• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Superconductivity at room temperature??

Makes me wonder how the great Gerardus 't Hooft could have cited such a thing. WAIT A MINUTE, did he? No he didn't.
Obviously he will not write anything that is not "holy dogma" . The only contribution that he made to physics was to state that epsilon goes to zero. This was already known by Dedekind many years ago. How they could have awarded a Nobel Prize for this nonsense is amazing!

Many of the Google hits to this article appear to be John Duffield, AKA Farsight, posting it in discussion forums. Maybe that's why you keep thinking that this thread is about a kinetic-energy/mass equivalence? Because that's a topic you have a long interest in and want to bring up? It belongs in a different thread.
At present this thread has to do with kinetic- versus mass-energy since this is the VERY aspect that has NEVER been understood for the last 100 years. Thanks Farsight; you are welcome to this thread in which it has been Sol, Ben and Ziggurat who consistently went of on tangent issues which should be discussed in other threads. Let us try and return it to the real issue of superconduction at room temperature.
 
YOU BEN AND ZIGGURAT ARE AGAIN BEING DECEITFUL IN CHANGING THE SUBJECT INTO ARGUMENTS WHICH ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUE.

Your proof is built off of multiple statements about how certain things are impossible. Pointing out that they are actually possible (ETA: and also that many consequences of your assertions are experimentally and theoretically wrong) is not irrelevant to the discussion.

Also, I think your shift key is stuck.
 
Last edited:
That is wrong: Voltage is a DIFFERENCE IN ELECTRICAL POTENTIAL.
This is easily seen by looking at the units of measurement. Voltage does not have the units of energy, e.g. Joules.
Why do you not go and play marbles: You claim to know physics but do not even know that VOLT is the same as Joule/Coulomb? Can you now see that you are totally incapable and incompetent when it comes to physics.
 
I DO NOT KNOW OF SUCH A MEASUREMENT THAT HAS EVER BEEN MADE: I AM NOT SAYING THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, BUT ARE YOU REALLY SO STUPID TO BELIEVE THAT IF SUCH A MEASUREMENT CAN BE MADE THIS MEASUREMENT WILL NOT AFFECT THE EQUILIBRIUM ARRANGEMENT OF CHARGES WITHIN THE METAL FROM WHAT IT IS WHEN YOU DO NOT MAKE SUCH A MEASUREMENT?

In other words, according to you the Volta potential is a measurement artifact. Get to work, re-write those chemistry books.

You are again BLATANTLY lying! I have NEVER denied that the VOLTA affect exists

You just did. And you did before. Repeatedly.

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

Your "impecable proof" of superconduction is based on a childish misunderstanding of basic physics, Johan.
 
Why do you not go and play marbles: You claim to know physics but do not even know that VOLT is the same as Joule/Coulomb? Can you now see that you are totally incapable and incompetent when it comes to physics.

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

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

No, it's the electric potential, not the potential energy.
A kilowatt-hour is a unit of energy, but neither a kilowatt nor an hour is a unit of energy.
An electron volt is a unit of energy, but neither the charge of the electron nor the volt is a unit of energy.
1 coulomb-volt is a unit of energy, but neither the coulomb nor the volt is a unit of energy.
 
OK i am no mathematician, but I do know that V=J/C.

Why does the division by Coulombs remove the energy descriptor?
 
No, you're wrong. In quantum mechanics, kinetic energy is not "rate of change of time of the position of the center of mass". Kinetic energy is proportional to the 2nd derivative of the wavefunction, and the 2nd derivative of the wavefunction is not zero.
I know that this is the Copenhagen interpretation of the Schroedinger's wave function: But it is of course nonsense. If an electron has kinetic energy it must move relative to an inertial reference frame, and if it has a wave "associated" with it by "wave-particle duality" then even this wave must also move with the electron-particle. A standing Schroedinger wave does NOTHING of the sort; and therefore it cannot have kinetic energy, and neither can its "dual" electron.

