Superconductivity at room temperature??

[johanfprins]

Yes, it's amazing that a guess works just by coincidence, isn't it? Not only does it calculate the ground state energy of hydrogen correctly, it calculates all the energy levels, tiny corrections like fine and hyperfine shifts, selection rules, and the structure of the periodic table.

Most of these can also be derived from Bohr's atom which ascribed the quantum numbers to orbital momentums. Quite a coincidence that the correct energy levels were found since the principle quantum numbers later turned out to have nothing to do with orbital momentum, but with the harmonic numbers of standing waves. In fact the orbital momentum has a totally different quantum number. Amazing, that one can obtain such accurate answers purely by coincidence is it not? Bohr could also use his model, which is clearly totally wrong, to explain the periodical table: This is still done in schools. It shoudl be stopped since it is criminally wrong.

All of that just blind luck according to you! Wow!!

There has been and still is a lot of blind luck involved, since nobody could yet interpret why it is so, except to spout paranormal claptrap like "wave-particle" duality and ":complementarity"; and then ending up by concluding that a standing wave has kinetic energy: The latter is physically impossible! So there is still something seriously wrong. The Schroedinger equation might be a better coincidence than the Bohr atom. This could mean, and I believe it does mean, that there must be a more general wave equation for an electron that will not use rest mass as input, but give the mass of a stationary electron wave as the answer to the wave's energy.

According to us, the Schrodinger equation is not a guess at all (it too is derivable - but you can't do that derivation either, and you didn't know that)

Another one of your blatant lies: Derivable from what classical physics?

and we understand quite explicitly where the -13.6eV comes from.

No you do not, since you claim the presence of kinetic energy where there can be no kinetic energy. So you do not know where it comes from, or do not want to know even though you have agreed that it must come purely from mass-energy being radiated away as light energy: Mass-energy has no kinetic energy component.

And according to us, the electron has a non-zero, positive kinetic energy that's very simply related to that number.

Only when it has more energy than its rest mass energy. When it is bonded to a proton, the energy of both the proton and the electron are less than their separate rest mass energies: Therefore neither of these two entities can have kinetic energy while they jointly form a hydrogen atom.

Can you tell us how it's related?

You think you can, but you do not have the correct answer since you invoke kinetic energy that is not there and cannot be there. You are, as usual, totally deluded

No, because you haven't a clue how to do any of these computations.

I I have been taught by excellent professors how to do them, and to my shame, I have also taught this wrong physics to my own students: i.e. how to calculate parameters which have only Voodoo value when interpreted as the expecation value of kinetic energy and the expectation value of potential energy. That you still think that these parameter are in any manner related to kinetic energy and potential energy is further proof of <SNIP>.

Edited, breach of rule 0, rule 12.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[Farsight]

Careful. Farsight will likely agree with this paper. The anti-relativity crowd tends to stick together, even if their ideas contradict one another. Excellent post, BTW.

I'm reading through the whole thread before posting, but this one stuck out so much I thought I'd say something. I'm pro-relativity, D'rok. Nobody is more pro-relativity than me.

 

[D'rok]

I'm reading through the whole thread before posting, but this one stuck out so much I thought I'd say something. I'm pro-relativity, D'rok. Nobody is more pro-relativity than me.

Yes, of course. In the same way that Johan is in 100% agreement with special relativity despite denying the well-known experimental consequences of it.

In other words, you both have the "true" teachings about relativity and are here to show how mainstream physics has departed from it.

You are both pro-your-own-boutique-version-of-relativity.

 

[ben m]

I have been taught by excellent professors how to do them, and to my shame, I have also taught this wrong physics to my own students:

Remember this the next time you call me uneducated, stupid, unqualified, etc. for using what you know to be standard physics.

 

[johanfprins]

Remember this the next time you call me uneducated, stupid, unqualified, etc. for using what you know to be standard physics.

