In the preprint "Do superconductors violate Lenz's law?" (cond-mat/0608492), I argue that the prediction of the conventional theory of superconductivity on the question stated above (so far experimentally untested) cannot be correct because it violates Lenz's law, and that as a consequence the theory needs fundamental revision.

I invite physicists readers to place a wager on the outcome of such an experiment.

Once $50,000 are in the "virtual" pot, I will "use it" to get the experiment done if it hasn't been done by then.

Why does it make sense for you to participate?
(A) Support the conventional theory of superconductivity, help show that it has predictive power. If you win, the conventional theory of superconductivity is supported. If you lose, at least you got a head start into starting to think how the conventional theory of superconductivity could be fixed/replaced.
(B) If no experimental results on this question are published nor posted on the Los Alamos server within 5 years, I will compensate each participant with 10% of the amount waged for their trouble and time wasted.

Legal disclaimer: note that the possibility of winning or losing money here is completely secondary and incidental to the principal worthy cause of advancing science.

So the possibilities are:

1. The conventional theory of superconductivity (London-BCS) predicts that the superconductor will rotate with angular velocity antiparallel to the applied magnetic field when the field is expelled, so that the total angular momentum (ions plus electrons) remains zero. (I argue that this violates Lenz's law hence is impossible).
2. If instead the body rotates with angular velocity parallel to the applied magnetic field, it presents a fundamental challenge to the conventional theory of superconductivity because it implies that angular momentum is created.

Please email me if you would like to participate (please include the word "lenztest" on the subject line). This webpage will record the wagers (any amount) (let me know if you want your name listed as "anonymous"), and announce the results.
I reserve the right to accept or decline participations.

Are there 500 physicists out there with enough confidence in BCS-London theory to "risk" $100 on it?

Name Anonymous1 Anonymous2 Peter Armitage Misha Fogler Igor Yurin ----------------- Running total

Date entered 8/23/06 8/23/06 8/24/06 8/31/06 9/5/06

Amount $10 $100 $30 $100 $100 ---------- $340

Brief comment? BCS is right but I can't afford more what are you smoking? No pithy comment Eq. (8) of the preprint misses... Though the BCS theory is wrong...