be: “Perpetuum mobile is impossible because of the
irreversibility of some thermodynamic process.” This formulation is most common since it is based on
a minimum number of terms.
The demand of the irreversibility following from the belief in the impossibility of perpetuum mobile
caused the well known collision between dynamics and thermodynamics. This collision is not
overcome completely up to now. But it is interesting that most scientists rejected in the 19 century the
atomic-kinetic theory of the heat proposed by Maxwell and Boltzmann [3] because of this collision
whereas in the 20 century most scientists believed that this theory has eliminated this collision. This
belief remains invariable since the Maxwell time. J.C. Maxwell wrote in 1878 [6]: “the second law is
drawn from our experience of bodies consisting of an immense number of molecules». And
approximately the same Joel Lebowitz writes after more than century [7]: «It is not every microscopic
state of a macroscopic system that will evolve in accordance with the second law, but only the
“majority” of cases - a majority which however becomes so overwhelming when the number of atoms
in the system becomes very large that irreversible behavior becomes a near certainty». According to the
modern interpretation based on this probabilistic substantiation, the second law is law of disorder
(chaos) increase and the entropy is interpreted as the amount of disorder the system contains.

3. History of doubts in the second law.

Nobody could call the absolute status of the second law in question until it was based only on the
belief in the impossibility of perpetuum mobile. The doubts in the second law emerged at the same
time with its probabilistic substantiation when “the impossibility of an uncompensated decrease of
entropy was reduced to an improbability” [8]. The first, who brought firstly the absolute status of the
second law into challenge was J.C. Maxwell. At first, his doubt about the compatibility of dynamics
and thermodynamics was connected with his belief that the temperature of a gas under gravity would
vary inversely with the height of the column [9]. Now almost all scientists believe that the Maxwell-
Boltzmann distribution law eliminates completely this collision between dynamics and
thermodynamics. But this law is valid only for a high density gas, when the mean free path of
molecules is much lower than the height of a column. In the opposite case of a low density gas the
Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution law is not valid. Therefore even this first doubt by Maxwell can not
be considered as completely solved. The paradox connected with a gravitationally bound low density
gas is discussed in the recent papers [10].
Other challenge to the second law proposed by Maxwell, his famous “neat-fingered being” who
could make a hot system hotter and a cold system colder without any work being done, is known much
wider and is very popular up to now. Thompson in 1874 christened this being a “demon”. Maxwell's
demon - a hypothetical intelligent entity capable of performing measurements on a thermodynamic
 5

system and using their outcomes to extract useful work - was considered a threat to the validity of the
second law of thermodynamics for over a century [11]. It is no coincidence that this idea appeared at
the same time with the Maxwell’s kinetic theory of heat. According to this theory the heat is the
perpetual motion of atoms. Since absolute randomness of this motion was postulated one believed that
the heat energy can be used for the performance of useful work only if it could be ordered even if
partially. The partial regulating can be easy achieved under non-equilibrium conditions, for example at
a temperature difference. But the task of the Maxwell's demon is to achieve the regulating under
equilibrium conditions, when the total entropy might be systematically reduced, contrary to the second
law of thermodynamics. The exorcism of the Maxwell's demon has a long and interesting history
which does not come to an end for the present. Since the demon should obtain an information a deep
connection is assumed by many scientists between this problem and the information theory [12].
Although some authors [13] challenge this deep connection.
The problem of the Maxwell's demon can be considered for a simple example of Szilard’
engine [14]. Szilard considered in 1929 year a box that contains a single molecule, is capped at left and
right ends by pistons, and is equipped with a movable partition which, when dropped, divides the box
into equal left and right volumes. The molecule is maintained at temperature T by contact with the
walls of the box. A cycle of the engine goes as follows: the partition, initially raised so that the
molecule is free to explore the entire box, is dropped, and the demon determines an which side the
molecule is trapped. Using this information, the demon inserts the piston on the empty side of the box,
raises the partition, and allow the molecule to do isothermal work as it pushes the piston back to its
original position. The demon extracts work kBT, in apparent violation of the second law.
Different suggestions were proposed in order to save the second law. Brillouin assumed [15]
that energy should be dissipated in observing the molecule’s position. This point of view is developed
up to last time [16]. Other way of the demon banishment, most popular in the last time [11,17-21], is
the Landauer’s principle [22]. Landauer and others have found that almost any elementary information
manipulation can in principle be done in a reversible manner, i.e. with no entropy cost at all [23].
Bennett [24] made explicit the relation between this result and the Maxwell’s paradox by proposing
that the demon can indeed learn where the molecule is in Szilard’s engine without doing any work or
increasing any entropy in the environment, and so obtain useful work during one stroke of the engine.
But Bennett noted that an additional step is needed to complete the engine’s cycle: the demon’s
memory stores one bit of information - molecule on right or left. To complete the cycle, this
information must be erased as the demon’s memory returns to a standard state, ready for the next cycle.
Bennett invoked Landauer’s principle – to erase a bit of information in an environment at temperature
T requires dissipation of energy > kBTln2 – and concluded that the demon does not succeed in turning
heat into work.
This history shows that the exorcism the Maxwell's demon, as well as the exorcism of any demon, is
based on a faith. Some philosopher noted that the arguments of defenders of the second law are circular
as often as not, see for example [25-27]. They write that exorcism of the Maxwell’s demon by Szillard
 6

and Landauer is based on the claim of inadmissibility of the second law violation. The argument by
Szillard’s: “If we do not wish to admit that the second law has been violated, we must conclude that
…the measurement of x by y, must be accompanied by a production of entropy..” (quoted from [11])
has a strong resemblance to the Carnot’s one on which the second law is based. Carnot could say: “If
we do not wish to admit that perpetuum mobile is inevitable, we must conclude that any useful work
can not be obtained from heat without a temperature difference”. Then, everyone may say: “If we do
not wish to admit that an useful perpetuum mobile is possible, we must conclude that any challenge to
the second law can not be correct, the Maxwell’s demon can not exist” and so forth. There is
interesting question concerned rather psychology than physics: “Why do not so many physicists wish
any possibility of perpetuum mobile?”

4. Contradiction between the Second Law and Life Evolution.

Although the time has a direction both according to our experience and the second law of
thermodynamics we can not say that this direction is one and the same. According to the second law of
thermodynamics total chaos (entropy) of any closed physical system can not systematically diminish.
The thermodynamic arrows of time directs towards the increasing of total chaos. There is a difficulty
for scientific explanation of the world. If the total chaos can only increase why is an order observed?
Creationists use this difficulties in witness of the Creator existence [28-33]. One of the most obvious
difficulties for the belief in the second law is connected with living systems. There is a collision
between the second law and the existence of life. Creationists say that “the Second Law states that
every system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to
be transformed into lower levels of availability, finally reaching the state of complete randomness and
unavailability for further work. But during the period of Creation, God was introducing order and
organization into the universe in a very high degree, even to life itself! It is thus quite plain that the
processes used by God in creation were utterly different from the processes which now operate in the
universe!” Opponents of the creationists [34,35] object that “it is only the over-all entropy of a
complete, or closed system that must increase when spontaneous change occurs. In the case of
spontaneously interacting sub-systems of a closed system, some may gain entropy, while others may
lose entropy”.
There is important to remember that any consideration of any energy transformation can not be
solved the contradiction between the second law and the order observed in Nature. The second law is
not a law about energy transformation. It is law about irreversibility, starting with 19 century and also
the law of increase of total chaos, starting with 20 century. The creationist’s arguments are logical. If
the total entropy increases systematically in time then the chaos should be smaller in the past than now.
The demand of the irreversibility contradicts to the cyclic processes, development of a plant -
decomposition - development, observed in living systems.
 7

Finding oneself between the creationist statement and the belief in the second law scientists should
state that the chaos decrease observed in living systems can be only local. But nobody can explain how
the Carnot’s principle can work on the molecular level. Therefore it is only belief that the total entropy
is not decreased at the growth of living systems. Some authors state [36,37] that they have found some
possible mechanism of violation of the second law in living systems, for example at interaction
between ions and biomolecules [36]. Vladislav Capek stated in [38] that “those breakdowns of the
second law might be occurring in living systems”. A real discovery of a mechanism of violation of the
second law in living systems can resolve the obvious contradiction between the second law and
existence of living systems. Although only very few scientists can believe now in a possibility of the
decrease of the total chaos there is valid doubt on the belief that all processes can obey the Carnot’s
principle on the molecular level when the appeal on “an immense number of molecules» is not valid
and even the conceptions of thermodynamic equilibrium and temperature can not be determined.
Therefore the works [36,37] concerning this problem should attract common attention.
A solution of this problem can answer on the question: Symmetry of which time, lineal or cyclic, is
broken at the change of the total entropy connected with living systems. The growth of plants is
accompanied by systematic reduce of the entropy. When, for example, we use our car the total entropy
increases systematically. The total entropy increases when kinetic energy of the car dissipates to heat
energy and we should expand a fuel because of the Carnot’s principle. The energy of petrol used in our
car was provided by ancient living systems. Consequently, using our car we increases the entropy
which was decreased by ancient living systems. Because of the belief in the second law most scientists
are sure that no total but only local entropy reduces in this case and the entropy decreasing at the plant
growth is compensated for its increasing in the environment, as well as in the case of any heat engine.
If this belief is correct then the change of the total entropy connected with living systems is lineal in
time: the total entropy increases systematically. But if this belief is not correct and the second law is
violated in living systems then cyclic change of the total entropy takes place in time.
The idea of cyclic or lineal time is a basic of known Cultures. The idea of cycle as a basic
foundation of the universe is known from the period of antiquity and ancient China. Whereas the idea
of lineal progress is characteristic of the Weltanschauung based on the Bible. It will be shown below
that symmetry of cyclic and lineal motion should be broken at violation of the second law and that such
violation is observed in some quantum systems.

5. Logical Connection between the Second Law and Symmetry.

The second law is the cause of the thermodynamic arrows of time violating the time symmetry in
physics. It is interesting that on the other hand violation of the second law should be connected with an
intrinsic breach of symmetry.
The probabilistic substantiation of the second law proposed by Maxwell and Boltzmann and
predominated up to now looks very convincing if we take into consideration only “our experience of
 8

bodies consisting of an immense number of molecules». It is obvious that a spontaneous evolution of a