What you miss is that one does not go to university to learn physics as dogma that should be non-critically regurgitated but to think critically about what you have been taught. You Sol and Ziggurat are obviously parrots who cannot think for yourselves and are not even willing to think outside the "standard" dogma. <SNIP>

Edited, breach of rule 0, rule 12.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[excaza]

What I've gathered so far...

Thinking critically: agreeing with Johan and/or rejecting absolutely everything in textbooks (when it is inconvenient).

Regurgitating dogma: agreeing with experimental results.

 

[johanfprins]

OK: All the statements:

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

Statement 1: When creating an interface between an n-type semiconductor and a metal, where the latter has a Fermi level at a lower energy than the n-type semiconductor, and when neither of the two materials are charged up before generating the interface, then, after creating the interface, a dipole layer forms across the interface, since negative charge-carriers move across the interface from the n-type semiconductor into the metal, thus leaving a positively charged depletion-layer behind (in contact with the interface), and forming a negatively charged layer (in contact with the interface) by accumulation within the metal.

Statement 2: If the density of donors within the n-type semiconductor is sufficiently high an equilibrium dipole will manifest when the Fermi-level at the metal-dipole interface has the same energy as the Fermi-level at the semiconductor-dipole interface.

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

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

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

Statement 6: Since the 1990’s, diamond can be doped n-type during growth or by means of ion implantation of suitable atoms followed by low temperature annealing.

Statement 7: When generating a NEA surface to n-type diamond, the charge-carriers within the conduction band will initially find themselves at a higher energy than they can have as electrons outside the diamond.

Statement 8: Charge-carriers within the conduction band of an n-type diamond which find themselves near an NEA surface, will flow out into the vacuum and leave positive charges behind on donors near the surface. These positive charges will attract the emitted electrons back to the surface where they will form a quantum-mechanically bound external layer of electrons on the surface. Such electrons have been observed by AFM.

Statement 9: The external electron-layer, in conjunction with the positive charges below the surface, will, similar to the case of a Schottky diode, form a dipole layer, but this time across the NEA surface of the diamond.

Statement 10: If the density of donors is high enough, an equilibrium dipole layer will be reached when the Fermi-level within the n-type diamond has the same energy as the vacuum level on the other side of the dipole layer.

Statement 11: When trying to extract electrons from such a diamond surface into the vacuum, by using an anode, an electric-field will appear between the back contact to the diamond and the anode, which similarly to the Schottky diode reverse biases the dipole layer across the NEA diamond surface: i.e. the electric field will pull the vacuum level down relative to the Fermi-level at the diamond-depletion-layer interface.

Statement 12: If there is a high enough donor density, more electrons will flow from the diamond into the external electron layer, thus increasing the width of the dipole layer in an attempt to cancel the offset between the vacuum level and the Fermi-level within the diamond. If there are not enough donors, electrons will only be extracted after dielectric breakdown occurs within the depletion layer under the diamond’s surface. This has been observed for phosphorous doped diamond.

Statement 13: I came to the conclusion years ago that if one could increase the donor density to a much higher level, one might be able to increase the width of the dipole layer by so much that the external electrons can reach the anode before dielectric breakdown occurs, and that an electron-current will then flow from the diamond through the dipole-layer into the anode.

Statement 14: I succeeded to increase the donor density to a very high level below the diamond’s surface by means of oxygen-ion implantation and low temperature annealing, and as I expected I could extract the electrons right up to the anode so that above a critical voltage an electron current started to flow from the diamond by tunnelling through the depletion layer and adding to the electrons within the gap between the diamond surface and the anode.

Statement 15: When the current initiated it started off and dropped to zero, then increased again and dropped to zero, and kept on doing so. It was later found that during this cyclic behaviour light flashes are generated which turned out to be Bremstrahlung; thus proving that electrons are being accelerated into the anode while the cyclic behaviour dominates.

Statement 16: The latter cyclic behaviour is the result of the following:

(a) If one were to stop increasing the voltage just when the electrons reach the anode, but before they enter the anode, the depletion-layer and the electrons filling the gap between the diamond surface and the anode, forms an equilibrium dipole so that the Fermi-level in the diamond is at the same level as the vacuum level just outside the anode.

