Superconductivity at room temperature??

[Farsight]

Sol knows exactly what he's talking about. And your meaning is not at all clear. It sounds like you're talking about the idea of electrons being photons in a box, but I can't tell for sure, nor is it relevant.

It's not only relevant, it's crucial. See above. To have kinetic energy a light wave must move relative to an inertial reference frame. When it is within the cavity, it forms a standing wave. I'm afraid Sol's electron in a box totally missed the point johan was making. I'm rather surprised that everybody else has missed it too.

Sol's wave function is the standard solution to ANY massive particle confined to a square well. That state has kinetic energy, although johan denies this. THAT is the point of the standing wave solution, a point which johan cannot grasp. I can't tell whether or not you understand that such a solution has kinetic energy, but you seem to be focusing on something completely different than what was being discussed here.

I'm afraid sol, you and ben are focussing on something completely different here.

johan doesn't accept the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, but he doesn't accept pretty much anything else about quantum mechanics either. Regardless of Copenhagen, do you accept that calculated expectation values still accurately predict the average of a measurement? Do you think that one can calculate the kinetic energy of a state as <p²>/2m? If so, then you're in agreement with standard quantum mechanics, and in disagreement with johan.

I do, but see above, you're misreading this.

If not, then your disagreement with quantum mechanics extends FAR beyond the Copenhagen interpretation, and quantum mechanics becomes basically irreconcilable with such an opinion.

Not so.

No, it really isn't. This has nothing to do with theory vs. experiment. This has everything to do with johan's vision of physics (which is internally inconsistent, BTW) vs. standard textbook physics (both experimental AND theoretical).

We'll see if it's internally inconsistent.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's not only relevant, it's crucial. See above. To have kinetic energy a light wave must move relative to an inertial reference frame. When it is within the cavity, it forms a standing wave. I'm afraid Sol's electron in a box totally missed the point johan was making. I'm rather surprised that everybody else has missed it too.

No. The issue of photon standing waves came up once, in an example ben gave, AFTER the issue of kinetic energy in stationary states for electrons came up, and it came up as a way of illustrating that stationary states can still have kinetic energy. But the core issue has always been about electrons, not photons, and even with regards to photons, saying it's not kinetic for a standing wave photon is really just a semantic issue, and you cannot even make that argument for electrons.

I'm afraid sol, you and ben are focussing on something completely different here.

Different than what? Than what you want to talk about? Perhaps. Different than what's relevant to johan's nonsense? Nope, we're all focused on exactly why it's nonsense.

I do, but see above, you're misreading this.

No, I really am not.

We'll see if it's internally inconsistent.

I've already seen that. So has ben. So has sol. Hang around a while and pay attention, and you'll see it too.

 

[Farsight]

The t'Hooft et al article does not support anything Johan posited. In their own words, "no new results will be derived." And reading it, there indeed isn't any deviation from standard textbook-standard physics in any of the conclusions, which are pretty trivial to boot. So if you believe them, it is entirely appropriate to apply standard QM to the question... which Johan also asked to do previously.

It is pretty trivial, but it seems that you too misread light in a box as an electron in a box. That's what I recognised instantly, that's why I'm here taking a special interest.

It absolutely does contradict either Sol or Ziggurat in any way. It's mostly irrelevant, and the the small parts that are relevant actually confirm their positions.

I'm sorry Vorpal, but what's mostly irrelevant is sol's electron in the box in response to johan's light in a box.

When you say things like: "trap a massless photon in a box and its momentum now appears as inertia" you're apparently forgetting certain qualifiers, the most relevant of which being "inertia of the box system." Which... makes it irrelevant to the question discussed here.

In my very first post on this thread I said 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? See post 2422. And as for the relevance of the van der Mark 't Hooft article, see the last paragraph of the discussion section:

"What is intriguing is that matter’s most basic building blocks, the elementary particles, all have non-zero spin, intrinsic angular momentum, which seems to imply that they all must have some sort of intrinsic dynamics. Hypothetical structures which do not have internal dynamics, such as point particles and hard spheres, do not exist. So what is matter really made of then? In the Dirac theory, the electron is like electromagnetic energy quivering at light speed, just like a photon in a box [5]. If really so, matter is light".

