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: