Alright, the true theory of superconductivity must be able to tie together why silver is the highest normal conductor, yet when the temperature is lowered, that silver never goes into superconduction. So if the Malus law theory of superconductivity is true, it must explain silver.
So I have been investigating this property of silver and find out that silver is the world's best reflector of the elements as well as being the world's best normal conductor. And to be polarized, reflection is a means of polarization. So those facts support the Malus law theory of superconductivity. But does it explain why the lowering of temperature to approaching 0 Kelvin, that silver never reaches superconduction?
Well, I need to investigate something called the polarizing angle or Brewster angle. Since superconductivity is where the angle in the Malus law is 0 degrees allowing all the photons to pass through, that the trouble with silver and copper and gold, all good reflectors, is that they are competing with a Brewster angle that eliminates them from reaching the 0 degree angle in Malus law.
But there may well be a more practical answer, having to do with data of silver as the temperature is lowered to near 0 Kelvin. It maybe the case that as the temperature is lowered that silver is very near the state of superconduction but not at superconductivity. Say about 98% of superconductivity and that unlike other superconductors, silver is able to hold more of a current in amperage than even the superconductors. So that silver at 4 degrees Kelvin although not superconductive is able to hold a amperage current at 98% superconductive compared to mercury at 4 degrees which is superconductive but limited ability to hold a large current amperage. Again, this would be a case of the poor and shoddy research and reporting in physics superconduction. --
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: