OR in other words: Why isnt it as easy as just applying a current to the object and see if it gets hotter?
If there is resistance its not a SC, if there isnt it is. So why is there so much ambiguity?
In: 18
Because people have to first recreate the stuff, its not like the paper came with a freshly prepared sample for everyone to take some.
Also, you cannot measure this easily by putting current to it and check if gets hotter. The currents it can sustain are low and if it is not superconducting but just a metallic conductor, you would look for 0.001 K or less in temperature changes. And that’s if you manage to setup all that in a dark vacuum chamber to avoid any other heat flow. Yet have a thermometer that can distinguish 300 K from 300.001 K.
In the end, temperature is not the way this is measured anyway. There are several other methods. In principle, the Meissner effect would already be very strong evidence on its own (and easily distinguished from strong diamagnetism; a very diamagnetic material would be a very interesting discovery, too, though).
In the end, making samples is the real issue. One needs specific equipment and there likely are multiple attempts needed until it succeeds (or one can say that it doesn’t work). Even already well-researched 50 year old superconductors are notoriously finicky to make, it can easily fail despite no obvious error.
Latest Answers