Superconductivity at room temperature??

[Farsight]

Noted Ziggurat. Everybody, please can we have no more insults. This is a discussion forum, and it's meant to be rational and evidential. Johan, if somebody insults you, please do not respond in kind.

OK everybody? Now can we get on with some physics please?

 

[sol invictus]

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".

That's accurate. Note that 500V/100uA=5 million Ohms. That's Johan's "superconductor" - a very poor conductor that Johan insists must be a superconductor, because.

One of the best experimental demonstrations of real superconductors is that if you start a current circulating in one, it never damps out. There are experiments in which a current has been circulating for a decade or more without any measurable decrease. And of course that's the primary property that makes superconductors important and useful - they have zero resistance, so they don't heat up when current runs through them, you can store energy in them efficiently for long periods, etc. Johan's "superconductor" doesn't exhibit any such property; the current in it damps immediately.

 

[Farsight]

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

It's 61 pages, ben. I'll read some of it, but not now.

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.

Thanks for that. He mentioned phase so I was wondering if he might refer to electromagnetic four-potential and displacement current, which is more fundamental than conduction current.

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.

OK noted. I am reminded that the electromagnetic field is zero on the outside of an ideal solenoid, but we still see the Aharonov-Bohm effect. Maybe it's something to do with that. It's something I'm interested in, particularly if superconduction is involved.

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.

That's why I want to hear about this.

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".

I don't mind if they're different ben. Physics is a voyage of discovery. That's what makes it so fascinating. Scientific progress happens, meaning that some things that people think are right, aren't. Sometimes those different things are right. And since there hasn't been much scientific progress in physics in recent decades, I want to hear about those different things. If it turns out that I feel that johan is mistaken I'll say so with my regrets, and move on. I won't call him names.

Edit: your post noted sol. There's a form of tunelling mooted with respect to evanescent waves, wherein electromagnetic waves traverse a gap as if its not there. it isn't proven physics, but I'm still interested in that kind of stuff, and I wonder if what johan advocates might be related to it.

 

[johanfprins]

Oh, for crying out loud... If it's so, it would take only a minute to say "here's your damn ‹p²›: ...,

My argument is that there is no <p²> for any standing harmonic wave. There is though a <k²> for Sol's standing wave, and if he admits that he cannot calculate this simple integral by himself; I will gladly assist him.

But what he wants me to do is to multiply k, for a standing wave, with (hbar) and then call it momentum. De Broglie's postulate is, HOWEVER, ONLY VALID for a coherent RUNNING wave. Thus, to argue, as Sol wants to argue, that there is also a momentum for a standing wave, and that therefore a standing wave's energy is kinetic energy, violates the physics of harmonic waves.

There is no harmonic standing wave that can have kinetic energy which can be derived from momentum, since there is no standing wave that has momentum; even though a standing wave with a single frequency does have a value for k. So Sol wants to force me to do a calculation in terms of a momentum which makes no physics sense at all when assuming that it is valid for a standing harmonic wave.

TO REPEAT: THERE IS NO STANDING HARMONIC WAVE IN THE UNIVERSE WITH A SINGLE VALUE FOR k WHICH HAS A MOMENTUM PROPORTIONAL TO k; SINCE A STANDING HARMONIC WAVE HAS NO MOMENTUM AT ALL.

In the case of calculating <k²> the integral is across k²*[sin(kx)]²(dx). If Sol cannot do this integral he can ask any high school student to do it for him:

And YES it is not zero: but it has NOTHING to do with momentum since, to repeat for the 100th time: A STANDING WAVE DOES NOT HAVE MOMENTUM. ONLY A RUNNING ELECTRON WAVE HAS MOMENTUM AND ONLY IN THIS CASE DOES DE BROGLIE'S RELATIONSHIP APPLY. WHY WOULD THE HARMONIC WAVE MODELLING AN ELECTRON BE DIFFERENT FROM ALL THE OTHER HARMONIC WAVES EVER KNOWN WHICH ARE MODELLED BY THE SAME MATHEMATICS?

 

[johanfprins]

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.

Thank you for agreeing with this. To me it is so obvious that I just cannot understand that I have been called a crackpot for saying so.

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 his recent challenge

Thanks for the refrences: I have been so busy fighting for my survival that I did not have the time or the money to stay abreast of new developments.

But exactly!!! the intensity distributions of ALL harmonic waves have always been wave's energy distribution. What is the energy of an electron within its own inertial refrence frame? It must be its rest mass: Thus its intensity distribution must be proportional to its mass energy (and I believe that this should also include its gravitational energy: It is thus highly probable that the so-called "tunnelling-tails" of an electron's wave function relates to the gravitational curvature in space around the mass of the electron) Furthermore, it should be obvious that any mass distribution has a centre of mass that will move like a "point-particle". Thus, an electron wave can move like a "point-particle" even though it is not a point particle: Just like Jupiter can move like a point particle even though it is not a point particle.

along with Catching sight of the elusive wavefunction on physicsworld.

It only becomes elusive if you accept the paranormal interpretation that it is a probability distribution. The experimental fact is that electron waves have been "seen" on the surfaces of diamond by AFM, but of course the scans were not interpreted as actual waves since this would have been a heresy against the Physics-Vatican in Copenhagen. If you accept that the intensity of an electron wave is its mass (and charge) distribution, physics becomes totally causal and quantum mechnaics is then a natural ouflow of classical mechanics (and even Einstein's model for gravity) when the sources and absorbers for light energy reach atomic dimensions:

All the that the existence of the light quantum proves is that it is impossible to have a light source that can emit less light energy than h*(nu) at a time and that it is impossible to have a light absorber that can absorb less energy than this amount of energy. By accepting that photons and electrons are waves and that these waves can entangle to merge, one can derive Einstein's equation for the photo-electric effect in terms of wave-interactions: No "particles" required at all.

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 my discovery of superconduction at room temperature, where this phase is formed by the entanglement of millions of electrons to form a single holistic macro-wave, which made me realise that the probability interpretation of QM must be wrong. Before that time I thought for many years that this interpretation was brilliant. I do not know why I did not see the warning lights flashing long ago. Bohr's statement to Einstein: "Albert, stop telling God what He can or cannot do", is now to me crystal clear evidence that Bohr was directing physics away from reality into becoming a religious doctrine (What Giod does not want us to know we cannot know). Is this maybe why Bohr had a horseshoe behind his office door and proclaimed: "I do not believe in it but those who do claim it works".

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?

My conclusion is that my experiment is the first experiment that proved that non-local mass trnsfer is possible. An electron injected into my phase "disappears" at the injection contact and an electron "appears" at the other contact whithout any charge carriers moving through the phase: Teleportation? Since over the last ten years my papers were consistently rejected by editors and peer reviewers, I have written about it in my latest book "The Physics Delusion" which will be on Amazon within this week; and is already available on CreateSpace.

 

[johanfprins]

I don't mind if they're different ben. Physics is a voyage of discovery. That's what makes it so fascinating. Scientific progress happens, meaning that some things that people think are right, aren't. Sometimes those different things are right. And since there hasn't been much scientific progress in physics in recent decades, I want to hear about those different things. If it turns out that I feel that johan is mistaken I'll say so with my regrets, and move on. I won't call him names.

Thank you.


As a starting point, I must first explain my experiment and why I claim that it is superconduction at room temperature. Although this experiment caused me to doubt the Copenhagen interpretation, and is esaier to explain when accepting upfront that this interpretation is wrong, I believe that I can also prove my conclusion by staying within the paradigm of accepted Solid State Physics and Solid Sate Electronics: The latter fields have been the most spectacularly succesful ones after 1927. I am thus restating my first two statements. If we cannot find any fault in them in terms of Solid State Physics and Electronics, I will move on to the third statement: If again no fault, the fourth statement etc. I hope you find this procedure acceptable.

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.

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.

 

[sol invictus]

My argument is that there is no <p²> for any standing harmonic wave. There is though a <k²> for Sol's standing wave, and if he admits that he cannot calculate this simple integral by himself; I will gladly assist him.

But what he wants me to do is to multiply k, for a standing wave, with (hbar) and then call it momentum. De Broglie's postulate is, HOWEVER, ONLY VALID for a coherent RUNNING wave. Thus, to argue, as Sol wants to argue, that there is also a momentum for a standing wave, and that therefore a standing wave's energy is kinetic energy, violates the physics of harmonic waves.

There is no harmonic standing wave that can have kinetic energy which can be derived from momentum, since there is no standing wave that has momentum; even though a standing wave with a single frequency does have a value for k. So Sol wants to force me to do a calculation in terms of a momentum which makes no physics sense at all when assuming that it is valid for a standing harmonic wave.

TO REPEAT: THERE IS NO STANDING HARMONIC WAVE IN THE UNIVERSE WITH A SINGLE VALUE FOR k WHICH HAS A MOMENTUM PROPORTIONAL TO k; SINCE A STANDING HARMONIC WAVE HAS NO MOMENTUM AT ALL.

In the case of calculating <k²> the integral is across k²*[sin(kx)]²(dx). If Sol cannot do this integral he can ask any high school student to do it for him:

And YES it is not zero: but it has NOTHING to do with momentum since, to repeat for the 100th time: A STANDING WAVE DOES NOT HAVE MOMENTUM. ONLY A RUNNING ELECTRON WAVE HAS MOMENTUM AND ONLY IN THIS CASE DOES DE BROGLIE'S RELATIONSHIP APPLY. WHY WOULD THE HARMONIC WAVE MODELLING AN ELECTRON BE DIFFERENT FROM ALL THE OTHER HARMONIC WAVES EVER KNOWN WHICH ARE MODELLED BY THE SAME MATHEMATICS?

Still no calculation, I see.

Since you cannot do math, here's a word problem. Consider a box at rest containing two particles, 1 and 2, that at t=0 have equal and opposite momenta (they have equal mass, equal and opposite velocity). The box has reflective walls, and the particles do not interact. Now suppose you pick one particle at random and measure its momentum. If you repeat that process many times (suppose either that your measurement didn't disturb anything, or that you had many copies of the box to measure) and then take the average of your results, you get the average of the momentum, <p>. Question: what is <p>? Is it zero?

Now do the same, except square the momenta you got from each measurement before you take the average. That gives you <p²> Question: what is <p²>? Specifically, is it zero? Does <p>=0 imply <p²>=0?

 

[D'rok]

My conclusion is that my experiment is the first experiment that proved that non-local mass trnsfer is possible. An electron injected into my phase "disappears" at the injection contact and an electron "appears" at the other contact whithout any charge carriers moving through the phase: Teleportation?

I've you've lost your Occam's razor, I can lend you mine.

 

[Farsight]

Sol, if I might volunteer: you're perhaps missing the important point here. The familiar expression [latex] E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2[/latex] applies to the propagating wave and the standing wave in a flip-flop fashion. Think pair production. When the wave is propagating freely through space the momentum term applies, so [latex] E^2 = 0 + p^2 c^2[/latex] . When the wave is "bouncing back and forth" moving continuously back and forth at the same time in a box smaller than its wavelength as a standing wave, the mass term applies, so [latex] E^2 = m^2 c^4 + 0[/latex] . There is no particle with mass moving back and forth inside the box. The situation you describe is where you take the box and place it inside another box and have it moving back and forth. Now you've got both the rest-mass and the momentum terms and [latex] E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2[/latex] applies again. Make it move faster and it's like heating a container of gas. You don't change the rest mass of the gas molecules, but you do increase the rest mass of the container+gas system.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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.

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

Dr Prins is having no more luck with the anonymous physicists of this forum than he's had with anonymous peer reviewers and nonymous editors.

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.

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra.
Zaphod and Marvin at Ursa Minor Beta.
Prins and Duffield at JREF.

OK everybody? Now can we get on with some physics please?

Good luck with that.

The current discussion of momentum in a stationary state has been in a stationary state, with no forward momentum, since 8 July or earlier:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7350065#post7350065

The root problem is that Dr Prins does not understand expected (aka expectation) values. From 22 January 2011:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6795094#post6795094

That's not the only thing Dr Prins fails to understand. For Farsight and other newcomers who don't want to read this entire thread, I'll repeat what I wrote on 2 July 2011:

I have seen Dr Prins attempt many arguments, several of them contradicting other of his arguments, in which the common theme has been that Dr Prins is right and all physicists are wrong. Along the way:

• Dr Prins has rejected basic principles of quantum mechanics, such as the Born rule.
• Dr Prins has rejected the very definition of expectation value, and apparently does not even understand that the arithmetic mean of a sequence of numbers does not have to be one of the numbers in the sequence.
• Dr Prins has rejected basic consequences of special relativity, such as the relativity of simultaneity.
• Dr Prins has made several arguments that violate conservation of energy. In at least some of those cases, he has come to realize his mistake and replaced his faulty argument with a different faulty argument that also violates conservation of energy.
• Dr Prins has rejected Isaac Newton's definition of acceleration, even for situations that Dr Prins himself proclaims to be classical.

That's a partial list, limited to matters I am qualified to evaluate by thinking for myself.

 

[sol invictus]

Sol, if I might volunteer: you're perhaps missing the important point here. The familiar expression [latex] E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2[/latex] applies to the propagating wave and the standing wave in a flip-flop fashion. Think pair production. When the wave is propagating freely through space the momentum term applies, so [latex] E^2 = 0 + p^2 c^2[/latex] . When the wave is "bouncing back and forth" moving continuously back and forth at the same time in a box smaller than its wavelength as a standing wave, the mass term applies, so [latex] E^2 = m^2 c^4 + 0[/latex] . There is no particle with mass moving back and forth inside the box. The situation you describe is where you take the box and place it inside another box and have it moving back and forth. Now you've got both the rest-mass and the momentum terms and [latex] E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2[/latex] applies again. Make it move faster and it's like heating a container of gas. You don't change the rest mass of the gas molecules, but you do increase the rest mass of the container+gas system.

I don't know what you're referring to. The question in my most recent post wasn't about waves and doesn't require relativity (you can take p<<mc), although the answers don't change if you include relativistic corrections.

As for the wavefunction I wrote earlier, it describes a massive particle such as an electron confined to a one-dimensional box. Again, relativity is not relevant. If you want to describe a box full of photons, you cannot use a single-particle wavefunction like that (although again, the answers to the questions I asked wouldn't change qualitatively in that situation).

 

[johanfprins]

Now do the same, except square the momenta you got from each measurement before you take the average. That gives you <p²> Question: what is <p²>? Specifically, is it zero? Does <p>=0 imply <p²>=0?

Obviously not, since the momenta of particles in a box follow a Gaussian distribution. Maxwell and Boltzmann have already shown this LONG before Planck discovered the quantum; and this has nothing to do with standing Schroedinger waves.

In contrast each and every standing Schroedinger wave has no momentum p whatsoever. It is thus absurd to calculate <p²> for a single Schroedinger wave as if it represents a collection of particles in a container. The latter term has no significance for ANY standing wave and never will have any significance: It is exactly on this aspect where Bohr, Heisenberg and Born bamboozled the physics community. It is just shockingly suprising that they have succeeded for so long. Clearly Abraham Lincoln did not know modern day physicists when he claimed that you cannot fool all the people all the time. Copenhagen succeeded in fooling all mainstream physicists all the time for over 80 years by now.

But from now on I will only stick to my experiment on room temperature superconduction and the interpretation of these experimental results. So please read my last two statements so that I can add another statement

 

[Ziggurat]

It is thus absurd to calculate <p²> for a single Schroedinger wave as if it represents a collection of particles in a container. The latter term has no significance for ANY standing wave and never will have any significance: It is exactly on this aspect where Bohr, Heisenberg and Born bamboozled the physics community.

Like I said, you disagree with quantum mechanics completely. So why on earth did you ask us to use the Schrodinger equation when you don't actually believe it's even close to accurate? Seriously, every energy calculated from the Schrodinger equation includes a <p²> term, and that term is never zero. The results won't come out anywhere close to accurate (and you've already conceded that it IS accurate for hydrogen) if you ignore <p²>. So how can you possibly reconcile your own insistence on using the Schrodinger equation, but at the same time demand that we drop a term that's absolutely necessary? You can't have it both ways. You cannot drop <p²> and still get anything resembling the right answer from the Schrodinger equation. Seriously, try it. Take the hydrogen atom ground state wave function and calculate the energy. Don't just look it up like you did last time, but DO the calculation. You will not get -13.7 eV if you drop <p²>.

 

[ben m]

And let's remember where this came from.

Johan said he was going to present a series of statements that, combined, were an "impeccable proof" that his experiment showed superconductivity. In Statement 2, he implicitly included "metallic electrons can't migrate like that because they have no momentum or kinetic energy". He then proceeded to insult anyone who disagreed, accusing us of not knowing undergrad/textbook physics, of being uneducated, etc. During this five page stream of insults, he failed to mention that his argument presumes that quantum mechanics is wrong.

Johan, you can't simultaneously say "X is basic physics and you're a moron for thinking Y" and "Y is mainstream physics, but I wrote a self-published dissident book proving Y wrong and X right". Pick one and stick with it.

At this point, I'm quite convinced that Johan doesn't have a coherent theory to "stick with", and what we're reading are sort of freeform physics-confabulations that he invents in order to defend whatever was in his last post.

Actually, I was reminded of Johan's cascading-argument when reading this post http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/013343.html#013343 about a bad (really, really bad) customer service rep at PayPal. The key paragraphs (my bold):

That PayPal representative is a known type, one I’ve run into before: the person who is compulsively unable to admit that they’ve made an error. They’re not all that common, thank goodness, but the times when you run into them are memorable.

People with that quirk generate seriously malformed interactions. Their compulsion to deny making even trivial errors leads them into cascades of unplanned lying, which means they have to fight harder and harder to defend increasingly indefensible and eventually downright weird positions. They’re like the cognitive equivalent of drivers who panic when the police try to pull them over for a broken tail light and wind up in high-speed chases that draw felony charges.

My guess is that the entire episode grew out of single initial error: the PayPal guy’s claim that the Donate button can only be used by a nonprofit. Because he couldn’t admit his mistake and move on, and because April Winchell kept calling him on his bogus explanations faster than he could make up new ones, he had to keep raising the stakes on her.

At the point that his inventiveness failed him, he fell back on the language and tactics of a habitual abuser: I’m not going to argue with you. We know what you’re doing and we’re through playing games with you. You aren’t going to be able to get around this. It’s too late, we know what you’re trying to do and we’re not going to let you do it. No one else will talk to you. We’re only doing this to help you.

 

[johanfprins]

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.

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.

So let' go!!

 

[D'rok]

So let' go!!

You have multiple unaddressed objections to statement 2.

 

[ben m]

You have multiple unaddressed objections to statement 2.

Actually, the new statement 2 is probably close enough; i'm going to pretend it says "assume standard Schottky diode physics" and not poke any harder. Which is exactly the same thing that Statement 1 said, remember? Makes you wonder what the point is.

But I think the past 5 pages have illustrated that, Johan, you're not capable of writing a proof like this. You wrote down a "Statement 1" misdefining polarization, and it took three pages of discussion to get you to reveal that you had been trying to describe a Schottky diode. You wrote down a "Statement 2" including an explicitly-wrong understanding of Fermi levels, and the wrong thing was underlined for emphasis (!!), and after two more pages of argument you revealed that Statement 2 was written under the presumption that standard quantum mechanics is wrong, which you had otherwise neglected to mention.

"Neglecting to mention gigantic presumptions" is not a good way of constructing a proof, Johan.

• Statement 1. A triangle is any shape with angles.
• New Statement 1. I mean, a right triangle. With all right angles.
• New Statement 1. Consider a triangle with three sides, two of which meet at a right angle.
• Statement 2. The sum of the angles is 360 degrees.
• You must have been assuming Euclidean space, like an idiot. I know better. Not all space is Euclidean! Everyone knows that!
• New Statement 2: The sum of the all of the right angles is 90 degrees.

Anyway, go ahead with your Statement 3, if you think there's a point. Please warn us ahead of time if we're expected to disregard any major laws of physics in interpreting your statement.

 

[sol invictus]

Obviously not, since the momenta of particles in a box follow a Gaussian distribution. Maxwell and Boltzmann have already shown this LONG before Planck discovered the quantum; and this has nothing to do with standing Schroedinger waves.

Good, so at least you understand that <p> and <p²> are different quantities, and that <p>=0 does not imply <p²>=0.

In contrast each and every standing Schroedinger wave has no momentum p whatsoever.

The wavefunction I posted has <p>=0. It does not have <p²>=0.

It is thus absurd to calculate <p²> for a single Schroedinger wave as if it represents a collection of particles in a container. The latter term has no significance for ANY standing wave and never will have any significance: It is exactly on this aspect where Bohr, Heisenberg and Born bamboozled the physics community.

Yes, everyone but you is wrong. Whatever.

 

[Farsight]

But exactly!!! the intensity distributions of ALL harmonic waves have always been wave's energy distribution. What is the energy of an electron within its own inertial refrence frame? It must be its rest mass: Thus its intensity distribution must be proportional to its mass energy

Slippery little customer is the electron. Heck, even a surface wave can be difficult to grasp. I rather like the third picture down on the wiki wind wave article because it gets across the way a wave is an "extended entity".

