Superconductivity at room temperature??

[W.D.Clinger]

yowza

You are arrogant and boring at the same time.

There is nothing that you have posted or can post on this thread that I do not already know about; and already have thought about intensely.

So stop making a fool of yourself!

It is this higher charge density that is an "accumulation of charge" at the interfaces. It is not that any electron stops at the interface. It is that they spend more time there.

How is this possible when the same current is flowing through all interfaces, whether such an interface is in the middle of the copper, or iron, or between them? You are as usual spouting claptrap! Sue your supervisor: BTW who is he/she?

Still waters run deep.

Think about it.

 

[Probably Not]

I know these too, and all of them can be simply explained in terms of the known properties and interactions of waves. There is NOTHING "strange" about these results. If YOU want to believe that they are "strange" since you enjoy the mystical world of impossible science fiction: Please be my guest!

Johan,
Would you mind going into this in more detail when you get the chance, please? Could you, for example, explain the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester in terms of known properties and interactions of waves? I'd be very, very interested in reading that.

 

[Reality Check]

johanfprins, Explain the Stern–Gerlach experiment with waves

I do not have that delusion. As usual you are referencing things that I know about; and you do it in an arrogant manner as if you think that I know less physics than you do. I can assure you that most of my manuscripts were solo, and that my citation index is not a meagre ONE.

As usual you are going off on a rant about somthing that I did not say.

You called several things that are experimentally verified "paranormal".

1. Wave particle duality: supported by experiments.
2. The double slit experiment: is an experiment !
3. Multi-world interpretation of QM is an interpretation.
4. Wheeler's delayed choice experiment has been actually done
   Jacques, Vincent; et al. (2007). "Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment". Science 315: 966-968. arXiv:quant-ph/0610241v1. Bibcode 2007Sci...315..966J. doi:10.1126/science.1136303.
5. That sounds like another QM interpretation (de Broglie–Bohm theory?).
6. Aharanov-Bohm effect: another experimental result
   Osakabe, N; et al. (1986). "Experimental confirmation of Aharonov-Bohm effect using a toroidal magnetic field confined by a superconductor". Physical Review A 34 (2): 815–822. Bibcode 1986PhRvA..34..815O. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.34.815. PMID 9897338.

That is ignoring the scientific evidence about how the universe acts. That makes it into a delusion (or may ignorance or maybe just being too lazy to do the research).

I know these too, and all of them can be simply explained in terms of the known properties and interactions of waves.

Back up this assertion, johanfprins: Provide a explanation of these experimentally verified effects:

• Quantum eraser experiment.
• Stern–Gerlach experiment (wow, intrinsic angular momentum, i.e. "spin").
• Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester

using the known properties and interactions of waves.
Start with the Stern–Gerlach experiment.

How do waves give a particle an intrinsic angular momentum?

We can explain it using QM but there are no "waves" involved - there are wave functions. The Dirac equation gives particles intrinsic angular momentum because coordinate rotations of 360 degrees do not return to the original quantum state. Instead you have to rotate by 720 degrees. Noether's theorem then tells you that this rotation symmetry is equivalent to an angular momentum.

 

[Reality Check]

I doubt that you ever have understood this.

You would be still wrong: I have.

You think that after you have published one manuscript which was written by you supervisor and got one citation (probably by somebody else who also studied under the same supervisor) you can teach me physics!

How idiotic. The fact that you do not even know how to apply Gauss's law to the Cu-Fe_Cu sandwuch shows that you are incapable of learning physics.

You remarks just make your ignorance of scientific publishing obvious.

Read the paper: Effect of localized spin fluctuations on transport properties in the one-band Wolff model

Who is the first author?
I wrote the paper together with my supervisor. I would guess that you got at least one paper form you thesis - can I assume that your supervisor wrote it since you do the same?

It actually has been cited twice - and yes my supervisor was the sole author on one and a contributing author on another.