Look, a light wave is a form of displacement current, the latter being a time-varying electromagnetic field. We can make an electron (and a positron) out of it in pair production. The electron has a standing electromagnetic field. And a wave nature, we can diffract it. You might think of it as an excitation of the electron field, but that's an interpretation, and the evidence ought to be telling you that it's a standing wave. That's what it's telling me. When we move the electron we call it conduction current. But what the van der Mark 't Hooft article is saying is that conduction current is just displacement current going round and round and moving linearly. Light moves freely through space without losing energy. At room temperature. Vacuum impedance applies instead of resistance, but light doesn't get tired, and it isn't driven by a voltage. So I'm interested in what johan's got to say here. You should be too.

 

[ben m]

Thus the wave is not moving relative to the inertial reference frame of the cavity. Thus it now has no kinetic energy within this reference frame at all.

No, you're wrong. In quantum mechanics, kinetic energy is not "rate of change of time of the position of the center of mass". Kinetic energy is proportional to the 2nd derivative of the wavefunction, and the 2nd derivative of the wavefunction is not zero.

Let me give you an example where the physics is as obvious as possible. Take one laser beam and shoot a pulse to the left. Take another laser and shoot a pulse to the right. Let the pulses fly through space, at some point, cross and overlap. The region of space where both, counterpropagating pulses are present has---uh-oh---a photon wavefunction with exactly the same properties as an ensemble of photons in a cavity. In other words, it looks in every detail like a standing wave; it has zero NET momentum; the center-of-momentum isn't moving anywhere; etc. (In fact, if you were standing in this region you would be unable to tell whether the light you're seeing is passing-in-the-night or trapped-in-a-cavity. Go ahead, do the math.) But you must agree that this region of space contains photons with ordinary kinetic energy---50% of it, on average, heading left and 50% heading right.

The laws of quantum mechanics---i.e., KE = (p-hat)^2/2m---will look at this wavefunction and get that fact right. (It'll say p = {left or right}, <p> = 0, <p^2> != 0, KE != 0, etc.) Your heuristic----"this is the wavefunction of a standing wave, so let's ignore Schrodinger and think about relativity"---will not.

Johan was talking about a light wave, not a massive particle. I'm afraid you're all getting this wrong, making a meal of it, and digging a hole for yourselves.

Johan has been denying that massive particles, in bound states, have kinetic energy. I diverted him onto photons only briefly.

I beg to differ. I'm seeing sentences like this whole argument contradicts standard quantum mechanics in response to simple statements associated with relativity. A radiating body loses mass.

No, Farsight, I think you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick. The gist of the conversation was "what are the properties of an particle in a box"---properties like whether <p^2/2m> was or was not zero, whether <p^2/2m> reflects something about energy, whether that energy can be called kinetic, and (most importantly) whether or not could escape from the box without an acceleration.

Johan's discussion of all of this contradicts standard quantum mechanics, in very simple ways that contradict Niels-Bohr-era experimental facts, like "which measurements give predictable answers and which have random scatter?" and "does small delta-x mean large delta-p?" This has nothing to do with interpretation, which asks detailed questions about whether the wavefunctions-that-give-the-right-answers are hiding some underlying physics. Johan is disagreeing with the fact that the wavefunctions give the right answers at all.

(Then: you, and you alone, are volunteering to turn this into a relativity problem where the disagreement is about how mass/energy are labeled in different frames. Nothing to do with Copenhagen, and nothing to do with my statements that Johan makes quantum mistakes.)

From a senior condensed matter physicist who told me that he and his colleagues took a "realist" view that was in total conflict with the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics. And from other people in the related spheres of optics and electronics.

Likewise, I have plenty of colleagues who use Newton's Laws on a daily basis, and who don't have to think about relativity at all. This fact has nothing to say about whether Special Relativity is or is not correct; to see that, you have to specifically look for experiments that distinguish between the cases. Yes, there are plenty of experiments where "the full apparatus of modern quantum mechanics" and "the student version of quantum mechanics where you pretend photons are classical waves" will give the same answer, just like Newton and Einstein will give the same answers in many experiments.

If your acquaintances have done an experiment that disagrees with Schrodinger's equation, they're welcome to publish it. They have not done so, unless you're referring to Johan. I repeat: there is no experimental evidence of any violation of standard quantum mechanics. That's how it got to be standard quantum mechanics.

