Superconductivity at room temperature??

[leonAzul]

Major problems:

1. You have agreed that Gauss's law is applies universally.
2. You have not cited scientific publications that state that Gauss's law cannot be applied to wires or wires attached to each other.
3. You have not cited any scientific publications that show experimentally that there are no charges accumulated within the interface between two metals.
4. It is a simple undergraduate exercise to show that a change in resistance at any interface = a change in electric field = a peak in charge density.
5. What do you think happens at the interface in a metal-metal capacitor?
   ETA: Most metal-metal capacitors are actually MIM (metal-insulator-metal) capacitors. You may want to look up metal-metal comb-capacitors which are combs of metals.

Would someone please clarify something for this innocent bystander:

If superconductivity is a phenomenon of direct currents, of what relevance is the capacitance in a circuit?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Would someone please clarify something for this innocent bystander:

If superconductivity is a phenomenon of direct currents, of what relevance is the capacitance in a circuit?

I don't think anyone is claiming that circuit capacitance is particularly relevant to superconductivity.

The claim, I believe, is that capacitors provide one of many counterexamples to Prins's Law, which johanfprins invented as a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card for some other claims he had made, which were themselves derails from the subject of superconductivity.

The most important thing for innocent bystanders to understand is that, during the course of this thread, Dr Johan F Prins has rejected a substantial fraction of 20th century physics. Although his alleged discovery of room temperature superconductivity would be extremely important (if true), his arguments against the universal applicability of Gauss's Law, the relativity of simultaneity, and the validity of superposition and the Born rule in quantum mechanics would be even more important (if valid). If even half of those arguments hold up under scrutiny, then Dr Prins will someday be recognized as one of the most important physicists of the early twenty-first century.

We are indeed blessed by his participation at the JREF Forum.

 

[sol invictus]

Would someone please clarify something for this innocent bystander:

If superconductivity is a phenomenon of direct currents, of what relevance is the capacitance in a circuit?

It's not relevant - but then, neither are Johan's theories.

You see, Johan claims that "physics is rotten", that his ideas are being suppressed, and that he has a revolutionary new theory of superconductivity. The trouble is, his posts have revealed that he is ignorant of even the most basic aspects of electrodynamics (not to mention the rest of physics), and further, that he is both incapable of learning and incapable of applying or understanding logic.

In the course of the thread, he's made many manifestly false or self-contradictory statements. One is that there cannot be accumulations of charge anywhere in a circuit in which a DC current is flowing. This is false, and in the course of trying to explain that to Johan, we've arrived at this copper-iron-copper spliced wire example (not to mention the leaky capacitor example, to which I await Johan's response with the kind of macabre curiosity one feels when passing the scene of a traffic accident).

 

[Reality Check]

If superconductivity is a phenomenon of direct currents, of what relevance is the capacitance in a circuit?

This is not to do with superconductivity directly.
johanfprins has asserted that there can be no accumulation of charge at the interface between two metals. This might include the case of the interface between a metal and a superconductor.

But the application of Ohm's law and Gauss's law to a Cu-Fe-Cu sandwich shows that there is a change in charge density at the interfaces, i.e. an accumulation of charge.

johanfprins seems to think Ohm's law is correct and applicable (after all these are just the equivalent of Cu and Fe wires!).
He has agreed in the past that Gauss's law is universally applicable but has stated that Gauss's law has been applied incorrectly. However he has not been able to point out the error in the derivation. Thus I asked him to show the correct application ( johanfprins: Apply Gauss's law correctly to the Cu-Fe-Cu sandwich ).

On the other hand he also asserts that you cannot apply Gauss's law in this situation at all, thus contradicting his agreement that it is universally applicable ! The problem with this assertion is that he has no evidence, e.g. a textbook citation that Gauss's law is invalid inside a wire. He also has no replacement for Gauss's law and so can only fullback on an unsupported assertion that there is no accumulation of charge.

 

[leonAzul]

I don't think anyone is claiming that circuit capacitance is particularly relevant to superconductivity.

In the course of the thread, he's made many manifestly false or self-contradictory statements. One is that there cannot be accumulations of charge anywhere in a circuit in which a DC current is flowing. This is false, and in the course of trying to explain that to Johan, we've arrived at this copper-iron-copper spliced wire example (not to mention the leaky capacitor example, to which I await Johan's response with the kind of macabre curiosity one feels when passing the scene of a traffic accident).

This is not to do with superconductivity directly.
johanfprins has asserted that there can be no accumulation of charge at the interface between two metals. This might include the case of the interface between a metal and a superconductor.

But the application of Ohm's law and Gauss's law to a Cu-Fe-Cu sandwich shows that there is a change in charge density at the interfaces, i.e. an accumulation of charge.

