Room-temperature superconductivity?

mvanwink5 · Post by **mvanwink5** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 2:01 pm

Johan,
IBM did an experiment where they placed individual copper atoms in an ellipse, then placed one copper atom in one of the foci of the ellipse, and like magic there appeared another copper atom in the other foci, as detected with an electron force microscope (as I recall). So it seems to me that what you outline would be consistent with that experiment. I think, also, solitary waves called solitrons can act as you describe. Is that the type of wave solution that works? Moreover, does the virtual 4th dimension mirror particle see other mirror particles, and is the cavity formed in the 4th dimension or have I missed the plot?
Best regards

johanfprins · Post by **johanfprins** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 2:08 pm

MSimon wrote:So the "box" is the charge of the electron?

"The box" is the opposite (positive) charge along the fourth space dimension. Consider an electron on the two-dimensional surface of a material, but at too a low energy to enter the material, which finds it within the field of a positive charge below the surface of the material: i.e. along the third dimension perpendicular to the two-dimensional surface. It will form a dipole with this opposite charge that will keep it stationary on the surface. When one tries to move the electron from this equilibrium position along the surface, the opposite charge will form a force component parallel to the surface that will pull the electron back to its equilibrium dipole position.

For an electron within its inertial refrence frame, the "surface" on which it is caught by forming a dipole with an opposite charge is now our three-dimensional space and the opposite charge is situated along a fourth space dimension.

johanfprins · Post by **johanfprins** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 2:24 pm

mvanwink5 wrote:Johan,
IBM did an experiment where they placed individual copper atoms in an ellipse, then placed one copper atom in one of the foci of the ellipse, and like magic there appeared another copper atom in the other foci, as detected with an electron force microscope (as I recall).

Sounds fascinating. But what is the ellipse?

So it seems to me that what you outline would be consistent with that experiment. I think, also, solitary waves called solitrons can act as you describe.

I have trouble to follow you here? As far as my knowledge goes, I thought that solitons are non-harmonic waves: i.e. the restoring forces involved are not linearly dependent on the distances moved.

Is that the type of wave solution that works? Moreover, does the virtual 4th dimension mirror particle see other mirror particles, and is the cavity formed in the 4th dimension or have I missed the plot?

These are interesting questions on which I can only speculate. I think that "energy" and "anti-energy" have separated across a three-dimensional surface-barrier during Guth's inflation period; so that the positive charge along the fourth dimension which keeps an electron stationary within its inertial reference frame, relates to the existence of positrons. If the dipole flips around so that this positive charge appears within our three-dimensional space and the negative charge is now situated outside our three-dimensional space along a fourth space dimension, one will have a positron.

It also explains why matter and anti-matter did not annihilate during Guth's inflation.

BTW: We are leaving for overseas tomorrow. So I am running around and will probably not be able to come back to this thread on a daily basis. Nonetheless I will answer all questions when and where I am able to access this thread.

mvanwink5 · Post by **mvanwink5** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:15 pm

Johan,

Sounds fascinating. But what is the ellipse?

Picture an ellipse drawn on a planar substrate with copper atoms placed equally spaced, single file on the drawn ellipse. The substrate was probably silicon I don't remember. The two dimensional ellipse outlined by the copper atoms would have two foci, one of which had a copper atom placed onto it.

You might recall IBM using a similar technique to form the letters "IBM" with individual atoms, but I thought this was much more interesting.

I hope that description is more clear and addresses your question.

Have a safe journey.
Best regards

johanfprins · Post by **johanfprins** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:29 pm

mvanwink5 wrote:Johan,
Sounds fascinating. But what is the ellipse?
Picture an ellipse drawn on a planar substrate with copper atoms placed equally spaced, single file on the drawn ellipse. The substrate was probably silicon I don't remember. The two dimensional ellipse outlined by the copper atoms would have two foci, one of which had a copper atom placed onto it.

You might recall IBM using a similar technique to form the letters "IBM" with individual atoms, but I thought this was much more interesting.

Thanks! I now seem to remember that they called it a coral? I will, however, have to read more about the experiment before drawing any possible conclusions.

Have a safe journey.
Best regards

Thank you!

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:34 pm

Johann,
While you are here in the states are you going to try and look up the folks you provided your samples too previously and "poke them in the eye" about it?

(Also, have a safe trip!)

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:44 pm

If it is the positive charge then how can an electron manifest in "free space".

DeltaV · Post by **DeltaV** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:58 pm

Links to the "corral" experiments:
Meanwhile, back at the Corral
Theory of Quantum Corrals and Quantum Mirages

I wonder if higher mass/energy at one focus would lead to a line distribution containing the foci:
viewtopic.php?p=44895&highlight=#44895

johanfprins · Post by **johanfprins** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:12 pm

ladajo wrote:Johann,
While you are here in the states are you going to try and look up the folks you provided your samples too previously and "poke them in the eye" about it?

(Also, have a safe trip!)

The samples have gone to England and Japan. I am going to use the opportunity in the states to visit a very good magnetics laboratory and I hope to interest them in doing experiments on my samples.

johanfprins · Post by **johanfprins** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:17 pm

MSimon wrote:If it is the positive charge then how can an electron manifest in "free space".

The positive charge that causes the mass of the electron is not within our three-dimensional space; it only causes the electron to have mass. The concept of a free electron with charge -e in space is misleading. It is not free since it is anchored to be stationary within its own inertial reference frame. As long as a force is not acting on it, it is in effect trapped at a single position within its own inertial refrence frame. If it were free, it would have no mass. A light wave is thus free: Not an electron wave.

johanfprins · Post by **johanfprins** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:19 pm

DeltaV wrote:Links to the "corral" experiments:
Meanwhile, back at the Corral
Theory of Quantum Corrals and Quantum Mirages

I wonder if higher mass/energy at one focus would lead to a line distribution containing the foci:
viewtopic.php?p=44895&highlight=#44895

Thanks for the info. I will read up on it when I have the time.

Now I must say goodbye until much much later: Sorry!

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 5:57 pm

johanfprins wrote:
MSimon wrote:If it is the positive charge then how can an electron manifest in "free space".
The positive charge that causes the mass of the electron is not within our three-dimensional space; it only causes the electron to have mass. The concept of a free electron with charge -e in space is misleading. It is not free since it is anchored to be stationary within its own inertial reference frame. As long as a force is not acting on it, it is in effect trapped at a single position within its own inertial refrence frame. If it were free, it would have no mass. A light wave is thus free: Not an electron wave.

That clears everything up. Sort of. But it raises other questions. I'm going to think for a while and will ask you some more questions. Maybe tomorrow.

mvanwink5 · Post by **mvanwink5** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 2:05 pm

So, light has no inertial reference frame and therefore has no mass, and an electron has an inertial reference frame and so has mass. The electron has an inertial reference frame because of the complex wave function, which effectively adds an involvement with an extra dimension.

So, you must have mass to stand still, and also standing still requires being engaged with this complex dimension. Moreover, mass is just a description of behavior of a complex wave. The issue is, is this just a "virtual" dimension or is there more to it? Translating the question to a wave question is is there a wave that will travel only in complex space? What would that mean for energy conservation?

Moreover, what appears as forces are just descriptions of wave superpositions? So with light, wave superpositions can give light the appearance of particle behavior, with complex wave superpositions, other behavior appears that seems to be "unwave-like," but is in fact just complex wave superpositions.
Best regards

JohnFul · Post by **JohnFul** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:08 pm

The IBM Research in Question ...

http://www.almaden.ibm.com/almaden/media/mirage.html

johanfprins · Post by **johanfprins** » Mon Oct 03, 2011 3:02 pm

mvanwink5 wrote:So, light has no inertial reference frame and therefore has no mass, and an electron has an inertial reference frame and so has mass. The electron has an inertial reference frame because of the complex wave function, which effectively adds an involvement with an extra dimension.

Well-summarised: This is what I have deduced.

So, you must have mass to stand still,

This is why Newton defined mass: In order to quantify Galileo's inertia. To be able to be stationary within an inertial refrence frame an object must have mass. This also demands that there can be NO uncertainty in the position and momentum of the centre-of-mass of such an object. This deduction invalidates Heisenberg's interpretation of the relationship between (delta)x and (delta)p.

also standing still requires being engaged with this complex dimension.

This seems to be the logical concusion one has to reach. When a wave moves slower than light-speed, there must be an inertial reference frrame within which the speed of such a wave is zero. Within this reference frame, the wave has no kinetic energy; only mass-energy.

Moreover, mass is just a description of behavior of a complex wave.

Correct: An analogous cae in mind is when a light wave enters a material like glass: The wave refracts and moves at a slower speed through the glass. It is standard procedure in Optics to then solve Maxwell's equations assuming a complex wave in order to obtain the full information of the interaction between the wave and the material.

The issue is, is this just a "virtual" dimension or is there more to it?

This is the million dollar question. For the light wave within a dielectric, like glass, I would guess that the fourth dimension is virtual relative to the three-dimensional space the glass-material is occupying. In the case of a "free electron" moving through "free space", I am following up on the idea that there is an actual fourth space dimension in this case. And it is thus for this reason that an electron-wave can increase (or decrease) its energy by (delat)E for a limited time (delta)t. It is this energy that allows a charge-carrier in a superconductor to gain the required energy in order to move from one position to another position, and then give this energy back from where it came (over the fourth dimension).

Translating the question to a wave question is is there a wave that will travel only in complex space? What would that mean for energy conservation?

I do not think this is possible for an electron-wave since it is in reality a single photon light-wave with energy h*(nu) which lives with energy (1/2)*h*(nu) within our three-dimensional space and the rest of the energy (1/2)*h*(nu) is situated outside our space; but can be on loan for short periods of time.

Moreover, what appears as forces are just descriptions of wave superpositions?

I have not yet looked at all the interactionms: But I do deduce that all the quantum interactions between light and electron waves are caused by entanglement and disentanglement of waves (light-with-light, light-with-matter, and matter-with-matter)

So with light, wave superpositions can give light the appearance of particle behavior,

The entanglement of a light-wave with a matter wave gives the appearance of a "light-particle" interaction; but except for the requirements that momentum and energy must stay conserved, there is not an actual "collision" involved as there would be when a photon really acts like a particle.

with complex wave superpositions, other behavior appears that seems to be "unwave-like," but is in fact just complex wave superpositions.

In general correct: when a light wave gets "gobbled-up" by an electron wave, its kinetic energy transforms into mass-energy which adds to the mass-energy of the electron. The latter, in turn, demands that the electron must instantaneously change shape and size: It is this morphing of the electron-wave which Copenhagen incorrectly ibnterprets as a quantum jump of an "electron-particle".

Greetings from Holland> I will be back when I have another bit of time