Room-temperature superconductivity?

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

Giorgio wrote: For one, I do not see how entanglement over a distances greater than Planck scale can be explained using your model.
What has the "Planck scale" got to do with it? A covalent bond is an entanglement of two electron-waves, a double-bond an entanglement of four electron-waves, and a triple-bond an entanglement of six electron-waves: Their sizes are in the Angstrom range. In each case the total bond is a single holistic wave: Or do you think the bonds consist of "marbles in a bag"?

The Planck scale is a red herring which is based on the assumption that electron-particles exist: There are NO PARTICLES.

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

Giorgio wrote: Too much wild IMHO.
They just take bits of theory here and there and place them together to prove ther hypothesis but with no real convincing argument or any experimental data.

Their "mathematical proof" that the electron is a spherical electromagnetic standing wave is laughable to say the least:
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-prop.asp
We do agree fully in this case. What Milo Wolff does not appreciate is that when the boundary conditions do not change a matter wave does NOT vibrate harmonically within three-dimensional space, but along two dimensions lying outside our three-dimensional space. His conclusion is, however, correct: A solitary electron-wave is a time independent spherical field within its own inertial reference frame. In fact it is related to a "light-wave" which has been stopped in its tracks; just like Lene Hau stops a light wave within a Bose-Einstein condensate.

The reason why this happens is NOT because an incoming light wave interferes with an outgoing light wave as Milo Wolff is modelling. According to his model the standing electron-wave is still performing harmonic vibrations within our three-dimensional space. The fact is that a solitary electron-wave does not perform such motions within its own inertial reference frame. It only sprouts wave-fronts within other inertial reference frames relative to which it is moving: The Lorentz transformation mandates this. It is for this reason that an electron-wave moving with a momentum p has a de Broglie wavelength. It obviously cannot relate to a de Broglie wavelength when it is staionary since p=0 requires an infinite wavelength.

WizWom
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 1:00 pm
Location: St Joseph, MO
Contact:

Post by WizWom »

icarus wrote:http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-swave.asp

Atom as EM standing waves, BEC as a single standing wave ... getting into some wild territory now people ...
Um... no? Quantum physics describes the waveforms of the standing waves quite well, as probability functions. They are not circle in a spherical shell, but interpenetrating shells. The concept of a "shell" is imprecise at best, representing the outer extant of common zone of the probability function.

This is first year chemistry. It is a provable fact; the shape of the "orbitals" is determinable by experiment.
Wandering Kernel of Happiness

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

WizWom wrote: Quantum physics describes the waveforms of the standing waves quite well, as probability functions........ It is a provable fact; the shape of the "orbitals" is determinable by experiment.
Yes they can be experimentally determined AND this proves that these waves ARE NOT "probability functions" as you call them.

Take any atom and calculate the "most probable position" of an orbital-electron along any direction from minus infinity to plus infinity: You will find that it coincides with the position of the nucleus. This immediately raises two problems: (i) In the case of, for example, the 1s-wave of a hydrogen-atom, the most probable position to find the electron is within the nucleus. So how can it effect a chemical bond? (ii) For the other waves the intensity at the nucleus is zero: So the derivation implies that the "most probable" position to find the electron is at a position where the probability of finding it is zero.

PLEASE stop believing this infantile interpretation by Max Born which can only manifest in Alice's Wonderland.

Giorgio
Posts: 3068
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

johanfprins wrote:The Planck scale is a red herring which is based on the assumption that electron-particles exist: There are NO PARTICLES.
And here lies my biggest concern. This is why I need to think it over for sometime.
Applying your logic will give completely new meaning of the basic experimental results of quantum mechanics, starting from the double-slit experiment.


I have one more questions for you if you are willing to give me your opinion:

How can interstellar light propagation work the way it does if the particle aspect of light disappear?
What I mean is, how can the light of a star (considered only as an electromagnetic wave) travel across our galaxy for tens of thousand of light years without getting modified and reach us in his original state?

EricF
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:52 pm
Location: Pell City, Alabama

Post by EricF »

Giorgio wrote:
johanfprins wrote:The Planck scale is a red herring which is based on the assumption that electron-particles exist: There are NO PARTICLES.
And here lies my biggest concern. This is why I need to think it over for sometime.
Applying your logic will give completely new meaning of the basic experimental results of quantum mechanics, starting from the double-slit experiment.
?
I think I remember seeing commentary on the double slit experiment in either ch1 or 8 of Prof. Prins book, I'll see if I can find it tonight and PM it to you.

This entire thread has been fascinating.

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

Giorgio wrote: Applying your logic will give completely new meaning of the basic experimental results of quantum mechanics, starting from the double-slit experiment.
You are totally correct. You can see the explanation for the double slit experiment on my website extract 35. I will thus not expand on it here, except to state that a light or a matter wave can only diffract through a double slit when the wave actually do split up into two components and move through both slits while remaining a single holistic entity which is in immediate contact with itself; even though it is now consisting of two fractions.

That this is possible for an electron wave can be seen from the orbitals which form around a nucleus: For example, a p-orbital consists of two separate fractions; but it is still a single holistic wave which responds as an entity when it is disturbed.

When you try to measure through which slit a wave has moved, it collapses so that the two lobes disappear. We then conclude that the "electron" has ONLY moved through one slit while it is our measurement which CAUSED it to change its shape and size.

What people forget is that one cannot specify any wave without specifying its boundary conditions; and when doing a measurement on a wave one changes its boundary conditions. It is exactly here where quantum mechanics went wrong and quantum field theory led us further into the quagmire.
How can interstellar light propagation work the way it does if the particle aspect of light disappear? What I mean is, how can the light of a star (considered only as an electromagnetic wave) travel across our galaxy for tens of thousand of light years without getting modified and reach us in his original state?

Obviously, the light emitted from excited atoms on the surface of a star is emitted as quantum units: BUT this does not mean they are particles. They are still waves whch start to spread out. But since there are billions of them leaving the surface, those of them which are in phase entangle to form larger wave entities. In the process these photons disappear as separate entities. The larger entangled wave entities have wave-fronts which spread out towards us. When such a wave reaches an absorber which can abosrb a single quantum of energy and resonates with it, it can disentangle such a quantity of energy to be absorbed.

Let us look at a more mundane case: A radio tower emits a single macro sine-wave, which we can hear on millions of radios without requiring the whole wave to be absorbed by a single antenna AND without requiring that the wave must be broadcasted as separate bits (obviously I am talking about a REAL harmonic wave) of energy each of which is absorbed by only a single antenna.

Similarly with a laser beam: It does not consist of separate photons since the laser beam itself is a SINGLE coherent wave: However, when it encounters an absorber which resonates with it, the laser beam can disentangle to release a light wave having only a quantum of energy to be absorbed. Thus a laser beam can split into two beams moving through a double slit and interfere with itself, but when it reaches the diffraction screen it disentangles into light entities which can be absorbed by the absorbing "pixels" within the screen.

Obviously where the wave front has a high entensity there will be more pixel-spots. We eventually see the intensity of the wave-front appearing from the pixels and then conclude that the wave's intensity is a probability distribution. This is absolute nonsense since this would mean that the same spots will form around a small screen than on a larger screen. Spots will only form on a screen. What we measure is thus determined by the measuring apparatus NOT the wave intensity on its own.

Giorgio
Posts: 3068
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

@johanfprins

Apologize for not checking your website before posting. I will try to find the time to give a good read at your papers about the double slit experiment during the coming weekend if workload eases a bit.


As for my doubt about travelling light I still do not have clear how you solved the issue.

If I understood correctly you make the hypothesis that light emitted from a star will bond in group of coherent waves thus preventing deterioration of the wave itself as it travels.
Yet I do not understand how the wave can keep its coherent state as well as its direction while travelling in the chaotic medium that is interstellar space, especially when it gets near other stars.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

johanfprins wrote:You are totally correct. You can see the explanation for the double slit experiment on my website extract 35. I will thus not expand on it here, except to state that a light or a matter wave can only diffract through a double slit when the wave actually do split up into two components and move through both slits while remaining a single holistic entity which is in immediate contact with itself; even though it is now consisting of two fractions.
This is starting to remind me of what Randell Mills says in his critique of the double slit experiment. I'm curious if you're familiar?

http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/book.shtml
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Giorgio
Posts: 3068
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

EricF wrote:I think I remember seeing commentary on the double slit experiment in either ch1 or 8 of Prof. Prins book, I'll see if I can find it tonight and PM it to you.
Thanks, that will be appreciated.

WizWom
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 1:00 pm
Location: St Joseph, MO
Contact:

Post by WizWom »

johanfprins wrote:
WizWom wrote: Quantum physics describes the waveforms of the standing waves quite well, as probability functions........ It is a provable fact; the shape of the "orbitals" is determinable by experiment.
Yes they can be experimentally determined AND this proves that these waves ARE NOT "probability functions" as you call them.

Take any atom and calculate the "most probable position" of an orbital-electron along any direction from minus infinity to plus infinity: You will find that it coincides with the position of the nucleus. This immediately raises two problems: (i) In the case of, for example, the 1s-wave of a hydrogen-atom, the most probable position to find the electron is within the nucleus. So how can it effect a chemical bond? (ii) For the other waves the intensity at the nucleus is zero: So the derivation implies that the "most probable" position to find the electron is at a position where the probability of finding it is zero.
Actually, this is NOT the case; the probability functions in all cases exclude the nucleus by the Pauli exclusion principle. Moreover, even though the density function is greatest at the center, the RD/r makes it clear that the actual chance of finding the electron there approaches zero.

At this point it becomes clear you don't understand quantum mechanics, which you are trying to overthrow, and thus won't get taken seriously by anyone at all.
Wandering Kernel of Happiness

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

WizWom wrote: Actually, this is NOT the case; the probability functions in all cases exclude the nucleus by the Pauli exclusion principle. Moreover, even though the density function is greatest at the center, the RD/r makes it clear that the actual chance of finding the electron there approaches zero.
Why do they have to be probability functions to exclude the nucleus by means of Pauli's exclusion principle? You are talking nonsense! Furthermore, when using the RD/r function to calculate the most probably position for an electron on an axis through the nucleus one finds it at the origin within the nucleus. Of course for this you require calculus to do an integral; so you might not be able to understand what I am talking about!

So answer the following: How can the most probable position as defined by Born and Von Neumann, which is required to calculate Heisenberg's so-called "uncertianty relationship" for position and momentum, be at a position where one can NEVER find the electron?

Since it is clear that you have trouble to think logically: Consider an electron within a small cavity; which can be experimentally generated if you do not know! For all the states with even quantum numbers the "most probable" position is found to be where the wave's intensity is zero.
At this point it becomes clear you don't understand quantum mechanics, which you are trying to overthrow, and thus won't get taken seriously by anyone at all.
I would rather say that at this point it becomes clear that you should go back to primary school or your mama's apron strings to learn some simple logic!

Now let us try to keep the rest of this discussion civil. I can assure you that when it comes to throwing insults nobody can beat me. But I would like to stay away from futher mudslinging and will appreciate it if you will stick to physics and logic without becoming insulting!

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

GIThruster wrote: This is starting to remind me of what Randell Mills says in his critique of the double slit experiment. I'm curious if you're familiar?

http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/book.shtml
Yes I am aware of Randall Mills and I have read some extracts of his work. Unfortunalely I did not yet have the time to look at it in depth. Therefore I cannot judge it objectively at this point in time. So far, I have also not seen any other scientist criticizing Mill's work by using impeccable logic to prove it wrong; if it is wrong. Unless the latter is done, one is a criminal if one rejects new ideas outright. Nowadays any idea which challenges mainstream physics is treated with animosity and insults (see WizWom above). This is why physics is in a total mess!

What I can say about Mill's work is within the framework of an opera: I like his music but am still struggling to understand the libretto. The latter is most probably due to the fact that I have not yet been able to study his ideas in depth. It would be interesting to meet him.

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

Giorgio wrote: If I understood correctly you make the hypothesis that light emitted from a star will bond in group of coherent waves thus preventing deterioration of the wave itself as it travels.
No this does not prevent it from deteriorating since it MUST lose energy on the way. All I am saying is that this does NOT require that the wave coming to us must consist of separate photons: It only disentangles to release a quantum of energy when required. This is discussed in more detail in my forthcoming book.
Yet I do not understand how the wave can keep its coherent state as well as its direction while travelling in the chaotic medium that is interstellar space, especially when it gets near other stars.
Because it does not have to lose its coherency when photons are being disentangled and absorbed while the light wave is on its way towards us, For example an infra-red laser beam can be seen when it interacts with powder in the air without losing its coherency. This is so since the wave can disentangle quanta of energy when interacting with the powder. However, without the powder, there are not separate quanta consituting the wave.

Take for example a standing wave in a cavity with a specific frequency nu: Its energy is nh(nu) where n is an integer, but it is still a single harmonic standing wave. When the temperature is raised the energy of the wave increases in steps to become Nh(nu) where N>n. This does not mean that there are now Nh(nu) separate photons; but only that the total intensity of the wave has increased from nh(nu) to Nh(nu). It is still a single wave as demanded by the boundary conditions; i.e. the size of the cavity. One cannot ignore the boundary conditions without doing Voodoo.

Similarly when the temperature decreases the wave disentangles quanta which are absorbed by the "vibrating" atoms in the walls of the cavity. The standing wave's intensity now decreases but it still stays a single standing wave as demanded by the boundary conditions.

Thus a laser beam does the same when impinging into a metal: The boundary conditions change and the wave disentangles to release the required quanta which can be absorbed by the valence electron waves. When the energy absorbed by an electron-wave causes its total energy to be more than its rest mass energy, the electron is ejected. Thus the photoelectric effect is purely a wave-absorption interaction. The electron and photon are NOT "particles" but waves all the way!

I hope this helps!

Giorgio
Posts: 3068
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

Firstly I would like everyone to try to keep this discussion as much civil as possible. It has been very interesting until now. No need to ruin it.

@Wizwom
The models we have now are solid but not perfect, hence they are not an exact definition of reality.
And while I am not in complete agreement with johanfprins idea, applying them does solve some of the mess we have in quantum theories, so I believe that is worth to fully understand his point of view before judging it.


@johanfprins
johanfprins wrote:
Giorgio wrote: If I understood correctly you make the hypothesis that light emitted from a star will bond in group of coherent waves thus preventing deterioration of the wave itself as it travels.
No this does not prevent it from deteriorating since it MUST lose energy on the way. All I am saying is that this does NOT require that the wave coming to us must consist of separate photons: It only disentangles to release a quantum of energy when required. This is discussed in more detail in my forthcoming book.
Giorgio wrote: Yet I do not understand how the wave can keep its coherent state as well as its direction while travelling in the chaotic medium that is interstellar space, especially when it gets near other stars.
Because it does not have to lose its coherency when photons are being disentangled and absorbed while the light wave is on its way towards us, For example an infra-red laser beam can be seen when it interacts with powder in the air without losing its coherency. This is so since the wave can disentangle quanta of energy when interacting with the powder. However, without the powder, there are not separate quanta consituting the wave.

Take for example a standing wave in a cavity with a specific frequency nu: Its energy is nh(nu) where n is an integer, but it is still a single harmonic standing wave. When the temperature is raised the energy of the wave increases in steps to become Nh(nu) where N>n. This does not mean that there are now Nh(nu) separate photons; but only that the total intensity of the wave has increased from nh(nu) to Nh(nu). It is still a single wave as demanded by the boundary conditions; i.e. the size of the cavity. One cannot ignore the boundary conditions without doing Voodoo.
So, suppose that the light wave has travelled across half our galaxy and, undisturbed by the galaxy boundary, has now reached us in a coherent state (on this I can agree in principle). This wave should now have a cross section thousand of times the starting wave.

When this wave encounter our boundary (a telescope, an interferometer, other), will it have to collapse over itself to regain it's original (starting) cross section before interacting with the boundary?

If your answer is yes, how do you solve this mathematically?



johanfprins wrote:Thus a laser beam does the same when impinging into a metal: The boundary conditions change and the wave disentangles to release the required quanta which can be absorbed by the valence electron waves. When the energy absorbed by an electron-wave causes its total energy to be more than its rest mass energy, the electron is ejected. Thus the photoelectric effect is purely a wave-absorption interaction. The electron and photon are NOT "particles" but waves all the way!

I hope this helps!
Yes, the absorption-desorption mechanism is very clear and the part I like more about your hypothesis.

Post Reply