Superconductivity at room temperature??

[Ziggurat]

This is a fair request.

Yet you cannot fulfill it, can you?

An electron within the lowest energy state of a hydrogen atom has LESS energy than its rest mass energy. Therefore you cannot assume that you can neglect rest mass as the baseline energy for an electron that is quantum mechanically bound within an electric potential-field, as you can for a cannon ball within a gravitational field.

I haven't assumed anything, I've actually done the calculations. Can you? Can you show where that -13.7 eV comes from? I can.

If Sol Ziggurat and Ben, and their "yelping doggie" Reality Check want to keep on posting BS on unrelated topics, they can do so; but I will for the time being ignore them.

It's not unrelated. It addresses exactly why you are mistaken about what the Fermi energy is, and its relationship to electric fields.

It is absolutely impossible that ANY standing harmonic wave has ANY kinetic energy even when a part of the energy solution you obtain from the Schroedinger equation can be written as [(hbar)*k]²/m since [(hbar)*k] is ONLY the same as momentum when you have a COHERENT RUNNING wave.

There is no k for the hydrogen ground state. This objection is irrelevant. That's not how the calculations are done.

If [(hbar)*k]²/m forms part of the energy-solution of a standing wave, this expression cannot be the same as kinetic energy EVER!

How would you know, if you cannot calculate the energy? Go on, try it. I'll even do half of it myself first. I'm serious about that offer.

 

[ben m]

I then derive that owing to the validity of the relativity of simultaneity, one cannot see the front and rear of a passing rod at the same isnstant in time

Sure you can. There's a well-known and simple procedure for building, and synchronizing, and verifying the synchronization of, clocks at different locations in your inertial frame. This grid of clocks keeps track of the old-fashioned Newtonian time for all observers in this inertial frame. So you can measure the front and rear at the same time.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

My paper is NOT anti-relativity. Why do you people always distort the facts? This is nothing else but criminal lying. I am in full agreement with Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity

Seven months ago, on 16 May 2011, johanfprins chose to derail his own argument by denying the relativity of time and space:

I have recently met a physicist who used the Lorentz transformation to prove that length contraction does not happen at all, and that a moving clock does not actually slow down, it only seems from outside the inertial reference frame within which this clock is stationary AS IF the clock is slowing down. In fact his arguments are compelling that time is absolute, just like Newton has postulated.

For the next 100 posts, johanfprins argued with Einstein. Sample:

Thus, Einstein's reasoning is wrong; and this same wrong reasoning led Einstein to derive a length contraction, which does not occur within K, and a time dilation which does not occur within K^/.

For more, read pages 35, 36, and 37 of this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192121&page=35
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192121&page=36
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192121&page=37

Please stop being an oaf:

If you can read, which I doubt, you will see in the amnuscript that I am not "in disagrerement" with the relativity of simultaneity. Only a total moron will conclude this.

For the sake of argument, I am willing to pretend johanfprins agrees with Einstein's special and general theories of relativity, and that all of his apparent disagreements stem from misunderstanding Einstein's (or someone else's) presentation of those theories.

I am likewise willing, just for the sake of argument, to pretend johanfprins understands and agrees with quantum mechanics and all other undergraduate physics as taught in standard textbooks, and I am willing to assume that all of Prins's evident unhappiness with those who point out inconsistencies between accepted physics and Prins-physics stem from Prins's mistakes or misunderstanding of what others are saying.

Having made those concessions, however, I'm going to borrow Farsight's "ton of bricks" to throw at johanfprins the next time Dr Prins suggests someone is "a total moron", "an utter fool", "oaf", "idiotic", "criminal", "fundamentalist zealot", "yelping doggie", "cowering anonymous troll", "crackpot", "insane", "totally incapable and incompetent", "DECEITFUL", "BLATANTLY lying", "STUPID", "a shamaan", "Voodoo", "paranormal", "flat earthers", "absurd", or "deviously dioshonest" [sic] when their only offense was to point out that some aspect of Prins's argument is inconsistent with accepted physics.

By the way, all of those quoted insults come from yesterday's and today's posts by johanfprins, with capitalization and bolding as written by johanfprins.

As ben m has noted, those insults are especially funny when johanfprins insults someone's education or knowledge of physics immediately before or after accusing that same person of blind faith in standard undergraduate physics.

Please do not display your ignorance time and again: One day, if you have a conscience, you will regret it that you have made such an utter fool of yourself.

Good advice.

 

[ben m]

I don't want to prolong the Special Relativity argument, but I do want to point out that Johan's version of things includes an explicitly wrong prediction. From talk-polywell:

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2137&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=1395

How about a loom shuttle designed to go to and fro at the highest speed possible. Each cycle IS a return trip for one of the two twins.
Manufacture two loom shuttles out of the same radio-active material. Then send one to and fro for millions of cycles while keeping the other stationary. Then compare their decay rates. I predict that it will STILL be the same! Let experiment decide this folly of one twin ageing at a different rate than the other twin. It DOES NOT HAPPEN!!!!

Well, that experiment has been done:

Bailey et al., “Measurements of relativistic time dilation for positive and negative muons in a circular orbit,” Nature 268 (July 28, 1977) pg 301.

The radioactive material is the muon, the "shuttle" is a bunch of muons, the back-and-forth is around and around a storage ring, the speed is very high (gamma=29.33), and the laboratory clock does see the normal twins-paradox prediction. The moving muons "age slowly" (i.e. suffer decay less often) compared to muons at rest in the lab frame.

I also want to quote something from the same thread. One poster said he had offered to help Johan to replicate his experiment, someone else asked whether this had happened or not.

Thanks DeltaV. <real name> did contact me with such an offer. I took the e-mail to my sister who is psychic and who can sum up the intention within a written letter very well. She advised me NOT to accept any offered help from him since he is obviously a mentally disturbed crook.

 

[Ziggurat]

I also want to quote something from the same thread. One poster said he had offered to help Johan to replicate his experiment, someone else asked whether this had happened or not.

Wow. His sister is psychic. I never knew that. That's really... special. I guess that's just one more thing that mainstream physics has wrong. I wonder if her psychic abilities have anything to do with room temperature superconduction? Like maybe her neurons are superconducting, and that's how she gets psychic abilities? I look forward to johan's explanation.

 

[ben m]

Wow. His sister is psychic. I never knew that. That's really... special. I guess that's just one more thing that mainstream physics has wrong. I wonder if her psychic abilities have anything to do with room temperature superconduction? Like maybe her neurons are superconducting, and that's how she gets psychic abilities? I look forward to johan's explanation.

(I do want to allow Johan the non-native-speaker escape hatch---perhaps he has the word "psychic" confused with some sort of "psychologist"-like words, and he means his sister is naturally empathetic and good at understanding people. As opposed to what "psychic" actually means in English, which he can look up in the dictionary. Johan?)

 

[johanfprins]

I am not even going to try and defend myself against all the nonsense and distortions of the truth (outright lies!) which Sol, Ben, Ziggurat and those who chant in their choir are constantly posting.

So just two small questions which I hope will illicit for a change sensible answers.

1. Do you all agree that when an electron with a solatary rest mass m_e bonds with a proton with a solitary rest mass m_P, one obtains a hydrogen atom with a rest mass M_H so that M_H<m_P+m_e?

2. Do you agree that the expression E²=p²*c² +(m_e*c²)² is applicable for both high speeds and very low speeds? Thus, Newton's mechanics is also Lorentz relativistic is it not? So why do you call the Schroedinger equation "non-relativistic"?

 

[johanfprins]

I don't want to prolong the Special Relativity argument, but I do want to point out that Johan's version of things includes an explicitly wrong prediction. From talk-polywell:

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2137&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=1395



Well, that experiment has been done:

Bailey et al., “Measurements of relativistic time dilation for positive and negative muons in a circular orbit,” Nature 268 (July 28, 1977) pg 301.

It is not the same experiment that I have proposed. In my experiment you have two shuttles made of radio-active material, which can be directly compared after one shuttle has gone on many to and fro cycles. When the one shutlle leaves the other they have exactly the same amount of radio-active material. After the travelling shuttle have made many to and fro trips, one can measure the amount of radio-active material in each an compare them. IF the travelling shuttle remained younger than the one who "stayed at home" it will have more radio-active material than the one which stayed "at home". I predict that both will have the same amount of radio-active material and will thus have exactly the same age.

The radioactive material is the muon, the "shuttle" is a bunch of muons, the back-and-forth is around and around a storage ring, the speed is very high (gamma=29.33), and the laboratory clock does see the normal twins-paradox prediction. The moving muons "age slowly" (i.e. suffer decay less often) compared to muons at rest in the lab frame.

Obviously they "live longer" in this case when their lifetimes are measured relative to earth while they are moving relative to earth. It is not the same as having a twin shuttle leaving and returning and then comparing the ages of the two shuttles while they are both stationary within the same inertial reference frame.

I also want to quote something from the same thread. One poster said he had offered to help Johan to replicate his experiment, someone else asked whether this had happened or not.

Ron Stahl did not offer me help to replicate the experiment but wrote that he thinks that he can get somebody interested to do so. On my sister's advice I did not appoint him to go ahead and do this. My sister's son had a similar experience where a guy contacted him and offered help. Unfortunately he responded in a manner which the other guy could construe as requesting him to go ahead. My sister's son eventually ended up receiving a stiff account for the other guy's "time he spent looking for help"; which he obviously did not even do.

I did not make the same mistake with Ron Stahl, and he NEVER made any suggestion of where and by whom my experiment will be replicated. So he also did not even try to obtain any help at all to replicate my experiments, but ended up claiming on polywell that he spent a lot of "his valuable time" trying to help me. So my sister's advice was absolutely correct not to trust him.

 

[johanfprins]

I posted double by mistake

 

[sol invictus]

1. Do you all agree that when an electron with a solatary rest mass m_e bonds with a proton with a solitary rest mass m_P, one obtains a hydrogen atom with a rest mass M_H so that M_H<m_P+m_e?

After radiating away one or several photons, yes.

2. Do you agree that the expression E²=p²*c² +(m_e*c²)² is applicable for both high speeds and very low speeds?

Yes.

Thus, Newton's mechanics is also Lorentz relativistic is it not?

Of course not. It doesn't agree with that expression as p/m approaches c.

So why do you call the Schroedinger equation "non-relativistic"?

Because it isn't. It obviously cannot be, since it doesn't contain c. It's valid only when the energies of the particles are much less than their rest mass energy.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Yesterday, I wrote:

For the sake of argument, I am willing to pretend johanfprins agrees with Einstein's special and general theories of relativity, and that all of his apparent disagreements stem from misunderstanding Einstein's (or someone else's) presentation of those theories.

Today, however, johanfprins has written:

Thus, Newton's mechanics is also Lorentz relativistic is it not?

I can no longer pretend that johanfprins understands anything about relativity.

 

[johanfprins]

Originally Posted by johanfprins
1. Do you all agree that when an electron with a solatary rest mass m^e bonds with a proton with a solitary rest mass m^P, one obtains a hydrogen atom with a rest mass M_H so that M_H<m_P+m_e

Sol: After radiating away one or several photons, yes.

That photons must radiate away is so obvious that it goes without saying. So the mass decrease causes photons to be emitted: Matter turns into light. I agree fully with this!

JFP: 2. Do you agree that the expression E²=p²*c² +(m_e*c²)² is applicable for both high speeds and very low speeds?
Sol: Yes.

Very good indeed.

JFP: Thus, Newton's mechanics is also Lorentz relativistic is it not?

Sol: Of course not. It doesn't agree with that expression as p/m approaches c.

I have not said at high speeds.

JFP: So why do you call the Schroedinger equation "non-relativistic"?

Sol: Because it isn't. It obviously cannot be, since it doesn't contain c.

But it does not have to contain c at low speeds to satisfy the equation above when v becomes small.

Sol: It's valid only when the energies of the particles are much less than their rest mass energy.

Exactly! There are thus no high speeds involved at all; and therefore it is "relativistic".

 

[johanfprins]

In an attempt to addres the confusion you are causing by not understanding chemical potentials and the relationship between the Fermi-level and applied potentials when a current is flowing, I decided to try and avoid your area of confusion. I have thus added a "zero-statement" and removed a sentence in statement three. Below are statements zero to five: Do you still have problens?

Statement zero: When an electric current is flowing through a conductor, and a potential-difference V is measured between two positions to the conductor, there is a difference in the energy of the Fermi-level at the two points that is equal qV; where q is the charge on each charge-carrier. If there is not such an offset and a current is still flowing, the material is a superconductor.

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.

Statement 3: When reverse-biasing the Schottky barrier, the Fermi-level on the metal side is pulled down in energy relative to the Fermi-level on the n-type semiconductor side: If the donor density is high enough, the dipole width will at first increase to also eliminate this offset in Fermi-levels. By further increasing the reverse bias, a situation will eventually be reached at which the dipole cannot adjust anymore to keep the Fermi-levels on both sides at the same energy: An electric-field will then increase within the depletion layer so that eventually a breakdown current will flow from the n-type semiconductor through the dipole into the metal.

Statement 4: The voltage at which reverse breakdown occurs is determined by the density of the donors so that there are different types of breakdown: i.e.
(i) Low donor density: Dielectric breakdown: AKA avalanche breakdown.
(ii) Intermediate donor density: Zener breakdown so that at the breakdown voltage electrons start to tunnel through the depletion layer.
(iii) Very high donor density: Immediate breakdown by Zener tunnelling; since even though the dipole can adapt to align the Fermi-levels, the dipole layer is so thin that charge-carriers immediately tunnel through the dipole-layer. It is said that an "ohmic-contact" has formed.

Statement 5: It is an experimental fact that one can modify the surface of a diamond substrate to have negative electron affinity (NEA): This means that without charge-carriers within the conduction band, the conduction band is at a higher energy than the vacuum energy-level for an electron outside the diamond. By injecting an electron (oops one cannot inject an electron but only a negatively charged wave-packet) into the conduction band near such a surface (using photo excitation for example), the charge-carrier will be at a higher energy than it will be outside the surface in the vacuum.

 

[sol invictus]

I have not said at high speeds.

And you have not said low speeds either.

Regardless of what you said, Newtonian dynamics contradicts relativity to some degree at all speeds, and to a large degree as p approaches mc. Therefore, it is not Lorentz relativistic.

But it does not have to contain c at low speeds to satisfy the equation above when v becomes small.

To approximately satisfy it, that is true. But it obviously does have to contain c to be relativistic, which would mean it agrees at all momenta and velocities.

Exactly! There are thus no high speeds involved at all; and therefore it is "relativistic".

You're a lost cause, Johan.

 

[johanfprins]

And you have not said low speeds either.
Regardless of what you said, Newtonian dynamics contradicts relativity to some degree at all speeds, and to a large degree as p approaches mc. Therefore, it is not Lorentz relativistic.
To approximately satisfy it, that is true. But it obviously does have to contain c to be relativistic, which would mean it agrees at all momenta and velocities.

I still believe that it is wrong to call Newton's mechanics at low speeds "non-relativistic". But let us agree to disagree on this pedantic issue.

You're a lost cause, Johan.

Funnily I think the same about you.

So you agree that when an electron and a proton bond to form a hydrogen atom, the electron looses mass (delta)m_e so that its "relativistic" energy is E=m_be=m_e-(delta)m_e. So let us substitute it into equation E²=p²*c² +(m_e*c²)² which you agree is generally valid, and solve for p^2.. If you can do the mathematics, you will find that p² is negative: i.e. that p itself is an imaginary number. So can one have an imaginary momentum at any speed and negative kinetic energy at low speed? I do not think soooo!

 

[ben m]

IF the travelling shuttle remained younger than the one who "stayed at home" it will have more radio-active material than the one which stayed "at home". I predict that both will have the same amount of radio-active material and will thus have exactly the same age.

Obviously they "live longer" in this case when their lifetimes are measured relative to earth while they are moving relative to earth. It is not the same as having a twin shuttle leaving and returning and then comparing the ages of the two shuttles while they are both stationary within the same inertial reference frame.

This is precisely what is done. A bunch of muons is indeed a "piece of radioactive material". The half-life of a muon at rest is 2.2 microseconds.

We can take a bunch of muons at rest and measure what fraction are still there 220 22 us later. Experimental answer: 0.1% of them. We take a bunch of muons, send them off around the ring at gamma=29, and measure what fraction are still there 2.2us 22us later. Experimental answer: 80% of them.

 

[sol invictus]

I still believe that it is wrong to call Newton's mechanics at low speeds "non-relativistic".

And every physicist in the world disagrees with you. So there are two possibilities: you are wrong, or every physicist in the world is wrong. I know which you'll choose.

So you agree that when an electron and a proton bond to form a hydrogen atom, the electron looses mass

No, I didn't agree with that. I agreed that the mass of an isolated hydrogen atom is less than the mass of an isolated electron plus the mass of an isolated proton.

(delta)m_e so that its "relativistic" energy is E=m_be=m_e-(delta)m_e. So let us substitute it into equation E²=p²*c² +(m_e*c²)² which you agree is generally valid, and solve for p^2.. If you can do the mathematics, you will find that p² is negative: i.e. that p itself is an imaginary number. So can one have an imaginary momentum at any speed and negative kinetic energy at low speed? I do not think soooo!

Actually, you just asserted that the electron "loses mass" when it's bound to a proton. If so, why are you using the original mass in your calculation? You're not even consistent with yourself.

The expression E²=p²*c² +(m_e*c²)² is "generally valid" only in the sense that it correctly gives the energy E for a free electron in empty space with any momentum p. It manifestly does not give the energy for electrons in other situations. For instance, it does not include any reference to the electric potential, which by definition affects the energy of an electron, so it cannot be valid in the presence of a potential. That's why it doesn't correctly compute the energy of an electron bound to a proton.

 

[Ziggurat]

So you agree that when an electron and a proton bond to form a hydrogen atom, the electron looses mass (delta)m_e

Yes, the electron loses mass. But how much mass does it lose, johan? Can you calculate that? I can. And if you stick in a mass of 510,961.5 eV, then you DON'T get zero or negative p².

So how do you get the mass, johan? You can't do the calculation, can you? You asked us to use quantum mechanics, and now you're avoiding it like the plague. How can you test a theory if you can't even do the theory? How can you disprove a theory if you can't even make a single prediction with it?

My offer still stands, despite your repeated refusal: I'll do half the calculation for you if you promise to do the other half. But you won't, because you can't. Admit you can't and I'll even do the whole thing for you.

 

[Ziggurat]

The expression E²=p²*c² +(m_e*c²)² is "generally valid" only in the sense that it correctly gives the energy E for a free electron in empty space with any momentum p. It manifestly does not give the energy for electrons in other situations. For instance, it does not include any reference to the electric potential, which by definition affects the energy of an electron, so it cannot be valid in the presence of a potential. That's why it doesn't correctly compute the energy of an electron bound to a proton.

This deserves a little more comment. The electric potential will change the mass of the electron. The expression E²=p²*c² +(m*c²)², where m now refers to the mass of the electron in the potential, will remain accurate. But because of the potential, one cannot use m_e. And to figure out m in the presence of a potential, one must be able to calculate that potential, in the case of quantum mechanics that means getting <V>. Which I offered to do for you, johan, but you refused, and are incapable of getting yourself.

 

[ben m]

This deserves a little more comment. The electric potential will change the mass of the electron. The expression E²=p²*c² +(m*c²)², where m now refers to the mass of the electron in the potential, will remain accurate.

I disagree. Remember that "electric potential" has an arbitrary zero point, and it's only for convenience that we so often say "let U=0 at infinity". Rest mass is an absolute, Lorentz-invariant, gauge-invariant quantity. This is one of the things I was trying to illustrate by bringing up the Van de Graaff. If you are in a Faraday cage stuck to the terminal of a Van de Graaff, there is no local experiment you can do to tell whether the terminal is charged up or grounded. Electrons around you appear to weigh 511 keV (and there's no spacetime transformation to problematize that statement) even though they're "in fact" at the bottom of a twenty-megavolt potential well with -40 electron masses of binding energy.

The relativistic energy-momentum equation replaces Newton's kinetic-energy-momentum equation. It does not replace all forms of energy.

In other words, if you were writing the Schrodinger equation for an electron in a potential well, rather than writing

E Psi = hbar^2 p^2/2m Psi + V(x) Psi

you'd start by writing

E Psi = hbar^2 sqrt(p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4) Psi + V(x) Psi

(And of course, in order to make this work in detail, you have to transform it into the Dirac equation or Klein-Gordon equation.)

But no, you don't add or subtract <V(x)> from the rest-mass term. The missing mass is not missing from the electron, it's missing from the entire system. If you take all of the components of the system and perform a frame-transformation, the fact that "the system's mass includes the binding energy" will pop out naturally; you don't have to take it out by hand.