(b) But although the electrons just outside the anode are at the vacuum level energy, the Fermi-level within the anode is at a much lower energy. When now slightly increasing the voltage so that the external electrons cascade into the anode, the dipole is not in equilibrium anymore: On the diamond side it is still at the vacuum level but on the anode side it is at the Fermi-level of the metal. An electric-field is thus present within the gap containing the electrons which accelerates these electrons into the anode. But as soon as this happens, the electrons within the gap decreases, contact is lost between the remaining electrons within the gap and the anode, so that the current drops to zero: Just as observed experimentally.

(c) After the current has fallen away, the depletion layer restores the dipole by injecting more electrons into the gap, until contact is restored and the current then jumps up, the gap again loses electrons, and the current again falls away. The cycle then repeats, and will keep on repeating itself for as long as the Fermi-level within the anode is at a lower energy than the Fermi-level within the diamond.

(d) If the donor density is high enough and the width of the depletion-layer remains small enough, then during each cycle electrons are added to the anode so that its Fermi-level increases in energy. Equilibrium will be reached when the Fermi-level within the anode aligns with the Fermi-level of the electrons within the gap, which in turn aligns with the Fermi-level within the diamond. This will mean that normal conduction by acceleration cannot occur through the gap anymore.

Statement 17: Experimentally it was found that the cyclic current did stop and that therefore normal current flow through the electrons within the gap must thus also stop. Bremstrahlung thus also stopped. But instead of the current-flow around the circuit coming to a halt, a constant equilibrium current kept on flowing; even though it is now impossible for a normal current to flow since the Fermi-level is the same within the electron-phase between the diamond surface and the anode. Thus, charge is transferred through this phase without any slope in the energy of the Fermi-level being possible at all. This is only possible if the electrons must have formed a superconducting phase.

Statement 18: In retrospect it is clear that these electrons have no other choice but to form a superconducting phase. If they could only act as normal charge carriers, and equilibrium is reached so that the Fermi-level is the same everywhere, they would not be able to flow from the diamond to the anode anymore. They must then as independent charges push each other from the gap: However, when this happens, the depletion-layer will inject more electrons, and equilibrium will never be possible. Since all systems relax to their lowest energy equilibrium state, the electrons within the gap have to do the same: And the only way in which they can do it is to form a superconducting phase.

 

[excaza]

Seriously, you fly off the handle at people for apparently disagreeing with what you've taught or with what "every elementary school special relativity student" should be learning, yet you still fly off the handle when the same references are used as rebuttals.

If I may be frank, what the **** do you want?

 

[johanfprins]

What I've gathered so far...

Thinking critically: agreeing with Johan and/or rejecting absolutely everything in textbooks (when it is inconvenient).

It is this type of childish nonsense that gets my back up. Nowhere have I ever said one should reject "absolutely everything" in testbooks. But if you treat a textbook as a holy bible and do not follow the golden rule of physics, according to which you have to accept that maybe everything we know about physics today might be proved wrong in the future, you should get the hell out of physics.

Regurgitating dogma: agreeing with experimental results.

Not at all: But rejecting wrong interpretations of experimental results. There are many examples of this. One of the most shocking ones is the interpretation of the Aharanov-Bohm effect. But it is not the only one!!

 

[Ziggurat]

It is not a question of not being able to do any of the two calculations, but a refusal on my part to calculate parameters which have no physics-meaning whatsoever.

You're right, it's not a question: I know for certainty that you cannot do the calculations.

And you contradict yourself when you claim that the parameters are meaningless. Those parameters are ESSENTIAL to the meaning and quantitative accuracy of the Schrodinger equation. The entire theory makes no sense without using <E> = <V> + <p²>/2m. If you want to call <p²>/2m something other than kinetic energy, be my guest. But it's still part of the total energy, and you still need it to get the energy accurately. And again, YOU told us to use the Schrodinger equation. The Schrodinger equation has no validity if the energy is not <V> + <p²>/2m

Amazingly I can calculate this number to an excellent approximation by using the Schroedinger equation and inserting the classical potential field between an "electron-particle" and a "proton particle". Why this is possible nobody knows since the Schroedinger equation has been a guess.

