Does superconductivity really have zero resistance?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of superconductivity and its implications for resistance and energy conservation, particularly in the context of large-scale systems like the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Participants explore whether superconductivity allows for continuous operation without energy input and the potential conflicts this raises with the conservation of energy principle.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether a superconducting circuit, such as that in the LHC, can operate continuously without energy input, raising concerns about energy conservation.
  • Another participant challenges the relevance of the initial example to superconductivity, suggesting a lack of understanding of the physics involved.
  • A participant asserts that a superconducting circuit can run continuously without supplying power, but questions whether this ability allows the circuit to perform work, which could violate conservation of energy.
  • It is noted that the force on a charged particle in a magnetic field does not do work, implying that no energy is required for certain operations in superconducting systems.
  • One participant compares superconducting electromagnets to normal bar magnets, stating that the magnetic field itself cannot do work.
  • A participant expresses curiosity about energy conservation in superconductivity, referencing the Unruh effect and questioning the source of excess energy if the magnets do not do work.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of superconductivity for energy conservation, with no consensus reached on whether superconducting systems can operate without energy input or how this relates to established physical principles.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various concepts such as the Unruh effect and the nature of magnetic fields, but the discussion does not resolve the underlying assumptions or the implications of these concepts for energy conservation in superconductivity.

clearwater304
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
Take for instance putting the large hadron collider in space at a near absolute zero where you never have to put energy into cool down the system. The LHC takes 10 GJ to run and the total energy of the two beams is 724 MJ. [1] Since the power to run the system never experiances resistance, would you have to pump power into keep the system going. If not, doesn't it defy the conservation of energy?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
 
Physics news on Phys.org
clearwater304 said:
Take for instance putting the large hadron collider in space at a near absolute zero where you never have to put energy into cool down the system. The LHC takes 10 GJ to run and the total energy of the two beams is 724 MJ. [1] Since the power to run the system never experiances resistance, would you have to pump power into keep the system going. If not, doesn't it defy the conservation of energy?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

What does this have anything to do with superconductivity having zero resistance? Have you even looked up the physics of superconductivity?

Zz.
 
The example was questioning whether you can have a circuit run continously without supplying power. According to the wiki page, you can. If so, can that circuit do work on a system, and does that not violate the conservation of energy.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity
 
the force on a charged particle in a magnetic field is at a right angle to the motion therofore no work is done and no energy is required
 
A superconducting electromagnet is pretty much just like a normal bar magnet in the fact that the magnetic field itself cannot do work.
 
Thanks, those are good explanations for why no energy is not excerted on the magnets. I'm still curious how energy is conserved. The unruh effect states that the particle would gain vacuum energy due to acceleration. If the magnets aren't doing work on the particle, where does the excess energy come from. If it comes from vacuum energy, how does this not break the conservation of energy.

I'm not trying to prove point, I really do want a good explanation. At first I thought the system must exhibit some sort of resistance becuase every site I read says vacuum energy conserves energy.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
12K