Oh come on ben. Theorists and experimentalist have a long history of Who ordered that? rivalry.

Well, I'm sitting here as an experimentalist in a department chock-full of theorists, and I will say bluntly that you have no idea what you're talking about. Other than generic-griping-about-string-theory (which is unidirectional), I have a hard time coming up with an anecdote, much less a pattern, of a recent "who ordered that" rivalry or an "erudite vs. greaseheads" dichotomy. Especially not in solid-state and atomic physics, for crying out loud, where you have experimentalists who get excited about critical exponents, and theorists who get excited about graphene CVD.

 

[Vorpal]

It is pretty trivial, but it seems that you too misread light in a box as an electron in a box. That's what I recognised instantly, that's why I'm here taking a special interest.

The core issue was never about that. See Ziggurat's post #2502 and ben m's post #2504.

I'm sorry Vorpal, but what's mostly irrelevant is sol's electron in the box in response to johan's light in a box.

Johan has repeatedly made claims about momentum of standing waves. Sol's wavefunction is a standing wave that directly contradicts his claims. That's very relevant by any reasonable measure.

You might think of it as an excitation of the electron field, but that's an interpretation, and the evidence ought to be telling you that it's a standing wave. That's what it's telling me. When we move the electron we call it conduction current. But what the van der Mark 't Hooft article is saying is that conduction current is just displacement current going round and round and moving linearly.
...
So I'm interested in what johan's got to say here. You should be too.

If that's so, the idea is older than quantum mechanics, and in fact older than special relativity. The energy of the electromagnetic field of the electron contributes mass to it (yes, this was derived before Einstein's STR), so "hey, maybe the electron really is some kind of stable bundle of EM" has been around since then.

If and however that works out, it isn't important here. It's one thing to say electrons have some internal dynamics. Maybe. If they do, they're irrelevant for most situations--that's an experimentally confirmed fact. In particular, it's not relevant to the question whether a standing wave has momentum, because the state a particle put in a box can be a standing wave even if the particle itself is something more complicated fundamentally.

For example, Sol's question applies equally well to say, a single alpha particle in a box, even though we already know that they have several levels of internal structure.

 

[Farsight]

No. The issue of photon standing waves came up once, in an example ben gave, AFTER the issue of kinetic energy in stationary states for electrons came up, and it came up as a way of illustrating that stationary states can still have kinetic energy.

I've reread this thread from page 61 and it's patently clear that some of you haven't been paying attention. Sol responded to To have kinetic energy a light wave must move relative to an inertial reference frame with an electron in a box. The way you've all missed this is not good.

Everybody, go back and read the thread from page 61. Now I've flagged this up you'll see it.

But the core issue has always been about electrons, not photons, and even with regards to photons, saying it's not kinetic for a standing wave photon is really just a semantic issue, and you cannot even make that argument for electrons.

The core issue is superconduction, which has recently celebrated its 100th birthday. But progress in recent decades has been questionable, there's a disappointment that room-temperature superconduction has not been realised. And semantics means meaning, and when it comes to quantum mechanics, meaning is what we're searching for. So please don't try to brush off the confusion between the standing-wave photon and the electron in a box as mere semantics.

No, I really am not.

I've read back through the thread. You have misread that standing wave of light as an electron in a box.

Different than what?

Different to a standing wave of light in a box that's shorter than its wavelength. An electron moving back and forth in a box is different.

Than what you want to talk about? Perhaps. Different than what's relevant to johan's nonsense? Nope, we're all focused on exactly why it's nonsense.

I want to talk about room temperature superconduction.

I've already seen that. So has ben. So has sol. Hang around a while and pay attention, and you'll see it too.

I'm hanging around, and I'm paying attention. But right now, I'm off to bed.

 

[D'rok]

I've reread this thread from page 61 and it's patently clear that some of you haven't been paying attention. Sol responded to To have kinetic energy a light wave must move relative to an inertial reference frame with an electron in a box. The way you've all missed this is not good.

Everybody, go back and read the thread from page 61. Now I've flagged this up you'll see it.

How about you go back and read the thread from page 60 and you'll see what you've missed.

 

[ben m]

"What is intriguing is that matter’s most basic building blocks, the elementary particles, all have non-zero spin, intrinsic angular momentum, which seems to imply that they all must have some sort of intrinsic dynamics. Hypothetical structures which do not have internal dynamics, such as point particles and hard spheres, do not exist. So what is matter really made of then? In the Dirac theory, the electron is like electromagnetic energy quivering at light speed, just like a photon in a box [5]. If really so, matter is light".

Let me rebut this in the boring sense of questioning its credentials. I hope this is enough to dismiss it from this thread, which is (supposedly) about Johan's agreement, or not, with basic mainstream physics. If you want to discuss the content of the above quote, I suggest it belongs in a different thread.

The citation-5 you get to above is not a physics article of any importance; it's a crackpot article in a crackpot journal published by a random French society of amateur physicists. Matter is not light, and the theory of ref. 5 saying that it could be is a load of baloney.

Makes me wonder how the great Gerardus 't Hooft could have cited such a thing. WAIT A MINUTE, did he? No he didn't.

The author of "light is heavy" is not the famous high-energy theorist "Gerardus 't Hooft", whose middle initial is not W, but some other G. W. 't Hooft (with a very slim publication record, on lasers and thin films) at Philips. The article itself is unpublished, appears only on this one crackpot web page, and has never been cited in the mainstream literature. Many of the Google hits to this article appear to be John Duffield, AKA Farsight, posting it in discussion forums. Maybe that's why you keep thinking that this thread is about a kinetic-energy/mass equivalence? Because that's a topic you have a long interest in and want to bring up? It belongs in a different thread.

 

[Reality Check]

How about you go back and read the thread from page 60 and you'll see what you've missed.

Farsight
As D'rok notes you need to go back a page.
sol invictus brings up an electron in a well.
johanfprins states that any statnding wave in a cavity has no kinetic energy.

One electron in a well of width L. Solving the time-independent Schrodinger equation says

What's the energy of that state, Johan? How much of that is kinetic?

...
such an entity has NO kinetic energy.

The implication is that if you have an electron bouncing around a potential well and then turn that well off the electron will stop dead and remain in one place.
But: Put an electron in a Penning trap. Any kinetic energy that it had vanishes according to johanfprins. Now turn the trap off. The electron does not stick around. It moves away. It has kinetic energy !

 

[Ziggurat]

I've reread this thread from page 61 and it's patently clear that some of you haven't been paying attention.

As D'rok said, you need to go back further.

The core issue is superconduction, which has recently celebrated its 100th birthday. But progress in recent decades has been questionable, there's a disappointment that room-temperature superconduction has not been realised. And semantics means meaning, and when it comes to quantum mechanics, meaning is what we're searching for. So please don't try to brush off the confusion between the standing-wave photon and the electron in a box as mere semantics.

You misunderstand me. First off, you are the one confused about electrons versus photons, because you didn't go back far enough. Second, the semantic issue is something completely different. I was referring to whether or not a standing wave photon had kinetic energy. THAT is a semantic issue, and depends on how you define kinetic energy. I actually prefer to define it in a manner such that a photon never has kinetic energy, but is always electromagnetic potential energy. One would calculate this energy the same way one calculates the potential energy of a charge configuration: it's the integral over space of the field squared (with appropriate constants to get units of energy). But other definitions can work too, such as total energy minus rest mass energy. But I know of no sensible definition where a photon's energy is kinetic while in motion but NOT kinetic while resonating in a cavity. It's either never kinetic energy (my preference) or it's always kinetic energy. That's a semantic issue. How much energy there is, though, is most definitely not semantic, and me, Sol, and ben will all agree on how much is there even if we prefer different labels. johan, on the other hand, wants to include the energy when it suits him and ignore it when it does not.

But we were really interested in electrons, not photons. And an electron in a standing wave in a box has kinetic energy under the completely standard definition of kinetic energy in quantum mechanics. johan denies this is true. His denial has no basis in either measurement or theory. It is purely axiomatic for him. Which would be fine if he could accept that as merely defining kinetic energy in some non-standard way. But that still leaves us with energy that johan refuses to account for, because for an electron it is most definitely NOT electromagnetic potential energy, and calling it something other than kinetic energy doesn't make it vanish. And if you can't see that this is what johan is doing, then either you haven't paid enough attention or you haven't gone back far enough in the thread.

