Superconductivity at room temperature??

[johanfprins]

I hope you meant to add: " ... if my theory is right. Of course, if my theory is incorrect then perhaps these experimental results will help falsify it." Right?

Agreed. This is always my approach since without it science rots as it is rotting at present. Any theory must be considered to be possible until it is falsified. And any theory, no matter how well established, should not be protected against falsification. If a theory cannot explain a result and there is another theory which does, the new explanation must not be censored. But the main stream crackpots in charge of physics do not think this way. This is why the world is in a mess and why we have to start clearing out these crackpots, even if they have won Nobel Prizes; as quite a number of them has!

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes this is a non-crackpot posting that requires a priority answer. Sorry I cannot say this of you latest posting.

Nonetheless, I have not analysed these two papers in depth, because I cannot afford to buy them, but know about them and am quite sure that I will, for a start, be able to explain the results qualitatively, and if I have the time also quantitatively. The latter is, however, not a priority in my life anymore since all other papers, which could not be explained by the mainstream crackpot theories like BCS, on which I spent lots of time to model quantitatively, have been rejected outright for publication

This is quite the retreat from your initial claims to have explained everything with the theory. No matter, it was obviously idle boastfulness to begin with. Nevertheless, the challenge to explain these results remains. If you can explain them, I'll sit up and take notice. If you can't, well, I have little reason to trust that your theory is any better than anything else being tossed around.

For example, the paper by Keimer's group in Science on Pb which a friend of mine kindly mailed to me. The reference is: Science 330 (2008) 1509.

Your reference has a typo, it's volume 319 not 330.

Although Doug Scalapino commented in the same issue that these results cannot be explained in terms of the accepted mainstream theories like BCS, and although my model fitted the results perfectly, it was rejected ouright. When I sent it to Scalapino for his comments he wrote back: "The BCS theory of superconductivity has been clearly established and Pb is essentially the poster child for the electron-phonon mechanism. Thus I believe that what Keimer et al have found will be explained within a framework that explains essentially all that is seen in Pb. This is the BCS theory as expressed in the Eliashberg formulism.

Is this not a mind boggling comment? He just recently acknowledged that he cannot see an explanation in terms of BCS, but when I send him an alternative explanation which fits the results perfectly, he refuses to even consider it, since he wants at all costs that the explanation must be in terms of the BCS model. Can you now see why mainstream physics has become crackpot?

Your representation of the situation isn't accurate. From the abstract:
"The results indicate electron many-body correlations beyond the standard theoretical framework for conventional superconductivity."
This doesn't mean that BCS is wrong. It means that BCS is not the only thing going on. This should be neither surprising nor upsetting, and does not undermine the validity of BCS. It would be like saying that when you drop a ball from a large height, the trajectory isn't perfectly explained by Newtonian gravity, so maybe air resistance plays a role too. Does that invalidate Newtonian gravity? No, of course not. You're assuming that this result is somehow a refutation of BCS, but it simply isn't. Since BCS is a theory about electron-phonon interaction (not a theory of everything), it should be rather expected that other non-BCS effects exist even in materials well-described by BCS. Now, whether or not Scalapino was right to reject your article is a different matter, but such a rejection is not necessarily at odds with the above paper at all.

There are many other papers on superconducting materials like YBCO, highly-doped p-type diamond, super-insulating effect, for which it is acknowledged that they cannot be explained by the traditional models like BCS

So what? Why do you consider it impossible for BCS to apply to some superconductors but not others? That is an assumption which you have not justified, and which we have no reason to believe.

 

[johanfprins]

So what? Why do you consider it impossible for BCS to apply to some superconductors but not others? That is an assumption which you have not justified, and which we have no reason to believe.

A typical crackpot remark. I do not have the time to answer all you latest nonsensical arguments, but I promise that I will return to them in future. The fact is that I have a single mechanism that explains all all superconductors. So why should I be so stupid to conclude that a crackpot theory like BCS can apply to any superconductor.