Thanks. I had misunderstood the case of the interface between a metal and a superconductor and the bearing it would have on the interpretation of the results.

 

[johanfprins]

I will point out a bit of irony about 'Prinsics':
A part of 'Prinsics' is that the orbitals predicted by QM are wrong.

Where have I written this? You are deliberately distorting what I am claiming. Why? Can you not argue any physics at all?

They are in fact 'localized' so much that electrons are trapped on atoms

I have never said that all the valence electrons are trapped on atoms as you seem to argue here. So I ask again: Why are you deliberately distorting what I am claiming? It is clear that you just do not know enough Solid State Physics: Not really surprising when one looks at the single pathetic paper you and your supervisor published. After 26 years it has not been cited by anybody except your supervisor.

If you had a decent education in physics, you would have known that there can be delocalised and localised states within metals for different reasons. These localised states, and the metal-to-insulator phase-transitions that they can cause, have been studied by luminaries like Eugene Wigner, Sir Nevill Mott and Philip Anderson. The fact that you do not know anything about this large body of physics, which is still vigorously being pursued, exposes and accentuate your colossal ignorance.

and mysterious 'quantum fluctuations' transport what he calls 'states' between the atoms.

There is nothing “mysterious” about quantum fluctuations: They have also been studied by many luminaries; and invoked to explain effects within amorphous metals at low temperatures. But of course Reality Check knows better: He is an expert after having written a pathetic and silly theoretical manuscript which was cited twice afterwards by his co-author: Bravo!

But what about covalent bonds. They are what in real physics keeps some materials together through the sharing of electrons (the overlap of orbitals). One of these materials is carbon.

Where have I ever posted anything contrary to this? Stop distorting the facts!

johanfprins worked a lot on diamond.
According to 'Prinsics', diamond does not exist!

Where have I stated this? And why do you deduce from my physics that diamond does not exist?

That means that johanfprins work does not exist. He spent his life working on an imaginary material .

It is you who is creating this imaginary material within the empty(?) space between your ears.

He may argue that these 'localized' orbitals do not happen in diamond or other insulators but then:

Oh, but they do occur in diamond when you dope diamond. One can then form localised donor-orbitals or localised acceptor orbitals: And when the density of these orbitals becomes high enough the diamond does super-conduct exactly as modelled by my theory: This has been experimentally proven by different experimental physicists worldwide. The BCS model cannot explain why a highly-doped, p-type diamond super-conducts.

johanfprins: Your theory predicts that solid, conducting Cu does not exist!

How do you reach this insane conclusion? Wigner has showed that localised orbitals will form within non-ideal metals; exactly the materials within which we observe superconduction. Copper is very near to being an ideal metal and will probably not develop localised states when it is cooled; as happens within mercury, lead etc. But at temperatures of a few millionth’s of a degree above absolute zero, it is even possible that copper might develop some localised states: But maybe not enough to super-conduct. They might, however, be enough to cause a metal-to-insulator transition.

I am going overseas within two days and will not have the time to try and achieve the impossible: i.e. to teach people like “Sol Invictus” and “Reality Check” elementary physics: However, it has been my lot on earth to fight dogmatism; and I will thus keep on doing so on this thread. I will, however, not be able to spend so much time on it as I have done for many-many months by now: For the next two months I will have other priorities: I will, however, try to answer every post consecutively when I find the time during the coming two months, or after my return. I am looking forward to answer dasmiller’s questions since this person is at least trying to be rational. In this respect it is important to know that when a “substance” flows like an incompressible fluid, the substance itself does not need to be incompressible to prevent accumulation of charge at any interface through which the substance flows. As long as the current through every cross-sectional area is the same, as it must be when Ohm’s law applies, there can be no accumulation within any cross-sectional area. This is simple logic!

I must admit that when Ben m first came with his iron-copper-iron argument, I at first felt stumped: However, I knew that there can be no accumulation of charge within an interface when Ohm’s law applies. It took me a bit of time to understand why Gauss’ law cannot be applied in this instance as BZS and Reality Check claim it can. Wave mechanics modifies classical electrodynamics. For example, we know that for a free electron moving with a velocity v through a magnetic field is given by –e(vxB) where the force acts on the centre-of charge of the electron which is at a position where B is NOT zero. Nonetheless, Aharanov and Bohm claimed that wave mechanics makes it possible for an electron to be deflected when it does not move directly through the magnetic field. Since you are claiming that my assertion that Gauss’ law cannot be applied to predict charge-carrier accumulation within an interface between iron and copper, makes the Gauss’ law invalid, should you not also claim that the model of Aharanov and Bohm makes the Lorentz force invalid?

See you all at the latest after 2 months!

 

[Reality Check]

Where have I written this?