I want to talk about room temperature superconduction.

It doesn't exist, at least not yet. So there's really not much to talk about.

 

[johanfprins]

There have been a lot of posts while I was sleeping here in South Africa. Farsight experienced the impossibility to discuss new possible interpretations of Modern Physics with inquisitors like Ben, Sol and Ziggurat. And then they also have their little doggies, like Reality Check, barking about issues they just do not have the intellectual ability to understand. I decided to return to this post of Ben since it so clearly illustrates the deviously dioshonest way in which they are reasoning by going off on another not-related issue:

The dipole doesn't "cancel the contact potential". With two metals in contact,

I have been discussing a Schottky barrier under reverse bias. Ben immediately leads the discussion away on a tangent by considering a contact between two metals. How can you reverse bias a contact between two metals Ben? Are you REALLY so daft?

I can measure an electrostatic potential difference between them, i.e. in the form of an electric field; this is called the contact potential or the Volta potential. It hasn't been "cancelled" at all.

Then Ben is so daft that he does not even notice that by using this argument he contradicts what he claimed and argued with me before. I claimed that when a current flows through a metal-to-metal junction there cannot be an accumulation of charge at this interface. Ben said that there can be. The fact that he can measure the Volta potential across a thermocouple junction proves that he was wrong. Before applying the voltmeter, there is indeed an accumulation of a dipole at the metal-to-metal interface. When measuring the voltage a small current MUST flow throughn the interface AND THIS CANNOT HAPPEN WHILE THE CHARGES ARE STILL IN ACCUMULATION MODE AT THE INTERFACE.

If Ben were able to discuss physics objectively, he would stick to the example I am posting; namely a Schottky barrier in reverse bias. If he knew any physics he would have known that in forward bias a current only flows AFTER THE ACCUMULATION OF CHARGE AT THE INTERFACE HAS DISSIPATED. IF THIS CHARGE DOES NOT DISSIPATE YOU WILL NOT HAVE A NORMAL CURRENT FLOWING THROUGH THE n-TYPE SEMICONDUCTOR-METAL INTERFACE. It seem that Ben is hell bent on proving me wrong and will grab at any irrelevant straw to do so. WHY? An ulterior motive maybe? If there is an ulterior motive it should surface when Ben reveals his identity and his CV (if he has any worthwhile one). Obviously he wont do it: Maybe he is just a troll wasting our time on this thread?

Yet the Fermi levels of the two metals are equal---they're in contact and have plenty of mobile charge carriers.

Exactly: And they are not equal because of charge accumulation at the interface even though the electric-field within the two metals have different magnitudes. So there Ben: Another proof that you are posting BS all the time. I am, however, not going to waste my time to model and explain thermocouploe junctions to you (you will probably not be able to follow it anyhow) since such a junction has nothing in common with a reverse-biased Schottky junction: If you have not noticed, I an using the latter device as an example to explain why I have discovered superconduction at room temperature already more than 10 years ago. Why are you so desperate to stop me from proceeding?

This is a case where the electrostatic potential difference is not zero, and the Fermi level difference is zero. What does this tell you, Johan?

It tells me that the contact is NOT a reverse-biased Schottky barrier.

Does it the Fermi level is, or is not, the same thing as the electrostatic potential?

When you have an electric potential difference between two points, no matter what is causing this difference, there will be a net electric field between the two points. This is primary school physics Ben!

 

[johanfprins]

I am skipping most of the BS being posted by Sol, Ben and Ziggurat. Farsight is doing a fine but thankless job. He will find that it is just not possible to convince religious fanatics to even consider the possibility that they might be wrong. If it is "in the text book" it is "holy scripture" and must not be questioned.

Here and there, where it is absolutely necessary, as in these absurd claims by Ziggurat, I will post remarks:

Sol knows exactly what he's talking about. And your meaning is not at all clear. It sounds like you're talking about the idea of electrons being photons in a box, but I can't tell for sure, nor is it relevant. Sol's wave function is the standard solution to ANY massive particle confined to a square well. That state has kinetic energy,

Only in terms of the Copenhagen interpretation which is based on the paranormal concepts of "wave-particle duality" and "complementarity"

although johan denies this.