I do not stop them: Nature stops them since, even while they transport a current, they remain at the lowest energy that they can be at: They have no energy to dissipate.

That is ridiculus. They have kinetic energy (they are moving!) So they do have "energy to dissipate".
But that is not the question: johanfprins: How do you stop your charge-carriers from scattering?

The charge carriers within any conductor are NOT electrons.

And once again: nothing to do with my question: johanfprins: What are your charge-carriers?

The charge carriers within any conductor can be electrons.
The charge carriers may also be electron holes, ions (e.g. electrolytes) or even protons (e.g. solid electrolytes).

In my model, the charge carriers within all superconductors are localised electron-states which have the lowest energy that they can have.

That is idiotic: As you state - you now have an insulator!

When the density of these localised states becomes high enough, they can exchange places by means of quantum fluctuations.

Wow - mysterious "quantum fluctuations"!
But this sounds like vacuum fluctuations which have their own problems for your idea (see below).

Since the energy during a quantum fluctuation is used (to move on) and it then disappears, the charge-carriers have the same energy when they reach the target contact than the energy they have started off from the injection contact.
[/quote[
Wrong: You now have "charge-carriers" within the superconductor that ignore any electric field. They go off in random directions., i.e. there is no current!

Really wrong: vacuum fluctuations create virtual particles. These can never be real particles unless energy is provided. So your charge-carriers can never leave the superconductor. But currents do flow through superconductors!

Nope! No matter whether the charge-carriers are fermions or bosons, if you can accelerate them, you create states into which the can scatter.
...snipped rant about acceleration...

That is ignorant. The available states are created by the quantum system, not the ability to accelerate particles.

 

[Reality Check]

If it is, this charge cannot be an accumulation of charge-carriers as YOU, and BZS are claiming.
...snipped usual inane insult...

Wrong: It is a charge density at the interfaces that is different from the charge density in the body of the layers. That is an accumulation of charge at the interfaces as ME and BZS are claiming.

Think about it this way - take a slinky. Stretch it out evenly so that there is a constant density of coils. Now compress it slightly at some point. There is now 2 different density of coils. There has been an accumulation of coils at that point.

 

[Reality Check]

How is this possible when the same current is flowing through all interfaces, whether such an interface is in the middle of the copper, or iron, or between them?

As usual you are displaying appalling ignorance.
This has beened explained to you many times before. the different charge density ("accumulaton of charge") is created when the current is switched on. All the current does in the steady-state case (and as pointed out before by me) is add an amount of charges to one side of the interface and subtract the same amount of cjarges from the other.


You will have to blame

• James Maxwell (and others)
• all of my unveristy lecturers in my undergraduate courses
• the EM textbooks
• (and a bit on Wikipedia which I used to refresh my memory)

for the basic electromagnetiic theory that shows that an accumulaton of charge exist:

1. Ohm's law
2. Gauss's law

Now apply these two laws to a Cu-Fe-Cu snadwich with a constant current flowing thru it and as pointed out before by me, ben m, sol invictus and understandable by (hopefully) anyone with undergraduate physics knowledge:

The Cu-Fe-Cu sandwich example explicitly gives a different charge density at the interfaces from the body of the layers. This is an accumulation of charge at the interfaces.
​

 

[Reality Check]

I did not deny Gauss' law by stating that charge carriers cannot accumulate within a surface while a current is flowing.

Yes you do because Gauss's law means that charge carriers do accumulate within a surface (the interface) when the resistance changes across the surface (and so the electric field as stated by Ohm's law).

The change in charge density (accumulation of charge carriers) in a Cu-Fe-Cu sandwich.
​

You can easily prove us wrong - just apply Gauss's law to the Cu-Fe-Cu sandwich and show that the charge density at the interface is the same as that within the layers (no accumulation).

P.S. Have you spotted the obvious non-physicality in the solution caused by the the 'spherical cow' approximation?

