Superconductivity at room temperature??

[johanfprins]

And related to the last question:
Can you cite

• your 'correct' relativistically invariant equation for an electron that is somehow better than Dirac's equation?

A link to the PDF and the pages where the equation is derived and shown to be relativistically invariant would be best.

I have proposed a possible route to obtain such an equation, and this also led to a possible causal explanation for spin. I am still doing further research on this topic. My initial results are summarised in section 34 of my book. It is this section which led Prof. Doris Wilsdorf (who you so blatantly insulted on this thread) to comment that it could be a Nobel Prize insight. I am not going to paste this on my website since even if I do, you, with your abysmal knowledge of physics, will not be able to follow it.

 

[johanfprins]

The standard definition of words is not "just semantics". It's a requirement for any coherent communication. You may not like the convention, but that's irrelevant: it's well-established and well-defined. That you continue to protest against the very definition of words is not a good sign.

No it is YOU who have been changing the convention. The term "superconduction" was first defined by Kamerlingh Onnes (in fact he called it "supra-conduction) and he did not use the Meissner effect as a condition for a material to be a superconductor. This came later after the London brothers and the rest of the "experts" concluded without any incontestable proof that superconduction cannot occur unless there is a Meissner effect. This has NEVER been conclusively proved by ANY experiment. So why add it to the original VERY CLEAR definition that did not refer to the Meissner effect at all?

Thus, the best proof for superconduction is that the electric field CANNOT be anything else than ZERO; as I have proved in the case of my extracted electrons. Whether such a phase also shows the Meissner effect or not, is then not relevant anymore to prove superconduction since the proof for superconduction in terms of the seminal definition is then incontestable. This does not exclude the possibility that this phase will show a Meissner effect, but it eliminates the need to confirm that it is a superconductor by measuring a Meissner effect.

 

[tsig]

The standard definition of words is not "just semantics". It's a requirement for any coherent communication. You may not like the convention, but that's irrelevant: it's well-established and well-defined. That you continue to protest against the very definition of words is not a good sign.

True, if you* insist on using words that only you know the definition of then soon you'll be talking only to yourself.

*generic you

 

[Loss Leader]

Alright, let me explain the latest test that I have devised for my wire:

I cut the cord off a toaster and stripped bare the last few inches of wire. I then attached a ten foot length of my wire to each end, terminating in a fixture for a 15 watt flourescent bulb (equivalent lumens to a 75 watt old-style bulb). I have voltmeters, ammeters, light meters and watt meters. I also have one small, fairly docile dog.

Now, you people tell me exactly what results would be good evidence of superconductivity and I will tell you what results I obtained.

 

[Reality Check]

Citations that prove that a superconductor must show the Meissner effect.

Superconductor

ETA: As Ziggurat states - it is the definition of a superconductor that it must show the Meissner effect.
Otherwise you have a perfect conductor (and a Nobel Prize for discovering it!).

What this really states is that there could be superconductors which do not show the Meissner effect and the quantization of magnetic flux.
...snipped insults...

That is right - these are known as perfect conductors by scientists.

Why would unpublished results not be a confirmation of my results when the unpublished results reproduce my results? You ARE really insane.

Because we only have your word that the experiment reproduced your results.
Given your descent into insane insults your word is not enough.

 

[Reality Check]

The obvious relativistic property that a wave equation for an electron must have is that when solving it within different inertial reference frames which are moving with different speeds relative to the inertial reference frame within which the electron is stationary, the solutions must have different de Broglie wavelengths. The Dirac equation does not transform in this manner and must thus be relativistically wrong.

That is totally ignorant.
Dirac showed that his equation is relativistically invariant.
In different inertial frames the electron has different momentum and thus different de Broglie wavelengths. This is included in the Dirac equation.

Try again:
why should Dirac's equation's not be used for an electron?

 

[Reality Check]

I have proposed a possible route to obtain such an equation, and this also led to a possible causal explanation for spin. I am still doing further research on this topic. My initial results are summarised in section 34 of my book. It is this section which led Prof. Doris Wilsdorf (who you so blatantly insulted on this thread) to comment that it could be a Nobel Prize insight. I am not going to paste this on my website since even if I do, you, with your abysmal knowledge of physics, will not be able to follow it.

You are lying: I never insulted Doris Wilsdorf. I merely pointed out possible reasons why she would mistakenly support your work when it is obvious from the extracts you have linked to that it is wrong.

A simple example from SingelMechanism.pdf: You state that Heisenburg's relationshiip for energy and time is given by ΔEΔt = g(hbar). In actual fact this relationship is

This makes your 'g' into a random number between approximately 2*pi and infinity. So the following equations that include g have indeterminate values.

And yet more insults from you .

 

[Ziggurat]

No it is YOU who have been changing the convention. The term "superconduction" was first defined by Kamerlingh Onnes (in fact he called it "supra-conduction) and he did not use the Meissner effect as a condition for a material to be a superconductor. This came later after the London brothers and the rest of the "experts" concluded without any incontestable proof that superconduction cannot occur unless there is a Meissner effect. This has NEVER been conclusively proved by ANY experiment.

Of course it hasn't been proven. You can't prove a definition, except by consulting a dictionary. And it doesn't matter if the current definition isn't identical to Onnes' definition, it's still the current accepted definition. You're not going to change the definition, especially by pretending that it's not a definition.

So why add it to the original VERY CLEAR definition that did not refer to the Meissner effect at all?

The reason to add it to the definition is precisely because there's no proof that the Meissner effect is necessary to zero resistance, but every single example we know of does exhibit it.

Thus, the best proof for superconduction is that the electric field CANNOT be anything else than ZERO; as I have proved in the case of my extracted electrons. Whether such a phase also shows the Meissner effect or not, is then not relevant anymore to prove superconduction

Again, you're wrong. I've told you why before. Without the Meissner effect, it's not a superonductor. If you find a perfect conductor which is not a superconductor, you've discovered something new. The possibility of discovering a non-superconducting ideal conductor should have you excited, yet instead of noting how remarkable this would be, you're stuck trying to deny the definition of the word you use. That's quite foolish.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Alright, let me explain the latest test that I have devised for my wire:

I cut the cord off a toaster and stripped bare the last few inches of wire. I then attached a ten foot length of my wire to each end, terminating in a fixture for a 15 watt flourescent bulb (equivalent lumens to a 75 watt old-style bulb). I have voltmeters, ammeters, light meters and watt meters. I also have one small, fairly docile dog.

Now, you people tell me exactly what results would be good evidence of superconductivity and I will tell you what results I obtained.

OK, bring the wire, the toaster, the dog, volt meter, amp meter, light meter, watt meter and the light bulb to the nearest symphony orchestra. Place the wire on the podium. If the orchestra breaks out in an incredible performance of Beethoven's ninth symphony -- you have a super conductor.

 

[tsig]

Alright, let me explain the latest test that I have devised for my wire:

I cut the cord off a toaster and stripped bare the last few inches of wire. I then attached a ten foot length of my wire to each end, terminating in a fixture for a 15 watt flourescent bulb (equivalent lumens to a 75 watt old-style bulb). I have voltmeters, ammeters, light meters and watt meters. I also have one small, fairly docile dog.

Now, you people tell me exactly what results would be good evidence of superconductivity and I will tell you what results I obtained.

Well you're also going to have to get a thermometer to measure the ambient temperature to ensure optimum temperature for the dog because the last thing you want is a hot dog.

Now connect one voltmeter across the bulb and the other across one of the wires place the ammeter in series with everything, you really don't need the whatmeter 'cause we're not playing baseball. Plug into a variable voltage power supply and increase the voltage carefully studying the meters. If you can get to 5X the rated voltage and amps before the wire burns out you have a superconductor.

If you accidentally set your lab on fire you can use the dog to summon help that's why you had to keep it cool.

ETA: If you need fire insurance for your lab I have an uncle Earl and he'll insure any lab for $19.99.

 

[johanfprins]

Superconductor

ETA: As Ziggurat states - it is the definition of a superconductor that it must show the Meissner effect.

This is where I disagree: Onnes gave the seminal definition and his definition has NOTHING to do with the Meissner effect. And he most definitely did not call his discovery a perfect conductor. And the name superconductor did not appear ONLY after Meissner and Ochsenfeld discovered the cancellation of a magnetic field by the low temperature superconductors. Thus any sane scientist will realise that there is no proof whatsoever that other superconductors must also show the Meissner effect. The only reason why the Meissner effect has been attached more than 20 years after Onnes’ discovery is that it was realised, contrary to the nonsense that Archie Campbell of Cambridge want to believe, that one cannot experimentally measure an absolute zero voltage. They then looked for an additional test and decided on the Meissner effect. This they did without first proving that a superconductor MUST always have the Meissner effect. This means that they were illogical and stupid. To define something in physics without giving a reason why you now attach the Meissner effect, while it is not required by the original definition, is absurd.

Otherwise you have a perfect conductor (and a Nobel Prize for discovering it!).

Accepting your illogical reasoning, and renaming Onnes’ definition as being a “perfect conductor”, it still means that I have discovered a material that transport a current while there is incontrovertible proof that there cannot be an electric-field within the material while the current is flowing. Thus, if I obtain funding in future and show that the material has the Meissner effect, then I have discovered superconduction at room temperature; for which I should receive the Nobel Prize. If I, however, find that the material does not show a Meissner effect, then according to your illogical definition, I have discovered a “perfect conductor” and should then also win the Nobel Prize, Thus, as the results stand at the moment I must either have a superconductor at room temperature or a perfect conductor at room temperature. So why do you attack me instead of nominating me for the Nobel Prize?

That is right - these are known as perfect conductors by scientists.

By illogical scientists yes: But ignoring this silly semantics, my experiment proves that if there would be no Meissner effect, I have discovered what the retarded scientists have renamed to be a “perfect” conductor. If in future it is found that this phase does, in addition have a Meissner effect, I have discovered a superconductor at room temperature. Whatever the case, my experiment proves that I have achieved a massive breakthrough.

Because we only have your word that the experiment reproduced your results.
Given your descent into insane insults your word is not enough.

I am not a liar like you who claims that he has read the pdf-files on my website and found them to be garbage, and then ask me for further examples of peer-review bigotry, while these examples are within these pdf-files.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is where I disagree: Onnes gave the seminal definition and his definition has NOTHING to do with the Meissner effect.

You can disagree all you want to, it won't make any difference. The physics community has adopted a different definition. Your one-man crusade to change the definition is futile, pointless, and foolish.

Thus any sane scientist will realise that there is no proof whatsoever that other superconductors must also show the Meissner effect.

Except, of course, that this is now the definition. The fact that is is not the same definition as Onnes originally used is irrelevant: it's the definition everyone uses now.

Accepting your illogical reasoning, and renaming Onnes’ definition as being a “perfect conductor”, it still means that I have discovered a material that transport a current while there is incontrovertible proof that there cannot be an electric-field within the material while the current is flowing. Thus, if I obtain funding in future and show that the material has the Meissner effect, then I have discovered superconduction at room temperature; for which I should receive the Nobel Prize. If I, however, find that the material does not show a Meissner effect, then according to your illogical definition, I have discovered a “perfect conductor” and should then also win the Nobel Prize

Quite correct. Except for the "incontrovertible" bit. Nobody believes you on this point. Because, well, you're simply not credible.

 

[johanfprins]

That is totally ignorant.
Dirac showed that his equation is relativistically invariant.
In different inertial frames the electron has different momentum and thus different de Broglie wavelengths. This is included in the Dirac equation.

Prove it or give references to publications within which this is proved please. Diffraction of electrons prove that the wave-function of a moving electron must be a coherent wave with wave-fronts moving through three-dimensional space where the spacing between identical amplitudes must be given by the de Broglie wavelength. And when you transform such a solution from one inertial reference frame into another, the de Broglie wavelength must change. Dirac’s equation does not reproduce this relativistic experimental result. To claim that his equation is relativistically invariant, it must reproduce the relativistic results which can be measured experimentally. It does not!

Try again:
why should Dirac's equation's not be used for an electron?

I did not say that you should not use Dirac’s equation if you want: However, I will not use it since it is supposedly a single-electron equation which can only be interpreted by fudging: i.e. by claiming that it is really an infinite electron equation. If you want to believe such nonsense: Be my guest.

 

[johanfprins]

You are lying: I never insulted Doris Wilsdorf. I merely pointed out possible reasons why she would mistakenly support your work when it is obvious from the extracts you have linked to that it is wrong.

You did insult her integrity by implying that she would be devious by not stating her true opinion. This is one of the worst insults you can give to a real scientist like Doris. But of course you do not know about real scientists in New Zealand anymore: You should have stayed within your abilities as a New Zealander and tended sheep. No wonder Rutherford fled New Zealand.

A simple example from SingelMechanism.pdf: You state that Heisenburg's relationshiip for energy and time is given by ΔEΔt = g(hbar). In actual fact this relationship is

This makes your 'g' into a random number between approximately 2*pi and infinity. So the following equations that include g have indeterminate values.

Clearly you do not know much about quantum mechanics. What it states is that if it can be any wave function the value of g can be any value larger than ½. But for a specific wave function g has a specific value. The lowest value ½ is a SPECIFIC value that is valid when the wave function has a Gaussian shape; and g also has a SPECIFIC value larger than ½ for each wave which do not have a Gaussian shape.

Yukawa knew this and used it in order to predict the existence of mesons. He got a Nobel Prize for this. But you, of course, think that you know better. Can you not see what a pathetic specimen you are?

And yet more insults from you .

You are setting yourself up for this through your dumb illogical arguments on this thread.

 

[johanfprins]

Of course it hasn't been proven. You can't prove a definition, except by consulting a dictionary. And it doesn't matter if the current definition isn't identical to Onnes' definition, it's still the current accepted definition. You're not going to change the definition, especially by pretending that it's not a definition.

Well even if you want to cling to this stupid alteration of Onnes’ original definition, it does not change the fact that I have incontrovertible proof that the electrons which I extract from a highly-doped n-type diamond allows an equilibrium current to flow which is ONLY possible while there CANNOT be an electric-field between the diamond and the anode. According to Ones’ original definition, this is superconduction: According to the lightweight, retards that came after him this is “perfect conduction":. That is why this issue is semantics; it does not negate the incontrovertible fact that my experiment is the first in physics history that proves that a current is transported through an electron phase while it is totally impossible that there is an electric field within the material. If you want to argue that this is not a significant breakthrough and opposes it since according to you I should rather have named it “perfect conduction” you are not arguing physics but playing with semantics.

The reason to add it to the definition is precisely because there's no proof that the Meissner effect is necessary to zero resistance, but every single example we know of does exhibit it.

And this makes my discovery of what you would rather call “perfect conduction” worthless?

Again, you're wrong. I've told you why before. Without the Meissner effect, it's not a superonductor. If you find a perfect conductor which is not a superconductor, you've discovered something new.

Then why do you not want to acknowledge that I did make a significant breakthrough?

The possibility of discovering a non-superconducting ideal conductor should have you excited, yet instead of noting how remarkable this would be, you're stuck trying to deny the definition of the word you use. That's quite foolish.

I have been excited about this all along. Why are YOU not? Just because I used the description “superconduction” as initially used by Onnes, instead of the term “perfect conductor” which you would prefer? Can you not see that you are playing semantics?

 

[randman]

You are far too generous to assume that there can be fields within which this will not happen. The anonymous peer review makes it inevitable that it must happen within all fields. And it has been consistently the case since 1927.

At present it is a roaring epidemic which is stopping scientific progress during an age where our very survival on this planet depends on new innovative ideas, even if in future it turns out that some of these ideas are wrong. If a referee cannot find obvious flaws in the physics and mathematics, but even so blocks publication because it questions accepted dogma, such a person is committing treason against everything science should maintain as being sacrosanct. In fact, this is such a criminal act that it should mandate the death penalty.

Eventually it is always the case for any scientific field. The peer review system makes it impossible to be otherwise. A “little better” will not solve the problem: We need a massive turnaround and one of the first acts must be to close down in disgrace institutes, like the Royal Society of London, which committed treason against the ideals of its venerable founding fathers.

I doubt that this would work: Persons outside a field are too scared to question the “wisdom” of the “experts” in the field. You will be surprised who I have approached and who could not find any mistake in my manuscripts, but refused to stand up for me since “it is outside his field”.

Yes, this is only the tip of the iceberg. That hacker should be given a Nobel Prize for what he has done for science.

Add to this the notorious fact that through the ages it has been consistently the experts which got it wrong. For example, the “expert” in the USA on flight stated (after the Wright brothers demonstrated their flying machine) that the public must not think that one day there will be large flying machines carrying millions of passengers across the Atlantic Ocean. Flying will remain the hobby of the rich. Thank God the people did not all have the mentality of Reality Check or else we would not at present have had Boeing 747's and Airbuses ferrying millions of people across the Atlantic.

The one I enjoy the most about “experts” is the study that had been done in England, quite a few years ago, in which people doing different jobs were asked to predict the economy within three years time. After three years it was found that the economists (the “experts”) fared the worst, while the garbage collectors fared the best. It seems that you can tell more about the economy by looking at what people throw away, than using mathematical models. No wonder that professors in Economy can use exactly the same examination questions year after year; since the answers change every year.

Another incident that I enjoy is the following headline in a newspaper: “Plane crashes: Something went wrong says expert”. I suppose that if the expert did not say this, Reality Check would have believed that the plane crashed without anything having gone wrong.

Good post. I had thought maybe just certain fields of science were corrupted for various reasons such as energy, global warming and evolution. With those, there are specific reasons.

Energy was very early on corrupted by finance and money. A review of Tesla's life is informative in that regard. How is it that the US Supreme court did not award him the patent rights, quite obviously his, for radio and wireless until after his death in the mid-40s as just one example?

My suspicion is you may be facing obstacles due to your discoveries being related to energy.

Evolutionism aka Darwinism is understood by the fact it became a sort of pseudo-religion meeting psychological needs for the non-theist and matching prevailing attitudes, of the time when it came into prominence, such as progress, racism, reductionism, etc,....

Warmism is a similarly pseudo-religious phenomena but also has to do with money and power and a potential great deal of it.

But maybe you are correct. It's just human nature that an anonymous, clubby (closed to but a few) system is inherently flawed.

 

[johanfprins]

You can disagree all you want to, it won't make any difference. The physics community has adopted a different definition. Your one-man crusade to change the definition is futile, pointless, and foolish.

I have NOT been on a crusade to change the definition. I did not know, and did not even suspect that there could exist idiots within physics who would change Onnes' perfectly valid definition. It is absurd; but of course, this is the way modern physics has become.

Except, of course, that this is now the definition. The fact that is is not the same definition as Onnes originally used is irrelevant: it's the definition everyone uses now.

Well if this is the definition "they" want to use, they are welcome to do so; but it is still based on idiocy.

Quite correct. Except for the "incontrovertible" bit. it is not Nobody believes you on this point.

I have argued and gave the information why it is incontrovertible above. If you do not agree, then give reasons based on physics why you disagree; not hiding behind "what you want to believe". This is what a REAL physicist will does. We are not busy arguing religion here.

Because, well, you're simply not credible.

And you think YOU are? You are not even honest enough to acknowledge that your argument why superconducting charge-carriers "must" be accelerated during a transient change in the applied electric field is wrong, since you have never heard about a displacement current. I have challenged you before: Come out from hiding behind anonymity and let us compare our physics contributions.

 

[Loss Leader]

Well you're also going to have to get a thermometer to measure the ambient temperature to ensure optimum temperature for the dog because the last thing you want is a hot dog.

Now connect one voltmeter across the bulb and the other across one of the wires place the ammeter in series with everything, you really don't need the whatmeter 'cause we're not playing baseball. Plug into a variable voltage power supply and increase the voltage carefully studying the meters. If you can get to 5X the rated voltage and amps before the wire burns out you have a superconductor.

If you accidentally set your lab on fire you can use the dog to summon help that's why you had to keep it cool.

ETA: If you need fire insurance for your lab I have an uncle Earl and he'll insure any lab for $19.99.

Thank You! This is exactly the kind of help I was hoping for!

 

[Reality Check]

Prove it or give references to publications within which this is proved please.

Refer to QM texbooks. It is often eft as an exercise for the student.
Or: Covariant Form and Relativistic Invariance

The complete system is summarized using the Minkowski metric on spacetime in the form

where the bracket expression

means

, the anticommutator. These are the defining relations of a Clifford algebra over a pseudo-orthogonal 4-d space with metric signature ( + − − − ).
...
If we now define the transformed spinor

then we have the transformed Dirac equation in a way that demonstrates manifest relativistic invariance:

Thus the Dirac equation has inertial reference frames. In each frame the electron momentum is different. Thus in each frame there is a different de Broglie wavelength for the electron w.r.t another frame.
In fact this is true for non-relativistic QM. The difference is that the observed momentum is relativistic for the Dirac equation.

Diffraction of electrons prove that the wave-function of a moving electron must be a coherent wave ...

Wrong:

• Diffraction of electrons proves that electrons can act as waves.
• They can also act as particles.

The wave-function of an free electron is not a strictly a wave - it is a constant spinor multiplied by a complex exponential (i.e. a wave).
A wave-function is not an electron - it is a mapping of the configuration space of a electron to a complex quantity.

I did not say that you should not use Dirac’s equation if you want: However, I will not use it since it is supposedly a single-electron equation which can only be interpreted by fudging: i.e. by claiming that it is really an infinite electron equation. If you want to believe such nonsense: Be my guest.

That is wrong: The Dirac equation is defined as an equation for a single electron. No one claims that it is an equation for a "infinite electron" (an infinite number of electrons?).

So if you have a spin 1/2 particle like an electron then the Dirac equation is the QM equation to use.

 

[Reality Check]

You did insult her integrity by implying that she would be devious by not stating her true opinion.
...usual insults snipped...

Wrong: One of the possible reasons that I gave was that she did not want to hurt your feelings. That is not an insult. That is a possible reason.

What it states is that if it can be any wave function the value of g can be any value larger than ½. What it states is that if it can be any wave function the value of g can be any value larger than ½. But for a specific wave function g has a specific value.

That is right: the value of your g can be any value larger than ½.
But it is not set by the wave function AFAIK (citations against this please). The uncertainty principle is a result of non-commuting operators.
Thus your following equations have no definite values.