Correct, I deny that this wave has anything to do with a particle; since it contradicts what we know about harmonic waves, namely that any standing harmonic wave does not have momentum since it is not moving relative to the inertial referrence frame within which it is a standing wave AND THREFORE IT DOES ALSO NOT HAVE KINETIC ENERGY WITHIN THIS INERTIAL REFERENCE FRAME.

THAT is the point of the standing wave solution, a point which johan cannot grasp.

It is not a question of "grasping" it is just an incotrovertible fact that a standing harmonic wave CANNOT HAVE MOMENTUM AND THREFORE ALSO NOT KINETIC ENERGY.

I can't tell whether or not you understand that such a solution has kinetic energy, but you seem to be focusing on something completely different than what was being discussed here.

How can ANY standing harmonic wave have a momentum? It is physically impossible. The only way it can have momentum is when YOU move with a speed v past it and then this wave can have momentum AND KINETIC ENERGY within the inertial reference frame within which YOU are stationary. But it is just impossible in our universe that any standing harmonic wave can have kinetic energy within the reference frame in which it is a standing wave. Only in Alice's Wonderland might this be possible.

johan doesn't accept the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics,

Correct, because if is paranormal.

but he doesn't accept pretty much anything else about quantum mechanics either.

A lie as usual.

Regardless of Copenhagen, do you accept that calculated expectation values still accurately predict the average of a measurement?

It depends on the boundary conditions that are valid when making these measurements: i.e. on the measuring apparatus being used. It is only valid if the boundary conditions are such that for an ensemble of IDENTICAL waves, the outcome can be any one of all the possible eigenstates.

This is for example NEVER possible when measuring energy of an ensemble of waves. To be identical waves each wave MUST have the same energy than all the other waves. Thus you will not have different possible energies when you measure UNLESS (for example) the measuring device allows the waves of the ensemble to emit radiation during each measurent. This means that at best only the eigenstates with energies less than the energy of one of the ensemble's waves, can manifest. So to calculate an expectation value that includes energy states that are higher is daft. In fact, if the waves of the ensemble can emit energy while energy is measured, the most probable state that will be measured will be the ground-state energy; which is NOT a distributed average over all allowed energy eigenstates.

Do you think that one can calculate the kinetic energy of a state as <p²>/2m?

Not in the case where this state is a standing wave: Only if you believe in paranormal wave-particle duality and complementarity.

If so, then you're in agreement with standard quantum mechanics,

What you consider as "standard qunatum mechanics" is the Copenhagen interpretation. It is not necessary to interpret light and matter waves in terms Copenhagen to still apply and use really "standard quantum mechanics" in Solid State Physics.

No, it really isn't. This has nothing to do with theory vs. experiment. This has everything to do with johan's vision of physics (which is internally inconsistent,

So it is internally consistent that your mind affects what you measure; that what you do at present affects the past; that our universe splits every moment into zillions of universes; that one can only get a diffraction pattern if you do not know through which slit an electron or a photon has moved; etc. etc. etc.? Can you not see that your "internal consistency" is nothing else but unadulterated Voodoo?

 

[sol invictus]

I claimed that when a current flows through a metal-to-metal junction there cannot be an accumulation of charge at this interface.

Lakes can exist even when there are rivers flowing into and out of them, Johan. Have you forgotten that conversation? Of course there can be accumulations of charge when current flows, and we gave you many examples.

The fact that he can measure the Volta potential across a thermocouple junction proves that he was wrong. Before applying the voltmeter, there is indeed an accumulation of a dipole at the metal-to-metal interface. When measuring the voltage a small current MUST flow throughn the interface AND THIS CANNOT HAPPEN WHILE THE CHARGES ARE STILL IN ACCUMULATION MODE AT THE INTERFACE.

First of all, you're wrong that a current must flow. Ben could just use an electrometer to measure the field. Second, you're wrong that if a current flows it means there's no charge accumulation, that's pure fantasy.

Regardless, you are indeed claiming that the Volta potential is a measurement artifact. So there you go - a whole new science that's rotten, and a whole new set of science books for you to rewrite. Get to it!

 

[johanfprins]

Lakes can exist even when there are rivers flowing into and out of them, Johan. Have you forgotten that conversation? Of course there can be accumulations of charge when current flows, and we gave you many examples.

No I have not forgotten your infantile and wrong arguments. How can I, there are so many of them on this thread!!