 

[johanfprins]

Nope! Sometimes the Brooklyn Bridge has 10 cars/s coming in and 10 cars/s coming out and 100 cars present (and moving) in the middle. Sometimes the Brooklyn Bridge has 10 cars/s coming in and 10 cars/s coming out and 200 cars present (and moving) in the middle.

This obviously does not apply to car-accumulation at a single position on the Brooklyn bridge: Your iron-copper-iron example is rather similar to having a Brooklyn Bridge consisting of three sections: Say an initial section with an incline, a middle section that is horizontal and a final section that again has the same incline as the first section. When the bridge is filled with cars they all only move with the same speed along the bridge, even though the cars on the initial incline and final incline have to expend more energy to move with the same speed as the cars in the middle section. There is NO EXTRA ACCUMULATION OF CARS at the positions where the one section changes into the next section. So your analogy actually proves that you are wrong!

Sometimes a spot on the St. Lawrence River has 100 gal/s moving in and 100 gal/s moving out, and is 8 feet deep. Sometimes a spot on the St. Lawrence River has 100 gal/s moving in and 100 gal/s moving out, and is 4 feet deep.

The charge-carriers moving through a conductor cannot be compared to water moving along a river. Are you again deliberately being misleading? Within your iron-copper-iron, the amount of charge fills the whole material: It does not have a surface that can “rise” and therefore the amount of charge that moves per unit time through any area perpendicular to the flow of the charge-carriers, is exactly the same along the whole length of the iron-copper-iron device. It is like the Brooklyn bridge, consisting of three sections, filled with cars that are moving bumper-to-bumper. There is NOT a perpendicular accumulation of cars on top of each other at the points where the three different sections meet.

To get from one state to the other---i.e. to add 100 "extra" cars to the bridge, to add 4 "extra" ft of water to a spot---you need to have had input > output at some point in the past. If the input is equal to the output, it means the state isn't changing any more.

And it also means that the cars are moving at the same rate through any intersection on the bridge without piling up anywhere.

All totally routine. In the Fe-Cu thing, we expect that transient input != output at the boundary,

Why do you expect that? Can cars accumulate on top of each other at the intersections of the bridge? Obviously not since they cannot move and entangle to be at the same spot: You are reasoning through your neck: As usual!

see the resulting charge accumulation because it alters the fields.

Charge cannot accumulate within the surface of the boundary just like cars cannot accumulate at the exact point where a section with an incline meets up with a section without an incline and vice-versa.

 

[johanfprins]

I agree that the charges are repelling each other. Remember, Johan, that one of the very first things I said about this charge sheet was that it was a stable equilibrium.

It is well known that an ensemble of free charges can NEVER acccumulate to be in stable equilibrium. I suggest that you should read Feynman's Lectures on Physics Volume II section 5.

The presence of this overdensity of charge is a stable equilibrium, and it's stable against the self-repulsion that would blow it up in the absence of other fields and current.

It is clear that you do not understand electrostatics and electrodynamics. A charge that can be accelerated can only be in stable equilibrium if it experiences no electric force on it. So if you have a layer of accumulated free charges within the interface, they can only be stable when the net force, which each one of them experiences, is exactly zero. Are you saying that each of the charge-carriers within the interrface is experiencing no force at all? Just the mere fact that they have to be nearer each other in order to accumulate, means that they must push each other apart owing to Coulomb interactions between them.

Try displacing some of this charge

Why will I try and displace excess charge that cannot be there in the first place? It is a circular argument to start off by assuming that you already have what you must prove must be there!

 

[johanfprins]

You misread my story. The lake was on both sides of the tree. It was not a perfect damn, it was a porous one.

You have me confused. Was the height of the water the same on both sides? But in either case this example has nothing in common with water flowing through pipes that are filled with water which cannot compress nor with charge-carriers flowing through conductors which repel each other when pushed together to in this manner also be incompressible.

 

[D'rok]

You have me confused. Was the height of the water the same on both sides?

