Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
Let us test this BB with a simple mathematical problem: Can a circular field be equal (point for point) to a conservative field. Alternatively stated can a circular field be directly proportional to a conservative field?

.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Can you repost this using fewer words and making more obscure references? This question has too much verbiage and far too much clarity of intent.


DA Morgan
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 196
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 196
Hi JB,

Its like Morgan said. We need a little clarification here.

Generally there are four equivalent ways to express the fact that a (vector) field is conservative:
1) A path integral over simple closed curve is zero;
2) Any path integrals with the same end points gives the same value;
3) The field can be expressed as the gradient of a scalar function; and
4) The curl of the field is zero, i.e., it is irrotational.

These statements are mathematically equivalent.

I can think of numerous fields that might be regarded as "circular". So the question is: what do you mean by a circular field? A particular example would be nice.


Dr. R.

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
Quote:
Originally posted by dr_rocket:
Hi JB,

Its like Morgan said. We need a little clarification here.

Generally there are four equivalent ways to express the fact that a (vector) field is conservative:
1) A path integral over simple closed curve is zero;
2) Any path integrals with the same end points gives the same value;
3) The field can be expressed as the gradient of a scalar function; and
4) The curl of the field is zero, i.e., it is irrotational.

These statements are mathematically equivalent.

I can think of numerous fields that might be regarded as "circular". So the question is: what do you mean by a circular field? A particular example would be nice.


Dr. R.
Wonderful!! Your summary is spot on!! A circular field is a field for which the curl is not zero. Alternatively stated; for a circular field an integral around a closed path is not zero. So is this enough clarification?

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Not unless you can integrate your clarification into your original question. I still have no idea what you are asking.

But then again I can't understand why you are asking it here rather than to your advisor or a colleague.
A desire for non-authoritative answers?


DA Morgan
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 196
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 196
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.

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
Quote:
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?

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
Has nobody got a comment on the analysis above?

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Dr. R. wrote:
"It seems that you have answered your own question"

What additional comment are you looking for? That the wallpaper is the wrong color? That the lawn needs edging?


DA Morgan
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Dr. R. wrote:
"It seems that you have answered your own question"

What additional comment are you looking for? That the wallpaper is the wrong color? That the lawn needs edging?
The additional comment I am looking for is whether scientists agree that any theory based on equating a circular field to a conservative field must be wrong. This would imply that the macroscopic mechanism that forms the basis to explain superconduction (both by Landau and Ginsberg, as well as Bardeen, Cooper, Schrieffer) must be wrong. Do you agree?

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
JB, the argument is similar to finding eigenfunctions in QM. In this case the field must be continuous.

If the "current field" is "circular", then there must be a singularity somewhere. The line integral is then zero if the interior region of the contour does not contan that singularity.

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
Quote:
Originally posted by Count Iblis II:
JB, the argument is similar to finding eigenfunctions in QM. In this case the field must be continuous.

If the "current field" is "circular", then there must be a singularity somewhere. The line integral is then zero if the interior region of the contour does not contan that singularity.
Thanks for responding; but I still do not understand how a current (that defines a circular field) can be proportional (point by point) to a conservative field under any circumstance. It violates the rules of simple mathematics.

After all the circular integral of the current must give you the magnetic field generated by the current. But with the current proportional to a gradient of a scalar field, then taking the circular integral on both sides gives the circular integral of the current under all circumstances (where-ever you have the sigularity) also equal to zero. Furthermore, I cannot see how a conservative field within a material which has a hole in it (singularity) will give a non-zero circular integral when you integrate along a path around the hole.


Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5