great thermodynamic system can be only from less probable state to more probable state. The
irreversible behaviour seems a near certainty when the number of atoms in the system becomes very
large. But only the “experience of bodies consisting of an immense number of molecules» is not
enough for the substantiation of the second law because of our experience of the perpetual motion, i.e.
motion under equilibrium condition, of atoms, molecules and small Brownian particles. There is
important to note that the Langevin equation
dv
m + γv = FLan (1)
dt
can be used for the description both of the Brownian motion and the motion of a car. The Brownian
motion is the most visual evidence not only of the perpetual motion v ≠ 0 but also the perpetual driving
force F ≠ 0 because of nonzero friction γ ≠ 0. Therefore modern scientists can believe in impossibility
only of useful perpetuum mobile since the Brownian motion is true perpetuum mobile. According to
this belief the perpetuum mobile can not be useful because of absolute randomness of any equilibrium
motion. This randomness postulate was used both in the Maxwell - Boltzmann theory and in the
Brownian motion theory by Einstein, Smoluchowski and others.
The importance of this postulate for the saving of the second law is obvious, for example, from the
consideration of the ratchet/pawl combination by Feynman [5], and earlier, in 1914, by Smoluchowski
[3]: if the average velocity of molecules could be non-zero under equilibrium condition then the second
law is broken even without ratchet and pawl. The randomness postulate was used as self-evident. But it
can have a substantiation if we would take into consideration symmetry [39]. Any violation of the
randomness postulate should be connected with an intrinsic breach of symmetry of equilibrium motion.
For example, an existence of an equilibrium circular motion with non-zero average velocity means an
intrinsic breach of clockwise - anti-clockwise symmetry and an existence of a directed motion breaks
right – left symmetry.
It is obvious also that violation of the second law should be connected with an intrinsic violation of
an symmetry. For example, it is well known that any resistor R is a power source at any finite
temperature T because of the Nyquist's noise WNyq = kBT∆ω [5]. This type of the Brownian motion was
described theoretically by Nyquist [40] and was observed by Johnson [41] as long ago as 1928 year.
Johnson observed a random voltage <V2> = 4R kBT∆ω in a frequency band ∆ω on a resistance R at a
temperature T. Nyquist has shown that this voltage is induced by thermal fluctuation.
Although the Nyquist (Johson) noise is experimental evidence of an equilibrium power source this
fluctuation phenomenon is not challenge to the second law. The power the Nyquist (Johson) noise can
not be used under equilibrium conditions since the power of all elements of electric circuit is
distributed among the same frequency spectrum. It has the same value in frequency region from zero ω
= 0 to the quantum limit ω = kBT/h. There is full symmetry. We can not say what element of electric
circuit is power source and what one is load when they are at the same temperature, T1 = T2, i.e. the
electric circuit is under equilibrium conditions. This symmetry is broken when equilibrium conditions
 9

is broken and the elements are under different temperatures T1 > T2. Then the element at T1 is the
power source and the one at T2 is the load. We can distinguish a power source and load under
equilibrium conditions, i.e. at T1 = T2, only if their frequency spectrums are different. For example, if
the equilibrium power of a element could have a higher value at a frequency ω then we can break the
symmetry using a filter which let go past first of all this frequency. Any distinction of a frequency of
the equilibrium motion from other frequencies can be only at violation of an intrinsic symmetry. Thus,
we may say that the symmetry consideration saves the second law against our experience of the
perpetual motion and violation of the second law can be possible only if an intrinsic breach of a
symmetry is observed.

6. Logical Contradiction in Possibility of Actual Violation of the Second Law

An intrinsic breach of a symmetry it is very grave matter. Moreover there is a logical contradiction
in a possibility of actual violation of the second law under equilibrium conditions [39]. An actual
violation of the second law means systematic reduction of the total entropy dS/dt < 0, whereas the total
entropy can not change under equilibrium conditions dS/dt = 0. Therefore an actual violation of the
second law means violation of equilibrium state. This contradiction may be connected with an
contradiction of a possible breach of symmetry. On the one hand the energy should move from one to
other part of the system, i.e. the right – left symmetry should be broken, at the actual violation of the
second law. On the other hand only clockwise - anti-clockwise symmetry of a circular motion can be
broken under equilibrium conditions since the breach of the right – left symmetry of any motion means
an irreversible transference of mass or energy what means violation of equilibrium.
Thus, two symmetry should be broken at actual violation of the second law [39]. An clockwise -
anti-clockwise symmetry of a equilibrium circular motion can be broken without violation of
equilibrium conditions. But this breach, as well as any equilibrium phenomenon, can be only potential
possibility of violation of the second law. In order this potential possibility could become an actual
violation an additional symmetry, right – left symmetry.

7. Intrinsic Breach of Clockwise - Anti-Clockwise Symmetry

In order to find where an intrinsic breach of a symmetry could be expected we ought pay heed to the
importance of the continuity of the spectrum of permitted states for saving of symmetry of equilibrium
motion. If spectrum of permitted states is continuous then for any state with a velocity v a permitted
state with opposite velocity -v and the same (because of the space symmetry) probability P(v2) exists,
therefore <v> = Σper.st. v P(v2) + (-v) P(v2) ≡ 0. According to the classical mechanics only continuous
spectrum of permitted states is possible and therefore the average velocity of any equilibrium motion
should be equal zero <v> = 0. But according to the quantum mechanics no all states are permitted.
Therefore the average velocity of some quantum equilibrium motion can be non-zero <v> ≠ 0. Thus,
 10

according to the well known principle of the quantum mechanics the postulate of absolute randomness
of any equilibrium motion can be incorrect and an intrinsic breach of symmetry can take place.
There is important that momentum p of a particle with a charge q is p = mv + qA and that the
spectrum of permitted state of momentum circulation of a quantum particle can be discrete
∫ dlp = ∫ dl (mv + qA) = m∫ dlv + qΦ = n2πh
l l l
(2)
where m is the mass of the particle; v is its velocity; A is the vector potential; Φ = ∫ dlA is the magnetic
l

flux; n is an integer number. Therefore the permitted values of the velocity circulation of a quantum
particle placed in a loop
2πh Φ
∫l dlv = m (n − Φ 0 ) (3)

