Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

Topic: superconductivity experiment using temperature Chapt15.34 explaining
Superconductivity from Maxwell Equations #1164 New Physics #1284 ATOM
TOTALITY 5th ed

Replies: 0

 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com Posts: 18,572 Registered: 3/31/08
superconductivity experiment using temperature Chapt15.34 explaining
Superconductivity from Maxwell Equations #1164 New Physics #1284 ATOM
TOTALITY 5th ed

Posted: Jan 19, 2013 3:29 PM

Chapt15.34 explaining Superconductivity from Maxwell Equations

I am going to have to return to this chapter for there is an
unanswered question. The question is whether there is a room-
temperature superconductor?

I left this chapter with the formula of Malus law inserted into the
Ohm's law. Where we have:

Ohm's law: V = i*R

and we replace resistance R with Malus law

Malus law: I' = I" cos^2 A

Replacing R: V = i (I')

Now we ask the question of polarization in room temperature
conditions. Do we actually have a 100%
blockage of incoming light if the filters are perpendicular? And, do
we actually have 100% of the light go through if the filters have 0
degree angle, i.e., aligned filters?

Now I have been checking around for the answers to those two questions
and it appears there is something called the extinction ratio which
Wikipedia has some figures of 1:500 for Polaroid to about 1:10^6 for
Glan-Taylor prism polarizers.

Now I also went and checked of the resistivity of conductors and
nonconductors (Wikipedia) and they give silver at 1.59*10^-8 (in Ohms)
and copper at 1.68*10^-8, sea water at 2*10^-1, drinking water at
2*10^1, damp wood at 1*10^3, glass at 10^11, rubber at 10^13, sulfur
at 10^15, teflon at 10^22.

So, what I am worried about is that the exponents do not match. That
the best room temperature conductors are 10^-8 whereas the polarizers
are 10^-6.

So, I have a hunch that corrects the problem. The formula is good, but
the physics mechanism behind superconductivity is not yet spelled out
in details.

My hunch is that the Faraday law with the magnetic monopoles has a
temperature term in the magnetic current density. We all know that
magnets lose magnetism with heat added to the scene. And the Maxwell
Equations should speak of heat added to magnetism. The unsymmetrical
Maxwell Equations do not have temperature or heat involved. The
Symmetrical Maxwell Equations with the added term of the magnetic
current density and the added nonzero term in Gauss's law of magnetism
should have a temperature component.

Now, here is the beauty of the solution.

Instead of having a electric current induced by a moving bar magnet of
the old-faraday-law, we have a tiny electric current induced by the
lowering of the temperature to the **transition temperature**. So the
lowering of the temperature of the environment surrounding the
superconduction objects creates a lines of force that gives rise to a
tiny electric current, without ever applying an outside electric
potential or current to the superconduction-objects.

What I am saying is that the mere fact of having a tiny environment of
superconduction with its far lower temperature than the larger
surrounding environment creates a moving bar magnet itself and creates
a tiny electric current in the objects under superconduction.

So here, I need a new experiment of exquisite and delicate precision
to see if we take lead and cool it to 4 degrees Kelvin and see if
there is a tiny electric current without ever applying any electric
current.

If my hunch is correct, there is a tiny electric current. So that when
you apply a external outside electric current, we see no resistance.

If true, then superconductivity is the fact that a transitioning
temperature of small environment from larger environment creates lines
of force, a magnetic field that acts as the moving bar magnet in
Faraday's law and causes a tiny electric current to appear in the
small environment. And if that turns out true, then of course there is
no room temperature superconductor ever. And the highest temperature
superconductor would depend on the temperature differential.

In this experiment we have the same equipment with lead and other
superconductors and we lower the temperature but we do not fasten an
outside current. What we do is measure for an induced current in the
closed loop due to a temperature gradient of the experiment with the
outside environment. The current is tiny, but is due to the

--

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