Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    19 Mar '12 10:34
    http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-simulating-strongly-fermions-door-superconductor.html

    Sounds like Nobel level material here.
  2. 23 Mar '12 16:59
    I didn't realize just how subtle and weird the properties of superconductors are until I saw this video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4XEQVnIFmQ

    you have to look at the part from 2:51 to 5:17 before you see what I mean.
  3. 26 Mar '12 14:44
    Thanks for the link, I have read the Nature Physics article that is mentioned in the link. Interesting stuff, though I wouldn't immediately say this is Nobel Prize material (and apparently the editor of Nature agreed, otherwise this would be a Nature paper for sure, instead of a Nature Physics article).
  4. 28 Mar '12 19:05
    Originally posted by humy
    I didn't realize just how subtle and weird the properties of superconductors are until I saw this video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4XEQVnIFmQ

    you have to look at the part from 2:51 to 5:17 before you see what I mean.
    That is proper cool! I had seen a video of this being demoed at some science event and wasn't sure if it was some kind of elaborate spoof. But this really does look real.

    --- Penguin
  5. 07 Apr '12 10:26
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120329142033.htm

    and

    http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/03/a-final-answer-on-how-high-tempe.html

    Don't know how significant that is in helping us to understand how high-temperature superconductors work.
    It basically suggests that phonons have little to do with it.
  6. 09 Apr '12 10:46 / 1 edit
    I have some questions:

    As far as I am aware, all reasonably high-temperture superconductors have at least one heavy chemical element ( and usually a rare one )
    But why?
    Does a high-temperture superconductor generally require a heavy chemical element ( lets here define a “heavy element” as one with an atomic mass greater than that of iron ) or does having a heavy chemical element makes it more likely to work and, if either of those things are so, why so?
    Is there any special reason why a heavy element can increase the maximum temperature of the superconductivity? And, if so, why?

    -I tried Googling this but got nowhere.
  7. 09 Apr '12 14:40
    Originally posted by humy
    I have some questions:

    As far as I am aware, all reasonably high-temperture superconductors have at least one heavy chemical element ( and usually a rare one )
    But why?
    Does a high-temperture superconductor generally require a heavy chemical element ( lets here define a “heavy element” as one with an atomic mass greater than that of iron ) or does having a ...[text shortened]... emperature of the superconductivity? And, if so, why?

    -I tried Googling this but got nowhere.
    Given that nobody has yet produced a general theory of superconductivity (and duly won the Nobel
    prize for physics) I think the answer to the question for the moment is going to be we don't know.

    However I would speculate that 'heavy' elements are useful as they have lots of loosely bound outer
    electrons which might make forming the frictionless quantum electron fluid needed for superconductivity
    easier.