First of all, you're wrong that a current must flow. Ben could just use an electrometer to measure the field.

Again displaying your ignorance, An electrometer only amplifies the current and therefore it can measure small voltages. There is no voltmeter (including an electrometer) that can measure a voltage across two points when there is not a current flowing through the voltmeter and thus also between the points across which the voltage is being measured

Second, you're wrong that if a current flows it means there's no charge accumulation, that's pure fantasy.

Ben's argument has proved that it is not fantasy. Do you want to tell me that when there is not a current flowing, a dipole layer will not form across the metal-metal contact of a thermocouple? What then happens to this accumulated charge at the interface when you measure the contact voltage? I really think you should turn your mind towards Tiddly Winks: You just do not have it in you to ever understand anything more complicated.

Regardless, you are indeed claiming that the Volta potential is a measurement artifact.

I have not claimed this anywhere: Why do you have to blatantly LIE all the time to try and make a point?

So there you go - a whole new science that's rotten,

See! Another blatant LIE. Lie LIe Lie is all that you can be an expert in. No wonder you are cowering behind anonymity.

 

[johanfprins]

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?

You see another blatant LIE! The Schroedinger equation is very accurate when you model bound electron states that have energies less than the rest mass energy. It is only the interpretation of these wave-functions on which I disagree with you.

You believe in paranormal ideas like "wave-particle" duality and then end up claiming impossible Voodoo: Namely that the energy of a stationary wave is kinetic energy. Since Galileo and Newton it has been unequivocally known that ANY stationary entity cannot have kinetic energy relative to the inertial reference frame within which it is stationary. IF, of course, you measure the energy of such a stationary entity within another inertial reference frame which moves relative to the reference frame within which the entity is stationary, then you will measure kinetic energy: Thus, to claim, as you do, that the energy of a stationary wave is kinetic energy within the inertial reference frame within which it is stationary, is the epitome of stupidity.

 

[johanfprins]

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.

Another blatant LIE. I did not misdefine polarisation. I have stated time and again that I am willing reframe my statements to try and make them acceptable to you Sol and Ziggurat. This does NOT mean that I agree with your misconceptions when it comes to physics. And I am not doing this to try and convince fundamentalist zealots like you, but in the hope that other people who read this thread and still have open minds might follow my arguments. As I have said before: You, Sol and Ziggurat are "flat earthers" when it comes to the interpretation of modern physics. Nobody will ever convince you that the earth might be a sphere.

 

[johanfprins]

I think Zig's comment says it quite well. Why can QM make testable predictions that pass experimentally if they are wrong?

The only testable predictions have been in Chemistry, Solid State Physics and Solid State Electronics. All these predictions are based on solutions of the Schroedinger equation for NON-FREE electrons. And the predictions do not require the Copenhagen interpretation to be correct. All they require is the existence of electron-waves and light-waves.

All experiments that claim that they have proved the bizzarre character of quantum mechanics as demanded by the Copenhagen interpretation, like those that have been published by Anton Zeilinger, have been incorrectly interpreted in terms of the paranormal concepts of "wave-particle duality" and "complementarity". In fact ALL interpretations that rely an the validity of these paranormal concepts are wrong; and usually leads to Voodoo conclusions, like, for example, that "what we do at present can alter the past". Anybody who believes this is not a physicist but should be a shamaan.

 

[sol invictus]

Again displaying your ignorance, An electrometer only amplifies the current and therefore it can measure small voltages. There is no voltmeter (including an electrometer) that can measure a voltage across two points when there is not a current flowing through the voltmeter and thus also between the points across which the voltage is being measured

Take two wires made of metals with different work functions and put them in contact. Did you really think it's impossible to measure the electric field in the vacuum next to the contact point of the wires, using an electrometer that doesn't touch the wires? Of course it's possible, and the result will show that there is a non-zero field.

That's the Volta effect, and you're denying that it exists. So go re-write the chemistry textbooks.

 

[johanfprins]

I mean zero voltage difference. If you measure the path integral of the electric field between them, it will be zero.
Not necessarily.
No it isn't. Voltage is electric potential. It's the path integral of your electric field between one location and whatever reference point you want to pick. Really, this is intro textbook stuff, and you can't even get a basic definition right?