can have discrete spectrum if its wave function is closed along the loop. Here Φ0 = 2πh/q is called the
flux quantum. When the magnetic flux Φ contained within this loop is not divisible by the flux
quantum, i.e. Φ ≠ nΦ0, the state with zero vilocity v = 0 is forbidden. The thermodinamic average
velocity under equilibrium conditions can be non-zero <v> ≠ 0 at Φ ≠ nΦ0 and Φ ≠ (n+0.5)Φ0 since
only single state from two states with opposite velocity v and –v can be permitted in this case. When a
state with v = h/mr(n+ - Φ/Φ0) is permitted then the state with –v can not be permitted since -v ≠
h/mr(n- - Φ/Φ0) at any integer numbers n+ and n- when Φ/Φ0 ≠ n and Φ/Φ0 ≠ (n+0.5): v + (-v) = 0 but
h/mr(n+ - Φ/Φ0) + h/mr(n- - Φ/Φ0) = h/mr(n+ + n- - 2Φ/Φ0) ≠ 0 at any integer numbers n+ and n- when
2Φ/Φ0 is not integer number. Where r is the radius of the loop; l = 2πr.
The thermodynamic average velocity <v> =
h/mr(<n> - Φ/Φ0). When the energy difference
between adjacent permitted states exceeds the
temperature E(n+1)-E(n) << kBT then the
thermodynamic average value <n> of the quantum
number n is close to the integer number n
corresponding to minimum energy, i.e. to minimum (n
- Φ/Φ0)2 value if the magnetic flux inside the loop is
not close to (n + 0.5)Φ0. The permitted states n - Φ/Φ0 Fig.1. The intrinsic breach of the clockwise - anti-
=0.5 and n - Φ/Φ0 = -0.5 have the same energy and clockwise symmetry. The direction of the
therefore <n> - Φ/Φ0 = 0 at Φ = (n + 0.5)Φ0. equilibrium velocity <v> and the persistent current
Therefore the equilibrium velocity <v> ≈ h/mr(n - Ip depends on the scalar value Φ/Φ0.
Φ/Φ0) can be a periodical function of the magnetic
flux value Φ.
The direction of the equilibrium velocity <v> is determined by a scalar value Φ/Φ0 and can change
with this value. For example, if at Φ = 0.25Φ0 the equilibrium velocity has clockwise direction then at
Φ = 0.75Φ0 it has anti-clockwise one, Fig.1. This means that an intrinsic breach of the clockwise - anti-
 11

clockwise symmetry can be because of discreteness of the permitted state spectrum. There is not an
external vector which could give the velocity direction.

8. Experimental Evidence of Intrinsic Breach of Clockwise - Anti-Clockwise Symmetry.

The energy difference between adjacent permitted states E(n+1)-E(n) = mv2(n+1)/2 - mv2(n)/2
≈ h2/2mr2 is enough low for the radius value r of a real loop which can be made now. For example, the
energy difference h2/2mr2 corresponds to the temperature T ≈ 0.01 K for electron placed in a loop with
radius r = 1 µm. Nevertheless the persistent current, the quantum phenomenon exists because of non-
zero equilibrium velocity <v> ≠ 0, was observed in normal metal mesoscopic loops [42-44]. It is very
difficult to observe the persistent current in normal metal since the spectrum of permitted state of
electrons can be discrete only in nano-scale structures and at very low temperature. It is much more
easy to observe the persistent current in superconductor. Superconductivity is macroscopic quantum
phenomenon since superconducting pairs are condensed bosons and have the same value of the
momentum circulation. Because of this such quantum phenomena as the Meissner effect, the
quantization of magnetic flux and others are observed.
The density of the persistent current in superconductor jp = 2ens<vs> since superconducting pairs,
the density of which is ns and the charge of each is 2e, have the same value of the momentum and
velocity vs. The quantization of the magnetic flux is observed in the case of strong screening when the
magnetic flux induced by the persistent current LIp exceeds strongly the flux quantum LIp >> Φ0. In
this case there is a closed path l inside superconductor along which the velocity vs = 0. Then, according
to the relation (3), the magnetic flux inside this closed path Φ = nΦ0. The quantum number n can be
non-zero n ≠ 0 if only a singularity of the wave function describing superconducting state is inside l. If
a singularity is absent n = 0 and the Meissner effect Φ = 0 should be observed.
The quantization of the velocity (3) is observed at a weak screening LIp << Φ0 when the magnetic
flux inside a loop Φ = BS + LIp ≈ BS equals approximately the flux BS induced by an external magnet.
Here B is the magnetic induction induced by an external magnet; S is the area of the loop. When sizes
of the cross-section of the wire defining a loop is much smaller than its radius all superconducting pairs
have the same velocity and the persistent current Ip = s jp = s2ens<vs>, where s is the area of the cross-
sectional. The energy difference between adjacent permitted states in superconductor loop increases in
the Ns = lsns time, where Ns is the number of superconducting pairs in the loop velocity of which can
change only simultaneously. The number Ns is very great in any real loop even near and above the
superconducting critical temperature Tc. Therefore the persistent current can be easy observed in
superconductors and its equilibrium value and sign in a loop with weak screening correspond always to
the permitted state with minimum energy, i.e. to minimum (n - Φ/Φ0)2 value.
The persistent current is a direct current observed under equilibrium conditions. Its equilibrium
value and sign are periodical function of the value of magnetic flux Ip = s jp = s2ens<vs> ∝ (<n> -
Φ/Φ0). The direction of the circular persistent current, clockwise or anti-clockwise, is determined by
 12

the scalar value Φ/Φ0. For example, if at Φ = 0.25Φ0 the persistent current Ip has clockwise direction
then at Φ = 0.25Φ0 it has anti-clockwise one, Fig.1. The periodical dependence Ip(Φ/Φ0) ∝ (<n> -
Φ/Φ0) is observed both in normal metal mesoscopic loops [42-44] and many times in superconductor
loops [45]. This quantum oscillations of the persistent current in function of magnetic field are
experimental evidence of the intrinsic breach of the clockwise - anti-clockwise symmetry.