(and I believe that this should also include its gravitational energy: It is thus highly probable that the so-called "tunnelling-tails" of an electron's wave function relates to the gravitational curvature in space around the mass of the electron)

I'll have to disagree with that johan. IMHO the space-curvature is electromagnetic and much more dramatic than gravitational spacetime-curvature. It relates to the frame-dragging of gravitomagnetism, but let's come back to that another time.

Furthermore, it should be obvious that any mass distribution has a centre of mass that will move like a "point-particle". Thus, an electron wave can move like a "point-particle" even though it is not a point particle: Just like Jupiter can move like a point particle even though it is not a point particle.

Maybe it would be better to say it can interact as if it's a point particle. I'm thinking of electron diffraction and dots on a screen here, but nevermind, it isn't an issue.

It only becomes elusive if you accept the paranormal interpretation that it is a probability distribution. The experimental fact is that electron waves have been "seen" on the surfaces of diamond by AFM, but of course the scans were not interpreted as actual waves since this would have been a heresy against the Physics-Vatican in Copenhagen. If you accept that the intensity of an electron wave is its mass (and charge) distribution, physics becomes totally causal and quantum mechnaics is then a natural ouflow of classical mechanics (and even Einstein's model for gravity) when the sources and absorbers for light energy reach atomic dimensions:

I agree with that. But as I was saying, it does seem that the Copenhagen Interpretation is being challenged these days, with criticism coming from people in say CMP and Optics.

All the that the existence of the light quantum proves is that it is impossible to have a light source that can emit less light energy than h*(nu) at a time and that it is impossible to have a light absorber that can absorb less energy than this amount of energy.

I could say a bit about this, but you'd probably think of me as a heretic!

By accepting that photons and electrons are waves and that these waves can entangle to merge, one can derive Einstein's equation for the photo-electric effect in terms of wave-interactions: No "particles" required at all.

Photons have a wavelength, electrons can be made from photons in pair production, they can be diffracted, they've got a magnetic moment, and the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin-angular momentum is of the same nature of classical angular momentum. It beats me why anybody would think the electron is some kind of point particle. I guess the scattering experiments that put a lower bound on electron structure size are to blame for that. IMHO it's like probing a whirlpool with a bargepole trying to find a cannonball, and when you can't find it declaring that the cannonball must be really really small.

It is my discovery of superconduction at room temperature, where this phase is formed by the entanglement of millions of electrons to form a single holistic macro-wave, which made me realise that the probability interpretation of QM must be wrong. Before that time I thought for many years that this interpretation was brilliant. I do not know why I did not see the warning lights flashing long ago. Bohr's statement to Einstein: "Albert, stop telling God what He can or cannot do", is now to me crystal clear evidence that Bohr was directing physics away from reality into becoming a religious doctrine (What Giod does not want us to know we cannot know). Is this maybe why Bohr had a horseshoe behind his office door and proclaimed: "I do not believe in it but those who do claim it works".

It's a competitive business is physics.

My conclusion is that my experiment is the first experiment that proved that non-local mass transfer is possible. An electron injected into my phase "disappears" at the injection contact and an electron "appears" at the other contact without any charge carriers moving through the phase: Teleportation?

I'm all ears. But maybe it's best not to use the word teleportation. It has wacky science-fiction overtones.

Since over the last ten years my papers were consistently rejected by editors and peer reviewers, I have written about it in my latest book "The Physics Delusion" which will be on Amazon within this week; and is already available on CreateSpace.

Noted. I've bumped into a lot of people with similar experiences. Regular physicists, ex-CERN even. But I have to say they don't seem to talk to one another very much.

 

[johanfprins]

Good, so at least you understand that <p> and <p²> are different quantities, and that <p>=0 does not imply <p²>=0.

I have NEVER stated that <p>=0 implies that <p²> is zero. PLEASE STOP LYING SO BLATANTLY!!

The wavefunction I posted has <p>=0. It does not have <p²>=0.

Although it is correct that it does not have any momentum, it DOES NOT have <p>=0 but only that <k>=0. And as any first year student should know k has NOTHING to do with the momentum p when you have a stationary wave. PLEASE WAKE UP from your stupor!