No, actually, you cannot get that number by calculating the classical potential between an electron and a proton. If you try, you will not get -13.6 eV, you will get -27.2 eV. I've done it. You clearly haven't, and don't actually know how to despite claiming you can.

They are not fair since you want me to calculate parameters which are not physically relevant. As a realistic physicist I protest.

Then do the calculation for the classical potential field. You just said that you could do that one, and clearly you think that one has meaning. So go for it. Give me that calculation instead.

According to the text books and according to you I can choose to measure the potential energy from any level?

Sure, you can do that, EXACTLY like you can do that in Newtonian mechanics, because both Newtonian mechanics and the Schrodinger equation are explicitly non-relativistic.

Or do you agree with me that in the case of the Schroedinger equation this must not be done since the only valid reference level is the vacuum level

I don't agree. The Schrodinger equation is explicitly non-relativistic. And mathematically, it's provable that the choice of reference potentials makes ZERO difference to any expectation value calculation.

Not that it matters, since this also means we're free to pick the reference potential equal to the vacuum level.

If the latter is correct, and it must be correct

It doesn't have to be, it's not, and it doesn't matter anyways since we can still choose the vacuum level as our reference and it won't make any difference.

Any harmonic wave, and a Schroedinger wave is a harmonic wave, "lives" within both position space and k space (reciprocal space) simultaneously. To go from one space to the other one uses a Fourier transform. Thus if you have the wave-function within position space, you can always calculate <k> and <k²> for any Schroedinger wave-function. There are then three possibilities:

1. <k>=k and <k²>=0: In this case you have a travelling coherent wave moving past with a momentum p which relates to k by de Broglie's relationship p=(hbar)*k.

No, johan, this is most definitely NOT a possibility. It's a mathematical impossibility. The only possible k-space distribution which will give <k²>=0 is a delta function at zero, but that also has <k>=0. In fact, it's an absolute MATHEMATICAL requirement that <k²> >= <k>². That's not even peculiar to k space, that's true of any distribution. This is a really basic and obvious mathematical fact, and you screwed it up completely.

2. <k>=0 and <k²> NOT EQUAL TO 0. In this case you have a standing wave without any momentum and without any kinetic energy. Although you can still use (hbar) to write p=(hbar)*k this expression is now physically meaningless since it cannot be a momentum.

I don't care if you don't want to call it kinetic energy. <p²>/2m is still part of the total energy of the wave function. Call it whatever you like, it's still a necessary component.

Furthermore, your logic is quite obviously absurd. For instance, if a free particle wave function is a superposition of a left-moving wave packet and a right-moving wave packet, it's not a free particle at all. It's quite clearly moving. It has kinetic energy, doesn't it?

And yet, <p> = 0.

I told you that I refuse to calculate parameters which have no physics-meaning. You want to argue that the first expression proves that there is kinetic energy. According to Ehrenfest’s theorem you have that:

<F>=(d/dt)<p>: Thus for a distance ds one must have that:

<F>ds=(ds/dt)*d<p>=<v>*d<p>= (1/m)*<p>*d<p>

And once again, you prove you cannot do math.

If <F>=(d/dt)<p>, then <F> ds = (d/dt)<p>*ds. And that is NOT the same thing as (ds/dt)*d<p>. Furthermore, it doesn't even make sense in either form, since expectation values are not functions of position.

There's also the additional irony that you have previously fought tooth and nail against using Ehrenfest's theorem in this very thread. But dont' worry, nobody expects consistency from you anymore.

Similarly, once quantum mechanical bonding has occurred, the classical potential energy plays no role anymore.

And yet, you just said in this very post that you could get the energy from the classical potential. Oh, but then, that's me expecting consistency from you, and that's wrong of me.

