Superconductivity at room temperature??

[Reality Check]

Exactly! That is why it is not a "particle" whatever this term means.

Wrong: This is exactly why it is not an extended particle.

Where have I denied this?

Where do I day that you deny that spin is a QM property of the particle?
You are just ignorant that QM spin is not classical spin. For example it is quantized.

A "type off"! You call this a physics definition? PLEASE!!!

Try reading instead of going off in a rant: It is not a definition - it is a description from Wikipedia.
Spin

Spin is a type of angular momentum, where angular momentum is defined in the modern way as the "generator of rotations" (see Noether's theorem).[1][2] This modern definition of angular momentum is not the same as the historical classical mechanics definition, L = r × p. (The historical definition, which does not include spin, is more specifically called "orbital angular momentum".)

For example, does it involve a rotating charge or not?

No: Uncharged particles also have spin eye-poppi)!

So you have read the book? If you have not, you are making claims which you cannot substantiate. This is despicable! And you call yourself a scientist? God help us!

I have read the ignorance in the PDFs on the web.
I have read the ignorance in your posts.
There is no reason to think that your book is not as ignorant as the rest of your writing.
The fact that you are not confident enough in your own work to publish it in sceintific journals makes it the work of a crank. I will not waste my money and time reading the book of a crank (been there done that!)
Or maybe you tried and failed. That means that your ideas are not good enough to convince competent scientists that it is correct and I need no waste my time.

And I do not call myself a scientist. I call myself a rational thinker who has an extensive knowledge of physics. It has been 20 years since I was a scientist.

You are again fuzzy: Are you talking about a single solitary charge, or about a current flowing through a wire?

Both

If you argue that there is a radialy symmetric electric-field arounf a solitary charge and that E is this field, then obviously this field cannot be constant at every point within a reference frame relative to which the solitary charge is moving? So you're argument is then nonsense; as usual.

Your argument is then ignorant; as usual. The magnetic field is a result of the motion of the charge, i.e. it is the current density in the Ampère-Maxwell law:

If you are talking about a current through a conductor driven by a constant electric-field, this is another story. In this case it is the electric-field that generates the current (which flows relative to opposite charges), which in turn generates the magnetic field. It is NOT the magnetic field generating the current. This is simple electrodynamics my boy. Why can you and Ziggurat not understand it?

Because you are talking nonsense. The Ampère-Maxwell law is simple electrodynamics old man.

Any moving charge (anywhere) generates a magnnetic field.

 

[ben m]

Why am I not surprised that you can stoop as low as this? Doris Wilsdorf an I have been corresponding for many years on these issues and we have served as soundboards for each other. She was hoping to complete a book on quantum mechanics and relativity before she dies.

That is evidence against my stated hypothesis, then. Simple enough.

 

[ben m]

Where is the proof in this that there is a radial symmetric electric field around a solitary charge with field lines that do not end on other charges. You MUST be hallucinating as usual.

No, this is about your claim that you need a dipole to radiate ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7333488#post7333488 ) The above papers are about a system which (a) does not contain what you think of as a dipole, but (b) which are seen radiating in these papers.

My objection to your modified-Gauss's Law is that you have no evidence for it and your arguments against it are incoherent.

 

[Reality Check]

You still do not get it do you? Such an electron is NOT solitary since it is interacting with electric and magnetic fields that are generated by other charges. Can you not see that you are talking nonsense?

That is dumb,johanfprins: The only way to measure the electric field of a charged particle is to interact with it. Can you not see that you are talking about an imaginary universe where there is only one charged particle?

The experiement is a real world measurement in the real universe of the magnetic moment of a single electron. It matches what we have been talking about - a (solitary) single electron.
New measurement of the electron magnetic moment using a one-electron quantum cyclotron
This was a solitary electron that according to you has no electric field. But it was contained in the Penning trap for months using static electric and magnetic fields.

An electron cannot be accelerated when there are not any other charges present.

Really ignorant: There is this little force called gravity. It accelerates anything with mass. In this thought experiment the electron will be accelerated. Basic electrodynamics states that it will emit radiation.
But wait a minute - I suspect that your next claim will be that a 'solitary' electron has no mass !

 

[Reality Check]

If I also fudge my results by means of renormalisation I can go to at least 100 siginificant figures. BTW there have been other physicists that proved that by using different equivalent renormalisation-fudging you do not get any correspondence. They are, of course barred from publishing their results.

Now we have the typical crank paranoia that there is a conspiracy to suppress unnamed "other physicists" work .
It is totally insulting to accuse scientists of faking their results. Renormalization is not a way of fudging results. The theory is not adjusted to fit the experimental results for the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron.

Not idiotic at all. The energy of an electron is its mass whether it is moving or not moving,

Even more idiotic: Kinetic energy.
The rest mass of an electron expresseed as an energy is constant.

and a trapped electron around a nucleus has less mass than its rest mass; or else it will not be trapped. It is simple energy considerations which you just ignore.

A bound electron has the same mass as an unbound electron. It has a different total energy though bescuase it is bound (binding energy).

It is only non-reltivistic because the rest mass is used as an input;

Totally wrong. The Schroedinger equation is non-relativistic because it is essentially a translation of classical mechanics. It has the symmetries of Euclidean space.

If you do not use the rest mass, you obtain a differential equation which looks very much like a Maxwell equation and which iis automatically commensurate with the theory of relativity.

If you replace rest mass with relativistic mass you get nonsense.

Why? Does an electron wave not have energy? And is the energy of an electron not its mass?

An electron has energy.
No: The energy of an electron can be treated as an equivalent mass.

I know the Dirac equation better than you do. It is a myth that Dirac's equation is totally commensurate with special relativity.

Totally ignorant: The Dirac equation is constructed to be totally commensurate with special relativity.

So are you arguing that a professor in Engineering Physics is a lower creature than the crackpots who work on string theory and similar absurd ideas?

That is an idiotic strawman.
I am arguing that a 89 year old professor in Engineering Physics probably has less knowldege of QM than people wokring in QM every day, e.g. the reviewers that you are too scared to submit your work to.
String theory is a valid area of mathematical physics. The people working in that area are not crackpots because they are brave enough to publish their work in peer-reviewed journals. It has generated a wealth of mathematical insights, a few of which are actually useful! I personally do not think that string theory will get to the point of being an actual scientific theory since it is sadly deficient of predictive power.

How do know that?

Because she agreed with the ignorance displayed in your work.

Which flaws? The "flaws" that have been pointed out by people like you and Ziggurat; who have so little standing in science that you have to hide behind false names?

Yes those flaws, like the non-conservation of energy.
We are not hiding behind false names. These are nick names as usually used in interet forums (fora?).
P.S. My real name is Ian Fisk. Now your work is totally invalidated because I have stated my real name !

Only YPOU can sink to such a low to denigrate a fine respected person (or do you not believe that a woman can be a fine physicist). You are rally disgusting you know.

Only YOU can be as dumb to think that I am doing that.


I am commenting on what you have said she said about your ideas. Since your ideas are based on you ignorance of basic physics, there must be a reason that she seemed to support them. There are many possible reasons, e.g.

• She was being polite.
• Her age.
• Her lack of expertise in the field.

Random? Again you make a disgusting accusation without verifying your facts.

More dumb insults: What is disgusting ahout the word random?

She is an outstanding physicist who I have known and respected for nearly 50 years and I know that she has an open mind.

I have no doubt that she is a outstanding physicist. I verifyied your facts.
And see above: the long relationship implies that she is being polite..

I do not do this. I have not yet found another person who have read my book (as Prof. Wilsdorf kindly did) who accused me of what I an accused of in this thread.
...snipped insults...

Are you saying that you have a number of people who have expertise in QM, superconductivity, etc. who have all read your book and say that your ideas are correct?

Or are you saying that the only person in the world who agrees with you is an old firend?

P.S. Just where are your ideas published in the scientific literature?
Could it be that your ideas are so obviously flawed (as displayed in this thread) that you cannot convince anyone to publish them and so have to resort to publishing then yourself?

 

[johanfprins]

You repeatedly said "a wavelength". That's quite definitely singular - or should we add English to the list of subjects you've failed?

Yes English is not my Mother Tongue. It is a pity that I only started to learn it after I turned 4 years old. It means that no matter how hard you work on it you still make mistakes. So I am quite grateful when I am corrected, but not necessarily from an uncouth person like you who in addition do not understand elementary vector analysis or physics.

Furthermore, you also said, "It [the uncertainty relation] is not about momentum since de Broglie's relationship is not valid for zero momentum at all: An infinite wavelength for a stationary electron? Are you really so daft?"

Stationary harmonic waves do NOT have momentum: Did you not know why they are called stationary? Amazing! And according to de Broglie's postulate a de Broglie wavelength is infinitely long when an electron-entity (which is the wave) has zero momentum.

But even if you want to claim that stationary states have wavelengths since you can take the Fourier transform, well, you still end up with a zero-momentum, infinite-wavelength component to those stationary states.

Exactly my argument! It proves that the wavelengths which, subject to the boundary conditions, superpose to form the standing wave are NOT de Broglie wavelengths. The de Broglie wavelength only becomes relevant when a wave which is stationary within its own inertial reference frame is measured within another inertial reference frame that moves relative to the stationary electron: It is thus purely a relativistic effect when there is motion; and plays NO ROLE when there is NOT MOTION of the wave.

Sure I have. But given your nonsensical assertions about no zero-momentum component, along with your repeated use of the singular, what you said still doesn't make sense even in the context of Fourier transforms.

It makes perfect sense that the wavelengths of the mathematical Fourier basis waves allowed by the boundary conditions (each having a specific wavelength), which superpose to form a standing wave has nothing to do with de Broglie's postulate; since if they do, the stationary wave must have an infinite wavelength. Which it does not have! In retrospect it is ironic that we in essence reach the same conclusion: namely that stationary wave with <p>=0 cannot have a de Broglie wave. You, however, argue that there is NO wavelength involved: Which is wrong! If you meant no de Broglie wavelength, then we are in agreement.

Uh... no. All the Fourier transform is the momentum-space representation of the wave function.

How can there be a momentum-space representation when the wave has no momentum whatsoever? No! You are confusings the representation of the wave in reciprocal space (as it is for ALL harmonic waves EVER discovered) with momentum, by applying de Broglie’s postulate to reciprocal space while this postulate is not valid for a stationary wave.

That's not intrinsically any better (and frequently much worse) to deal with. And it's not any easier to deduce the quantum numbers from the momentum-space representation than from the real-space representation.

I have not claimed that it is easier to deduce the quantum numbers from the reciprocal space representation: Another red herring from you as usual! All I claim is that the allowed wave-lengths that superpose to form the wave are determined by the boundary conditions; and that there is thus not NO wavelength involved as you have claimed.

You don't need to do Fourier transforms.

Again I have not claimed this.

In fact, for a non-free particle, it's generally a bloody pointless and stupid idea.

Assuming that V=0 for a free electron, it is even more senseless since there are then no boundary conditions which require the superposition of Fourier components.

Do you know why it's a bloody stupid and pointless idea? No, I doubt you do.

I do not care about your opinion in this case since I did not request it to be done.

I find myself spending all my time on my computer trying to teach Ziggurat, Ben m, and Sol Invictus elementary vector calculus and physics. Not with much success since it is very difficult to teach anybody anything if the person simply refuses to admit when he/she is wrong. Ziggurat did once admit that he made a mistake with the Hall effect, but refuses in all the other cases where he made similar mistakes: For example, with the displacement current. I also have other matters to attend to than to try and correct what their teachers have messed up. I will still regularly return to make posts, but probably not as frequently as I have done during the last week. Furthermore, I will allocate just the time I have available every week. I will try not to give up on their education as I had to in the case of W D Clinger; whose posts I do not even read anymore.

I am off for today.

 

[Reality Check]

I find myself spending all my time on my computer trying to teach Ziggurat, Ben m, and Sol Invictus elementary vector calculus and physics.

I do not recall you trying to teach anyone elementary vector calculus and physics. Perhaps you can list some of the posts and the citations to textbooks or scientific literature that show that your teaching is correct?

You have made several unsupported assertions that display an inability to understand some (sometimes non-elementary) physics. The latest is your mistake in thinking that the Dirac equation is not relativistically invariant. It was explicitly constructed to be relativistically invariant. See Covariant Form and Relativistic Invariance of the Dirac Equation or try reading some of the textbooks that you say that you have access to.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes English is not my Mother Tongue. It is a pity that I only started to learn it after I turned 4 years old. It means that no matter how hard you work on it you still make mistakes. So I am quite grateful when I am corrected, but not necessarily from an uncouth person like you who in addition do not understand elementary vector analysis or physics.

Don't blame me for your mistakes. And don't pretend that it wasn't YOU that first insulted me without cause.

Stationary harmonic waves do NOT have momentum: Did you not know why they are called stationary? Amazing! And according to de Broglie's postulate a de Broglie wavelength is infinitely long when an electron-entity (which is the wave) has zero momentum.

Yet another elementary quantum mechanics fail.

You don't need de Broglie do show that <p> = 0 for a stationary state. But I never claimed <p> =/= 0. What I claimed was that <p²> =/= 0. Which is true. And which de Broglie's postulate will tell you nothing about, but Schrodinger's equation will.

Exactly my argument! It proves that the wavelengths which, subject to the boundary conditions, superpose to form the standing wave are NOT de Broglie wavelengths.

I never claimed that one should use the de Broglie wavelength for a stationary state. YOU were the one who made that claim. Now you admit it's irrelevant. You make no sense.

How can there be a momentum-space representation when the wave has no momentum whatsoever?

How can there be a position-space representation when the wave is centered at the origin?

For the exact same reason. I'll leave it to you to figure that out. But I suspect you won't, because at the end of the day, you don't understand OR accept standard quantum mechanics.

I find myself spending all my time on my computer trying to teach Ziggurat, Ben m, and Sol Invictus elementary vector calculus and physics.

You mean stuff like energy conservation? Sorry, that was us trying to teach you. And you never learned.

Not with much success since it is very difficult to teach anybody anything if the person simply refuses to admit when he/she is wrong. Ziggurat did once admit that he made a mistake with the Hall effect, but refuses in all the other cases where he made similar mistakes: For example, with the displacement current.

I didn't make a mistake with displacement current. Rather, you've badly misinterpreted what I was saying.

 

[johanfprins]

Wrong: This is exactly why it is not an extended particle.

There are no "particles" ONLY waves! And waves are extended since they are fields.

Where do I day that you deny that spin is a QM property of the particle?
You are just ignorant that QM spin is not classical spin. For example it is quantized.

All I have stated time and again is that it has NOTHING to do with a "charged mathematical point" which has no dimensions "spinning" around itself. For a solitary electron (no other charges interacting with it) its total electric-field energy is its mass. This energy has a magnetic component: Hence the magnetic moment.

Try reading instead of going off in a rant: It is not a definition - it is a description from Wikipedia.
Spin

The pathetic references you keep on posting; I have already read many times before. It is time that YOU start reading them and trying to think for yourself instead of just parrotting them.

No: Uncharged particles also have spin eye-poppi)!

Exactly! Further supporting my argument that a magnetic moment has nothing to do with a charge "spinning" within a point having zero dimensions.

I have read the ignorance in the PDFs on the web.

If you cannot provide quotes and reasons why you make such a judgment you are obviously lying. No scientist of repute will make such a claim without motivating it with well motivated examples of why it is wrong.

I have read the ignorance in your posts.

Not ONE of your arguments on this thread held up to my logic.

There is no reason to think that your book is not as ignorant as the rest of your writing.

This is the reasoning of a bigot: Are you one?

The fact that you are not confident enough in your own work to publish it in sceintific journals makes it the work of a crank.

It has nothing to do with my confidence: As usual you are making accusations you cannot substantiate.

I will not waste my money and time reading the book of a crank (been there done that!)

Aha! Thanks for finally classifying yourself in you own words. Since human kind has learned to write books there have been persons who criticized books they did not even read. These persons have been responsible for burning down libraries, like the one in Alexandria, Egypt and many others. Hitler also incited people to burn books which neither he nor his mentally disturbed followers have read. We still have the spectacle at present of people condemning Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” without having read the book. And their arguments do not rest on scientific logic, but on quotes from religious dogma. These people are fundamentalist, irrational crackpots. This is exactly as you have been acting on this thread. Not once did you raise any logical argument but rather inundated us with quotations. I hope you recognise what you are. And then YOU call ME a crank?

I do not ask you to waste your time and money to read my book: All I am asking is that you adhere to the rules of science and not spout your mouth off before having studied all the facts. If you are not willing to do so, then you should have the courtesy and common sense not to opine about what you have not yet studied. The latter is the mark of an irrational, crackpot mind.

Or maybe you tried and failed.

Yes I have.

That means that your ideas are not good enough to convince competent scientists that it is correct and I need no waste my time.

This deduction again proves that you are irrational. How do YOU know that the decisions were made by "competent scientists". Prove this statement with facts please.

And I do not call myself a scientist.

Thank God for small mercies: Why are you then mouthing off on a science forum? Just plain arrogance?

I call myself a rational thinker who has an extensive knowledge of physics.

You are fooling yourself if you think that the ability to quote text from physics websites and text books means you have knowledge of physics: Where are your publications and citation index to claim this? You can easily find mine. I have already proved myself in physics: You obviously have not. Sorry to disappoint you; but there is absultely NOTHING rational in your thinking or behaviour.

It has been 20 years since I was a scientist.

Have you EVER been one? I doubt it very much.

You are again fuzzy: Are you talking about a single solitary charge, or about a current flowing through a wire?

Both

A rational thinker hey? And you cannot see that you have two different problems?

Your argument is then ignorant; as usual. The magnetic field is a result of the motion of the charge, i.e. it is the current density in the Ampère-Maxwell law:

The motion of a charge RELATIVE to other charges: NOT a solitary charge without any other charges being present.

Because you are talking nonsense. The Ampère-Maxwell law is simple electrodynamics old man.

I have not denied the latter: I only pointed out the fact that YOU do not understand this law since it is only valid when a charge (or charges) are moving relative to other charges. When the electric-field does not change, the current is the movement of charges relative to other charges: Just as Ampere used when he discovered his law. If you generate any model which ignores that other charges MUST be present, you are modelling nonsense.

Any moving charge (anywhere) generates a magnetic field.

As long as it moves relative to other charges. If you claim in your model that a solitary charge (with no other charges present) can generate a magnetic field, your model is Voodoo. There exists NO experimental proof that this is possible since it is impossible to test it without any other charges being present. In such a situation a REAL scientist will consider both options and reject the one that leads to mathematical inconsistencies. Assuming an electric field around a stationary SOLITARY charge has ALWAYS led to infinite integrals: This is compelling evidence that this assumption must be flawed: And if there is NOT such a field around a solitary, stationary charge, there can also not be a magnetic field within any inertial reference frame moving relative to the solitary charge. Hell man, try and be REALLY rational for a change!

 

[johanfprins]

No, this is about your claim that you need a dipole to radiate ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7333488#post7333488 ) The above papers are about a system which (a) does not contain what you think of as a dipole, but (b) which are seen radiating in these papers.

I agree that I was not very clear. Obviously one can get other radiation, for example quadropole radiation. What I am arguing is that EM radiation requires charges to move relative to each other and therefore you need at least two charges for it to occur. I have proposed in section 34 in my book that if you have a solitary accelerating electron, this acceleration induces an opposite charge to appear within three-dimensional space which allows the electron to radiate. It is just a new idea I am floating which might not be correct: Although the logic is compelling that it could be correct, I am still working on it. This has nothing to do with superconduction; which should be the main topic of this thread.

My objection to your modified-Gauss's Law is that you have no evidence for it and your arguments against it are incoherent.

Where have I modified Gauss's law? All I am claiming is that there cannot be a solitary charge from which field lines emanate that end at infinity; and that using Gauss's law to model such a situation is modelling something that is physically impossible. Mathematics concur with this.

 

[johanfprins]

That is dumb,johanfprins: The only way to measure the electric field of a charged particle is to interact with it.

CORRECT!!!! That is what I am trying to tell you all along

Can you not see that you are talking about an imaginary universe where there is only one charged particle?

I can! But for more than 100 years the mainstream physicists could not grasp this simple point. It is amazing that you could. You are finally starting to thinkl! Wow! Keep it up my boy.

The mainstream physicists actually assumed all along that there is such an imaginary universe; and therefore they ended up using Gauss's law within this imaginary universe to derive that there is a radially symmetric electric-energy field around a solitary charge. Then they were suprised that they obtained an infinite energy for this imaginary electric field: This is where Feynman claimed that electrodynamics falls flat on its face: But there is nothing wrong with electrodynamics since it is actually the impossible assumption that threre is, like you said in a moment of brightness, such an imaginary universe. So instead of realising that they are modelling nonsense, they finally removed this inconvenient result by the hocus pocus of renormalisation when they developed the model for QED within this assumed imaginary universe.

The experiement is a real world measurement in the real universe of the magnetic moment of a single electron. It matches what we have been talking about - a (solitary) single electron.
New measurement of the electron magnetic moment using a one-electron quantum cyclotron
This was a solitary electron that according to you has no electric field. But it was contained in the Penning trap for months using static electric and magnetic fields.

Can you not see how confused you are? How can it be solitary when it is held trapped by electric- and magnetic fields which must be generated by other charges?

Really ignorant: There is this little force called gravity. It accelerates anything with mass. In this thought experiment the electron will be accelerated.

Yup! You are really rolling my boy.

Basic electrodynamics states that it will emit radiation.

Which equations in electrodynamics "state" this? Although it does emit radiation when accelerated by any means it is, most probably, not for the reason you have in mind.

But wait a minute - I suspect that your next claim will be that a 'solitary' electron has no mass !

Just the opposite. The total electric-energy is in this case the rest-mass of the stationary electron; and therefore you do not have electric-field lines in space around it.

Bye for now

 

[ben m]

What I am arguing is that EM radiation requires charges to move relative to each other and therefore you need at least two charges for it to occur.

Not according to Maxwell's Equations. Not according to QED. Not according to the experiments I just linked to which clearly have only one charge (quite isolated) that radiates just as Maxwell says it should

I have proposed in section 34 in my book that if you have a solitary accelerating electron, this acceleration induces an opposite charge to appear within three-dimensional space which allows the electron to radiate.

Aha, so first you propose that Maxwell is wrong about radiation, and then you propose a totally new and invisible phenomenon which tricks us into thinking that Maxwell was right.

Where have I modified Gauss's law? All I am claiming is that there cannot be a solitary charge from which field lines emanate that end at infinity; and that using Gauss's law to model such a situation is modelling something that is physically impossible. Mthematics concur with this.

Still wrong. Here's a sequence of approximations. Solve Gauss's Law for a pair of charges, (say) 1m apart---an ordinary dipole. It works fine. Look at the positive charge; the field lines are very nearly radially symmetric at a distance of (say) 1cm.

Now move the negative charge to 10m. The lines are darn close to radial, just like Gauss says they would be for an isolated charge.

Now move the negative charge to 10^10m. Gauss's Law still works, and Gauss's Law still tells you that the lines emanating from the positive charge are radial. In fact, from simply looking at the field lines, it's extremely hard to tell whether the negative charge is there or not. (Is Gauss's Law inapplicable yet?)

Now move the negative charge to 10^100m. Gauss's Law still works, and Gauss's Law still tells you that the lines emanating from the positive charge are radial. In fact, from simply looking at the field lines, it's extremely hard to tell whether the negative charge is there or not. (Is Gauss's Law inapplicable yet?)

Now move the negative charge to 10^100000m. Gauss's Law still works, and Gauss's Law still tells you that the lines emanating from the positive charge are radial. In fact, from simply looking at the field lines, it's extremely hard to tell whether the negative charge is there or not. (Is Gauss's Law inapplicable yet?)

Now move the negative charge to 10^100000000000000000000m. Gauss's Law still works, and Gauss's Law still tells you that the lines emanating from the positive charge are radial. In fact, from simply looking at the field lines, it's extremely hard to tell whether the negative charge is there or not. (Is Gauss's Law inapplicable yet?)

Now move the negative charge to infinity. Gauss's Law still works, and Gauss's Law still tells you that the lines emanating from the positive charge are radial. In fact, from simply looking at the field lines, it's impossible to tell whether the negative charge is there or not. (Is Gauss's Law inapplicable yet?)

Yet you're telling me that if the negative charge---the one that has a vanishing impact on any field lines whatsoever---"really" has to be there, and that Gauss's Law fails entirely if you take it away. Even though the field lines that you calculate without the opposite charge are exactly, formally identical to the field lines you calculate with the opposite charge extremely far away. Where, exactly, (somewhere between 10^10000000000 meters and infinity, presumably) does the situation change from "good use of Gauss's Law giving almost perfect isolated-charge solution" to "you idiot, you're doing it wrong"?

You haven't thought about this very hard, have you?

(Even better: repeat the exercise above, not with a distant negative point charge, but with a distant shell of negative charge, say of radius R0. Now the E field is q/r^2 within the shell and 0 outside the shell at r > R0. Johan's statement seems to suggest that taking R0 to infinity is nonsense ... even though there is no quantity anywhere (not field, not voltage, not total field energy) which is ill-behaved in this limit.

 

[Reality Check]

Where have I modified Gauss's law? All I am claiming is that there cannot be a solitary charge from which field lines emanate that end at infinity; and that using Gauss's law to model such a situation is modelling something that is physically impossible. Mathematics concur with this

The bit in bold is something ben m did not address.
The field lines do not 'end at infinity'. That would

1. Require infinity' to be a finite distance!
2. The mathematics (Gauss's law) would require that your universe containing only a single electron actually also contains a shell of positive charge at this 'infinite' distance where the field lines end.

You have set up a scenario that is physically impossible.

The physically possible scenario is a universe containing a single electron where infinity means what infinity means - the concept of extending without bounds. In this universe field lines never end.

Solving Gauss's law shows that the field lines are created by the sources and sinks of field within a selected surface. In this theoretical universe containing a single electron, there is only one source.
Any surface that contains the electron will have field lines passing through it.
It does not matter if someone has the delusion that the electron is a dipole, whether the electron is treated as a sphere of charge or whether the electron is treated as a point particle: Far enough away from the electron, the field lines have to be those from a point charge, i.e. radial.

 

[Reality Check]

There are no "particles" ONLY waves! And waves are extended since they are fields.

What ignorance: There are "particles". They show properties of both classical particles and waves.
The science is that QM treats objects as point particles. The results of QM leads to the particles being able act as either classical particles or waves.
Experiments show that that particles such as photons, electrons and molecules (C60!) act as both particles and waves.

All I have stated time and again is that it has NOTHING to do with a "charged mathematical point" which has no dimensions "spinning" around itself.
...snipped not relevant 'solitary' (a universe containing a single electron) stuff...

All you have been doing is stating the obvious and then going off on a fantasy trip about a 'solitary' electron.
That mathematical point is not "spinning" around itself so you get one brownie point for getting that correct !

The pathetic references you keep on posting; I have already read many times before. It is time that YOU start reading them and trying to think for yourself instead of just parrotting them.

I have read them. I do think about them. And (just for you to rant on about): Spin.

Exactly! Further supporting my argument that a magnetic moment has nothing to do with a charge "spinning" within a point having zero dimensions.

Exactly wrong!
If any object is charged and has angular momentum then it will have an magnetic moment. Spin is quantum mechanical angluar momentum. That is the simple explanation why an electron has a magnetic moment.
Of course if an object is not charged and has angular momentum then it will not have an magnetic moment.

If you cannot provide quotes and reasons why you make such a judgment you are obviously lying.

You are obviously lying - read this thread where there is plenty of the idiocy in the PDFs.

Not ONE of your arguments on this thread held up to my logic.

Not ONE of your arguments on this thread held up to the actual science.

It has nothing to do with my confidence: As usual you are making accusations you cannot substantiate.

Wrong. I can substantialte ti by asking a simple question: WHere are you papers in a peer-reviewed journal?



If you have none then the options are

• Your ideas are so obviously invalid that you cannot get them published.
• You do not have the confidence to publish them

Since human kind has learned to write books there have been persons who criticized books they did not even read. ...stupid rant about book buring...
I do not ask you to waste your time and money to read my book: All I am asking is that you adhere to the rules of science and not spout your mouth off before having studied all the facts.

There is no such rule in science.
The practise in science is to study works that have been peer-reviewed. This is because there are so many cranks out there publishing garbage that there is no sense in wasting time trying to read everything that is published. Peer-review filters out the obhvious garbage, levaing scientists time to concentrate on valid science.

Another technique is to analyze the competence of the author by studying his works, continuing to cover all his work while he shows basic competence, stooping when it is obvious that he is incompetent. We have done that.

Yes I have.

Thank you for confirming that you tried to publish your work. This shows that your ideas are so invalid that people in the field can clearly see this.

This deduction again proves that you are irrational. How do YOU know that the decisions were made by "competent scientists". Prove this statement with facts please.

This statement shows that you are ignorant about the scientific process.
The facts are that reviewers are selected as having expertise in their field. That means that they have competence in that field.
Some journals even allow the author to suggest a list of reviewers to ensure that the appropriate reviewer are selected.

Why are you then mouthing off on a science forum?

Why are you then mouthing off on a science forum?



I am doing it to

• Keep current in my scence.
• Learn new things.
• Educate people - with the cravat that I may be (and have occasionally have been) wrong!

You are fooling yourself if you think that the ability to quote text from physics websites and text books means you have knowledge of physics: Where are your publications and citation index to claim this?

Journal of Low Temperature Physics
Volume 61, Numbers 1-2, 1-16, DOI: 10.1007/BF00682727
Effect of localized spin fluctuations on transport properties in the one-band Wolff model
I. Fisk and A. B. Kaiser

Fischer's calculations of the electrical resistivity, thermal resistivity, and thermopower of dilute alloys with nearly magnetic impurities are extended, using the one-band Wolff model, to the case where magnetic impurity scattering is large. A close similarity is seen to resistivities calculated in the two-band Wolff model, and a comparison is given with experimental data onRhFeand IrFe alloys.

Only one citation which is not surprising since it is a minor paper.
Rathnayaka, K. (1986) Transport properties and localized spin fluctuations in PtNi alloys. Physical Review B 33(5)

Where are your publications and citation index to claim tghat you have knowledge of physics?
The PDFs (and your statements here) certainly do not support that you have much knowledge of pohysic.

You can easily find mine. I have already proved myself in physics: You obviously have not.

No you have not - 'proving' yourself in physics is publishing papers.
Any idiot can self-publish a book. Look at all of the dumb creationist books, for example. Many of them claim to be sceintific. I doubt that you take them seriously.
Also look at all of the other self-published physics books. Spume of these will contradict your ideas. Are we to take them as being as valid as you book?

Yes I have 'proved' myself in physics- see above.

A rational thinker hey? And you cannot see that you have two different problems?

A person who knows the basics of electromagnetism, hey - a moving charge generates a magnetic field. It does not matter where it is. They are not problems. They are two saturations in which charges move.

I only pointed out the fact that YOU do not understand this law since it is only valid when a charge (or charges) are moving relative to other charges.!

Your usual ignorance. There is nothing in the Ampère-Maxwell law about motion relative to other charges. All it has is moving charges.

 

[Reality Check]

CORRECT!!!! That is what I am trying to tell you all along I can!

Then why do you keep on going on about a universe containing a single electron when

1. Gauss's law states that it has a radial electric field.
2. It is impossible to measure the electric field because ther eis nothing else in the universe.

The mainstream physicists actually assumed all along that there is such an imaginary universe; and therefore they ended up using Gauss's law within this imaginary universe to derive that there is a radially symmetric electric-energy field around a solitary charge.

That is correct - see point 1 above.

Then they were suprised that they obtained an infinite energy for this imaginary electric field: This is where Feynman claimed that electrodynamics falls flat on its face:

Citations please

• Where are the calculations that the energy contained in the classical electric field of a single charged particle is infinite?
• where does Feynman say that 'electrodynamics falls flat on its face'?

So instead of realising that they are modelling nonsense, they finally removed this inconvenient result by the hocus pocus of renormalisation when they developed the model for QED within this assumed imaginary universe.

QED describes a universe where there is an infinite number of particles - an electron and an infinite number of photons.

Renormalization is not hocus pocus. It is a technique to extract physically pertinent information from a complex theory.

Can you not see how confused you are? How can it be solitary when it is held trapped by electric- and magnetic fields which must be generated by other charges?

Can you not reaqd smiple English? This is not your universe containing a solitary electron which actually has an electric field according to Gauss's law but this field cannot be physically measured because there is nothing else in that universe.
This is the universe in which we live.
New measurement of the electron magnetic moment using a one-electron quantum cyclotron
This was a single electron contained in the Penning trap for months using static electric and magnetic fields.

Which equations in electrodynamics "state" this?

You are showing your ignorance again: Larmor formula

In physics, in the area of electrodynamics, the Larmor formula (not to be confused with the Larmor precession from classical NMR) is used to calculate the total power radiated by a nonrelativistic point charge as it accelerates. It was first derived by J. J. Larmor in 1897, in the context of the wave theory of light.
When accelerating or decelerating, any charged particle (such as an electron) radiates away energy in the form of electromagnetic waves. For velocities that are small relative to the speed of light, the total power radiated is given by the Larmor formula:

where a is the acceleration, e is the charge, and c is the speed of light. A relativistic generalization is given by the Liénard-Wiechert Potentials.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

J F Prins has published papers, but has trouble with vector calculus

Where are your publications and citation index to claim tghat you have knowledge of physics?

It's easy to verify that Dr Johan F Prins has published scientific papers. Here are some URLs for his most widely cited papers (according to Google Scholar):

http://prb.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v38/i8/p5576_1
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=4851042
http://www.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=TRD&recid=2680742SO
http://prb.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v34/i12/p8870_1
http://iopscience.iop.org/0022-3727/22/10/026
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0925963594052611
http://prb.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v39/i6/p3764_1
http://prb.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v31/i4/p2472_1
http://prb.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v61/i11/p7191_1
http://prb.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v44/i6/p2470_1
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0168583X9090496H
http://prb.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v70/i24/e245107
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/004060909290493U
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/092145269390227W
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0925963500002016
http://iopscience.iop.org/0268-1242/18/3/304
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0925963599000357
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0925963501004277
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0168583X88903163
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0925963595005080

Almost all of those papers are concerned with electrical properties of doped diamond. I assume that's a narrow research specialty even for a materials scientist, but it's not an implausible background for someone who claims to have discovered superconductivity in doped diamond.

At his web site, Dr Prins says he has been the author of more than 90 papers, which also sounds plausible.

Dr Prins "studied physics and mathematics at the University of Pretoria where he graduated with a BSc (1961) and an MSc (1964); both cum laude" and did his "DSc in materials science" at the University of Virginia.

Judging by post #83 of this thread, his BSc may be in physics, which normally implies some courses in mathematics. Judging by his attitude toward physicists and engineers, however, I have to wonder whether his undergraduate degree might really have been in some engineering discipline that involved some courses in both physics and mathematics. In any case: During the 50 years since Dr Prins completed his BSc, he must have forgotten some of that undergraduate mathematics.

I find myself spending all my time on my computer trying to teach Ziggurat, Ben m, and Sol Invictus elementary vector calculus and physics. Not with much success since it is very difficult to teach anybody anything if the person simply refuses to admit when he/she is wrong. Ziggurat did once admit that he made a mistake with the Hall effect, but refuses in all the other cases where he made similar mistakes: For example, with the displacement current. I also have other matters to attend to than to try and correct what their teachers have messed up. I will still regularly return to make posts, but probably not as frequently as I have done during the last week. Furthermore, I will allocate just the time I have available every week. I will try not to give up on their education as I had to in the case of W D Clinger; whose posts I do not even read anymore.

Of the four members of this forum named by Dr Prins, one did his PhD in mathematics at one of the best departments in town. He has seen no flaws in the other three's understanding of vector calculus. He has seen many flaws in Dr Prins's understanding of vector calculus.

For example:

Where have I modified Gauss's law? All I am claiming is that there cannot be a solitary charge from which field lines emanate that end at infinity; and that using Gauss's law to model such a situation is modelling something that is physically impossible. Mathematics concur with this.

No, mathematics disagrees with Dr Prins.

ben m gave an example to explain what's wrong with Dr Prins's claim above, but ben m's example supports an even simpler explanation. Applying a change of units, the example involves a positive charge centered at <1,0,0> and an equal but opposite charge centered at <-1,0,0>. Applying the integral form of Gauss's law, it's easy to see that the electric field E is zero at the origin but is nonzero everywhere else on the x-axis. The field line that emanates from the positive charge along the x-axis, in the direction of increasing values for x, does indeed extend forever, weakening rapidly but never becoming nonzero.

You haven't thought about this very hard, have you?

Dr Prins thinks he's right. He's thought very hard about that, while neglecting to think very hard about the many ways in which he might be wrong.

 

[Loss Leader]

I've discovered a methodology for extruding a titanium-based mixture as a long, single chain crystal that is superconductive at up to 341 degrees Kelvin. I was able to synthesize 1.4 kilograms of wire measuring 22 meters. The total cost of my capital investment was $1,250.00 plus approximately $18.66 in electricity. The marginal cost of the last meter of wire was $2.85.

I am happy to take questions.

 

[Ziggurat]

I am happy to take questions.

Does it come in red?

 

[Loss Leader]

Does it come in red?

If you're not going to take this seriously, we don't have to discuss it. But, yes, it comes in red.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

holy cow, I made another mistake!

Applying a change of units, the example involves a positive charge centered at <1,0,0> and an equal but opposite charge centered at <-1,0,0>. Applying the integral form of Gauss's law, it's easy to see that the electric field E is zero at the origin but is nonzero everywhere else on the x-axis. The field line that emanates from the positive charge along the x-axis, in the direction of increasing values for x, does indeed extend forever, weakening rapidly but never becoming zero.

The highlighted part is incorrect because the two charges are opposite (to appease Johan's insistence that the universe be charge-neutral). The last sentence is correct, however, and that's the part that contradicts Johan's assertion.

ETA: Having posted the above correction, I might as well write down the actual equations. Let x be a unit vector in the direction of increasing x. For unit point charges and x>1,

E(x,0,0) = (1/(x-1)² - 1/(x+1)²) x

For -1 < x < +1,

E(x,0,0) = (- 1/(x-1)² - 1/(x+1)²) x

For x < -1,

E(x,0,0) = (1/(x+1)² - 1/(x-1)²) x

(The infinities at x=-1 and x=+1 would go away if point charges were changed to charge of finite density spread over finite area, but that would make the equations more complicated. The point charge approximation is good enough to show that E is nonzero at all points on the x-axis that lie to the right of both charges.)