You did not write this.
What you wrote was that orbitals that do not overlap, i.e. electrons are confined to one atom.
What QM states is that there are orbitals that overlap, i.e. electrons can be shared between atoms without imaginary 'quantum fluctuations'.

Thus you were stating that QM is wrong.

I have never said that all the valence electrons are trapped on atoms as you seem to argue here.
[/qote]
You have never said that any valance atoms were not trapped on atoms.

But it looks like wjat you are saying is that your theory is redundant. You agree with standard solid state physics.

...insane insults snipped...
After 26 years it has not been cited by anybody except your supervisor.

You are mistaken: Read the citations that I gave you and count the names.

P.S. Try reading the paper. Philip Anderson is one of the people I cite because my thesis was based on the Anderson model of nearly magnetic dilute alloys. The subject of my thesis was delocalised and localised states within metals so it is insane to think that I do not know about them !

I stated:
johanfprins: Your theory predicts that solid, conducting Cu does not exist!
becuase you stated that charge carriers are

Originally Posted by johanfprins
They are localised waves (orbitals) like those you find in an insulator after a metal-insulator transition.

because the charge-carriers in conductors are the electrons in the non-localized overlapping orbitals (that you now seem to admit exist) that constitute the energy bands.

 

[ben m]

I must admit that when Ben m first came with his iron-copper-iron argument, I at first felt stumped: However, I knew that there can be no accumulation of charge within an interface when Ohm’s law applies.

(Jumping back in for one post.)

You "at first felt stumped"? No you didn't. You thought you understood it perfectly, and you posted your supposed explanation, and you insulted anyone who disagreed. You did this for five or six successive, wrong explanations, each equally confident, each wrong, and none including an admission of being "stumped".

I'm not following the thread any more but it looks like you're still "stumped".

 

[Reality Check]

Provide the source for your assertion that Gauss's Law is changed in QM

I am going overseas within two days and will not have the time to try and achieve the impossible: i.e. to teach people like “Sol Invictus” and “Reality Check” elementary physics:
...
However, I knew that there can be no accumulation of charge within an interface when Ohm’s law applies.

You can teach us this "elementary physics" really easily by correctly analysing the elemenatry (undergraduate) problem of the Cu-Fe-Cu sandwich.

johanfprins: Apply Gauss's law correctly to the Cu-Fe-Cu sandwich
(posted 19th September 2011)

Or if you want to take this in smaller steps:
johanfprins: 1. Is there an electric field in the first Cu layer?

Ohm's law of course stated nothing about charge density. It is a relationship between voltage, current and resistance.

...
Since you are claiming that my assertion that Gauss’ law cannot be applied to predict charge-carrier accumulation within an interface between iron and copper, makes the Gauss’ law invalid...

Wrong: We are not making that claim.
You are making tha claim that Gauss's law cannot be applied to the Fe-Cu interface.
Your mention of wave mechanics (which can be applied universally) implies that your claim has extended to Gauss's law is always invalid !

If you want to persist in your assertion that Gauss's law does not apply for interfaces between metals then cite your source that states this about Gauss's law as any competent scientist would.


Quantum electrodynamics is the relativistic quantum theory of classical electrodynamics. It in fact includes Gauss's law (i.e. does not 'modify' classical electrodynamics in that sense). There is some dicsussion of Gauss's law within quantum mechanics in this Maxwell's equations article. QM chnages the formulation used for Maxwell's equation, not their validity:

In advanced classical mechanics and in quantum mechanics (where it is necessary) it is sometimes useful to express Maxwell's equations in a 'potential formulation' involving the electric potential (also called scalar potential), φ, and the magnetic potential, A, (also called vector potential). These are defined such that:

With these definitions, the two homogeneous Maxwell's equations (Faraday's Law and Gauss's law for magnetism) are automatically satisfied and the other two (inhomogeneous) equations give the following equations (for "Maxwell's microscopic equations"): ...

But I may be wrong, johanfprins: Provide the source for your assertion that Gauss's Law is changed in quantum electrodynamics (or wave mechanics). For that matter, what is the replacement for Gauss's Law in QM?

 

[The Don]

Bump - because I've missed this old thread

 

[marplots]

Bump - because I've missed this old thread

Me too. I hope no one died.

 

[Small Bones]

Me too. I hope no one died.

I did a quick search and found Johan posting on a different forum so don't worry.
He's still on holiday but, although too busy to post here, can find time to explain why

Stephen Hawking is thus writing total claptrap

I can't post direct links but this is the url for the post containing the above quote:
talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2137&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=941

You'll be pleased to know he is still keeping things in perspective:

Obviously it will never be allowed to be published by the mainstream dogma-defenders since they are worse than the Spanish Inquisition could ever hope to be

Rejection of paper by peer-review -> worse than Spanish inquisition!

