The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: perhaps 3rd experimental proof of Malus law superconductivity and BCS
a fake #1188 New Physics #1308 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Replies: 1   Last Post: Jan 30, 2013 1:22 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 18,572
Registered: 3/31/08
some of my recent mistakes and the reporting of superconductor
temperatures #1189 New Physics #1309 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Posted: Jan 30, 2013 1:22 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Now one of the beauties of writing the next edition of this book will
be to remove the mistakes I made in this edition. Two recent mistakes
were the search for dB/dK and the claim that superconductivity has a
tiny self induced current owing to the fact that the outside
temperature is different from the temperature of the superconducting
environment. Those are seen as mistakes on my part, but in doing
research in science, expect a lot of mistakes.

The Malus theory of superconductivity has heat arising from photons
themselves so that heat and friction and resistance are the quantity
and quality of photons. So the Maxwell Equations do not need heat and
temperature in the Equations since photons are in the Equations.

Now my first theory of superconductivity circa 1993 or thereabouts was
that neutrinos cause the phenomenon since neutrinos fly through matter
without any friction or resistance. This is 2013, and 20 years later.
Now why was I not smart enough in 1993 to switch from neutrinos as the
cause of superconductivity to that of the Malus law and polarization
and photons as the cause? Well the simply answer is that I was not
aware of the Malus law and I had never really studied it in school. It
was one of those topics that the teacher probably skipped. But in
2012, in a fortunate stumbling through the text book of Halliday and
Resnick I learned the Malus law and then later was able to piece that
law with the Ohm's law to make a theory of superconductivity. If I had
known the Malus law in 1993, perhaps I would have replaced neutrinos
with photons in 1993, but that is a long-shot bet.

Anyway, I wanted to specifically talk about another mistake I recently
made, saying that room temperature superconductivity was not possible
due to dB/dK in that there is no differential there. The mistake in
that is that the Malus law superconductivity has room temperature
polarization with 0 degree angles allowing all the light intensity to
get through.

But looking at Malus law superconductivity, we do have room
temperature superconductors possible and even higher temperatures. The
problem though is that with Malus law superconductivity, as the
temperature increases, the allowed current amperage decreases. So that
if we had a material that superconducts at room temperature, it may
only allow milliamps of current to flow and any more current would set
up those vortices and break the superconduction.

So in the news, the sensationalism, the hype of ever higher
temperature superconductors should be reported alongside the hype of
temperature, the amount of amperage of current that the material
allows. And then we realize the report is not remarkable at all.


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:

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.