Fascinating article! I learned a new term from this article – Quantum Critical Point.
I followed one of the names mentioned in the article to find this short lecture on the topic.
A lingering question in my mind is about the energy consumed (be it in a cooling process, or in the application of high pressures, or in some other process) in creating these superconducting states and maintaining them for practical applications. Seems like that would be significant regardless of the efficiencies achieved once you get there. Is there not a trade-off involved? I do not remember any mention of this aspect in the article or the video.
“Albert Einstein didn’t like them.
To him, black holes were a bit of an embarrassment, as they compromised his dream of a “rational” nature, that is, natural phenomena that we could describe and quantify with the usual methods of science. According to this view, good scientific theories shouldn’t generate absurd (read: “irrational”) results.”
I think most things are knowable, but perhaps not in a lifetime, or even in several lifetimes. In fact, the deeper you get into it, the more effort and the longer it takes. But scientific curiosity should have no limits. We also need more brilliant minds like Einstein’s to carry the search forward.
If we can solve the problem of storing significant amounts of energy over long periods of time reliably, and with reasonable cost, we can change the world in ways not yet imagined!
You can find a PBS video that talks about innovative methods that are being developed that do not even involve batteries if you look under the Technology tab at the website for a company discussed in the above article. Great stuff!
It’s time for some convex optimization.