Thus to calculate <V> is paranormal nonsense.

Apparently everything to do with the Schrodinger equation is nonsense. And yet, you demanded we use it. I know you've thrown the very idea of consistency to the wind, but there are limits, johan. One is left to wonder how anyone can possibly calculate any energy from the Schrodinger equation, since you've now said both terms in <H> = <p²>/2m + <V> have no meaning.

In fact, this has quite piqued my curiosity. I wonder if you can take ANY quantum mechanics problem, solve the wave function, and calculate the energy for it. It would be nice if it was the hydrogen atom, but it doesn't have to be. You don't believe in the standard method for calculating the energy, so how do you believe it's actually done?

But I ask in vain. You never have done a real calculation here, and you never will.

 

[johanfprins]

Yes, of course. In the same way that Johan is in 100% agreement with special relativity despite denying the well-known experimental consequences of it.

In other words, you both have the "true" teachings about relativity and are here to show how mainstream physics has departed from it.

You are both pro-your-own-boutique-version-of-relativity.

We are both pro Special Relativity but we are not stupid about it. For example, even Einstein stated clearly that the time rate of a moving clock slows down within the reference frame relative to which it is moving. You people are so dumb that you believe that the clock also slows down within the reference frame within which it is stationary. It cannot do this since it is stationary within this reference frame; and all clocks that are stationary within any reference frame must keep the same time within the reference frames within which each one is stationary.

The moving clock does not just move relative to a single other inertial reference frame but relative to zillions, with zillions of different relative speeds v₁ , v₂, v₃, etc. Within each of these reference frames the clock is observed to keep time at a different slower rate. So if you claim that this slowdown must also happen on the clock itself within the reference frame within which it is stationary, then this clock must simultaneously keep time at zillions of different rates. Are you really so daft?

Thus, Hafele and Keating, and those who followed in their footsteps must have fudged their results to obtain what they wanted to obtain. There are many dishonest scientists who are willing to do this when the stakes are high. We have just heard that there are "signs of" the (non-existent) Higgs-boson at CERN. I even doubt Rubbia's claims on the "vector bosons".

 

[johanfprins]

But I ask in vain. You never have done a real calculation here, and you never will.

You are really funny but it is becoming boring.

It has nothing to do with my ability to do the calculations and if you want to believe that I cannot: Be my guest. It has all to do with your utterly stupid interpretation that a bound electron can have kinetic energy while it is bound; even after Sol had to agree that the photon of energy 13.7 eV must result from the change in mass energy when the electron and proton bonds. You are really just wasting everybody's time with your infantile arguments which violate energy conservation. It seems that this is your expertise to violate energy conservation.

 

[ben m]

Quite a coincidence that the correct energy levels were found since the principle quantum numbers later turned out to have nothing to do with orbital momentum, but with the harmonic numbers of standing waves.

Not a coincidence at all. Or at least, not if you believe anything about quantum mechanics. So: Johan, ignore this.

In the full-Schrodinger model of hydrogen, the set of states with the highest angular momenta, and the largest number of nodes in the azimuthal wavefunction are the ones with l= n-1 and m = +/- l. Those have angular momentum quantum numbers with a one-to-one relationship with energy. The wave equation Bohr was thinking of turns out to be the same as the azimuthal component of the 3D Schrodinger equation---i.e., the quantum number you get out of its solutions, the "count the number of azimuthal nodes" quantum number, is m not n.

If you do that without thinking about angular-momentum projections, you'd also end up writing down the l=+/-m solutions specifically.

So, you're making fun of Bohr for thinking that energy was correlated with angular momentum (or, worse, azimuthal nodes) rather than with n. Obviously, knowing the full Schrodinger equation and its solutions, this is not true---the 1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 3d, 4s, etc. states have various combinations of energy, and angular momentum, and nodes.