9. Experimental Evidence of Potential Possibility of Violation of the Second Law.

There is experimental evidence not only the intrinsic breach of the clockwise - anti-clockwise
symmetry but also a potential possibility of violation of the second law. The persistent current Ip is
observed not only in loop with zero resistance R = 0, but also at non-zero resistance R > 0, i.e. at non-
zero dissipation RIp2. It is experimental evidence of a dc power RIp2 existing under equilibrium
conditions, i.e. persistent power, since any current can be observed at non-zero power dissipation only
if an power source maintains it. This quantum phenomenon is observed in normal metal mesoscopic
loops [42-44] and superconductor loop in a narrow fluctuation region near the superconducting
transition [46-47].
The nearest classical phenomenon analogous to the persistent power Wp = RIp is the Nyquist's (or
Johnson's) noise. It is obvious that the persistent power observed in superconductor loop is fluctuation
phenomenon like the Nyquist's noise since RIp ≠ 0 is observed only in the fluctuation region near Tc.
Above this region R > 0 but Ip = 0 and below it Ip ≠ 0 but R = 0. Because both have power induced by
fluctuations, the maximum power of the persistent current Wp = RIp2 < (kBT)2/h [48] and the total
power of the Nyquist's noise are close to the power of thermal fluctuations Wfl = (kBT)2/h. But there is
an important difference between these two fluctuation phenomena. The power of the Nyquist's noise is
"spread" WNyq = kBT∆ω on frequency region from zero ω = 0 to the quantum limit ω = kBT/h whereas
the power of the persistent current is not zero at the zero frequency band ω = 0.
The difference of the the frequency spectrum of the equilibrium persistent power from the one of the
equilibrium power of the Nyquist’s noise is the consequence of the intrinsic breach of the clockwise -
anti-clockwise symmetry and it can breaks the symmetry of elements of electric circuit under
equilibrium conditions. Therefore the persistent power is potential possibility of violation of the second
law. The Nyquist's noise is chaotic Brownian motion [5] and the persistent current at R > 0 is ordered
Brownian motion [48]. Therefore the power of the first can not be used whereas the power of the
second can be used for the performance of useful work.

10. Experimental Evidence of Intrinsic Breach of Rigth – Left Symmetry.

The persistent current breaks the clockwise - anti-clockwise symmetry without violation of
equilibrium conditions. The persistent power Wp = RIp2, as well as any equilibrium phenomenon, can
be only potential possibility of violation of the second law. An actual violation of the second law can
be possible at a breach of a right – left symmetry.
 13

Any circular direct current can break only clockwise - anti-clockwise symmetry in symmetric loop.
For example, when the circular current I is induced by the Faraday’s voltage RlI = ∫ dlE = −dΦ / dt in a
l

conventional normal metal symmetric loop with the resistance Rl there can be only the circular electric
field E = -dA/dt and any potential difference V can not be observed on any segment because of the
symmetry. But the potential difference
R R
V = ( s − l )l s I (4)
ls l
should be observed at I ≠ 0 on a segment ls of asymmetric loop, with the resistance along the segment
Rs/ls differs from the one along the whole loop Rl/l. According to (4) V = 0 at Rs/ls = Rl/l. The potential
electric field E = -∇V has right or left direction. Thus, the Faraday’s voltage breaks only clockwise -
anti-clockwise symmetry in a symmetric loop and both clockwise - anti-clockwise and right – left
symmetry in an asymmetric one.
The breach of the clockwise - anti-clockwise symmetry
because of the conventional circular current induced by the 1

V, µV
0
Faraday’s voltage is not intrinsic since the direction of this -1
current, clockwise or anti-clockwise, is determined by the
-1 1
external vector - the Faraday’s electric field E = -dA/dt. The Φ /Φ 0
persistent current is observed in a constant magnetic field
dΦ/dt = 0, i.e. without the Faraday’s electric field
∫ dlE = −dΦ / dt = 0. The persistent current does not
l

disappear in superconductor loop with non-zero resistance R

> 0 without the Faraday’s voltage dΦ/dt = 0 since the
decrease of the velocity of superconducting pairs because of
the dissipation force is equilibrated by its increase because of Fig.2. Experimental evidence of the
intrinsic breach of the right-left symmetry
the quantization at the closing of the wave function when [51]. The potential difference V measured
thermal fluctuations switch the loop between between points L and R changes sing and
the electric field E = -∇V changes
superconducting states with different connectivity [48].
direction with the scalar value Φ/Φ0 at Φ
Superconducting pairs can accelerate against the force of = nΦ0 and Φ = (n+0.5)Φ0. If E has left
the electric field at the closing of the superconducting state in direction at Φ = 0.25Φ0 then at Φ =
0.75Φ0 it has right direction.
the loop, as well as at the Meissner effect [49]. This
mysterious phenomenon, as well as the intrinsic breach of the clockwise - anti-clockwise symmetry, is
a consequence of the discrete spectrum of the permitted states. The velocity circulation but no velocity
changes because of the quantization. Any velocity change can not be localized in any loop segment in
principle because of the uncertainty relation [48]. Therefore an potential difference proportional of the
persistent current V ∝ Ip(Φ/Φ0) ∝ (<n> - Φ/Φ0) can be observed on a segment with Rs/ls ≠ Rl/l of an
asymmetric superconducting loop and should not be observed on any segment of a symmetric one as
well as in the case (4) of the conventional current induced by the Faraday’s voltage.
 14