You obviously do not understand elementray physics at all. Yes voltage is the path integral of the electric field and this gives you difference in potential energy that a unit of electric charge will have at the two positions. Did you not know that an electric potential is the normalised potential energy for a coulomb of charge?

Voltage is NOT energy. It never has been.

Voltage is the potential energy of a Coulomb of charge: How the hell can it not be energy?

The potential energy of a charge due to electric fields is proportional to voltage, and that's the important property for my argument,

What are you saying other than I am saying? And what is your supposed argument?

but it's not actually the same thing as potential energy.

It is normalized potential energy: IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN NORMALISED POTENTIAL ENERGY AND WILL ALWAYS BE NORMALISED POTENTIAL ENERGY!!!

And potential energy is quite definitely not the same thing as total energy either,

If an entity has no kinetic energy but only potential energy its TOTAL energy must be its potential energy!!

a point which you have yet to come to grips with but which is fundamental to your current misconception.

What point? Are you arguing that the total energy of an entity cannot be purely potential energy?

Where does this magic work function come from?

It comes from the fact that the energies of bound electrons within a metal CAN ONLY BE measured from the vacuum level at which an electron has rest mass energy IN ORDER TO MAKE PHYSICS SENSE.

Because it doesn't come from differences in the potential energy of electrons in two materials at the same voltage.

Oh but it does: The energies of the electron waves within the metal are all less than the rest mass energy and therefore these energies CANNOT have a kinetic component at all. The difference in workfunctions show that the electrons within a metal with a large workfunction are more "tightly" bound than the electrons within a metal with a small workfunction.

Nor did you answer my question about different wave functions in the same box. They've got the same potential (obviously), they're both standing waves, and yet they don't have the same energy.

Obviously not since they have different REST MASS energies as measured from the vacuum level. This is the only reference level that physically applies. In quantum mechanics you cannot choose a zero potential arbitrarily as you can when doing classical mechanics.

Standard quantum mechanics says it's due to kinetic energy.

Which "standard quantum mechanics" says that a harmonic standing wave has kinetic energy? Schroedinger's equation is that of a harmonic wave and THERE EXISTS NO HARMONIC WAVE IN THE UNIVERSE THAT CAN HAVE KINETIC ENERGY WHEN IT IS STATIONARY WITHIN AN INERTIAL REFERENCE FRAME: NOT EVEN A STATIONARY LIGHT WAVE THEN HAS KINETIC ENERGY.

What label would you have us choose? Or do you deny that there IS an energy difference for different values of n in Sol's standing wave?

No I do not deny this but this has NOTHING to do with differences in kinetic energies between the waves. It MUST be differences in mass energies since the waves are all stationary.

 

[johanfprins]

Take two wires made of metals with different work functions and put them in contact. Did you really think it's impossible to measure the electric field in the vacuum next to the contact point of the wires, using an electrometer that doesn't touch the wires? Of course it's possible, and the result will show that there is a non-zero field.

I DO NOT KNOW OF SUCH A MEASUREMENT THAT HAS EVER BEEN MADE: I AM NOT SAYING THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, BUT ARE YOU REALLY SO STUPID TO BELIEVE THAT IF SUCH A MEASUREMENT CAN BE MADE THIS MEASUREMENT WILL NOT AFFECT THE EQUILIBRIUM ARRANGEMENT OF CHARGES WITHIN THE METAL FROM WHAT IT IS WHEN YOU DO NOT MAKE SUCH A MEASUREMENT?

That's the Volta effect, and you're denying that it exists. So go re-write the chemistry textbooks.

You are again BLATANTLY lying! I have NEVER denied that the VOLTA affect exists, but am sure that it is another piece opf physics which you are incapable of understanding. Please go andply Tiddly Winks: Do something that lies within your intellectal capacity.

AND I WANT TO POINT OUT AGAIN THAT MY STATEMENTS TO EXPLAIN AND PROVE WHY I HAVE SUPERCONDUCTION AT ROOM TEMPERATURE DO NOT REQUIRE A DISCUSSION OF A CONTACT BETWEEN TWO METALS AND THE VOLTA EFFECT. YOU BEN AND ZIGGURAT ARE AGAIN BEING DECEITFUL IN CHANGING THE SUBJECT INTO ARGUMENTS WHICH ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUE.