Superconductivity at room temperature??

[johanfprins]

As I expected, we have gone off on a tangent. Since I know and have taught the Vodoo, paranormal metaphysical Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and since my proof that I discovered superconduction at room temperature can be done without having to resort to a realistic interpretaion of quantum mechanics, let me try and frame my statements so that they are not heresies against your superstitious, dogmatic beliefs.

So Since you have agreed with my statement 1, I am posting it again:

Statement 1: When creating an interface between an n-type semiconductor and a metal, where the latter has a Fermi level at a lower energy than the n-type semiconductor, and when neither of the two materials are charged up before generating the interface, then, after creating the interface, a dipole layer forms across the interface, since negative charge-carriers move across the interface from the n-type semiconductor into the metal, thus leaving a positively charged depletion-layer behind (in contact with the interface), and forming a negatively charged layer (in contact with the interface) by accumulation within the metal. Yes or No?

Now let me try and add a statement 2, which will not have you burning me at the stake:

Statement 2: If the density of donors within the n-type semiconductor is sufficiently high an equilibrium dipole will manifest when the Fermi-level at the metal-dipole interface has the same energy as the Fermi-level at the semiconductor-dipole interface. Yes or no?

Let's go!!

 

[Farsight]

...But they are not photon-particles flitting around within a cavity. The light forms standing waves exactly as Planck has modelled cavity radiation correctly. A standing wave has NO kinetic energy, so that its energy must be STATIONARY ENERGY. This is obviously the same as mass-energy. Thus, when you stop a light wave in its tracks, its kinetic energy morphs into mass energy within the inertial reference frame within which it is now stationary.

Hello, I recognise this. There's a symmetry between momentum and inertia, johan. If the action is moving and we're trying to stop it moving, we call it momentum. If it isn't moving in aggregate and we're trying to start it moving, we call it inertia. Even without going so far as standing waves surely everybody knows that if you trap a photon in a mirror-box you add mass to that system? I think Light is Heavy by van der Mark and ’t Hooft is a good little article on this. Open the box and let the photon escape and it's like Einstein's E=mc² paper. Pair production is where we convert a photon into two quasi-spherical-harmonic λ=4π/nc^½ standing-wave configurations. The n here is a dimensionality converter with a value of 1, and there's a small binding energy adjustment on top, related to g, and it's really a toroidal harmonic, but nevermind. It's rather like slicing a +1022keV photon into two 511keV photons and trapping each in a chiral box of its own making. Annihilation is like opening one box with the other, only after you do this, there's no boxes left.

Everytime when an electron orbital wave "absorbs" a photon wave, the latter waves stops in its tracks and entangles with the electron wave. Since the electron wave now has an increase in its mass-energy, it has to morph instantaneously into a higher energy wave-shape. If you are not to clever, you will call the latter morphing a "quantum jump by an electron-particle". You can even do this on a macro scale: See experiments by Lene Hau.

Yep. The same kind of thing happens in Compton scattering. The free electron gets a kick and moves. It has "absorbed" a slice of the incident photon. It's still a standing wave, but it's a standing wave that isn't stationary any more.

Don't worry about these guys. Tell me about the room temperature superconduction. I'm interested. I'm John Duffield by the way. Pleased to meet you. Have we spoken before?

 

[sol invictus]

Why should I? If YOU do not know how to do it why do you not ask an undergraduate to do it for you? It is nonsensical to calculate a function defined by p for a standing wave since such a wave does NOT have any momentum and thus also not any kinetic energy; or any relationship involving momentum.

"I don't want an answer like "It MUST be zero because [fill in nonsense here]", I want a calculation."

If you asked me to calculate <k²> you would have asked me to calculate real physics, since all harmonic waves have k-vectors even when they are not coherent waves. Only when the wave is a running coherent wave are p and k directly related. Your wave-function is not a coherent running wave at all; so why are you asking me to calculate metaphysics on the Jeff Randi website which specialises in exposing paranormal claims?