The experimental results [50,51] corroborate this analogy between the persistent current and the
conventional current. The dc potential difference, value and sign of which are periodical function of the
magnetic field like the persistent current V(Φ/Φ0) ∝ Ip(Φ/Φ0), was observed on segments of
asymmetric loop, Fig.2, whereas this potential difference is not observed on segments of symmetric
loop [50]. The dc potential difference means breach of the right – left symmetry. The quantum
oscillation of the dc voltage V(Φ/Φ0) observed in [50,51] is experimental evidence of the intrinsic
breach of the right – left symmetry since the dc electric field E = -∇V is observe in a constant magnetic
field dΦ/dt = 0, i.e. without the Faraday’s electric field, and its direction changes with the scolar value
Φ/Φ0, Fig.2
The quantum oscillations V(Φ/Φ0) and consequently the intrinsic breach of the right – left symmetry
were first observed on a double point Josephson contact in 1967 [52].

11. Actual Violation of the Second Law.

The quantum oscillation V(Φ/Φ0) observed in [50-52] is also experimental evidence that segment of
asymmetric superconductor loop is a dc power source at Φ ≠ nΦ0 and Φ ≠ (n+0.5)Φ0. When this dc
power source having a voltage Vs and an internal resistance Rs is loaded with an equipment having a
resistance RL that a work or energy is extracted in the equipment with the power WL = Vs2RL/(RL+Rs)2.
The dc voltage V(Φ/Φ0) was observed without an evident power
source in the fluctuation region near superconducting transition
[50]. At lower temperature these quantum oscillations can be
induced by external ac current with any frequency and the
amplitude exceeding a critical one [51]. The dc voltage observed
without an evident power source can be induced by both
equilibrium and non-equilibrium noise. In the first case the Wp =
Vp2/Rs is the persistent power and the persistent voltage Vp(Φ/Φ0) is
indubitable experimental evidence of violation of the second law in
all formulation [53,54]: anyhow large energy tWL can be extracted
from thermal fluctuations at an non-zero dc power WL since the
time t can be anyhow long. But moreover the experimental result
[50] is evidence of violation of the second law in any case since
Fig.3. The system of N asymmetric
there is no difference between equilibrium and non-equilibrium superconductor loops connected in
noise. The noise, both equilibrium and non-equilibrium, does not series on which the amplitude of
the quantum oscillations V(Φ/Φ0)
break any symmetry. The intrinsic breach of the right - left in N time higher than on single
symmetry, as well as of the clockwise - anti-clockwise symmetry, loop [51].
observed at the quantum oscillation phenomena takes place because
of the discrete spectrum of permitted states. The actual violation of the second law takes place because
of the intrinsic breach of the right - left symmetry observed in the quantum oscillation V(Φ/Φ0)
 15

phenomenon. The violation of the second law because of this quantum phenomenon is corroborated
theoretically in the works [48, 55-57].
The persistent power Wp = Vp2/Rs can not exceed the total power of thermal fluctuations Wfl ≈
(kBT)2/h. [48,53] which is weak: (kBT)2/h ≈ 10-12 Wt at T = 1 K and (kBT)2/h ≈ 10-8 Wt at T = 100 K.
Therefore it is important that the dc power can be easy summed in contrast to the Nyquist’s noise. The
Nyquist’s power of N elements equal the one of single element WNyq = kBT∆ω whereas the voltage of N
dc power sources connected in series equals NV and the maximum power in a load WL =
N2Vp2RL/(RL+NRs)2 = NVs2/4Rs at RL= NRs is in N time higher for the N dc power sources than for
single one, WL = Vp2/4Rs at RL= Rs. This difference is consequence of the difference between chaotic
power and ordered power. Thus, the persistent power can be made very large. There may be only
technology problems. The first results [51] have shown that it is enough easy to make a system of
asymmetric superconductor loops connected in series in which the dc voltages are summed.

12. Conclusion.

The experimental evidence of the intrinsic breach of the clockwise - anti-clockwise symmetry of
circular equilibrium motion and of the actual violation of the second law refute centuries-old belief in
impossibility of perpetuum mobile [58] and cast doubt on some consequences of this belief, in
particular on the thermodynamic arrows of time. The breach of the symmetry of equilibrium motion
restores the symmetry of time direction in thermodynamic. The observation of the persistent power
[50] and the intrinsic breach of the right-left symmetry [50-52] means violation of the second law in all
formulations: if the equipment loaded on the dc power source observed in [50] is a electric heater at a
higher temperature then the heat energy can be transformed from the cold body (the dc power source)
to the hot body (the heater) without an expense of an additional energy, contrary to the Clausius
formulation; if the equipment is electric motor then an useful work can be performed, contrary to the
Carnot’s principle (the Thomson’s formulation) and the total entropy might be systematically reduced
when the electric motor revolves a fly-wheel. The latter means the turning of the thermodynamic
arrows of time directing towards the increase of the total entropy. The discovery of violation of the
second law in quantum system may remove the difficulty in scientific explanation of the order
observed in our world in particular in living systems. If the second law is broken then the change of the
total entropy (chaos) may be cyclic but not lineal.

Acknowledgements
The investigations of the quantum mesoscopic phenomena are financially supported by the Russian
Foundation of Basic Research (Grant 04-02-17068), the Presidium of Russian Academy of Sciences in
the Program "Low-Dimensional Quantum Structures" and ITCS department of Russian Academy of
Sciences in the Program "Technology Basis of New Computing Methods".
 16

References

1. H. Lieb Elliott and Jakob Yngvason, The physics and mathematics of the second law of
thermodynamics. Physics Reports 310, 1-96 (1999).
2. A.S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World. Macmillan, New York, 1948.
3. M. Smoluchowski, “Gultigkeitsgrenzen des zweiten Hauptsatzes der Warmetheorie,” in Vortrage
uber kinetische Theorie der Materie und der Elektrizitat (Mathematische Vorlesungen an der
Universitat Gottingen, VI). Leipzig und Berlin, B.G.Teubner, 1914, pp.87-105.
4. S. Carnot, Reflexions sur la Puissance Motrice du Feu et sur les Machines Propres a Developper
Cette Puissance. Paris: Chez Bachelier, 1824; translation in E. Mendoza, Reflections on the
Motive Power of Fire by Sadi Carnot and Other Papers on the Second Law of Thermodynamics by
E. Clapeyron and R. Clausius, Dover, New York, 1960.
5. R.P.Feynman, R.B.Leighton, and M.Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol.1, Addison-
Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1963.
6. J.C. Maxwell, Theory of Heat, “Tait’s Thermodynamics”, Nature 17, 257 (1878).
7. Joel L. Lebowitz, “Statistical Mechanics: A Selective Review of Two Central Issues” Reviews of
Modern Physics, 71, (1999), S346
8. J.W. Gibbs, Connecticut Academy Transactions 3, 229 (1875), reprinted in The Scientific Papers, 1,
167 Dover, New York 1961); L. Boltzmann, Vorlesungen ¨uber Gastheorie. 2 vols. Leipzig: Barth,
1896, 1898, translation into English S.G. Brush, Lectures on Gas Theory, (Cambridge University
Press, London 1964).
9. Garber, E., S. G. Brush and C.W.F. Everitt, Maxwell on Heat and Statistical Mechanics, Lehigh
University Press, Bethlehem, PA, 1995.
10. D.P. Sheehan and J. Glick, Phys. Scripta 61, 635 (2000); D.P. Sheehan, J. Glick and J.D. Means,
Found. Phys. 30, 1227 (2000); D.P. Sheehan, J. Glick T. Duncan, J.A. Langton M.J. Gagliardi and
R. Tobe, Found. Phys. 32, 441 (2002). D.P. Sheehan, “A Classical Gravitational Second Law
Paradox”, in the AIP Conference Proceedings 643 “Quantum Limits to the Second Law” p. 391
(2002) http://proceedings.aip.org/proceedings/confproceed/643.jsp
11. H. S. Leff and A. F. Rex, “Maxwell's Demon: Entropy, Information, Computing”. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, 1990.
12. A. Steane, “Quantum Computing”. Rept.Prog.Phys. 61, 117 (1998).
13. Lyndsay Gordon, “The Decrease in Entropy via Fluctuations”, Entropy 6, 11 (2004),
http://www.mdpi.net/entropy/list04.htm.
14. L.Szilard, On the decrease of entropy in a thermodynamic system by the intervention of intelligent
beings; Zeitschrift fur Physik 53, 840 (1929), Reprinted in Maxwell’s Demon 2; Leff, H.S. and
Rex, A.F.; Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol and Philadelphia, pp 110-119 (2003).
15. L. Brillouin, Science and Information. Academic Press, New York, 1962.
16. F.T.S. Yu, “Entropy Information and Optics”, Optical Memory and Neural Networks 9, 75 (2000).
 17

17. W.H.Zurek, «Thermodynamic Cost of Computation, Algorithmic Complexity and the

Informational Metric», Nature 341, 119 (1989).
18. C.M.Caves, “Quantitative Limits on the Ability of a Maxwell Demon to Extract Work from Heat”,
Phys.Rev.Lett. 64, 2111 (1990).
19. Seth Lloyd, “A quantum-mechanical Maxwell's demon”. quant-ph/9612034.
20. W.H. Zurek, “Algorithmic randomness, physical entropy, measurements, and the Demon of
Choice”. quant-ph/9807007
21. V. Vedral, “Landauer's erasure, error correction and entanglement”. quant-ph/9903049
22. Landauer, R. Irreversibility and heat generation in the computing process; IBM J. Res. Dev. 5, 183-
191 (1961). Reprinted in Maxwell’s Demon 2; Leff, H.S. and Rex, A.F; Institute of Physics
Publishing: Bristol and Philadelphia, 2003; pp 148-156.
23. C.H. Bennett and R. Landauer, «The Fundamental Physical Limits of Computation», Scientific
American, Jule p.38 (1985).
24. C.H. Bennett, Int.J.Theor.Phys. 21, 905 (1982).
25. Popper, K. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 8, 151-155 (1957).
26. Craig Callender, “Who's Afraid of Maxwell's Demon—and Which One?” in the AIP Conference
Proceedings 643 “Quantum Limits to the Second Law” p. 399 (2002)
27. Craig Callender “A Collision Between Dynamics and Thermodynamics”, Entropy 6, 11 (2004),
http://www.mdpi.net/entropy/list04.htm.
28. Allan H. Harvey, The Second Law of Thermodynamics in the Context of the Christian Faith,
http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html;
29. Paul S. Taylor, Second Law of Thermodynamics - Does this basic law of nature prevent
Evolution? http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html;
30. Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin:
Reassessing Current Theories (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984); Emmett L. Williams,
editor, Thermodynamics and the Development of Order (Norcross, Georgia: Creation Research
Society Books, 1981);
31. Walter L. Bradley, "No Relevance to the Origin of Life," Origins Research, Vol. 10, No. 1 (1987),
pp. 13-14;
32. Harold L. Armstrong, "Evolutionistic Defense Against Thermodynamics Disproved," Creation
Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 4 (March 1980), pp. 226-227, 206, and Vol. 17, No. 1
(June 1980), pp. 72-73, 59;
33. Jerry Kelley, "Thermodynamics and Probability," Origins Research, Vol. 9, No. (1986), pp. 11-13;
"On the Nature of Order," Origins Research, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1986), pp. 14-15.
34. Stephen G. Brush, «Creationism Versus Physical Science» APS News, November 2000,
http://www.aps.org/apsnews/1100/110018.cfm
35. Frank Steiger, “The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
 18