Yes.

But in either case this example has nothing in common with water flowing through pipes that are filled with water which cannot compress nor with charge-carriers flowing through conductors which repel each other when pushed together to in this manner also be incompressible.

I gather from what I have read in this thread that "water through pipes" is not the correct analogy and is artificially limiting.

 

[dasmiller]

You have me confused. Was the height of the water the same on both sides? But in either case this example has nothing in common with water flowing through pipes that are filled with water which cannot compress nor with charge-carriers flowing through conductors which repel each other when pushed together to in this manner also be incompressible.

If charge carriers are incompressible, then how can there ever be an accumulation of charge?

 

[johanfprins]

If you're constraining the analogy to apply only to systems of rigid pipes, then what is the analog for your case in which a charge separation was created by bringing a electric charge up to a lump of metal? I'd have thought that the analogous case would have been to simply tilt an open container of water, but if the water is contained in rigid pipes, I don't see how you'd get the analog.

No the analogous case cannot be to tilt an open container with water. Water is not charged and bringing in an outside drop of water towards the water in the pipe is not going to cause a field within water.

The fact is that a metal has BOTH (immobile) positive-charges and (mobile) negative charge-carriers. You can have accumulation of charge-carriers to cancel an applied electric-field; but this is not possible when the applied electric-field causes a current to flow into and out of of a conductor: In the latter case the charge-carriers move in an attempt to cancel the applied electric-field, but they cannot succeeed in doing this since charges are flowng into and out of the conductor at exactly the same rate: Thus, the average density of negative charge-carriers stays exactly the same as it is when there is no electric-field and no current flowing. Therefore there can be no accumulation of charge-carriers within an interface.

In the case of bringing a electric-charge up to a lump of metal, one generates an electric-field within the lump of metal. The charges can then redistribute to cancel this field: Once they have achieved this, there will be no further motion of the charge-carriers: i.e. there will not be a current flowing through the lump of metal. This is so since the positive charges can polarise and the negative charges can move into positions where each of them experience zero force on itself. Within some regions it requires the negative charges to move nearer to each other while in other regions it requires the negative charges to move away from each other. The end positions of the polarised positive charges and the new positions of the negative charges, results in the total cancellation of the electric-field caused by the external charge. One can model the opposite cancellation-field (polarisation-field) as an image charge of the charge oustide the lump of metal.

Thus the only way one can have an accumulation of charge-carriers is within the lump of metal when the charge-carriers can flow into positions where they then experience no net force on them. The latter can also be achieved by forming quantum-mechanical bound states. This happens at a capacitor plate when charge-carriers flow into and accumulate within a plate. The outside surface of the plate presents a barrier (the work function) which the inflowing charge-carriers cannot scale. On the other side of the accumulating charge carriers there is an electric field which prevents such a charge-carrier to move back into the conductor from where it came. It thus finds itself within a potential well and becomes bound as a stationary state. Solutions for these types of accumulation are used on a daily basis to model transistors.

The latter can obviously not happen when there is a current flowing through an interface since there is then no barrier to the motion of the charge-carriers. To thus derive from the accumulation of charge at a capacitor plate, that this can also happen within a boundary through which a current is flowing; is just dumb physics.

 

[johanfprins]

Quote JFP:
I do this every day. It is mandatory for a scientist to do this every day and also to consider the possibility that all the physics, we at present believe in, might be flawed. I am not Galileo: But unfortunately the people in control of physics have become just like the Vatican in the time of Galileo. I am constantly gathering evidence, also from other scientists, that this is the case; and I hope one day, before I die, to lay this evidence before IUPAP.

D'rok's response:There you go again.

What do you mean by "there you go again"? I did NOT say that all physics is flawed: I stated that it is incumbent on every physicist to every day consider the possibility that all the physics, we believe in, might be flawed. This is one of the mandatory guidelines when doing objective research.

Just few posts ago, you said this:
Quote: JFP
I never stated that it's the entire discipline of physics that has been getting it all wrong for the last 80 years.

D'rok's response: Yet you have said this and repeatedly. And you wonder why you aren't taken seriously?

I have not said repeatedly that the entire discipline of physics has been getting it all wrong for the last 80 years. Obviously, in many cases the physics of the last 80 years has led to valid deductions and conclusions: For example, when applying Schroedinger's equation to Chemistry and to Solid Sate Electronics (What they call the "cookbook" approach). My opinion is that the Copenhagen interpretation is wrong; since it is based on paranormal superstition. It is based on the assumption that there are aspects in Nature which the "gods have decreed" and which we must just accept since we cannot understand why they decreed it to be so: "Albert, will you stop telling God what he may or may not do!' Once you build a discipline on such superstition, you are undermining objectivity in physics. But this does not make all physics wrong.

 

[johanfprins]

Get a grip Johan. I am simply quoting your own words. You even set a specifc year - 1927 - for when it all started going wrong.

It did not all started to go wrong. Two paths opened up:

Those practical scientists that used Schroedinger's equation without worrying about the validity of the Copenhagen interpretation: They built our future and a total new Technolgy.

Then there were, and still are, those that built their physics on the paranormal metaphysics of "wave-particle" duality. They have generated an increasing amount of paranormal interpretations of physics and physics experiments: A list of which was given by Reality Check. These experimental results can all be simply explained in terms of light and matter waves and how waves interact with each other and with their surroundings (boundary conditions) in a non-paranormal way; without EVER having to invoke the concept of a "particle" at all.

 

[dasmiller]

No the analogous case cannot be to tilt an open container with water. Water is not charged and bringing in an outside drop of water towards the water in the pipe is not going to cause a field within water.

In the water analog, pressure head is the equivalent of voltage. In a gravity field, tilting an open container of water creates a pressure differential, which is the analog of a voltage differential.

The fact is that a metal has BOTH (immobile) positive-charges and (mobile) negative charge-carriers. You can have accumulation of charge-carriers to cancel an applied electric-field; but this is not possible when the applied electric-field causes a current to flow into and out of of a conductor: In the latter case the charge-carriers move in an attempt to cancel the applied electric-field, but they cannot succeeed in doing this since charges are flowng into and out of the conductor at exactly the same rate: Thus, the average density of negative charge-carriers stays exactly the same as it is when there is no electric-field and no current flowing. Therefore there can be no accumulation of charge-carriers within an interface.

As many others have stated (better than I), this does not follow. You're assuming that the circuit was always in the steady state, but that's demonstrably false.

In the case of bringing a electric-charge up to a lump of metal, one generates an electric-field within the lump of metal. The charges can then redistribute to cancel this field: Once they have achieved this, there will be no further motion of the charge-carriers: i.e. there will not be a current flowing through the lump of metal. This is so since the positive charges can polarise and the negative charges can move into positions where each of them experience zero force on itself. Within some regions it requires the negative charges to move nearer to each other while in other regions it requires the negative charges to move away from each other.

So the charge carriers are compressible?

The end positions of the polarised positive charges and the new positions of the negative charges, results in the total cancellation of the electric-field caused by the external charge. One can model the opposite cancellation-field (polarisation-field) as an image charge of the charge oustide the lump of metal.

Thus the only way one can have an accumulation of charge-carriers is within the lump of metal when the charge-carriers can flow into positions where they then experience no net force on them. The latter can also be achieved by forming quantum-mechanical bound states. This happens at a capacitor plate when charge-carriers flow into and accumulate within a plate. The outside surface of the plate presents a barrier (the work function) which the inflowing charge-carriers cannot scale. On the other side of the accumulating charge carriers there is an electric field which prevents such a charge-carrier to move back into the conductor from where it came. It thus finds itself within a potential well and becomes bound as a stationary state. Solutions for these types of accumulation are used on a daily basis to model transistors.