"I don't want an answer like "It MUST be zero because [fill in nonsense here]", I want a calculation."

You fail, Johan.

johan's inability to figure out how to get the same answers that every other physicist is getting with standard theories proves his own incompetence, regardless of whether or not those standard theories are correct. And his unwillingness to even try, while at the same time appealing to those standard theories (though in a self-contradictory manner), demonstrates his deep dishonesty. He is, in short, an incompetent liar. And that judgment stands regardless of whether or not the rest of us are correct about the physics.

 

[Ziggurat]

My but you are slow to catch on: A stationary wave HAS no momentum and no kinetic energy. Of course I know the simple calculation you have just done since I have taught it for many years (over 40 years) to my students. It is based on a fallacy since it has NOTHING TO DO WITH MOMENTUM. When you take the square root you obtain (hbar) times the standard deviation of the harmonic wave in k-space (reciprocal space). ALL harmonic waves have this spread, and this spread has NOTHING to do with MOMENTUM OF THE WAVE OR ANYTHING ELSE. It HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MOMENTUM SINCE A STANDING WAVE DOES NOT HAVE A DE BROGLIE WAVELENGTH. A standing wave's momentum is zero so that its de Broglie wavelength must be INFINITE if it has one.

You can't do the calculation, I see. Your obsession with k reveals that you don't even really understand the calculation either, because you can do the same calculation with the hydrogen atom electron states, where there is no k. But worse than your mere inability to do the calculations (you show no signs of having any remaining proficiency with calculus), you don't even get why the calculations are relevant. You claim that these expectation values are fictitious quantities, but the entire validity of quantum mechanics as a theory is based on the success of precisely these expectation value calculations. You can't just choose to throw out the values you don't like simply because they offend your sensibilities: they're an intrinsic and inseparable part of the theory. You either keep them, or throw out the whole theory. But once again, YOU told us to use the Schrodinger equation. And now you're objecting to what we get when we use the Schrodinger equation. That is a perfect storm of dishonesty, ignorance, and arrogance.

Even if you want to believe the paranormal Voodoo of wave-particle duality, it still means that when the particle is moving the wave must move along. And since the wave is NOT moving relative to the inertial reference frame in which it is stationary, this MUST mean that the particle MUST also be stationary. So were does your kinetic energy come from? More Voodoo?

Call if voodoo if you like, but it's an inseparable part of the theory. A theory which works, by the way, and which (once again) YOU told us to use.

Hell, I'll even through you a bone. I'll let you call it something other than kinetic energy. How about "johan energy"? It really doesn't matter the name, the point is that it's energy the particle has which does not come from the potential. Quantum mechanics is quite unambiguous on this point. And in regards to the Fermi energy, that means that differences coming from this contribution (which most physicists call kinetic energy but I'll let you call "johan energy") do NOT come from any electric potential difference, and thus DO NOT require any electric field between them. That's how we got on this tangent, remember? So your claim that Fermi energy level differences for different materials require electric fields between those materials is just completely false.

 

[The Don]

Don't worry about these guys. Tell me about the room temperature superconduction. I'm interested. I'm John Duffield by the way. Pleased to meet you. Have we spoken before?

You mean the ones who are trying to get johanfprins to review his theories in the light of actual physics ?

 

[ben m]

Sometimes Johan presents himself as the defender of obvious, elementary physics, and accuses Sol, Zig, RC, and me of being untrained sub-undergraduates:

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?

Wrong again. ... Where have you learned your elementary physics?

I disagree: It is not ambiguous at all. Ask any competent undergraduate doing Solid Sate Physics or Electrical Engineering.

I would dearly want to compare my standing in physics to yours but you are obviously not a physicist with any credentials at all.

But when we ask him to do an undergrad calculation, he says that that's NOT what he's doing, because all undergrad standard physics is wrong. In other words, that we do know undergraduate physics, but merely that the physics we were taught is wrong and "dogmatic".

All the dogmatic arguments you are raising I already know and some of them I have, to my great shame, taught to many students. Thus you cannot teach me any physics since you are not yet where I am.

 

[Farsight]

Johan: I looked at the OP and followed the link, and saw an old article on physicsworld. It reminds me of the Falaco soliton fluid analogy used to demonstrate attraction repulsion and annihilation. If you make two in quick successsion, the second one gets free transport through the first.

 

[johanfprins]

"I don't want an answer like "It MUST be zero because

Where have I EVER made a claim that <k²> MUST be ZERO? You are definitely TOTALLY out of your mind.

Why must I do a simple integral over sine functions to satisfy your incompetence? Are you insinuating that I cannot calculate integrals?

I want a calculation.

Why? Are you so arrogant that you want to appoint yourself as a teacher who wants to check my ability to calculate an intergral?

Listen, my pompous little boy, I might have forgotten some physics, but you do not even know or understand the little physics that I have forgotten, and can easily review again. You are not going to tell me that I cannot calculate an integral: It is obvious from YOUR posts on this thread, that you would never have been able to pass any course ANYWHERE in physics. I therefore doubt it very much that your CV will stand up to any objective scrutiny. If you think it can: then post it (but please do not be as dishonest about citations as Reality Check has been); or keep quiet. So please go and do something that fits your intellectual capability; until proved that you have an intellectual capability. I think that I have already proposed Tiddly Winks to you. But maybe you will not be able to do even this!?

 

[johanfprins]

But when we ask him to do an undergrad calculation, he says that that's NOT what he's doing, because all undergrad standard physics is wrong.

Another one of your typical lies. I have not claimed ANYWHERE that "ALL undergrad standard physics is wrong". So please stop being deliberately dishonest in order to try and score cheap points. You are just demeaning yourself: If the latter is possible. No wonder you hide behind anonymity.

 

[sol invictus]

Why must I do a simple integral over sine functions to satisfy your incompetence? Are you insinuating that I cannot calculate integrals?

Yes. You're a fraud. You cannot do any calculations, let alone understand the results.

 

[johanfprins]

Don't worry about these guys. Tell me about the room temperature superconduction. I'm interested. I'm John Duffield by the way. Pleased to meet you. Have we spoken before?

Your name sounds very familiar, but I do not know whether we have spoken before. Thank you for an intelligent post. It is like manna from heaven.

There is a lot that I can write on your comments but it will take too much space on this thread. The one comment I want to make, as I have already made above, is that a "photon" will always move with speed c, and therefore it cannot have rest-mass energy. Why? Because there is no inertial reference frame within which it can be stationary. It is of course correct that when releasing light with energy h*(nu) (equal to a photon's energy) from a cavity you will measure the loss of mass equal to (h*(nu))/c²; but this proves that, before being released, the "photon" was a standing wave. If it were not, you would not have been able to measure the decrease in stationary, mass-energy.

I agree, I want to go ahead with my explanation why I did indeed discover superconduction at room temperature. I have now posted two statements and carefully avoided to contravene the "holy" Copenhagen, paranormal metaphysical interpretation based on wave-particle duality (Hey why do they not try the Trinity?).

I think that we must go step by step with my statemenst and if Sol, Ziggurat and Ben finds any heresies to their superstitious belief in the Copenhagen dogma, I will amend the statements to remove these heresies.

Again, thank you for bringing in a fresh breath to this discussion.

 

[johanfprins]

Yes. You're a fraud. You cannot do any calculations, let alone understand the results.

I take it from whom it comes: An incompetent who cowers behind anonymity. Enjoy your Tiddly Winks!

 

[johanfprins]

Johan: I looked at the OP and followed the link, and saw an old article on physicsworld. It reminds me of the Falaco soliton fluid analogy used to demonstrate attraction repulsion and annihilation. If you make two in quick successsion, the second one gets free transport through the first.

It is far more interesting than the Falaco soliton, since the charge transport through the phase is non-local. There are no charge-carriers involved. If Sol Ben and Ziggurat will allow me to complete my arguments you will see why I can claim non-local charge transport.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Was Dr. Prins ever able to solve sol's equation?

 

[Ziggurat]

Why must I do a simple integral over sine functions to satisfy your incompetence? Are you insinuating that I cannot calculate integrals? Why? Are you so arrogant that you want to appoint yourself as a teacher who wants to check my ability to calculate an intergral?

For my part, I didn't insinuate it, I stated it boldly and plainly. You could huff and puff and deny it all day long, or you could prove me wrong by simply doing it. I predict more huffing and puffing, with no proof forthcoming.

You are not going to tell me that I cannot calculate an integral

Why not? After all, you have done it. You've spent more time bloviating about your credentials, and how outraged you are at this accusation, than it would have taken to prove us wrong.

It is obvious from YOUR posts on this thread, that you would never have been able to pass any course ANYWHERE in physics.

And yet, Sol has a Ph.D. Must have slept with the professor, I guess.

I therefore doubt it very much that your CV will stand up to any objective scrutiny.

Sol's does. But your own CV proves how irrelevant that can be. And argument from authority is a fallacy anyways, something Sol is aware of but you are not.

If you think it can: then post it (but please do not be as dishonest about citations as Reality Check has been); or keep quiet. So please go and do something that fits your intellectual capability; until proved that you have an intellectual capability. I think that I have already proposed Tiddly Winks to you. But maybe you will not be able to do even this!?

I have a standing offer to do half the calculation of the ground-state energy of hydrogen. You even get to pick which half: kinetic or potential. The only condition is that you agree to do the other half. If you accept this offer, you are even allowed to wait until after I do my half before you do your half. If I can't do it, then you're under no obligation whatsoever. Hell, you could even ask if Sol wants to do it in my place (we would get the same answer), he might be up for it too.

Yet you have avoided this challenge. Why? Is it because you know that I actually can do the calculation and that you can't? Because it really, really, really looks like that's the reason.

 

[ben m]

If Sol Ben and Ziggurat will allow me to complete my arguments you will see why I can claim non-local charge transport.

"allow" you to "complete" your arguments? Johan, you are the one who posted the question "YES OR NO?" after each of your "statements". You posted a statement, you asked a yes-or-no question, and I answered no. Stop complaining about it.

If you want to plow ahead anyway, nobody is stopping you.

Here's a suggestion: before you post each statement, can you make it very clear what planet the statement comes from? For example, you might say:

"Statement 3. (This is standard undergrad physics, following Griffiths chapter 8)"

OR

"Statement 3. (This statement will appear wrong to people who believe in the Copenhagen dogma, so don't object using some Griffiths claptrap)"

OR, more likely,

"Statement 3. This seems patently obvious to a genius like me but I've never seen it in a textbook of any sort."

 

[Vorpal]

Oh, for crying out loud... It's simply not possible to have a good grasp of basic calculus and have studying quantum mechanics for more than an hour in their entire life and not be able to do that calculation.

Johan, I know you're basically presenting yourself as feeling insulted over being asked to do something so simple that you also believe has nothing to do with kinetic energy, but really... the amount of effort and time required to do it is miniscule compared to what it takes to keep carrying about who should be expected to calculate what, why, and what insinuations are appropriate or not. And there's Sol challenging you to do something that any reasonably clever undergrad should be able to do in their head... as should anyone who's really taught this stuff for four decades.

If it's so, it would take only a minute to say "here's your damn ‹p²›: ..., now let's talk about why it's not really related to kinetic energy" and continue on to whatever argument you were building.

You're simply not doing your credibility any favors by avoiding it. And I say that as a random non-physicist who has studied QM. For more than an hour.

