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
Topic:
superconductivity experiment using temperature Chapt15.34 explaining Superconductivity from Maxwell Equations #1164 New Physics #1284 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Replies:
0




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 GlanTaylor 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 oldfaradaylaw, 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 superconductionobjects.
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 temperature gradient.

Google's archives are topheavy in hatespew from searchengine 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 electrondotcloud are galaxies