But Bohr had (inadvertently) written down the azimuthal part of the true wave equation, and its solutions gave him the 1s(m=0), 2p(m=+/-1), 3d(m=+/-2), 4f(m=+/-3), etc states. And for this set of states, it's perfectly true that the energy is quantized according to the angular momentum, which in turn is the same thing as the number of nodes in the wave. But in this context it is the correct wave equation, with the right constant out front, so it's not too surprising that Bohr got the Rydberg constant and the 1/n^2 behavior right. And it's totally unsurprising (indeed correct) that Bohr recognized m as a discrete quantity which correlated with the energy of the state, since he specifically missed realizing that other states (with |m| < l and/or l < n-1) were possible.

 

[sol invictus]

Thus, Hafele and Keating, and those who followed in their footsteps must have fudged their results to obtain what the wanted to obtain. There are many dishonest scientists who are willing to do this when the stakes are high. We have just heard that there are "signs of" the (non-existent) Higgs-boson at CERN. I even doubt Rubbia's claims on the "vector bosons".

Yes Johan, all those experimental results are faked to uphold the global conspiracy against you. Hold out: you're the one stalwart bulwark of truth and enlightenment resisting a rising tide of stupidity and fraud, a lone beacon shining in a black cloud of odious ignorance.

Keep the faith, keep strong, semper fidelis!!

 

[Ziggurat]

You are really funny but it is becoming boring.

It has nothing to do with my ability to do the calculations and if you want to believe that I cannot: Be my guest. It has all to do with your utterly stupid interpretation that a bound electron can have kinetic energy while it is bound; even after Sol had to agree that the photon of energy 13.7 eV must result from the change in mass energy when the electron and proton bonds. You are really just wasting everybody's time with your infantile arguments which violate energy conservation. It seems that this is your expertise to violate energy conservation.

Again, another irony: you were the one who violated energy conservation with your theory (remember the Josephson junction mess?), finally conceding that you were wrong after pages and pages of denial.

My position, right or wrong, doesn't violate energy conservation. My position is that the electron has 13.6 eV (that's the right number, not 13.7) less energy when bound to a hydrogen atom than when free. Yes, my position is that it has kinetic energy, but the potential energy is LESS than -13.6 eV, so the total energy I calculate matches observation. Your criticism is thus nonsense.

But you can't calculate the energy. You can't do it using standard quantum mechanics, because you don't believe in it and don't have the competency to pull it off. And you can't do it with any alternative method, since all you have as an alternative is hand-waving which cannot be turned into quantitative predictions.

You have absolutely no way to calculate the -13.6 eV binding energy of hydrogen.

 

[Farsight]

Yes, of course. In the same way that Johan is in 100% agreement with special relativity despite denying the well-known experimental consequences of it. In other words, you both have the "true" teachings about relativity and are here to show how mainstream physics has departed from it. You are both pro-your-own-boutique-version-of-relativity.

Not me. I'll quote Einstein and refer to other theories and experiment to point out the flaws in current teaching. And I think johan is flogging a dead horse with the time dilation and the muons - I'll check back through the thread to make sure I've understood him correctly, and then I'll have a word him about it. I am not afraid to say sorry Johan, but you're wrong about this and here's why.

Mind you, he was right about this:

"If you apply the Lorentz transformation correctly for a passing rod, you will find time dilation and length-stretching".

That's a bit of a surprise, it certainly sounds like "boutique" SR, but honestly it isn't, and it's quite simple to see why. Imagine you're in a gendanken spaceship looking at a star. It appears spherical. Press the accelerator, and now you see the star looking flattened. It's too far away from you for light to have travelled back and forth, you know that your action cannot have changed the star. So you know your action has changed your observation of the star. You know that it looks flattened because you've changed. And you've changed in that you're "smeared out". You're length-stretched rather than length-contracted, and as a result everything you see outside your spaceship looks length-contracted. I know that isn't what's taught, but think it through for yourself, and remember the wave nature of matter. A wave in a box fills the box. Move past it fast and it still fills the box: you see the whole thing as length-contracted. And here's the crucial thing: don't think of yourself as some point particle. Think of yourself as just another wave in a box.

