You're pledging to donate if the project hits its minimum goal and gets approved. If not, your funds will be returned.
Superconductors carry electricity with zero loss — but only at very cold temperatures. Nobody knows how to design new ones from scratch. Every existing high-temperature superconductor was discovered by accident.
If confirmed, my framework enables substrate engineering of superconductors, which has direct implications for energy transmission (lossless power lines), quantum computing hardware operating at higher temperatures, and the broader goal of understanding and eventually designing room-temperature superconductors.
The Kinetic Synchronization Cooper (KSC) framework is a new theoretical approach I have developed that unifies the behaviour of five completely different classes of superconducting materials under one set of equations and explores new ways to induce superconductivity, with 2.0% mean error on transition temperatures and 4.1% mean error on pairing strengths — compared to 14.4% for the current standard method. The framework also provides a substrate design recipe: choose a polar material with the right optical properties, and you can raise the superconducting temperature by a factor of eight or more, turning a 40-year discovery problem into an engineering calculation.
The theory makes twelve specific, numbered, falsifiable predictions. This project funds the first four experiments to test them, all executable at existing Indian institutions over 15 months.
My goal is to confirm or falsify four quantitative predictions of the KSC framework. Every prediction is a specific number stated in advance. Every experiment has a clear pass/fail criterion. All four use equipment confirmed to exist at Indian institutions.
Step 1: My KSC framework predicts that when MgB₂ becomes superconducting, the heat released at the transition is 1.908× the standard BCS value. For YBCO, it should be 2.000×. Both numbers come from one formula — σ_SC/σ_norm = 1 + (R*)² — with zero adjustable parameters. The ratio 1.908 for MgB₂ is not approximately 2; it is precisely 1.908 because R* = 0.953 follows from the disorder model.
Step 2: KSC's zero-point motion hierarchy says lighter atoms vibrate more at absolute zero (amplitude ∝ M^{-1/2}), so they contribute more disorder — and therefore more isotope sensitivity. For MgB₂: boron (M = 10.8 amu, ZPM amplitude 5.47 pm) should dominate over magnesium (M = 24.3 amu, 3.65 pm). My predicted ratio α_B/α_Mg is at least 2.25 from the mass ratio alone, and experimentally known to be 13–15 (the higher value comes from the boron σ-band dominating pairing, a known limitation of KSC's single-band model — but the direction is correct and testable).
Step 3: In this step, I see if my KSC synchronization prediction stands using terahertz time-domain spectroscopy. KSC predicts that the superconducting-state to normal-state conductivity ratio near Tc follows sigma_SC / sigma_norm = 1 + (R*)^2, giving about 1.908 for MgB2 and 2.000 for YBCO. This is different from Step 1 because it measures electrodynamic response rather than heat capacity. A THz pulse is sent by us through MgB2 and YBCO samples at Tc ± 5 K, the response is compared against a bare substrate reference, and the real conductivity ratio is extracted from the Fourier-transformed waveform. IISER Pune or IISER Kolkata are plausible sites, according to me, because they have THz-TDS and femtosecond-laser infrastructure. The main hardware modification is using THz-transparent quartz cryostat windows. For Manifund, this should be framed as a clean falsification test: agreement near the predicted values would support the KSC synchronization relation, while clear disagreement would identify a specific part of the model that needs revision.
Step 4: We see whether KSC transfers to the new high-pressure nickelate superconductor La3Ni2O7. This material is important because superconductivity appears only under large pressure, roughly above 14 GPa, making it a strong stress test for any superconductivity theory. KSC links three observables to one internal spin-density-wave parameter, m_sdw = 0.20: the onset of superconductivity around 14-20 GPa as magnetic order is suppressed, the upper critical field scaling Hc2(T) with exponent n ≈ 0.940, and a pseudogap scale near T* = 94.2 K. The onset pressure has already been reported by independent groups, so our experiment would first reproduce that behavior under controlled Indian measurements and then focus on our less-tested prediction: the Hc2(T) exponent, which differs from simple GL-like n = 1 behavior and Pauli-limited n = 0.5 behavior. Our experiment requires La3Ni2O7 crystals, diamond-anvil-cell pressure control in the 14-50 GPa range, electrical transport contacts, pressure calibration, and ideally high-field measurements up to about 20 T. The pseudogap measurement can be treated as a linked add-on or Step 5, depending on whether the same DAC setup supports it.
Steps 1 and 3 are complementary: Step 1 asks whether R* appears in heat capacity, while Step 3 asks whether R* appears in THz conductivity.
If I get the funding, I will use it to run four staged validation experiments for KSC, each testing a different measurable consequence of the framework. Step 1 uses a small budget for commercially available MgB2 and YBCO samples, PPMS heat-capacity measurements, sample mounting, and facility access to measure the heat-capacity jump at Tc. Step 2 funds the isotope test in MgB2, mainly the purchase of enriched 10B, sealed-tube synthesis consumables, furnace use, and SQUID magnetometry to compare the transition temperatures of light- and heavy-boron samples. Step 3 supports the THz conductivity experiment, including MgB2/YBCO sample preparation, quartz substrates/windows, cryostat-window modification, mounting, and THz-TDS facility time to measure the conductivity ratio across Tc. Step 4 funds the La3Ni2O7 high-pressure test, including crystal purchase or synthesis, diamond-anvil-cell preparation, pressure calibration, micro-contact fabrication, electrical transport, and high-field measurement access. Together, the funds cover materials, facility charges, instrument modifications, sample preparation, measurements, and data analysis across thermodynamic, isotope, electrodynamic, and high-pressure tests. And use some part of money to hire collaborators for my project.
Who is on your team? What's your track record on similar projects?
I am Avyukt Jindal, a Grade 11 student at Shiv Nadar School, Gurgaon, and an independent researcher in physics. I am an Emergent Ventures Fellow (Mercatus Center, George Mason University) — a fellowship for researchers doing high-risk, high-reward intellectual work.
Two papers currently in peer review:
Nonlinear evolution equations — Journal of Nonlinear Mathematical Physics (Springer), cleared editorial stage
Mathematical condensed matter physics — Physics Open (Elsevier), cleared two rounds of major revisions
I am looking to hire or connect with some collaborators, especially in the experimental side.
Most likely failure: I think the most likely failure will be that instrument time at IISc or TIFR is delayed beyond the decision deadline. Mitigation: IISc has both PPMS and SQUID on campus; TIFR Mumbai is the backup for PPMS. I am pursuing both in parallel.
If a prediction fails, I publish the negative result. A null result here — if MgB₂ gives 1.43× instead of 1.908× — directly falsifies the Tao-Bend superfluid density formula. This is scientifically valuable. The $5,000 minimum still produces a publishable result either way.
If funding falls short of the minimum, I will not disburse any money. I will apply elsewhere. The experiments may get deferred, but I will never abandon.
I am very confident that my research will succeed because I have good literature support, even though it doesn't uniquely confirm my theory.
I have raised 6400 USD from Emergent Ventures for my other physics projects.