I think how people define superconductivity varies greatly in discussions.
Wouldn’t be the worst thing if we concentrated our efforts on proving zero resistance first. IMO, a “super conductor” should only be characterized as a material with zero resistance under certain conditions. Everything else should not be a requirement, but more like a side-effect that had been observed to go along (such as diamagnetism through Meisner effect).
Hopefully that will destigmatize future research efforts in both directions, namely towards finding zero resistance materials and those exhibiting diamagnetism.
The worst thing we can do to science is going on a witch hunt. Curiosity powers this discipline. We don’t need for encourage all crazy theories but discouraging that line of thinking entirely will lead to fewer new discoveries.
Wouldn’t be the worst thing if we concentrated our efforts on proving zero resistance first. IMO, a “super conductor” should only be characterized as a material with zero resistance under certain conditions. Everything else should not be a requirement, but more like a side-effect that had been observed to go along (such as diamagnetism through Meisner effect).
Hopefully that will destigmatize future research efforts in both directions, namely towards finding zero resistance materials and those exhibiting diamagnetism.
The worst thing we can do to science is going on a witch hunt. Curiosity powers this discipline. We don’t need for encourage all crazy theories but discouraging that line of thinking entirely will lead to fewer new discoveries.
Fear driven science isn’t science at all.