Originally posted by dr_rocket:
JB,
It seems that you have answered your own question, i.e., "Can a circular field be equal (point for point) to a conservative field?" If a circular field is one with a non-zero curl, then it is non-conservative. This follows from item (4) of my previous remark.
Your not really making much sense on this. Try again.
I'm off to do some flying this weekend - I'll check back on Monday.
Dr. R.
Thank you you gave me the answer I wanted us to agree on before I proceed with the rest of my argument.
Let us go to the Ginsberg-Landau approach when calculating superfluidity or superconduction in terms of their so-called "order parameter" or macro wave function. When calculating the current flow by applying the momentum operator and doing a suitable gauge transformation; they obtain that the current density is proportional to the gradient of a scalar field. This relationship also lies at the heart of the BCS theory of superconduction. So far it seems as if there is no problem; HOWEVER:
What is to me a serious problem though is that this same equation is used to model the Meissner effect and to explain flux quantization. In these cases the current field is circular. This means that superconduction is modelled by equating a circular field to the gradient of a scalar field!! The latter is clearly a conservative field. Thus nonsense is calculated to model superconduction. How do they derive the quantized amount of flux: by taking a circular integral of the conservative field and equating it to n times pi. Again nonsense because such an integral MUST ALWAYS be zero; as can be proved directly by applying straightforward mathematics. So can these theories on superconduction then be correct?
