> 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
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