There may well be a very simple proof that the conductivity of electricity in either normal conductors or superconductors is carried out by the Malus law with photon messengers of electrons in the circuit. In the last post, I offered a experiment that if we can observe vortices in superconductors that the BCS theory would predict the vortices throughout the circuit. The Malus theory would predict the vortices to be bunched up near the generator source of current and further on the circuit would be free of vortices.
Now after posting that, I thought there should be a more direct proof of which is true-- Malus law or BCS theory. Before I discuss this second experiment let me refresh in my own mind and the reader what the BCS theory contends is going on. There is no better physics textbook than the 1980s Halliday and Resnick because after 1988, physics textbook started to fill their pages with the nonsense fakeries of Big Bang, black-holes, quarks, strings, neutron stars and other assorted nonsense. So the best physics textbook ended in 1988.
Halliday and Resnick's 1988, 3rd edition, Fundamentals of Physics
--- quoting from page 655 ---
Electrons normally repel each other so that some special mechanism is needed to induce them to form a pair. A semiclassical picture that helps in understanding this quantum BCS phenomenon is as follows: An electron plows through the lattice, distorting it slightly and thus leaving in its wake a very short-lived concentration of enhanced positive charge. If a second electron is nearby at the right moment, it may well be attracted to this region by the positive charge, thus forming a pair with the first electron. It is known that the newly discovered superconductors operate by means of Cooper pairs but, as of 1988, there is no universal agreement as to the mechanism by which these pairs are formed. --- end quote ---
Now as H&R describe the mechanism of BCS theory it suggests that the thickness of the wire circuit should have a large difference between BCS and Malus law theory.
If you recall, the best conductivity is short, fat, and cold wire.
Now, if we focus just on cross section area in the formula of Resistance of R = rL/A where A is the cross section area. So the fat wire is a better conductor than the skinny wire.
Now, let us ask if the BCS mechanism favors a fat wire over a skinny wire and likewise ask the same question of the Malus law theory.
Well, from reading the above H&R of the Cooper pairing with its dependence on concentrations of enhanced positive charge, that the pairing of two electrons is not favored, but rather would be favored in a skinny wire rather than a fat wire.
On the other hand, the Malus law of superconductivity where the photon messengers pair up with a individual electron would be favored by a larger cross section so as to take out each photon and pair it with a electron in that cross section. If the photons were crammed together in a smaller cross section, they would be more tending to be a laser and more heat.
So I think the obvious fact that fat conductors are more conductive than skinny conductors favors the Malus law of conductivity and superconductivity, and not the BCS theory of superconductivity.
One of the huge problems of a fake theory in physics, is that the believers of the fake theory never take any logical objections to heart, but just ignore all objections. And worse yet, they never look for logical inconsistencies, and only look to window-dress their darling. So that when BCS was offered as a theory, no physicist ever questioned whether that mechanism supports the equation R =rL/A or contradicts that equation of fat wire or skinny wire.
Google's archives are top-heavy in hate-spew from search-engine- bombing. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple and fair archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as seen here: