Johan, you have said in the past that you used to accept all of these physics experiments and proofs that you now find so ridiculous. Was your change of mind preceeded by any kind of traumatic event?
By an event yes. The event was not initially traumatic: It resulted from my experimental results which I obtained by extracting electrons from an n-type diamond into the vacuum by means of an anode; until these electrons reach the anode so that an electron-current starts to flow from the diamond to the anode.
That it is an electron current can be proved by the generation of Bremstrahlung when they enter and slow down within the anode. It was thus also a miniature EM-ray source. This result, in itself was noteworthy; and if I did not repeat my experiment many times to study the properties of the extracted electrons, and just published the fact that I can extract electrons without generating dielectric breakdown, I might have had no difficulty in getting it published.
What I, however, found is that after at first, a non steady-state current flowed, a further increase in the voltage, caused a steady state current; but now there is no Bremstrahlung: Thus, no electrons are being accelerated into the anode anymore. A phase formed between the diamond and the surface which shorted the two surfaces together. Furthermore, this phase is stable and remains even after switching off the power supply.
The first obvious possible candidate was contamination. I do not want to describe all the experiments we did since there are too many. But we clearly established that it cannot be contamination. And when breaking the phase by suddenly opening the gap between the diamond and anode, this phase slowly disappears until it is not there anymore. One then had to start all over gain until the "contamination" eerily reproduced itself under exactly the same physical conditions. The compelling conclusion was that this stable phase must be forming from the electrons in the gap.
Once this was accepted as the only possible explanation, it became very quickly clear, from standard Solid State Physics, why such a phase must form from electrons alone. The electrons are being extracted by the electric-field between the diamond and the anode, filling up the gap between the diamond and the anode, until they connect the diamond and anode so that a current flows: But even though a current is now flowing, the electric-field present within the gap will keep on extracting further electrons into the gap. This, in turn, means that the density of charge-carriers within the gap increases so that the resistivity of the phase keeps on decreasing. Thus, the voltage across the phase must decrease until it eventually becomes zero. Free electrons within the gap can then not be accelerated anymore.
One would expect that the current should stop flowing at this point. But if it does, the electrons will push one another out of the gap. This means that an electric-field will then re-appear that extracts more electrons from the diamond to replenish the electrons which are leaving the gap.
But what happens instead is that an equilibrium phase forms from the electrons within the gap; within which there is NO electric-field even when there is no current flowing through it or when there is a current flowing through it.
Thus instead of pushing each other out of the gap, the electrons entangle to form a single holistic wave within the gap: Similar to two electrons forming a covalent bond, or four electrons forming a double-bond or six electrons forming a triple bond. In my experiment millions of electrons are forming a macro-bond.
This is where my trauma started since this result is compelling proof that “wave-particle” duality must be wrong; and when you follow the thread further it also proves that Bohr’s principle of complimentarity is wrong as well as the Born rule based on inbuilt probabilities in Nature. Thus I had to do soul-searching and accept that what I have believed, and taught, for many years must be wrong. Fortunately, I have always believed that a physicist must be willing to accept the verdict if it happens that he is proved (by experiment and impeccable logic) to have been wrong.