 

[marplots]

You'll be pleased to know he is still keeping things in perspective:

Rejection of paper by peer-review -> worse than Spanish inquisition!

I can feel it coming on myself sometimes. A kind of brain calcification. Not as symptomatic as our friend, but of the same type for sure.

 

[flyer]

Hello everyone!
I am new to this forum.
I have a question about the discussion of time dilation some pages back.
I have seen many opinions over the net about the twin paradox.
The question is: if a twin travels for a year (viewed in his frame, by his clock) at some fraction of c and returns, will he actually be younger than his earth bound brother when they again get together?

 

[ben m]

Hello everyone!
I am new to this forum.
I have a question about the discussion of time dilation some pages back.
I have seen many opinions over the net about the twin paradox.
The question is: if a twin travels for a year (viewed in his frame, by his clock) at some fraction of c and returns, will he actually be younger than his earth bound brother when they again get together?

Yes, he will. This is what the actual laws of relativity predict; no, it doesn't contradict the intuitive sense that "the other twin should predict the opposite"; the reference frames are not interchangeable; the Earthbound frame is inertial, the out-and-back frame has an (important) acceleration phase.

A complete and (as far as I've read) correct explanation, including the SR derivations, can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox. Of the many ways of getting to the same correct answer, I find the "clock transfer" approach to be easiest to understand.

 

[flyer]

Yes, he will. This is what the actual laws of relativity predict; no, it doesn't contradict the intuitive sense that "the other twin should predict the opposite"; the reference frames are not interchangeable; the Earthbound frame is inertial, the out-and-back frame has an (important) acceleration phase.

A complete and (as far as I've read) correct explanation, including the SR derivations, can be found at wikipediadodorg/wiki/Twin_paradox. Of the many ways of getting to the same correct answer, I find the "clock transfer" approach to be easiest to understand.

Thanks for the link

But isn't it true that the speed of light as measured by anyone (with mass) at any velocity (accelerating or not) will be c?

 

[ben m]

But isn't it true that the speed of light as measured by anyone (with mass) at any velocity (accelerating or not) will be c?

Yes. This is true in the twins experiment also; either twin, at any time, would determine the speed of light to be 2.99x10^8 m/s. This does not contradict the age-difference result in any way.

 

[flyer]

Yes. This is true in the twins experiment also; either twin, at any time, would determine the speed of light to be 2.99x10^8 m/s. This does not contradict the age-difference result in any way.

So the clock of the traveling observer is in fact running slower than the earthbound twin.

Does the length of the observer and his ship normal to his direction of travel really contract, I mean really contract (atoms and such) , not just as observed in another frame?

Thanks for your indulgence.

 

[ben m]

So the clock of the traveling observer is in fact running slower than the earthbound twin.

Does the length of the observer and his ship normal to his direction of travel really contract, I mean really contract (atoms and such) , not just as observed in another frame?

"really contract"? "In fact" running slower? According to what ruler would you say the spaceship had "really" been long and "really is" now shorter? You can't separate the idea of measurement from the idea of the frame from which the measurement is made. In the Earthbound measurement system the travelling spaceship is really shorter (atoms and all) and its clocks are really slower.

 

[flyer]

"really contract"? "In fact" running slower? According to what ruler would you say the spaceship had "really" been long and "really is" now shorter? You can't separate the idea of measurement from the idea of the frame from which the measurement is made. In the Earthbound measurement system the travelling spaceship is really shorter (atoms and all) and its clocks are really slower.

Being that math is not my first language and I am not a physicist, thanks for the explanation, that's how I thought I read it in other references however:

Lets say I have a 1m^3 square block of glass made on earth with a refraction index of 1, with all sides coated with a thin slightly reflective dielectric say MgFl .
I also have a clock I made with a piece of radioactive unobtanium which decays at a rate of 10e15 disintigrations per second. I count and average the disintegrations and derive a percise 10 Ghz clock (also confirmed on earth).

This clock should slow as with any clock in the high speed reference frame of the traveler, correct?

I now use this clock to fire a laser producing a 0.05ns pulse through the glass block (normal to the direction of travel) of the ship. The pulse partially reflects from the 2 interfaces on the block and returns back to the laser where a pin diode picks up the reflection from the far side of the block and stops the timer which was started by the inital laser signal.

I reorient the laser to the block perpendicular to the ships direction of travel and repeat the above measurement.

Now, if the speed of light is the same in any frame (with mass) and the ruler is the speed of light which is unaffected by contraction then there appears to be a conflict if the block is actually shorter in the travel direction.
Another conflict is if the clock is actually running slower in the ships frame, the speed of light from a distant star measured in that frame used to clock the incoming light (viewed through the windscreen of the ship) would be measured at a higher speed than c using the ships clock (which is slower than the same clock on earth).

Something doesn't make sense.