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]."
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.
How about: Is the summary title from the article misleading? Will success at finding a technological solution for High-TC also unify quantum mechanics and general relativity.
Yesterday's Weirdness is Tomorrow's Reason Why
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.
I'm pretty sure the answer to that question is no.
No more than finding "a grand unified theory of tennis" or "the grand unified theory of pixar" would, no. On the other hand I don't expect "the Godfather of Soul" to be a mob boss or "Citizen Kane of science fiction cinema" to have the plot of Citizen Kane.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
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
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...
>"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?
I RTFA. You are correct, it isn't misleading. But it is a fascinating article (non-nerds, don't bother, you won't understand it).
I RTFA. You are correct, it isn't misleading. But it is a fascinating article (non-nerds, don't bother, you won't understand it).
I read most of the article myself and avoided the original paper. It's was a little over my head making my best guess at a simplistic takeaway for the layman, like myself, appears to be: Electrons, under certain conditions, won't repel from one another as they normally do and instead pair off with each other to create superconducting properties. The authors feel they've developed an explanation that will allow one to predictably manipulate this property with better materials for future technologies. The challenge now is to confirm their explanation is correct by finding a way to apply their ideas. This is hopefully close enough; however,any improvements or clarifications on its accuracy is desired (and expected).
As for the title: Yes, I'm aware it obviously wasn't implying this would resolve the Grand Unified Theory of everything. However, during the first half a second on my first read, I did initially think it had something to do with that idea the phrase for G.U.T. is traditionally reserved for when it's discussed in articles related to science and technology. Then, much to my disappointment I realized my mistake; the writers were probably doing it to capture the reader by baiting the article with a little bit of sensationalism. It's called marketing and story tellers do it to "engage" the reader, which they have every right to do. I'll need to try a little harder at keeping my wishes in check to avoid that type of manipulation.
Yesterday's Weirdness is Tomorrow's Reason Why
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
You're self-mislead, you were thinking it said Grand Unifying Theory of EVERYTHING?
You're right, sort of. I mentioned this earlier and why I felt I "mislead myself" (and a couple of other readers who may not agree for the same reasons) in a follow up comment under my original post. In hindsight, instead of doing a poorly thought out incomplete quip, it would have been better from the start to take the time to write both comments as one.
Yesterday's Weirdness is Tomorrow's Reason Why