Abstract:This article draws attention that the puzzle of the change of the angular momentum without any force is a consequence of the contradiction of macroscopic quantum phenomena with the correspondence principle, which reveals a fundamental difference between microscopic quantum phenomena, described by the Schrodinger wave mechanics, and macroscopic quantum phenomena, described by the theory of superconductivity and the theory of superfluidity. To explain why macroscopic quantum phenomena are observed despite the correspondence principle, Lev Landau postulated in 1941 that microscopic particles in superfluid helium and superconductor cannot move separately. The angular momentum can change without any force only due to quantization in both microscopic and macroscopic quantum phenomena. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle eliminates the contradiction with the conservation law in the first case, since according to the correspondence principle, the change in angular momentum cannot exceed the Planck constant. But this principle cannot eliminate the contradiction with the conservation law the macroscopic change of angular momentum due to quantization observed in superconductors contrary to the correspondence principle. Quantization can change not only the angular momentum, but also the kinetic energy of a superconducting condensate on a macroscopic amount. For this reason, the Meissner effect and other macroscopic quantum phenomena contradict the second law of thermodynamics. The reluctance of physicists to admit the violation of the second law of thermodynamics provoked a false understanding of the phenomenon of superconductivity and obvious contradictions in books on superconductivity.

Reply to Comment on "Quantum Force in a Superconductor"

Comment on “Ground-State Description of Quasi-One-dimensional Polarons with Arbitrary Electron-Phonon Coupling Strength”

Reply to "Comment on `Extending the laws of thermodynamics for arbitrary autonomous quantum systems'"

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

Reply to the Comment of den Hartog and van Wees on "Conductance Fluctuations in Mesoscopic Normal-Metal/Superconductor Samples"

Reply to the Comment "Past of a quantum particle and weak measurement"

Comment on "Transverse Force on a Quantized Vortex in a Superfluid"

Reply to 'Comment on "Thermodynamics of quantum crystalline membranes"'

A problem with the conservation law observed in macroscopic quantum phenomena is a consequence of violation of the correspondence principle

Comment on “magnus and Iordanskii Forces in Superfluids”

Reply to 'Comment on Universal out-of-equilibrium transport in Kondo-correlated quantum dots'

Qin Et Al. Reply

Reply to comment in <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="1802.01382" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.01382">arXiv:1802.01382</a>

Reply to the Comment, <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="0810.3243v1" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3243v1">arXiv:0810.3243v1</a> by B. Geyer, G. L. Klimchitskaya, U. Mohideen, and. V. M. Mostepanenko

Reply to the comment on "High-Power Collective Charging of a Solid-State Quantum Battery" by Haowei Xu and Ju Li

Comment on "The Law of Entropy Increase and the Meissner Effect" by A. Nikulov

Reply to "Comment on `Weak values and the past of a quantum particle' ''

Comment on "Case of thermodynamic failure in the Ginzburg-Landau approach to fluctuation superconductivity"

Resolution of the Solar Neutrino Anomaly

Reply to "Comment on 'Precision measurement of the Casimir-Lifshitz force in a fluid'"

Reply to Comment [<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="0810.3244v1" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3244v1">arXiv:0810.3244v1</a>] by R.S. Decca et al. on "Contribution of drifting carriers to the Casimir-Lifshitz and Casimir-Polder interactions with semiconductor materials"