Let me give you an example where the physics is as obvious as possible. Take one laser beam and shoot a pulse to the left. Take another laser and shoot a pulse to the right. Let the pulses fly through space, at some point, cross and overlap. The region of space where both, counterpropagating pulses are present has---uh-oh---a photon wavefunction with exactly the same properties as an ensemble of photons in a cavity.
Again more of your BS. A laser beam does NOT consist of separately identifiable photon-waves. The two laser beams are EACH a single coherent macro-wave which is modelled directly by Maxwell's equations. Furthermore, when the beams superpose the resultant wave does not remain stationary like a standing wave within a cavity does.
In other words, it looks in every detail like a standing wave; it has zero NET momentum;
Only momentarily while the two,laser pules move through each other.
the center-of-momentum isn't moving anywhere; etc.
the two waves superpose and stay two separate waves each having its own "centre of momentum". Within a cavity the wave is not a superposition of two ACTUAL coherent waves running in opposite directions. The standing wave is a single non-superposed entity.
(In fact, if you were standing in this region you would be unable to tell whether the light you're seeing is passing-in-the-night or trapped-in-a-cavity.
Nonsense!!! In the cavity the intensity of the standing wave becomes ZERO at the walls of the cavity. In your example of two laser pulses in space this is NOT the case. The end points of the two laser pulses are not stationary relative to you.
Go ahead, do the math.) But you must agree that this region of space contains photons with ordinary kinetic energy---50% of it, on average, heading left and 50% heading right.
There are no photons just two coherent laser waves. But suppose that the two laser pulses are two photons You then have two photons moving through one another without any boundaries to pin them; and you want to argue that this is the same as a photon standing wave within a cavity with boundaries. But within a cavity you can have a SINGLE PHOTON wave that is stationary: YOU DO NOT NEED TWO PHOTON WAVES MOVING ALONG BOTH DIRECTIONS. IN FACT IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY RUNNING WAVES TO EXIST WITHIN A CAVITY.

The laws of quantum mechanics---i.e., KE = (p-hat)^2/2m---will look at this wavefunction and get that fact right. (It'll say p = {left or right}, <p> = 0, <p^2> != 0, KE != 0, etc.) Your heuristic----"this is the wavefunction of a standing wave, so let's ignore Schrodinger and think about relativity"---will not.
Thus acording to you a standing light wave cannot have less energy tha 2*h*(nu). You have really lost it have you not?

Johan has been denying that massive particles, in bound states, have kinetic energy. I diverted him onto photons only briefly.
There are no "massive particles in bound states" since the bound states are waves not particles.

The rest of your post is the usual BS you expound: So I will ignore it and try to redirect the discussion to superconduction at room temperature.
 
OK i am no mathematician, but I do know that V=J/C.

Why does the division by Coulombs remove the energy descriptor?

It doesn't "remove" it, it just means that electric potential cannot be energy, but rather energy per charge. For instance, the energy of a particle with zero charge is completely independent of electric potential (its energy doesn't change when the electric potential changes), so clearly electric potential isn't the same thing as energy.

The other key point that seems to have escaped Johan is that electric potential times charge is only one of several contributions to the energy of a charged particle. In other words, two particles with equal charge can have different energies even when they're at the same electric potential, and can have equal energies even when they're at different electric potentials.
 
OK i am no mathematician, but I do know that V=J/C.

Why does the division by Coulombs remove the energy descriptor?
Exactly. It does not: Only in the minds of the insane. It still remains a normalised energy. It does not alter the fact that it is POTENTIAL ENERGY!
 
Last edited:
It doesn't "remove" it, it just means that electric potential cannot be energy, but rather energy per charge. For instance, the energy of a particle with zero charge is completely independent of electric potential (its energy doesn't change when the electric potential changes), so clearly electric potential isn't the same thing as energy.
This classifies you as being a crackpot. So potential energy is only energy when it applies to neutral objects?


The other key point that seems to have escaped Johan
Another BLATANT LIE.
 
Thank's Sol, so electric potential is a force and not an energy?
You see how Sol misleads and lies. Electric potential is NOT a force: Only its gradient is a force per unit charge; which is the electric field.
 
Last edited:
Your "impecable proof" of superconduction is based on a childish misunderstanding of basic physics, Johan.
I have not yet been allowed to complete it and you already judge it? No wonder that you will never be a real scientist but only a cowering anonymous troll.
 
Last edited:
Well, I got through my electrical math exams with this sentence.

Can James Very Well Afford Cigars Since John Went Alas

Very Rarely.

So I am none the wiser. :D

ETA: So I go with what works.
 
Last edited:
johanfprins said:
OK i am no mathematician, but I do know that V=J/C.

Why does the division by Coulombs remove the energy descriptor?
Exactly. It does not: Only in the minds of the insane. It still remains a normalised energy. It does not alter the fact that it is POTENTIAL ENERGY!
A kilowatt-hour is also a unit of energy. Under your logic, does this make the kilowatt or the hour a unit of energy? Both? Neither?
 
Johan,

I don't know that I have ever seen a science textbook use all capital letters and bold to get its factual point across. Your hypothesis about superconductivity does not rest upon the font used. I understand frustration happens, but you are letting it get in the way of your ability to present evidence. Please stop calling people liars in the majority of your posts. In the immortal words of Phil Plait, DBAD.

CT
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom