Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
bacle
Posts:
838
From:
nyc
Registered:
6/6/10
|
|
Re: Copying and Pasting from Other books. Ruining your Book, I hope.
Posted:
Jan 29, 2013 9:33 AM
|
|
> 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.
Again, you have not made any experiments of your own, yet you describe a theory as 'fakery'. You are not just a FRAUD, but an inept buffoon.
So the best physics textbook
> ended in 1988.
>
> Halliday and Resnick's 1988, 3rd edition,
> Fundamentals of Physics
Asshole:
Why would anyone buy your book? Instead, they can buy the book by Resnick--a real scientist, unlike you.
>
> --- 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:
>
> ?http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986
>
> Archimedes Plutonium
> http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
|
|
|