I agree that one gets a charge buildup due to transient current flows; I don't see why that can't be the case in Fe:Cu:Fe sandwich circuit.

The latter can obviously not happen when there is a current flowing through an interface since there is then no barrier to the motion of the charge-carriers.

What constitutes a 'barrier?' A 1 ohm resistor? A megohm? Since the world lacks perfect insulators, wouldn't it follow that there's always a small amount of current flowing if there's any voltage difference, and therefore there can never be any charge accumulation?

To thus derive from the accumulation of charge at a capacitor plate, that this can also happen within a boundary through which a current is flowing; is just dumb physics.

What about an imperfect, leaky capacitor? Based on my personal (painful) experience, an imperfect capacitor can hold quite a large charge.

 

[johanfprins]

Originally Posted by johanfprins
If the current could have flowed through the plate and the space between the plates into the other plate, the capacitor plates will not charge" i.e. there will be no charge accumulation on the surfaces of the capacitors.

BEN:I have a lab full of actual capacitors that contradict that statement. Actual capacitors have leakage current, Johan. Dielectrics are not infinitely nonconductive; charge moves through them.

Here your lack of knowledge again cripples your logic. Obviously, when you have an interface between a metal and a dielectric the conduction states within a dielectric are situated far above the conduction states within a metal, and therefore you will get accumulation just as in the case of a vacuum in which the conduction states are above the vacuum level.

When you have such accumulation, Ohm’s law does not apply as anybody who knows first year physics ought to know. Test it for yourself: Switch in your “leaky capacitor” as an element in a circuit connected to a DC power supply and then measure the current as a function of voltage. You will find that the response is non-Ohmic owing to this accumulation of charge-carriers.

In fact, as you probably do not know, Solid State Electronics is based on the accumulation of charge at the interface of a dielectric with other materials: Interfacing a doped n-type dielectric with a metal usually produces a Schottky-barrier (look it up if you have never heard about it); which has a non-Ohmic response. At an interface between two metals, the response stays Ohmic; which demands that the current through both elements must be the same: This, in turn, demands that at the interface of two metals there is no barrier to current-flow: The charge-carriers can thus not accumulate within any interface whatsoever while the response of the circuit follows Ohm's law.

Quote JFP:
Nope! It is NOT: As I have explained time and again, the water level of the lake can rise since there is extra space above the water of the lake. There is no such extra space within a conductor when Ohm's law applies.

BEN: There's plenty of "space" for more electrons in copper when it's adjacent to, say, plastic---i.e. in a capacitor.

Obviously, in this case the charge-carriers have to stop at an insulating barrier through which they cannot flow. The response of the interface is now non-Ohmic. Check for yourself if you are able to connect electrical elements to form a cicuit.

But suddenly, just because I've put the copper next to some iron, there's "no space"?

The charge-carriers can now not accumulate within the boundary since they flow through the boundary before they can accumulate.

I took away the iron and replaced it with plastic, would the "space" come back?

The charge-carriers can now not flow through the boundary at the same rate as they enter the boundary. Yes, NOW they can accumulate at the boundary.

The space is there in the wires of a split dipole antenna, Johan? There's a wire not connected to anything, just sticking out into space, and yet 99 out of 100 radio engineers recommend connecting an AC current source to these wires and pushing electrons onto (and off of) them.

We are not talking about AC flow where the current must change direction all the time. Again, as usual you are grabbing at irrelevant arguments, just to have an argument, which, in most of your posts, has not to been an argument al all.

practice (as in theory) such wires have apparently unlimited "space" for electrons; Maxwell's Equations give the (finite,nonzero) capacitance and charge is seen move around exactly according to those equations. As expected, with no "space" considerations at all.

Again you are just arguing to be arguing: We are not talking about AC currents but about an equilibrium DC current (I) which is the same through all the cross-sectional areas when the circuit follows Ohm’s law; also through an interface between two metals.

It's simply utter nonsense to think that conductors have "filled up" with charge and that there's no "space" to add more.

When a DC equilibrium-current is flowing, the charge-carriers will repel each other when they start to come near to each other and they will therefore flow like an incompressible fluid. Obviously one can get accumulation under other conditions: I have never denied it. It is, however, not possible when the response of the circuit is Ohmic.

You appear to have made up that model, on the spot, a day or two ago, when you discovered that Maxwell's Equations and charge continuity do not support your argument.

I have not discovered this, since Maxwell’s equations and charge continuity do NOT contradict my argument at all.

 

[johanfprins]

I know superconductors are not everyday materials, but most of the arguments seem to be over simple circuitry.

The experiments that answer these questions have been done many times since the transistor was invented in 1948. It is known that if you have any interface within an electric circuit at which charge-carriers can accumulate, as you have between n-type and p-type silicon, Ohm's law does not apply to such a circuit.

In contrast, when one has different metal resistors in series, Ohm's law always applies. It is known that the only charge that can accumulate at an interface of two different metals is the formation of a dipole across the interface in order to ensure that the Fermi-levels within both metals are at the same energy. This already occurs before an electric-field is switched on so that a current can flow. When the latter current flows through such an interface there cannot be any more accumulation of charge since this will cause an offset between the Fermi-levels: This does not happen when a current flows through the interface between two metals: Therefore just as many charge-carriers flows into the interface as are flowing out of the interface. What other experiment do you require to prove that charge cannot accumulate within the interface when Ohm's law applies? This result is in our standard textbooks and is used every day when designing electronic circuits.

I suspect that one side in this argument has no need to do this (the evidence in their favor is already pretty high, from decades of research as well as common everyday experience)

Can you quote the research you are referring to and “the common every day experience”?

And this isn't a bad thing - it's by challenging our ideas about the world, about what we perceive to be right, that we come to a better understanding of the world.

Bravo!! But at present any challenge of the status quo, immediately earns the title of “crackpot”. This is why research has deteriorated into just regurgitating dogma.

The key is that you have to be willing to accept that your current point of view might be wrong.

Exactly!! But very few scientists will dare challenge viewpoints that have been sanctified by a Nobel Prize: It is argued that it is “improbable” that such a viewpoint can be wrong.

No scientist should be afraid of that, it's part of the whole process of science.

Again,, I cannot agree more!

So lets see some experiments / simple demonstrations!

As I have pointed out, when it comes to Ohmic-conduction the experimental results that the same current I flows at every point along the circuit, and into and out of every resistive element along the circuit, are incontrovertible.

If you stand at the exit of a tunnel and a friend stands at the entrance, and you jointly count the number of cars moving bumper to bumper into and out of the tunnel over exactly the same time interval, and you find the same result, will you conclude that there is an accumulation of cars within the tunnel? And to make sure you also employ further friends to stand at different points within the tunnel, and they also count the same number of cars passing each of them during the same time-interval and find the same number?

 

[johanfprins]

PiedPier,

I have asked Johan a couple of times what experiments could be done to prove his ideas on superconductivity.

The experiment on extracting electrons from a diamond so that they entangle to form a superconducting entangled wave has been published in Semiconductor Science and Technology in 2003. The editor who published these papers since he could not find a single referee who could point out flaws in them, was afterwards severely reprimanded by Prof. Marshall Stoneham FRS, for publishing manuscripts "that he just knows must be wrong". The editor offered Prof Stoneham the opportunity to write a manuscript giving reasons why "it must be wrong". Prof Stoneham NEVER used this opportunity and now probably never will since he died earlier this year. When he died he was the president of the IOP. Since he also in 2007, prevented me from discussing superconduction during the appropriate session of a Discussion Meeting on Carbon Materials and Electronics held by the Royal Society of London, it is not really surprising that my subsequent manuscripts on superconduction were all blocked. It does not require a "conspiracy", just reamarks behind a person's back. It is surprising how well the grapevine works when it comes to physics! As they say: "Give a dog a bad name..."

Nobody has, to date, proved my experiment results, or my interpretation of my results wrong.

He is no longer associated with a university (I think), so he would need several hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment. So far he does not appear to have convinced anyone associated with a univeristy to let him use said equipment. He may not have tried to do so, which would be puzzling if overturning current physics ideas were as easy as he believes. If he has tried, then we fall back into there being a conspiracy, mental "ossification", or some other reason not one person will back him up.

I tried in 2002 to obtain money for resaerch equipment to proceed with further studies: In fact I did get an offer at the University of Pretoria, but the amount of money would not have been enough to even buy the most basic equipment required.

I thus decided to rather look at superconduction in general and study myself into the subject; since my previous research was not directly in this field. I soon picked up flaws in the BCS model, but could also not get this published: The argument has been each time from the editors that "the BCS theory models low temperature metal superconductors so well that we do not need an alternative theory" (Brian Josephson used this same argument when he refused to even look at my manuscript). This not withstanding the fact that my model can model all known superconductors, from the low temperature metals, the ceramics, the doped semiconductors, and what have you, in terms of a single mechanism.

Every time a thought experiment or simple analogy is used instead, there is a problem with word definitions or it does not turn out well for Johan's ideas.

I do not agree with the latter assessment.

Some of this could be simple linguistic issues, though science definitions, especially the mathematical equations underpinning physics theories usually translate well. That by itself does not disprove Johan's ideas, but the burden of proof is on the claimant.

I agree, and therefore I am trying to hone my explanation: In this regard this thread has been extremely useful, since it gave me deeper insight into how the mainstream scientists think about superconduction. It also convinced me more and more that they do not understand superconduction at all.

As an only mildly informed layman, I am watching people with PhDs in physics and related disciplines all in agreement against Johan's ideas,

Correct they refuse point blank to even consider what I have to say.

with the math to back it up.

Wrong! Any physicist who claims that the circular integral of a conservative vector field can be non-zero does not know Artha from Martha when it comes to mathematics.

If I had to bet, I'd have to go with the mainstream. I would love to be wrong and watch a major development in physics theory.

Your love will be fulfilled in the future.

Perhaps Johan is on to something. Ideas must survive the rough and tumble of informed criticism.

Correct! It is very helpful, and it might even be that I am wrong: If it can be proved that I am I will be grateful since I can then abandon my quest and enjoy my retirement.

I believe Sol, Zig, ben, WDClinger, and even (no slight intended) D'rok have made the case that Johan's proposals have not been proved,

The reasons they gave for this are based on flawed physics (especially W D Clinger) and mathematics.

and some statemens have been outright refuted.

Only my wrong interpretation of light emission from a Josephson junction; and when I realised this, I immediately admitted it: But I am definitely not going to admit that I am wrong just because the " majority" believes I am wrong. Science rests on experiment and logic: Not on majority vote. This has been proved many times during the past 500 yeras.

If Johan takes these criticisms and is able to refine his ideas, his theories will move forward.

This is exactly what I am doing.

If he cannot address the flaws in his arguments, they stand no chance in peer review.CT

If peer review was only based on pointing out flaws, my manuscripts would have been published long ago. Unfortunately, a reviewer who suddenly realises that if a new concept is correct, it might impact negatively on his own work; will NEVER recommend publication. This is just human nature!! "The survival mode switches in". Darwin where are you: Is itb really the survival of the "fittest" or the survival of the "bully"?

 

[johanfprins]

I see.

1) You assume that charge cannot accumulate in this circuit.
2) Therefore you choose to model the circuit as a sealed pipe.
3) You cite the sealed pipe physics as proof that charge can't accumulate.

Circular reasoning for the win!

No circular reasoning is your forte. I can never compete with the master.