I will do a simple analysis which might be too much for somebody like you to understand. But let us try. Let us start off with some simple questions:

1. Do you agree that a charge-carrier within a superconductor must have the same lowest energy everywhere?
2. If you do, then, is it not simple to realize that a Josephson junction with a voltage V across it will shift this lowest energy by an amount qV over the junction where q is the charge of a charge-carrier?
3. And is it then not also simple to realize that when a charge-carrier moves through the junction it must gain kinetic energy equal to qV.
4. And is it then not simple to realize that such a charge-carrier must radiate away the energy owing to the shift AND the energy owing to the acceleration: i.e. 2qV?
5. And since the energy radiated is consistently experimentally measured as 2eV, is it not compelling that the charge-carriers are all SINGLY charged?

So why should I be such a crackpot to give the BCS model any credence?

 

[dlorde]

A typical crackpot remark. I do not have the time to answer all you latest nonsensical arguments, but I promise that I will return to them in future.

If the arguments are nonsensical, they are unanswerable, and returning to them in future would be futile.

So which is it, nonsensical or answerable?

 

[Ziggurat]

A typical crackpot remark.

A typical ad hominem attack which doesn't address the argument.

I do not have the time to answer all you latest nonsensical arguments, but I promise that I will return to them in future. The fact is that I have a single mechanism that explains all all superconductors. So why should I be so stupid to conclude that a crackpot theory like BCS can apply to any superconductor.

You don't have to conclude anything about whether BCS is right. That wasn't the point at all. The point is that the fact that BCS doesn't work for some materials doesn't mean it doesn't work for any materials. That's a rather simple logic 101 statement. Maybe BCS is wrong. But the fact that it doesn't work for some materials only proves that it doesn't work for some materials. It requires something else to show that BCS is wrong. Again, simple logic 101. It applies regardless of the details of the theory under consideration, and it applies regardless of whether or not the theory is right. Simply calling me a crackpot in response demonstrates significant intellectual insecurity about this argument.

I will do a simple analysis which might be too much for somebody like you to understand.

Back to the ad hominems I see. No matter.

But let us try. Let us start off with some simple questions:

1. Do you agree that a charge-carrier within a superconductor must have the same lowest energy everywhere?

Well, no. There will be a common ground-state energy for Cooper pairs, but that doesn't mean we can't excite any Cooper pairs above this ground state energy, and it doesn't mean that we can't have any charge carriers other than our Cooper pairs.

2. If you do, then, is it not simple to realize that a Josephson junction with a voltage V across it will shift this lowest energy by an amount qV over the junction where q is the charge of a charge-carrier?

Sure.

3. And is it then not also simple to realize that when a charge-carrier moves through the junction it must gain kinetic energy equal to qV.

Sure.

4. And is it then not simple to realize that such a charge-carrier must radiate away the energy owing to the shift AND the energy owing to the acceleration: i.e. 2qV?

Uh... no. Obviously not. You're violating conservation of energy. You're radiating away more energy than you had to begin with. The most energy we can possibly radiate away is qV, because that's the amount of energy we had. If we could get out 2qV, then you've just invented free energy.

5. And since the energy radiated is consistently experimentally measured as 2eV, is it not logical to compelling that the charge-carriers are all SINGLY charged?

Nope. Seems like strong evidence that q = 2e.

 

[jakesteele]

I have a hard time with physics so I don't really understand the basics too well and when I do buy a book, if it has math equations in it I won't even try. However, I did read this book which seems to be along the same line which purports to explain TOE and making the same claim about the 'flawed physics' we have now. I sounded logical to me, but then the Flux Capacitor and Dylithium Crystals sound logical to me, too.

I'm not trying to hijack the thread, my point is, do any mainstream physicists even try to refute guys like this or do they just ignore it?

p.s. also add the Electric Universe


Home page
http://www.thefinaltheory.com/homepage.html

Book summary:
http://www.thefinaltheory.com/booksummary.html

Science flaws/faqs
http://www.thefinaltheory.com/scienceflawsfaq.html

 

[johanfprins]

Crackpots

I'll ignore the rest of your inane ranting, but I'll just correct this part. The point about you being an honorary professor was based on your own website, which clearly states you have been an honorary professor from 2000 to the present. Perhaps instead of continuing your bad attitude you should simply avoid telling lies in the first place.

In this case I am posting a response since Cuddles proved to be insulting and being a dangerous crackpot. This person is so arrogant that he/she throws around insults without checking the facts. How he/she can be allowed to be a moderator on this forum is beyond my comprehension.

The fact that I have vacated my office in disgust at the Physics Department at the University of Pretoria in 2005, does not mean that they do not still have me on their books as an honorary professor. And since they have not informed me that I am not one, I did not lie by not filling in a date on my website. Furthermore, even if they did inform me, which they did not, it could have been an innocent oversight. I have found that people like Cuddles who at the drop of a hat accuses other people of lying, are the real pathological liars in the world.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
You're missing some of the classics, but your score is well into the hundreds.

It is really strange that John Baez found it necessary to make an index list in order to classify crackpots, since there is a single rule which identifies them immediately. All the crackpots I have met are people who make index rules to classify other people. Thus John Baez is most probably the guru of crackpots.

I once worked for a crackpot who made a list of rules which he sent out to reviewers to index people who apply for jobs. One of the reviewers answered that he is not willing to follow rules which have obviously been drafted by a moron for a moron. And yes this is so true: John Baez is probably not just a crackpot but also a moron to boot.

Another characteristic of such crackpot-morons is that they are usually megalomaniacs. Remember Hitler asking his scientists to make up an index of rules to determine when a person is an Aryan and when not? Remember the Apartheid government here in South Africa who drew up an index of rules to determine whether people are white, black or of mixed origin? The worst is that the followers of such megalomaniacs are very very dangerous. Remember the SS and the Gestapo, and the murder squads here in South Africa?

Let us consider just two of of Baez's "rules" and the effect they have on physics"
Rule 8: 5 points for each mention of "Einstein", "Hawkins" or "Feynman"
So according to this crackpot-moron-megalomaniac, a person should not quote these people ever in fear of being classified a crackpot
19. 10 points for claiming that your work is on he cutting edge of a "pardigm shift". So according to the crackpot-moron megalomaniac such work is not possible anymore! I thought that this was the reason for the existence of physics
It is people like John Baez who have greatly helped to steer physics into mediocrity: A young researcher will probably steer away from publishing any controversial information that can lead to a paradigm shift in fear that he/she will be branded as a crackpot. This is the reason why one finds at present mostly mediocre publications in physics.

The worst is that John Baez published in one of the most crackpot fields called "loop quantum gravity". He seems to me to be the epitome of being a fruit loop.

 

[johanfprins]

Nope. Seems like strong evidence that q = 2e.

As I said I do not have the time to explain elementary physics to you; but will try to do so in future. As one man said a moron can ask more questions and say more inane things in five minutes than a wise man can answer in a lifetime.

Let me try a Kindergarten approach: When the shift over the barrier is qV, a charge-carrier on one side is at an energy qV higher than the other side. So when moving it through the barrier without giving or subtracting any of this energy it will have to lose energy qV to become part of the of the superconducting phase on the other side. But when it moves through, it is also accelerated by the voltage V and gains in addition kinetic energy qV. So the energy it has to radiate away is 2qV. It is YOU who are violating conservation of energy: Jeeez!! Please tell me what is the level of your education!

 

[ben m]

A typical crackpot remark.

Zig's question was not a crackpot question. It was about as reasonable as humanly possible.

The fact that you can't treat it as such speaks pretty badly of your chances of ever communicating your ideas. You seem to assume that Zig (and I, and everyone) comes into this conversation understanding your model perfectly, and that your model is obviously correct at first glance. Given this (you seem to think) the only reason we could possibly even ask for clarification is that we're "crackpots".

Have you ever taught a class? Have you ever given a seminar? I'd hate to see the question-and-answer period. "Dr. Prins, I was unable to read the y-axis on slide 3, can you go back?." "Dr. Prins, you spoke only about DC current and I wanted to ask about AC." You stupid crackpots, only stupid BCS-worshippers could ask such crackpot questions, etc.

So why should I be such a crackpot to give the BCS model any credence?

"any credence."? You'd have to be a crackpot not to. Not giving it credence means that you're happily assuming that everyone involved, over 60+ years, has been a blinker-wearing moron. You should give it lots and lots of credence---which means that before you conclude it's wrong, before you conclude everyone is a moron, you need to proceed slowly and thoroughly.

(Outside of my field, but: It sounds to me like you're double-counting a voltage drop---as though you were calculating the kinetic energy of a falling hammer and saying, "Well, there's +mgh (!) from the change in gravitational potential, and also +1/2mv^2 = mgh because the kinetic energy increases, so the hammer has 2mgh when it hits the ground". If I'm wrong, explain (and link to a source).)

 

[Ziggurat]

As I said I do not have the time to explain elementary physics to you; but will try to do so in future.

Indeed, please explain to me how elementary physics can violate energy conservation. I'm ever so curious about how to accomplish that.

Let me try a Kindergarten approach: When the shift over the barrier is qV, a charge-carrier on one side is at an energy qV higher than the other side. So when moving it through the barrier without giving or subtracting any of this energy it will have to lose energy qV to become part of the of the superconducting phase on the other side. But when it moves through, it is also accelerated by the voltage V and gains in addition kinetic energy qV.

Uh, no. There is no "additional" energy qV. There is only one energy of qV. On one side, it's potential energy, on the other side, it's kinetic energy. It doesn't maintain a higher potential energy on the low side of the barrier, that additional energy has already become kinetic energy. There is only one qV. You don't get to invent an additional qV. That would (obviously) violate conservation of energy. Try it: calculate the energy to charge a capacitor to voltage V with charge Q, then calculate the energy you get out of discharging it through your Josephson junction. Your numbers won't agree.

 

[!Kaggen]

johan, may I suggest you relax and take a deep breath.

It does not help your cause to appear angry and defensive.

This is a skeptics forum were healthy friendly debate is encouraged.

It may take some time to reach an understanding of what each other are saying.

Being patient and rigorous about getting to this point is always worthwhile.

Take it easy with the personal stuff and stick to the physics.

 

[ben m]

Let us consider just two of of Baez's "rules" and the effect they have on physics"
Rule 8: 5 points for each mention of "Einstein", "Hawkins" or "Feynman"
So according to this crackpot-moron-megalomaniac, a person should not quote these people ever in fear of being classified a crackpot

You misquoted and missed the joke. Rule 8, correctly stated, is "5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann". The five points are for the misspellings.. Also, I think you just qualified for item #20.

19. 10 points for claiming that your work is on he cutting edge of a "pardigm shift". So according to the crackpot-moron megalomaniac such work is not possible anymore! I thought that this was the reason for the existence of physics

Again, you miss the joke. Did any of Einstein's papers say that they were on the cutting edge of a paradigm shift? Weinberg? Maxwell? Boltzmann? No---historically speaking, actual paradigm shifts came from people with their noses buried in the science details. Historically speaking, most of the people using the words "paradigm shift" are people who are looking for fame/glory first, and hoping to master the science details later. The latter is very easy to do, so lots of people do it.

And you missed the non-joke. There was a -50 point starting credit, remember? You are allowed to claim a "paradigm shift" as long as you don't also misspell Einstein eight times.

(And you missed the fact that the whole thing is a joke. Crackpot papers do exist. crank.net is a large, if outdated, index of them. Baez wrote a funny catalog of their common foibles, and formatted it as a quiz. Ha ha! Laugh! There are similarly-formatted foibles-catalogs like "How to tell you're a Red Sox fan" or "How to tell you're watching too much reality TV" and so on.)

 

[CORed]

You could have amplifiers that go to 12!

Oh no! An amplifier on 12 will shake the planet to pieces. We're all gonna die!

 

[Ziggurat]

(Outside of my field, but: It sounds to me like you're double-counting a voltage drop---as though you were calculating the kinetic energy of a falling hammer and saying, "Well, there's +mgh (!) from the change in gravitational potential, and also +1/2mv^2 = mgh because the kinetic energy increases, so the hammer has 2mgh when it hits the ground". If I'm wrong, explain (and link to a source).)

That's exactly the mistake he made. And it's such an elementary one that you don't need to be in the field to recognize it.

 

[sol invictus]

I will do a simple analysis which might be too much for somebody like you to understand. But let us try. Let us start off with some simple questions:

1. Do you agree that a charge-carrier within a superconductor must have the same lowest energy everywhere?
2. If you do, then, is it not simple to realize that a Josephson junction with a voltage V across it will shift this lowest energy by an amount qV over the junction where q is the charge of a charge-carrier?
3. And is it then not also simple to realize that when a charge-carrier moves through the junction it must gain kinetic energy equal to qV.
4. And is it then not simple to realize that such a charge-carrier must radiate away the energy owing to the shift AND the energy owing to the acceleration: i.e. 2qV?
5. And since the energy radiated is consistently experimentally measured as 2eV, is it not compelling that the charge-carriers are all SINGLY charged?

So why should I be such a crackpot to give the BCS model any credence?

I have the same response to this as Zig and ben. Not only is it not clear, the way you've written this you're flat-out wrong, and the mistake is as elementary as they come. When you pass through a potential energy change of qV you indeed gain qV worth of kinetic energy. To return to the lowest kinetic energy state, you must radiate away that qV of kinetic energy - not 2qV.

 

[marplots]

I've been following this thread with interest although I am an outsider. My question is whether the emotional tone is common in scientific discourse or uncommon? I am used to people so connected to their ideas in other areas that they cannot keep personality out, but I have always thought (hoped) that scientific discourse had a more cultured tone.

In other words, is it common for a critique of one's ideas to be seen as slander or an attack? This would seriously disappoint me.

 

[dasmiller]

In other words, is it common for a critique of one's ideas to be seen as slander or an attack? This would seriously disappoint me.

I'm an engineer in a high-tech field, but not a scientist, so my response isn't 100% relevant. Still, debating various approaches to a problem is a normal part of our business, and people can certainly get defensive about a favored approach that they've spent years developing.

That being said, in the companies I've worked with, some of this thread's tone would be simply unacceptable. I've fired people from programs (I didn't have the authority to fire them from the company) for less.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've been following this thread with interest although I am an outsider. My question is whether the emotional tone is common in scientific discourse or uncommon?

It's uncommon among real scientists.

I am used to people so connected to their ideas in other areas that they cannot keep personality out, but I have always thought (hoped) that scientific discourse had a more cultured tone.

It does - even when it gets emotionally charged for those involved, the tone remains much more professional.

 

[Evilgiraffe]

From what I've seen of academics arguing, the more vicious the disagreement, the more polite they become to one another.

 

[johanfprins]

Zig's question was not a crackpot question. It was about as reasonable as humanly possible.
The fact that you can't treat it as such speaks pretty badly of your chances of ever communicating your ideas. You seem to assume that Zig (and I, and everyone) comes into this conversation understanding your model perfectly, and that your model is obviously correct at first glance. Given this (you seem to think) the only reason we could possibly even ask for clarification is that we're "crackpots".

I have not been the first to call people "crackpots" on this forum; but since it is totally OK for people who post on this forum to call me a crackpot, I decided to retaliate consistently with the same term when they raise crackpot ideas which are not physically possible

Have you ever taught a class? Have you ever given a seminar? I'd hate to see the question-and-answer period. "Dr. Prins, I was unable to read the y-axis on slide 3, can you go back?." "Dr. Prins, you spoke only about DC current and I wanted to ask about AC." You stupid crackpots, only stupid BCS-worshippers could ask such crackpot questions, etc.

Do you see how insulting you are by jumping to a conclusion on my character after I was first classified on this forum as being a crackpot. Although I have never reacted in the way you are so viciously assuming that I will, I might do so when a person stands up in a seminar and states that what I am saying is contrary to main stream dogma and therefore I must be a crackpot. I do not mind to respond to civil questions but what has happened in my life during the past ten years, and also now in this forum, was that people assume that I must be crackpot until I can prove that I am not one. Even a murderer in court is treated more civilly.

"any credence."? You'd have to be a crackpot not to. Not giving it credence means that you're happily assuming that everyone involved, over 60+ years, has been a blinker-wearing moron.

I do not have to assume it, the physics involved in the BCS model is based on crackpot ideas and it is easy to prove to people with open minds; but not to people who find me guilty of being a crackpot before they are willing to try and understand what I am saying: I have explained in detail in a book why it is crackpot, and to expect that I can summarize a detailed analyis on a thread in a discussion forum, without posting the contents of the book, is impossible. If you want the full details I suggest that you buy the book.

Before I was willing to state that BCS is crackpot, I spent months analyzing every aspect of it in detail; and did not allow myself to be swayed by the crackpot argument that if the main players in the field have not picked up that it is crackpot for over 60 years, it cannot be crackpot. Physics must not be decided by majority vote but by facts and, to follow the facts, you must understand physics; instead of praying at the feet of Bardeen, Schrieffer and Cooper. And you should have a knowledge that is deep enough to understand the difference between a gravity field and an electric field: Your next sentence demonstrates that you are not able to understand the latter. And I am stating this NOT to insult you, but just as a fact.

Outside of my field, but: It sounds to me like you're double-counting a voltage drop---as though you were calculating the kinetic energy of a falling hammer and saying, "Well, there's +mgh (!) from the change in gravitational potential, and also +1/2mv^2 = mgh because the kinetic energy increases, so the hammer has 2mgh when it hits the ground". If I'm wrong, explain (and link to a source).)

As you requested I will try and do it slowly and in detail: It is not the same as just dropping a hammer when a charge-carrier moves through a Josephson junction. When you drop a hammer it starts off with ZERO kinetic energy and therefore the kinetic energy which it has to dissipate when reaching the ground, is equal to the potential energy before you dropped it: i.e. the position of your hand above the floor when you drop the hammer.

But if you first throw the hammer into the air and then miss catching it, the kinetic energy with which it reaches the ground is equal to the potential energy it had when it turned around in the air to fall towards the floor; and if the potential energy between the position of your hand and the position in the air, at which the hammer turns around to drop to the floor, is the same as the difference in potential energy between your hand and the floor, then the kinetic energy which has to be dissipated is TWICE the kinetic energy that will dissipate when just dropping the hammer: IS IT NOT??

Now let us return to the Josephson junction: when the charge carrier is on the higher energy side it has a potential energy qV relative to the energy on the other side, Thus, as I have clearly argued, if you can move the charge-carrier to the other side WITHOUT changing its energy and release it, it will radiate energy qV. BUT in order for the charge-carrier to move to the other side it has to move through the junction within which it encounters a voltage V; and it is then accelerated by the voltage in the junction to, IN ADDITION, gain kinetic energy qV. This is the same as throwing the hammer into the air. Thus it now has a total energy of 2qV to dissipate.

Experimental measurements show that the energy being dissipated per charge-carrier is 2eV: THUS q MUST BE e AND THEREFORE THE CHARGE CARRIERS MUST BE SINGLY CHARGED. Cooper pairs, which is at the heart of BCS, is thus a crackpot concept and therefore BCS is crackpot. There are also other reasons why the traditional theories on superconduction are crackpot. They are all summarized in my book.