#
**Superconducting-devices**
The link with the gravitation

**Superconducting-devices**

*© 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 |
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/lambda^{2}

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/lambda^{2}
= 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.