Slashdot Mirror
Grand Unifying Theory of High-Temp Superconducting Materials Proposed
An anonymous reader writes "Years of experiments on various types of high-temperature (high-Tc) superconductors — materials that offer hope for energy-saving applications such as zero-loss electrical power lines — have turned up an amazing array of complex behaviors among the electrons that in some instances pair up to carry current with no resistance, and in others stop the flow of current in its tracks. The variety of these exotic electronic phenomena is a key reason it has been so hard to identify unifying concepts to explain why high-Tc superconductivity occurs in these promising materials. Now Séamus Davis, a physicist who's conducted experiments on many of these materials at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Brookhaven National Laboratory and Cornell University, and Dung-Hai Lee, a theorist at DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California, Berkeley, postulate a set of key principles for understanding the superconductivity and the variety of 'intertwined' electronic phenomena that applies to all the families of high-Tc superconductors [full academic paper]."
I can't think of a witty first post.
Disclaimer: I am not qualified to evaluate the science presented here. However, I always wince when I see something with such big claims as a PNAS contributed paper. PNAS allows National Academy members to "contribute" a paper, i.e. they act as the editor, selecting referees for the paper. This allows well-established scientists to get controversial ideas published without a big fuss - but it also means that sometimes goofy and incorrect stuff can slip through.
Of course, if the theory works out, it will be a huge, huge result. Just add a slightly larger grain of salt than you usually do, because the paper came out of a different peer review process.
They don't exist - unified and first post.
I think I now know what it feels like to walk into the bedroom after work and finding a sanctioned (and favorable) three way proposed.....
They were complicated enough to make my head spin in opposite directions.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
It's composed of "Dark Stuff"
Table-ized A.I.
It's a neat idea. It's very testable. Now they have to find some new materials which this theory predicts will superconduct and check them out.
If it checks out, it's comparable to the early research on semiconductors which led to understanding that phenomenon. There were some early attempts at a transistor, but until there was some theoretical understanding of what electrons were doing in a crystal, nobody could make even make a reliable one, let alone figure out what materials would be better than germanium. Once there was some theory, there was more of an idea what materials to make.
New materials may have to be made. Semiconductors are usually made of ultra-pure silicon with the addition of tiny amounts of specific impurities. Those are invented materials - nothing like that exists in nature. With some theory for guidance, new superconducting materials may be created. The ones now known were more or less discovered by trial and error.
"Science is prediction, not explanation" - Fred Hoyle.
seriously, slashdot editors, it's pretty easy to tell when an article title is bullshit hype. WHY DID YOU LET THIS TITLE PASS?!
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Just let me know when I can build my dream of a hoverboard arena. =^-^=
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
I eagerly await the .stl files so I can 3D print some high-temperature superconductors in my living room!
As a researcher in the field, I find it highly unsavory that something as important as a theory claiming to explain high-Tc superconductivity would be published in a proceedings journal. And not, say, in Science of Nature... In physics in general, proceedings are considered the lowest form of scientific paper. Basically, you get published I've you've been to the conference. That's not really an achievement. Which isn't to say that the paper is complete bullshit, I'm no expert in that particular topic. I just work on more applied techniques involving high-Tc superconductors...
After reading the linked article I just have one question: Who the hell decided mobile versions of sites need an auto-reappear navigation bar?
Come on! Screen real estate is already precious, and you clowns take it up? If I want to navigate, I'll do a thumb whip, thanks.
At least add a close box to the stupid thing, you idiots. No, you don't know better than me.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
>"Now Séamus Davis, a physicist who's conducted experiments on many of these materials at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Brookhaven National Laboratory and Cornell University, and Dung-Hai Lee, a theorist at DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California, Berkeley, postulate a set of key principles for understanding the superconductivity and the variety of 'intertwined' electronic phenomena that applies to all the families of high-Tc superconductors"
How many combo points did you get for that sentence?
Will this allow them to predict what compounds will make the best super-high-temperature superconductors, like Leland Hobart's periodic table of superconducting compounds?
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Because PNAS just sounds too much like ....