Superconductivity at room temperature??

[W.D.Clinger]

Not johanfprins. He guessed wrong:

Originally Posted by johanfprins
You will then also find that the length within K is the same as the length within K^/. Clinger go and get yourself a goldfish and become wise.

No, Johan, that is not what I found when I did the math.

I knew that I should not engage with you.

When you can't handle the math and don't know the physics, insulting people who can and do may be a bad idea.

Only a person who is not intellectually capable will do a calculation in SR without first choosing an origin for the time that befits the problem being analysed: i.e. without first synchronising the clocks within K^/ and K.

Egad.

The Lorentz transformation is linear, not affine. It's trivial to confirm that the Lorentz transformation maps the spacetime origin of K^/ to the spacetime origin of K, and vice versa. For affine transformations we'd use the Poincaré group, not the Lorentz group.

(ETA: Every linear transformation is affine, but the Poincaré group of affine transformations allows translations. The Lorentz group includes only linear transformations, which map origin to origin.)​

For those who may not be familiar with the precise mathematical jargon: When johanfprins gave us coordinates in K^/ and told us to use the Lorentz transformation, he was telling us (apparently unknowingly) to use coordinates for K in which both the time and space origins of K and K^/ coincide.

I did so. And so, when johanfprins objected to my calculation by writing "Only a person who is not intellectually capable will do a calculation in SR without first choosing an origin for the time that befits the problem being analysed: i.e. without first synchronising the clocks within K^/ and K", he told us he doesn't know how to do calculations in SR.

Now, before I show you how wrong your calculation is, let us see if you can answer the following SIMPLE question:

I synchronise the clocks in K^/ and K when the origins of K^/ and K coincide: After a time interval of t on the clock within K, what is the position coordinate x₀ of the origin of K^/ as measured within K?

vt

Those observations are made entirely within K, so there is no need for any Lorentz transformation.

You will most probably also get this wrong!

Although I am perfectly capable of making mistakes, johanfprins has demonstrated (repeatedly!) that he is not qualified to judge.

For example: I stated and proved a trivial theorem that refuted Dr Prins's ridiculous denial of acceleration during circular motion. I made two minor mistakes in that post, which I corrected in these two posts:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7317538#post7317538
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7319328#post7319328

With those corrections, however, my proof of acceleration during circular motion is correct. johanfprins has never acknowledged the fact that circular motion involves acceleration, and continued to deny that fact in his subsequent posts.

 

[ben m]

I knew that I should not engage with you. Only a person who is not intellectually capable will do a calculation in SR without first choosing an origin for the time that befits the problem being analysed: i.e. without first synchronising the clocks within K^/ and K.

No, W. D. Clinger's treatment is correct. Both versions. If you change the frame-frame synchronization, it has no effect on the answer (the choice-of-clock-start-time drops out of the calculation when Clinger takes ("t4-t2") or whatever).

 

[johanfprins]

Originally Posted by johanfprins
Now, before I show you how wrong your calculation is, let us see if you can answer the following SIMPLE question:

I synchronise the clocks in K/ and K when the origins of K/ and K coincide: After a time interval of t on the clock within K, what is the position coordinate x0 of the origin of K/ as measured within K?

vt

A miracle!! You got it right! Wow!

Now when the nose of the rod passes you, you synchronise the clocks so that the nose of the rod which is stationary within K^/ is now at position x^/=0 within K^/.

When the tail of the rod passes you, you note the time t. Thus the length you measured within K must is L=vt, which must be the same as the actual length L^/ within K^/ since this is the actual distance that passed you by. Furthermore, the nose of the rod is at x^/=0 while the tail is at x=0 were the latter coordinate within K^/ is x^/=-L^/=-vt^/. Since the distance between the two origins at which the nose and rear of the rod are, must be exactly the same within both reference frames, the coordinates within K and K^/ demand that the rod does not actually shrink nor actually lengthen.

 

[johanfprins]

No, W. D. Clinger's treatment is correct. Both versions. If you change the frame-frame synchronization, it has no effect on the answer (the choice-of-clock-start-time drops out of the calculation when Clinger takes ("t4-t2") or whatever).

It should be so if you do it right: But Clinger as usual got it wrong!

 

[ben m]

Since the distance between the two origins at which the nose and rear of the rod are, are exactly the same within both reference frames, the rod does not actually shrink nor actually lengthen.

Nnnnnno. Simultaneity shift, dude. If K is noting "where the nose is NOW (x1) and where the tail is NOW (x2)", K' will think that the two "NOWs" were not simultaneous. K' will agree that K did some sort of distance measurement, i.e. that K noted two positions and subtracted them to get a displacement, but K' will say that this distance is not actually the length of the rod, but a mixture of the rod-length and the rod-velocity.

An effect Clinger correctly included in his completely worked-through example.

(The pedagogical example that my students understand: in what way does K' think K has a measurement which is not the rod length? Let's have them measure a moving bus. K' would say that K measured the back bumper of a bus at 6:00AM, and its position was in New York, and that K measured the front bumper of the bus in Philadelphia at 8:00 AM. K' agrees that New York and Philly are indeed 100 miles apart, but K' disagrees with the K conclusion that the bus is 100 miles long. (K says: "no, I measured the front and back of the bus at the same time according to my clocks.") So due to the clock-simulteneity shift, they disagree on the length of the bus.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

A miracle!! You got it right! Wow!

Now when the nose of the rod passes you, you synchronise the clocks so that the nose of the rod which is stationary within K^/ is now at position x^/=0 within K^/.

When the tail of the rod passes you, you note the time t. Thus the length you measured within K must is L=vt, which must be the same as the actual length L^/ within K^/ since the nose of the rod is still at x^/=0 while the tail is at x=0 which is the same as at x^/=-L^/=-vt^/ within K^/. Since the distance between the two origins at which the nose and rear of the rod are, are exactly the same within both reference frames, the rod does not actually shrink nor actually lengthen.

johanfprins is repeating his tiresome tactic of making minor alterations to his own formulation of the problem, while making his same old mistakes, and hoping that his same old wrong answers will somehow fool everybody this time.

No one except johanfprins will be surprised to hear that Einstein's length contraction is once again the answer you get when you take Johan's new coordinate system and perform a correct calculation as in my previous posts:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7863273#post7863273
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7865834#post7865834

In Johan's post above, I have highlighted two incorrect claims he cannot justify. ben m has already explained what's wrong with those claims, so I'll stop here.

Protip: When johanfprins disagrees with Einstein, bet on Einstein.

 

[ben m]

johanfprins is repeating his tiresome tactic of making minor alterations to his own formulation of the problem, while making his same old mistakes, and hoping that his same old wrong answers will somehow fool everybody this time.

Yep. Standard crackpot technique. Johan can't get the results he wants if he works through arbitrary problems in arbitrary detail. He's got one "calculation" in his pocket, a simple one, in which he stumbled into a Freshman-level mistake but whose conclusion is the conclusion he likes. You'd think that, if important bits of relativity were wrong, paradoxes would appear in detailed workthroughs ("here is a list of events and their 4-coordinates") as well as casual ones ("obviously K knows the length is L, right?"). But no, a detailed workthrough would prevent Johan from forgetting to transform the times differently at the two ends of the rod.

He can't find problems with other relativistic calculations (if indeed he understands them.) All he can do is direct things back to his original setup, where he knows exactly how to set it up making the same mistake every time.

Tellingly, he can't even tell you why this setup matters.

There was another crackpot I argued with once, named Ivor Catt. He thought all of electrodynamics was wrong. But the only calculation in which he could actually find the Giant Paradox was one specific thing that he'd worked out---something to do with the Poynting vector in a transmission line---that he said disproved Maxwell. Why did Maxwell work elsewhere? Why couldn't he find a similar error in free-space Poynting vectors? Was there some limit or symmetry that only shows up in this example? No idea. All he could do was lead everything back to the "Catt Anomaly" where he knew the desired weird answer would pop up again.

 

[johanfprins]

This thread has come a long way. It started of with people calling me a crackpot since I claim that I have already discovered superconduction at room temperature ten years ago. Since then we have gone through many topics and has now ended up where I am being called a crackpot because I conclude that actual length contraction does not occur when a rod passes by with a speed v. Why such a diverse number of topics? I believe that it has been caused by, what I will call the "Assault-team" led by Ben M, Sol and Ziggurat, that consistently steared away from a specific topic when it suits them not to supply honest answers and scientific logic to such a topic.

I think the time has come to summarise the most important issues on which the "A-team" and I differ and then to see if we can, without throwing anymore insults around, reach a conclusion on each issue. The main issues are according to me the following (If I have left out any issue which the readers of this thread feel that I should not have, please ask me to add it):

Issue 1: Room Temperature Superconduction
I claim: That I have found and clearly demonstrated superconduction at room temperature by an electron phase which forms between an n-type diamond's surface and an anode.
A-team claims : That I have not found a superconducting phase. One of the reasons offered was that I must have pushed the anode into the diamond's surface because Ben would typically have done it if he did the experiment; and therefore I must also have done it.

Issue 2: Cancellation of an applied electric field within a superconductor while a current is flowing: Or why does the Fermi-level have the same energy everywhere?
I claim : That the reason is quantum-mechanical; since the charge-carriers move by means of quantum fluctuations and therefore acceleration of charge-carriers through a superconductor is not required.
A-team claims : That the charge-carriers can be accelerated and the reason why the electric field is cancelled is purely classical since Gauss' law demands that charge-carriers must accumulate at the contact interfaces to the superconductor.

Issue 3: Kinetic-energy of an electron energy-level of a hydrogen atom.
I claim : That any electron energy-level of a hydrogen atom has purely mass (stationary) energy and therefore cannot have a kinetic energy component at all.
A-team claims : That Each energy level has a kinetic energy component that can be calculated as <p²/(2*m)> and a potential energy component which can be calculated as <V(x)>; and since this is so I MUST do these calculations.

Issue 4: Time dilation and length contraction in SR:
I claim :
(a) Time dilation only occurs within the reference frame relative to which the clock is moving and not on the clock itself. This means that when a twin returns from a long spaceflight he will still be the same age as his brother who stayed behind. It also means that SR demands that the Hafele-Keating experiment should not find a slow-down in the clock rate of the flown clock caused by SR.
(b) Actual length contraction does not occur since the front and rear end of a passing rod cannot manifest at the same instant in time within any inertial reference frame relative to which the rod is moving.
A-team claims :
(a) That the time dilation occurs on the moving clock itself: This means that when a twin returns from a long spaceflight he will be much younger than his brother who stayed behind. It also means that SR demands that the Hafele-Keating experiment must show a slow-down in clock rate just as Hafele and Keating claim that it does.
(b) That a rod does actually contract since it is possible for the front and rear end of the rod to manifest simultaneously within any inertial reference frame also those relative to which the rod is moving.

If you agree with the issues above and how I explained my claims and the A-team claims, then post that you do. I will then work my way backwards through these issues starting with issue 4. May I suggest that we ask the A-team to select a spokesperson and that the rest of the team only posts when they disagree with their spokesperson. I think that Ben might be the best choice since he seems to understand a bit more physics (??) than Sol , Ziggurat and the rest of the choir do.

 

[The Don]

Well with Issue4 there is certainly a wealth of experimental evidence (which you claim has been fudged) to demonstrate the effect and to support the claims of everyone else apart from you.

 

[sol invictus]

This post of W.D.Clinger is particularly relevant here:

That story's told here:

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath317/kmath317.htm

In short, Herbert Dingle was a philosopher of science who embarrassed himself with a very public display of ignorance concerning the twin paradox. Instead of acknowledging his error, he kept digging.

It's just another example of what's now known as the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I recommend that link to anyone reading this thread - especially Johan.

 

[Farsight]

Farsight: Do not let Ben, Sol or Ziggurat intimidate you. They are just typical bullies: Lots of brawn but little ???.

I'm not intimidated, Johan, just busy. We had new bedroom carpets laid yesterday, and I've been humping furniture et cetera. Now I've got to go Christmas shopping. Sheesh.

 

[johanfprins]

Well with Issue4 there is certainly a wealth of experimental evidence (which you claim has been fudged) to demonstrate the effect and to support the claims of everyone else apart from you.

Yes I have been in this position before on many issues. Anybody can of course always be wrong (even I ), but in the previous cases, which includes the design of high pressure systems for diamond synthesis, I was eventually proved to be correct after having had to endure scorn for many years.
<SNIP>

I have learned that dogmatic thinkers tend to respond like Ben, Sol and Ziggurat. Unfortunately, owing to previous experience, I find it difficult to stay civil when dealing with such people.

The point I want to make on the "wealth of evidence" is that not all this evidence has been correctly analysed. I do not dispute that time dilation effects can be observed, such as in the case of high speed muons, but I do dispute the claim that a clock that travels with the muons will keep time at a slower rate within its own inertial refrence frame within which it is stationary. After all the muons are stationary relative to such a clock; are they not? And within a laboratory where the muons do not move relative to the laboratory clock, the muons do NOT have longer lifetimes.

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of rule 11.

 

[johanfprins]

This post of W.D.Clinger is particularly relevant here: I recommend that link to anyone reading this thread - especially Johan.

Thank you I will definitely do so.

Note added after reading about Dingle: Quote: "He came to focus his technical criticism of special relativity on one particular scenario, which he claimed was proof that special relativity entails a self-contradiction." So you immediately assume that I must be a Dingle, instead of reading what I am arguing. I have never claimed that special relativity is self-contradicting. In fact, it is one of the masterpieces of physics and Einstein is one of my heroes.

All I am claiming is that some of the derivations made from this beautiful piece of physics, violate the very two postulates on which Einstein based this masterful theory. To compare me with Dingle is absurd: Only a real crackpot, who is as much a crackpot as Dingle was, will come to such a conclusion.

 

[ben m]

So you immediately assume that I must be a Dingle, instead of reading what I am arguing.

All I am claiming is that some of the derivations made from this beautiful piece of physics, violate the very two postulates on which Einstein based this masterful theory.

I know you're wrong because I found your mistake. You know what's funny? It's almost exactly Dingle's mistake---comparing two displaced events "at the same time" and forgetting about the simultaneity shift.

 

[ben m]

I do not dispute that time dilation effects can be observed, such as in the case of high speed muons, but I do dispute the claim that a clock that travels with the muons will keep time at a slower rate within its own inertial refrence frame within which it is stationary. After all the muons are stationary relative to such a clock; are they not? And within a laboratory where the muons do not move relative to the laboratory clock, the muons do NOT have longer lifetimes.

Straw-man, Johan. No one ever makes that claim. If you think they did, please cite it. (You won't of course. No jumping through hoops for you!)

Your problem (this time) is that you think that the Twin Paradox statement---"the out-and-back twin is younger when he arrives"---contradicts me. You're wrong, there is no contradiction. Should I explain? Of course not, that's what I would do with someone who learns from explanations.

I can only imagine the vast numbers times you must have seen this explanation and ignored it. Yikes.

 

[Farsight]

Farsight, perhaps you should go back to one of your old threads about disagreeing with relativity rather than derailing this one. This thread is supposed to be about Johan's beliefs. Just because it tangentially touches on various subjects does not mean this thread is open for everyone to jump in with their own pet theories.

I joined this thread because I saw Johan talking correctly about mass, but he was being pilloried. See page 61 post #2422. I backed him up with a reference to Einstein's E=mc² paper and an article about a photon in a box, which Vorpal agreed was standard physics. What I was saying the other day about length contraction comes out of the wave nature of matter. That's no pet theory. And note that I also tried to get everybody to stop insulting each other. That's what you should be doing, not playing thought-police because I've turned up to back Johan up where he's correct.

 

[johanfprins]

Your problem (this time) is that you think that the Twin Paradox statement---"the out-and-back twin is younger when he arrives"---contradicts me. You're wrong, there is no contradiction. Should I explain?

First formulate Einstein's two postulates on which he based SR, and then explain it in terms of these two postulates. You cannot if you have ANY logic in your head; which sadly you have proved time and again on this thread that you have not.

 

[ben m]

Dingle said the same about the twin paradox, and therefore I must be a Dingle, no matter how much I differ from this crackpot for different reasons.

No, Johan, I've looked at Dingle's anti-relativity argument and it is wrong. It makes a simple error---it treats two transformed-times as simultaneous, where the correct calculation shows they're not---and mistakenly concludes that relativity is wrong.

I've looked at your anti-length-contraction argument and it is wrong. You make a simple error---you treat two transformed-times as simultaneous, where the correct calculation shows they're not---and mistakenly concludes that relativity predicts no length contraction.

That's why I say you're like Dingle. You made the same mistake, you just built slightly different crackpot campaigns around that mistake.

The very next thing will be that they will claim that they actually proved my arguments wrong

That's a great defense mechanism, Johan. You've been through this so many times, you've completely internalized the whole process. You even remember the part where people say "I just explained that two posts ago", but you've deluded yourself into thinking they're lying.

 

[johanfprins]

From Ray D'Inverno: Introducing Eintein's Relativity:

Postulates of SR:

Page 19: Postulate 1: All inertial observers are equivalent.

Page 20: Postulate 2: The velocity of light is the same in all inertial systems.

Would the spokesperson of the A-team please explain what these postulates mean to the A-team.

 

[Farsight]

...I claim:
(a) Time dilation only occurs within the reference frame relative to which the clock is moving and not on the clock itself. This means that when a twin returns from a long spaceflight he will still be the same age as his brother who stayed behind. It also means that SR demands that the Hafele-Keating experiment should not find a slow-down in the clock rate of the flown clock caused by SR.

Johan, you were right about the mass and the length-contraction, but I have to say you're wrong about this one.

To understand why, think of the old spinning-plates stage act and the simple inference of time dilation due to relative velocity. Then simplify the muon to an unstable "circle of light" that lasts for about a billion rotations. Now imagine muon1 is next to you, and muon2 goes out on a rapid out-and-back trip, getting back just as muon1 is decaying. For muon1, the light traces a circular path. But for muon2, as far as you're concerned, the light traces a helical path. And because the light-path length is the same for both muons, muon2must have done less than a billion rotations. Hence it hasn't decayed yet. Hence it's "younger" than muon1. The important thing to note is that all clocks "clock up" some kind of regular local motion. It doesn't matter whether it's a pendulum clock, a quartz wristwatch, an atomic clock, or a parallel-mirror light clock, that's what clocks do. And in this scenario the muon is the clock. Local motion is reduced by the macroscopic motion through space, and the two-way trip pins down muon2 as the muon that was moving.

Let me know if this explanation isn't good enough, but I have to say I am confident about the general reasoning. IMHO you should yield on this point, otherwise your detractors will use it to discredit you and your other points.