 

[Farsight]

Your name sounds very familiar, but I do not know whether we have spoken before. Thank you for an intelligent post. It is like manna from heaven.

A pleasure johan. I'm very sorry that some of the other posters here stoop to anonymous abuse.

There is a lot that I can write on your comments but it will take too much space on this thread. The one comment I want to make, as I have already made above, is that a "photon" will always move with speed c, and therefore it cannot have rest-mass energy. Why? Because there is no inertial reference frame within which it can be stationary. It is of course correct that when releasing light with energy h*(nu) (equal to a photon's energy) from a cavity you will measure the loss of mass equal to (h*(nu))/c²; but this proves that, before being released, the "photon" was a standing wave. If it were not, you would not have been able to measure the decrease in stationary, mass-energy.

No problem. A photon travelling through space is not at rest, you can't catch it up, it always appear to be travelling at 299,792,458 m/s, and thus rest mass does not apply. But catch it in a cavity, and voila, rest mass.

I agree, I want to go ahead with my explanation why I did indeed discover superconduction at room temperature. I have now posted two statements and carefully avoided to contravene the "holy" Copenhagen, paranormal metaphysical interpretation based on wave-particle duality (Hey why do they not try the Trinity?).

Please don't avoid it. I think the Copenhagen Interpretation is surpasseth-all-human-understanding pseudoscience, and that history will not be kind to it. You doubtless saw this recent challenge along with Catching sight of the elusive wavefunction on physicsworld.

I think that we must go step by step with my statemenst and if Sol, Ziggurat and Ben finds any heresies to their superstitious belief in the Copenhagen dogma, I will amend the statements to remove these heresies.

Please don't hold back. Say what you think, make your case, and offer experimental evidence to back it up. If other posters don't respond sincerely and dismiss the evidence and continue to be abusive, I'll be on them like a ton of bricks.

It is far more interesting than the Falaco soliton, since the charge transport through the phase is non-local. There are no charge-carriers involved. If Sol Ben and Ziggurat will allow me to complete my arguments you will see why I can claim non-local charge transport.

Shades of Ehrenberg and Siday. I'm looking forward to it. Is there an article or paper or essay you can point me at to save you some time?

Again, thank you for bringing in a fresh breath to this discussion.

My pleasure johan. I really can't bear it when people bring physics into disrepute like I'm seeing here. And bring this forum into disrepute too.

 

[Ziggurat]

A pleasure johan. I'm very sorry that some of the other posters here stoop to anonymous abuse.

You're new here, Farsight, so I'll forgive you for not knowing the back story here, but you know not of what you speak. The insults between me and johan started from him. I was quite civil with him for some time, but johan insulted me from the start, and repeatedly asked him not to insult me. He would stop for a few posts, and then start up again. This happened repeatedly. The effort to get him to be civil simply isn't worth it anymore, and I have no obligation to return his incivility with anything different. johan had plenty of chances to keep things polite, and he blew every one of them. He's got no grounds on which to complain about the way I treat him.

 

[ben m]

And, Farsight, Johan had plenty of opportunity to explain his "proof" of superconductivity. Read the thread from the beginning and you'll see it. Here's the gist:

a) Johan did an experiment in which he claims a ~100uA current flowed through a ~500V potential drop.
b) Johan says no current *should* have flowed, because this circuit had a 10um vacuum gap in it.
c) Johan tried to construct a theory of electron tunnelling across the vacuum gap. The only hypothesis he could think of seemed to suggest to him that the electric field in the gap would be zero.

That's it. The measurement says the current was nonzero, Johan's quantum theory tells him---he has no experiments to check this---that the field was zero too. He applies his theory skills to regular superconductors, and concludes there's something wrong with the standard theory. He also applies them to Special Relativity, quantum mechanics, solid-state physics, and gets different answers than anyone else. Very very different answers. Which he then forgets are different, because if you show him the difference between his answer and the normal one, he accuses you of having "failed to learn physics".