Superconductivity at room temperature??

[D'rok]

It is hopeless to argue with a person who does not realise that any polrization field forms in response to an electric field which would have been there if the polarisation response did not occur.

Johan, you might want to turn down the bluster for a moment and actually read the links Zig gave. They say things like this:

Ferroelectricity is a property of certain materials which possess a spontaneous electric polarization that can be reversed by the application of an external electric field.

In addition to being nonlinear, ferroelectric materials demonstrate a spontaneous (zero field) polarization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferroelectricity

Interesting, hmm?

 

[johanfprins]

Johan, you might want to turn down the bluster for a moment and actually read the links Zig gave. They say things like this:



Interesting, hmm?

Yes it is. But the fact that you have polarisation is still a result of the system relaxing to a lower energy state in order to cancel an electric field that would hava been there if three would have been no polarisation. The only difference, in this case, is that this relaxtion also involves the laws of quantum mechanics. A field that Ziggurat, Ben m and Sol cleraly do not understand since they still believe that the laws of electrodynamics are sufficient to explain the iner workings of a material. This does not remove the fact that any polarisation reduces the total electric field that would have been there if there were no polrisation.

But in either case, we are not arguing about ferro-electricity: Therefore I have reframed my question to relate specifically to an interface. I am thus waiting for a response.

 

[Ziggurat]

It is hopeless to argue with a person who does not realise that any polrization field forms in response to an electric field which would have been there if the polarisation response did not occur.

Your only basis for declaring this is because you believe it to be axiomatically true. But it isn't. Experiment trumps your declaration.

Your examples do NOTHING of the sort. You are just again demonstrating you inability to understand simple undergraduate physics.

My examples do exactly that, and you can't actually address them, so you merely ignore them.

So you reject the following statement?

Yes. Because it is quite frequently wrong. And the reason it's wrong is that you still can't figure out the difference between bound charges and free charges. In the context of ferroelectrics, for example, this is meaningless:

Consider the interface between an n-type semiconductor and a metal with a large workfunction. Is it correct that you are arguing that the dipole layer that forms across this interface after creating this interface does not form to cancel an initial electric field across the interface, which is there just before the dipole forms? Yes or no?

Why is it meaningless? Well, ferroelectrics are insulators.

You're in denial, johan. Reality is observed to behave differently than you claim it behaves.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes it is. But the fact that you have polarisation is still a result of the system relaxing to a lower energy state in order to cancel an electric field that would hava been there if three would have been no polarisation.

If that were true, there would be no such thing as ferroelectrics or pyroelectrics. But there are, so you're obviously wrong.

The only difference, in this case, is that this relaxtion also involves the laws of quantum mechanics. A field that Ziggurat, Ben m and Sol cleraly do not understand since they still believe that the laws of electrodynamics are sufficient to explain the iner workings of a material.

You have that EXACTLY backwards. Quantum mechanics is necessary to explain ferroelectrics, since electrodynamics is unable to. Your claim that the polarization must be due to an electric field is a claim that electrodynamics IS sufficient.

But in either case, we are not arguing about ferro-electricity

Indeed, because you refuse to even address ferroelectricity. And it's not irrelevant. It's a demonstration of how you can't even get the definition of polarization correct. You take things to be axiomatically true even when they are experimentally disproven. And for no good reason, too, since the definition of polarization (which you continue to fail to grasp) is really quite simple.

 

[johanfprins]

If that were true, there would be no such thing as ferroelectrics or pyroelectrics. But there are, so you're obviously wrong.

You are devious and dishonest not to give an answer. I am not going to allow you again, as you have consistently done on this thread, to lead the discussion away from what we are arguing. WE are NOT discussing ferroelectrics or pyroelectrics. They are irrelevant to this discussion. Even though it is clear that you do not know what you are talking about, I am not going to be drawn into an irrelevant discussion.

So answer my question specifically for a metal contact to an n-type semiconductor. When the workfunction of the metal is so large that its Fermi-level is at a lower energy than the Fermi-level within the n-trype semiconductor a dipole layer is formed across the interface. YES or NO?

Do you deny that this dipole layer is formed in an attempt to cancel an electric field across the interface and that this electric field will be cancelled when the density of donors below the surface of the n-type semiconductor is high enough. YES or NO?

 

[TjW]

They're germane to a useful definition of polarization, which I understood to be the topic under discussion.

 

[sol invictus]

You are devious and dishonest not to give an answer. I am not going to allow you again, as you have consistently done on this thread, to lead the discussion away from what we are arguing. WE are NOT discussing ferroelectrics or pyroelectrics. They are irrelevant to this discussion.

They are not at all irrelevant, Johan. Their existence proves that your characterization of polarization is incompatible with reality.

In other words, you're wrong. Again. Just like you've been wrong on essentially every single aspect of physics we've discussed in this inordinately long thread.

I'll quote what I said before: "You have a set of wrong arguments based on a series of basic misunderstandings and logical errors. You're ignored for a very good reason."

 

[johanfprins]

They are not at all irrelevant, Johan. Their existence proves that your characterization of polarization is incompatible with reality.

That is your opinion which is not worth much.

In other words, you're wrong. Again. Just like you've been wrong on essentially every single aspect of physics we've discussed in this inordinately long thread.

I would say that you are describing yourself here. But of course a crackpot always call other people crackpots.

I'll quote what I said before: "You have a set of wrong arguments based on a series of basic misunderstandings and logical errors. You're ignored for a very good reason."

Well let us go one for one through my "set of wrong arguments". Why are you scared of doing this?

I asked a SIMPLE question. The answer is in any elementary physics text book. Why do you come back with insults instead of answering this question?

 

[Ziggurat]

Maybe I did make my first statement too wide.

In other words, faced with overwhelming evidence, you're now FINALLY conceding that you were wrong. But you don't have the guts to come out and say it plainly.

The discussion is about cancelling an electric field within my superconsucting phase, not about ALL types of polarization.

True enough. But we must start with a definition of polarization which works, and since "polarization" is a rather general phenomenon, the definition should be general as well. Your definition was not general, and did not work. You took things to be axiomatically true which were not. If you had used a decent definition of polarization to begin with, then I never would have had to even mention pyroelectrics or ferroelectrics. You dug your own hole, I merely provided the shovel.

Ziggurat is not really so stupid that he does not know this. He just does not want to walk along when logic is being used.

You were wrong, johan, not me. Don't blame me for your errors.

This thread has long reminded me of an old joke:

As a senior citizen was driving down the freeway, his cell phone rang. Picking up, he heard his wife, her voice high with anxiety, warn him, "Henry, I just saw on the news that there's a car driving the wrong way on Highway 880. Please be careful!"

"One?" replied Henry, "You've got to be kidding me. I see at least a hundred!"

You're Henry, johan. Welcome to the freeway.

 

[ben m]

Maybe I did make my first statement too wide. The discussion is about cancelling an electric field within my superconsucting phase, not about ALL types of polarization.

Well, then, your first step on your "impeccable proof" was poorly-thought-out and badly worded. The thing you claimed was a "deduction" was, in fact, a description of something that you think is happening in your theory of superconductivity.

You can't prove something by saying "OK, if you are thinking of the same thing I'm thinking of, then ...."

Not very impeccable, was it? Well, now you know. Why don't you think more carefully about what you're trying to say and say it right. Pretend that post #2312 never happened, and start over.

 

[ben m]

Statement 1: When creating an interface between two materials which have Fermi-levels at two different energies, before generating the interface, then after creating the interface a dipole layer forms across the interface when there are free charges that can move across the interface from one material into the other. Yes or No?

That's much clearer. Electrons (and holes) will move around until the Fermi levels are equal everywhere. In real-world materials this results in a dipole in the depletion region.

ETA: Have you ever disagreed with someone without insulting them?

 

[sol invictus]

But of course a crackpot always call other people crackpots.

Indeed.

Well let us go one for one through my "set of wrong arguments". Why are you scared of doing this?

Look at my post, Johan. You see that "#2307"? That means my post was the 2,307th post in this thread, a thread that is entirely devoted to your nonsense. Some significant fraction of those posts are mine.

No Johan, I'm not "scared". I'm bored. As I said: you're ignored for a very good reason.

 

[ben m]

Deduction 1: A polarisation field ensues when charges rearrange in an attempt to cancel an existing electric field or an applied electric field

Statement: A dipole layer forms across an interface because there would be an electric field across the interface if such a dipole did not form. Thus the dipole forms to cancel (or attempt to cancel) an existing momentary field that is there at the instant that the interface is formed.

Statement 1: When creating an interface between two materials which have Fermi-levels at two different energies, before generating the interface, then after creating the interface a dipole layer forms across the interface when there are free charges that can move across the interface from one material into the other. Yes or No?

Let's note, also, that Johan's 2nd "statement 1" contradicts his first two. In his "statement", he recognizes a dipole layer (which I think is what he meant by "polarization field" to begin with) which forms due to chemical potential differences---Fermi levels can be different for that reason---and which creates an electric field. In his "deduction", though, polarization fields were said to be things created by electric fields. So Johan is telling us that Deduction 1 (and statement #1 attept #1) is wrong, or useless, or inadequate even to describe a lowly pn-junction.

What does Johan think about people who criticise Deduction 1?

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of moderated content.

etc.

 

[Reality Check]

It was pointed out to me that the post by Reality Check above might be interpreted as if I called Prof. Terry Doyle an idiot. This is not so. Prof Doyle is a competent experimental physicist; even though I disagree with some of his interpretations.

No interpretaion is needed. This is what you wrote:

Originally Posted by johanfprins
BTW: The idea of a "dusty plasma" comes from a severely deluded, and not very bright physicist here in South Africa.

You are explicitly calling the physicist who proposed the idea:

• 'severely deluded' and
• 'not very bright'

However if you want to retract that statement then that is good.

So we now have a competent experimental physicist (Prof Doyle) whose interpretation of your results is that it is the formation of a dusty plasma.

We also have: Superunlikely a letter? in New Sceintist by Archie Cambell

The example of room-temperature superconductivity that you report is unconvincing (12 April, p 17). It is clear from the original paper by Johan Prins that it would be quite impossible to detect superconductivity with his measurements.

(Bigger quote in this post)

The point is that fact that your experiment has been ignored (except by Prof Doyle). This means that your reported results have failed to convince any other scientist who has read your paper to make the effort to replicate it.

 

[johanfprins]

Originally Posted by johanfprins
Statement 1: When creating an interface between two materials which have Fermi-levels at two different energies, before generating the interface, then after creating the interface a dipole layer forms across the interface when there are free charges that can move across the interface from one material into the other. Yes or No?

Ben: That's much clearer. Electrons (and holes) will move around until the Fermi levels are equal everywhere. In real-world materials this results in a dipole in the depletion region.

Wrong again. A depleted region is only one half of the dipole layer. The dipole does NOT form "in the depleted region"; but the interface can form BETWEEN two depleted regions as well as between a depleted region and an accumulated region. Where have you learned your elementary physics?

ETA: Have you ever disagreed with someone without insulting them?

Many times, but on this thread you, Sol, Ziggurat, Reality Check and others set the trend and I like to respond in kind.


So let us try again, do agree with my reformulated statement 1: Yes or no?

 

[johanfprins]

Statement 1: When creating an interface between two materials which have Fermi-levels at two different energies before generating the interface, then after creating the interface a dipole layer forms across the interface when there are free charges that can move across the interface from one material into the other. Yes or No?

 

[ben m]

Wrong again. A depleted region is only one half of the dipole layer. The dipole does NOT form "in the depleted region"; but the interface can form BETWEEN two depleted regions as well as between a depleted region and an accumulated region. Where have you learned your elementary physics?

The word "depletion region" is a standard term for this whole region, including both the region of extra holes and the region of extra electrons. It's synonymous with "space charge region", if you prefer.

"Never mind that," I hear you saying, "if I assume it's wrong, I get to insult you again. Buffoon! Moron!"

 

[TjW]

Statement 1: When creating an interface between two materials which have Fermi-levels at two different energies before generating the interface, then after creating the interface a dipole layer forms across the interface when there are free charges that can move across the interface from one material into the other. Yes or No?

Rather than spend time and aggravation coming up with your own definition, why not cite a definition from a textbook? Surely there's a documented definition that is adequate for the purposes of your discussion.
But you should make sure it is adequate for your discussion, and does not have implications that force you to abandon it mid-discussion.

 

[Reality Check]

Statement 1: When creating an interface between two materials which have Fermi-levels at two different energies before generating the interface, then after creating the interface a dipole layer forms across the interface when there are free charges that can move across the interface from one material into the other. Yes or No?

Neither. The statement is too ambiguous to mean anything.
Do what undergraduate students are encouraged to do: Cite the scientific definition.

 

[sol invictus]

Statement 1: When creating an interface between two materials which have Fermi-levels at two different energies before generating the interface, then after creating the interface a dipole layer forms across the interface when there are free charges that can move across the interface from one material into the other. Yes or No?

Your statement mentions terms like "Fermi level". That term has a very specific, scientific meaning that derives from and relies on concepts in mainstream physical theory. As you have made abundantly clear in this thread, you reject nearly everything about mainstream physics (including quantum mechanics and electrodynamics, two fields central to the definition of Fermi level).

Even apart from its otherwise tortuous wording, this makes your statement completely meaningless.