36. V. Capek and J.Bok, “A thought construction of working perpetuum mobile of the second kind”.
Czeck J. Phys. vol. 49, pp. 1645-1652, 1999.
37. Lyndsay G. M. Gordon, “Perpetual Motion with Maxwell's Demon” in the AIP Conference
Proceedings 643 “Quantum Limits to the Second Law” p. 242 (2002).
38. P. Weiss, «Breaking the Law: Can quantum mechanics + thermodynamics =perpetual motion?"
Science News, vol. 158, p. 234, (2000), http://www.sciencenews.org/20001007/toc.asp
39. A.V. Nikulov, “ Quantum limits to the second law and breach of a symmetry” Invited Lecture at
the conference "Frontiers of Quantum and Mesoscopic Thermodynamics" 26-29 July 2004,
Prague, http://www.fzu.cz/activities/conferences/fqmt04/, will be published in Physica E May
2005.
40. H.Nyquist, “Thermal Agitation of Electric Charge in Conductors” Phys.Rev. 32, 110 (1928).
41. J.B.Johnson, “Thermal Agitation of Electricity in Conductors” Phys.Rev. 32, 97 (1928).
42. L.P.Levy, G.Dolan, J.Dunsmuir, and H.Bouchiat, “Magnetization of mesoscopic copper rings:
Evidence for persistent currents” Phys. Rev.Lett. 64, 2074 (1990).
43. V. Chandrasekhar, R.A.Webb, M.J.Brady, M.B.Ketchen, W.J.Gallagher, and A.Kleinsasser,
“Response of a Single, Isolated Gold Loop” Phys. Rev.Lett. 67, 3578 (1991).
44. E.M.Q.Jariwala, P.Mohanty, M.B.Ketchen, and R.A.Webb, “Diamagnetic Persistent Current in
Diffusive Normal- Metal Rings”, Phys. Rev.Lett. 86, 1594 (2001).
45. M.Tinkham, Introduction to Superconductivity. McGraw-Hill Book Company (1975).
46. W.A.Little and R.D.Parks, “Observation of Quantum Periodicity in the Transition Temperature of a
Superconducting Cylinder” Phys.Rev.Lett. 9, 9 (1962).
47. H.Vloeberghs, V.V.Moshchalkov, C. Van Haesendonck, R.Jonckheere, and Y.Bruynseraede,
“Anomalous Little-Parks Oscillations in Mesoscopic Loops”, Phys. Rev.Lett. 69, 1268 (1992).
48. A.V. Nikulov, “Quantum force in superconductor” Phys. Rev. B 64, 012505 (2001); Reply to
Comment on this paper, http://arXiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0304313.
49. J. E. Hirsch, “The Lorentz force and superconductivity” Phys.Lett. A 315, 474 (2003).
50. S.V.Dubonos, V.I.Kuznetsov, and A.V.Nikulov, (2002) "Segment of an Inhomogeneous
Mesoscopic Loop as a DC Power Source" in Proceedings of 10th International Symposium
"NANOSTRUCTURES: Physics and Technology" St Petersburg: Ioffe Institute, p. 350; “Quantum
voltage oscillations observed on segments of an inhomogeneous superconducting loop” cond-
mat/0305337.
51. S.V.Dubonos, V.I.Kuznetsov, I.N.Zhilyaev, A.V.Nikulov, and A.A.Firsov, “Induction of dc
voltage, proportional to the persistent current, by external ac current on system of inhomogeneous
superconducting loops” JETP Lett. 77, 439 (2003); cond-mat/0303538
52. A.Th.A.M. De Waele, W.H.Kraan, R. De Bruynouboter and K.W. Taconis, “On the D.C. Voltage
across a Double Point Contact between Two Superconductors at Zero Applied D.C. Current in
Situations in Which the Junction is in the Resistive Region due to the Circulating Current Flux
Quantization” Physica 37, 114 (1967).
 19

53. V.V.Aristov and A.V.Nikulov, “Quantum Power Source. Putting in Order of a Brownian Motion
without Maxwell's Demon” the Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 5128 "Quantum informatics", pp. 148-
156 (2003); http://arXiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0310073.
54. A.V. Nikulov, “Why the persistent power can be observed in mesoscopic quantum system”
submitted to Phys.Rev.Lett. http://arXiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0404717.
55. A.V. Nikulov, and I.N. Zhilyaev, (1998) The Little-Parks effect in an inhomogeneous
superconducting ring, J.Low Temp.Phys. 112, 227-236; http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cond-
mat/9811148.
56. Jorge Berger, “The Chernogolovka experiment” Invited Lecture at the conference "Frontiers of
Quantum and Mesoscopic Thermodynamics"26-29 July 2004, Prague,
http://www.fzu.cz/activities/conferences/fqmt04/, will be published in Physica E May 2005.
57. Jorge Berger, “Noise rectification by superconducting loop with two weak links ” Phys. Rev. B, 70,
024524 (2004).
58. A.V. Nikulov, “About Perpetuum Mobile without Emotions” physics/9912022; in the AIP
Conference Proceedings 643 “Quantum Limits to the Second Law” p. 207 (2002)
http://proceedings.aip.org/proceedings/confproceed/643.jsp

View publication stats