Superconducting-devices
The link with the gravitation

© Thierry PERIAT: Texts, ideas, and photos

The research concerning the superconducting devices and the diverse theories around them remains a hot and sensible topic. This page presents two personal essays, the purpose of which being to convince the readers that superconducting situations are strongly related to a phenomenon which we usually call a field of gravitation.

Concretely, the first document concerns the superconducting devices of type I whilst the second one concerns those which can be classified as respecting the GLAG approach. In both cases, the Lorentz-Einstein Law (LEL) appears. This is suggesting a totally renewed and perhaps revolutionary approach that has absolutely nothing to do with the most recent developments of Gorkov work (e.g.: the sound waves approach).

But once more time, the documents which I present on this page are the ones of an amateur. They don’t have the perfection of articles which are proposed by professional physicists. Please, essentially consider the main ideas behind the diverse calculations.

The essence of the first document is that a fundamental principle which is acting within the quantum theories can be applied within theoretical considerations concerning the fields of acceleration. In extenso: positions and speeds constitute two independent sets of observables. Since a central acceleration field is proportional to the distance to the source, that kind of acceleration and the speeds observed for a phenomenon occurring in these fields should be two independent but reliable observables too. This is justifying the fact that I have introduced a new manner to link the acceleration with the speed; in extenso: the acceleration exhibits a Taylor Mac Laurin dependence instead to be an ordinary and classical derivation.

The essence of the second one is related to the representations of the mixed (up, down) formulation of EM fields when the LEL is analyzed with the extrinsic method (see the “Mathematical methods”, the demonstration “A. Einstein versus W. Heisenberg” and the consequences “the inverse GTR”).

Superconducting devices, LEL and the…

ISBN 978-2-36923-…-.

EAN 978236923….

Comments

Meisner effect

061-8

Extern link – Google Drive

18 August 2016

GLAG theory

143-1

Visit this page

This French version (29 October 2018) is, for now, the best presentation of the underlying idea.

You may eventually find an old version explaining that idea in a bad English language on the semantic.org website although that document should never have been there.

Comments

In the French part of this website (click here), you can discover a confrontation (at least the premises of it) between the consequences of two different analysis concerning the Lorentz force density (also called the covariant formulation of Lorentz force, or the LEL).

The first analysis is based on the results obtained with the extrinsic method. The second one (which can be discovered above in [61-8; see in the table above]) is more original and attempts to compare that LEL with a Taylor development; g = g(u). It can be proved that both approaches complete each other and yield the same result in an invariant geometry closed to or equal to the Minkowski one.

This is a remarkable result which is suggesting that the approximation intrinsically carried by the extrinsic method is equivalent to a Taylor development of a field of acceleration, g, depending on the 4-speed of the flow: u. This is not the classical dependence (recall that, within a classical approach, the acceleration is obtained after an ordinary derivation of the speed by respect for the time).

This also suggests that the historical Newton’s law is only valid for observers at rest.

Nevertheless, if the way of thinking explained in [61-8] is acceptable, for example, because it gives the Meissner-Ochsenfeld effect again, then we stay with a strange relation [61-8; p. 9]:

Electrical charge. k/mass = 1/lambda2

where (i) k is a ratio connecting the intensity of the spatial speed, v, and the distance to the origin of the frame and where (ii) “lambda” is the London’s penetration length.

A strange coincidence (a numerical curiosity)

In that context, consider an electron floating freely with the cosmological flow (the expanding universe) and interpret k as the actual Hubble constant. This is resulting in:

1/lambda2 = 1,602. 10E-19. 2,0797. E+25/9,169. 10E-31 = 3,6. 10E+36

The square root is:

1/lambda = 1,89. 10E+18

Suppose that that electron can penetrate the vacuum over a distance equal to the Planck distance only; then:

L(Planck)/lambda = 1,62. 10E-35. 1,89. 10+18 = 3,0618. 10E-17

Consider now the following ratio G. mu/exp, where “exp” is the exponential (~ 2,72), G the universal gravitational constant (6,67. 10E-11) and mu, the magnetic permeability for the vacuum today (12,566. 10E-7). Calculate it and get:

G. mu/exp = 3,081. 10E-17.

This approach suggests the approximative relation concerning an electron lost in the expansion:

G. mu(vacuum today)/exp ~ L(Planck). {electrical charge(electron). Hubble(today)/mass(electron)}1/2 

This numerical coincidence should be analyzed further; it’s difficult to know if that relation is true; and if it is: to know how to interpret it. With that formalism one is pushed to believe that the magnetic permeability is changing with the time if the electrical charge and the mass of an electron are universal invariants. One should also ask if that coincidence concerns electrons only; and if it is so: why?

© Thierry PERIAT, 23 November 2018.