Slashdot Mirror
A New Law For Superconductors
TaleSlinger sends word of a newly-discovered "mathematical relationship — between material thickness, temperature, and electrical resistance — that appears to hold in all superconductors." The work (abstract), led by Yachin Irvy, comes out of MIT's Research Laboratory of Electronics. Researchers found that a particular superconductor (niobium nitride) didn't fit earlier models estimating the temperature at which it changes from normal conductivity to superconductivity.
So the researchers conducted a series of experiments in which they held constant either thickness or “sheet resistance,” the material’s resistance per unit area, while varying the other parameter; they then measured the ensuing changes in critical temperature. A clear pattern emerged: Thickness times critical temperature equaled a constant — call it A — divided by sheet resistance raised to a particular power — call it B. ... The other niobium nitride papers Ivry consulted bore out his predictions, so he began to expand to other superconductors. Each new material he investigated required him to adjust the formula’s constants — A and B. But the general form of the equation held across results reported for roughly three dozen different superconductors.
I like it when solutions are both simple and correct.
After lengthy analysis of the work and further experimental confirmation we may have a Nobel winner on our hands.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
You're an idiot, read the damn abstract before speaking nonsense.
"I decided I could write something better than everything out there in two weeks. And I was right." - Linus Torvalds
A researcher has identified a new social law that describes exactly the probability of getting lucky, which only relies on 17 variables, each of which needs only be adjusted for each pairing of two individuals.
At a complete guess, the sheet resistance is possibly as measured at above the superconducting temperature.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
You should really read the "abstract," because the entire paper is available there at no cost. The discovered relationship is not a*C = b, but rather x = A y ** (-B), which is a much more complex relationship, and quite startling in this arena. Also be sure to look at all his graphs so you will understand what this guy did, what he discovered, and why this is a Big Deal (tm). Then maybe you won't be so quick to mock this discovery...
And this folks is how you do basic research and why it pays to do it!
I don't know anything about the physics of this paper.
But I love figure 3 (also highlighted at the aps.org URL),
because it highlights outliers from the theory, and points
to the supplementary information for theories about why
those points didn't fit the otherwise nice curve.
Bringing attention to errors as well as successes - that's
good honest work.
Good on you! But surely this can't be the only thing that is obvious to you but a marvel to the rest of us. So get cracking and start publishing. Don't miss another opportunity!
do electrons travelling in super conductors travel faster than the speed of light?
So trying to parse the formula from the English description; [thickness] * [critical temp] = A / ([sheet resistance] ^ B), where A = [crystalline structure] * B + C
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
My (limited understanding) is no.....but fewer of them "clog the pipe" and make it to the other end (lower resistance values).
Naming it now to save everyone else the trouble when the Nobel prize gets awarded to this person.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
No, becasue nothing does.
The wave moves cleaner. Remember, SoL is different in different mediums The constant we use ~300,000,000 meters per sec/sec is in vacuum, and close to the in superconductors.
Interestingly, the electrons gain more mass in superconductors.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
that's what made me "think the question out loud".
but you disagree with yourself.
for example "light" can travel faster than light if they are travelling in different mediums.
a vacuum has really high resistance and I seem to remember that electrons travel at different speeds depending on the resistance.
WTF? Railroad Super Conductors get preferential treatment over less than stellar ones? What lobbying group managed to get Congress to pass this?
Oh...wait...
A superconductor could be used as a superinductor, & some are—form it into a loop, put electricity in, & it keeps going around indefinitely (or as long as you maintain the superconducting state, anyway).
You seem to have a really bad case of apples and oranges syndrome. I'm really not trying to get on your case -- rather, I want to help you understand the way things really work.
1. "for example "light" can travel faster than light if they are travelling in different mediums."
Whether you realize it or not, what you're saying here is that the speed of light depends on the medium. This is true. It seems like you are saying that this is some sort of contradiction, when in fact it isn't. Consider your own running speed: do you run faster in air or in a pool? Light faces a similar situation; in denser media it has a slower speed. Saying "light can travel faster than light" is just silly. Light always travels at the speed of light -- just not always at "speed of light in a vacuum."
2. "a vacuum has really high resistance and I seem to remember that electrons travel at different speeds depending on the resistance."
If you are talking about electron drift velocity in a conductor, then I recommend you start reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.... If you are talking about the velocity of free electrons in a vacuum, that's a completely different story. A free electron in a vacuum has no single speed, no more than a free cue ball in a vacuum would have. Either object travels at a speed consistent with its momentum and energy. If you're talking about electrons shot out the back end of an accelerator, they're going close to c (the dreaded speed of light in a vacuum). If you're talking about electrons accelerated by some other mechanism, well, then the speed is going to depend on what energy the accelerator imparted to the electron.
To really get the natural order you're suggesting, you'd have to nuke his mum in the past - requiring faster-than-light-travel - so your troll-biting comment isn't as off-topic as the resulting moderation would imply!
This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
So, does this suggest a reasonable upper temperature for superconductivity?
Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
Indiana will simply legislate that all superconductors are performance-invariant.
Problem solved. See how easy that is?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
quite. I know I'm being a little bit counter intuitive. but that is just to help me understand better.
so. taking that drift velocity for example.
that v ag = uE doesn't seem to depend on C. and u would appear to be a divide by zero in a superconductor.