3 ms·
I still think it will be a finicky and difficult to produce "1D" topological superconductor, that conducts in only one direction. So not the bulk superconducto
by brucethemoose2 3y ago
I still think it will be a finicky and difficult to produce "1D" topological superconductor, that conducts in only one direction.
So not the bulk superconductor we need, indeed, but that could be interesting for microelectronics.
- amelius 3y agoWhat if you built a 2D or 3D mesh out of that 1D superconductor?
- willis936 3y agoWould you not need 4 or 5 spatial dimensions (something unavailable to us atm)?
- candiodari 3y agoNo, because you're misunderstanding what electricity is and how it propagates. Electricity is disturbances in the electromagnetic field. A difference between the electromagnetic field on the surface of the conductor, super or not, and the empty space around it. What conductors do is to propagate that field, perfectly in the case of superconductors, across their surface. It is not necessary for surfaces of pieces of the superconductor to actually touch to propagate that field. There can even be stuff in between, if it doesn't conduct it won't heat up and usually won't disturb the superconductivity. (what it does is it slightly lowers the point, in current, where superconductivity breaks down) So you can just stack them close to each other in our 3 traditional dimensions, because the superconductive region doesn't have to be continuous, just close enough. That will work fine, that's how it works in current superconductors.
- willis936 3y agoWhat you're describing is not a 1D superconducting plane in a 3D molecular structure.
- brucethemoose2 3y agoGood luck aligning perfect crystals on a microscopic scale like that. I was thinking maybe a bulk crystal could be a layer in ICs.