 

[ben m]

Thus, Hafele and Keating, and those who followed in their footsteps must have fudged their results to obtain what they wanted to obtain.

I can think of one person who prefers to ignore/dismiss/hide/fudge experimental results, because he's not able to admit that the results prove that his theory is wrong. That person is you, Johan.

 

[Vorpal]

You want to argue that the first expression proves that there is kinetic energy. According to Ehrenfest’s theorem you have that:

<F>=(d/dt)<p>: Thus for a distance ds one must have that:

<F>ds=(ds/dt)*d<p>=<v>*d<p>= (1/m)*<p>*d<p>

If you now integrate to get the kinetic energy you get <p>²/2m AND NOT <p²>/2m.

I'm not sure why you don't have ‹F› = ‹dp/dt› instead, but by Ehrenfest's theorem, d‹p›/dt = ‹-∇V›. So you can call that ‹F› if you really want. Then ‹F›ds = ds(d‹p›/dt) = (ds/dt)d‹p›, yes. Wait, what's ds/dt, anyway? Velocity?

If that's sensible, then ‹F›ds = (p/m)d‹p›. You then proceed to treat p/m as if it was ‹p›/m. But that's just crazy. If v is an observable in any sense corresponding to velocity, it cannot be the same as ‹v›.

Even neglecting this completely farcical "derivation", you still manage to miss the point. The hydrogen energy levels are calculated from the Hamiltonian H = p²/2m + V, and which means ‹H› = ‹p²›/2m + ‹V›. However you choose to interpret ‹p²›/2m physically, you absolutely must acknowledge its existence and contribution to the total energy. People call it 'kinetic energy' because it is so in the classical limit. Even if you utterly refuse to assign any physicality to those terms, you must still calculate them to get correct answers.

I told you that I refuse to calculate parameters which have no physics-meaning.

So derive the -13.6eV by whatever means you wish. But by all means, derive it somehow.

Similarly, once quantum mechanical bonding has occurred, the classical potential energy plays no role anymore. Thus to calculate <V> is paranormal nonsense. The physics in which you, Sol, Ben and your choir specialise in.

The choir is impressed by sensible derivations and experimentally correct results. You completely fail at both of these. You failed at the former in this post and you're doing absolutely nothing about the latter.

 

[sol invictus]

"If you apply the Lorentz transformation correctly for a passing rod, you will find time dilation and length-stretching".

No, you won't. It takes approximately two seconds to apply the Lorentz transformation and see that it predicts length contraction.

That's a bit of a surprise, it certainly sounds like "boutique" SR, but honestly it isn't, and it's quite simple to see why. Imagine you're in a gendanken spaceship looking at a star. It appears spherical. Press the accelerator, and now you see the star looking flattened.

Wrong. Spheres always appear circular in cross-section, regardless of the observer's velocity or acceleration.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=2049244

 

[Vorpal]

Mind you, he was right about this:

"If you apply the Lorentz transformation correctly for a passing rod, you will find time dilation and length-stretching".

That's a bit of a surprise, it certainly sounds like "boutique" SR, but honestly it isn't, and it's quite simple to see why. Imagine you're in a gendanken spaceship looking at a star. It appears spherical. Press the accelerator, and now you see the star looking flattened. It's too far away from you for light to have travelled back and forth, you know that your action cannot have changed the star. So you know your action has changed your observation of the star.

It's best to avoid visual language for observations, since spherical bodies still look spherical, but if you s/b 'observe', etc., yes.

You know that it looks flattened because you've changed. And you've changed in that you're "smeared out".

Not really. The situation is precisely analogous to you taking a pen, holding it horizontally and twirling it in front of yourself, and observing that its horizontal length changes. (Or if you prefer, leave it in place and walk around it.) You can describe it in several ways, but all that's "really" going on is that your orientation relative to the pen changes. In spacetime, orientation is velocity and Lorentz transformations are rotations.