Room-temperature superconductivity?

[mvanwink5]

Johan,
I can't thank you enough for your reply.
Best regards,
Mike

[EricF]

From a layperson; Going by Johan's ideas, is the decoupling of the EM wave and mass wave (and subsequent displacement of the mass wave in a desired direction) supposed to be the basis for the Woodward-Mach effect in the other thread?

[mvanwink5]

Johan,
Thought you might take some solace in this scientist's vindication.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/05/d ... more-48718
Better sooner than later though.
best regards

PS would a gravity wave be a pure complex wave?

[johanfprins]

I am now in Denver USA, and have a bit more time on my hands.

The IBM Research in Question ...

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

I have noticed this report eralier this year but was so busy that I did not read it in more detail.

It is a beautuful result: Just what one expects when "electrons" are NEVER particles, but ALWAYS waves. The shape and size of a wave is always determined by the boundary conditions: This has always been the case for waves. Creating the corral creates boundary conditions within which the electron-waves have to adapt. Thus, placing an atom at one focus point will require a symmetrical adapation of the electron-waves since there are interactions with the corral boundary-forces that forces this symmetry on them.

The fact is that an electron in free space experiences totally different boundary condictions: These manifest as a curvature of space-time around the "kernel-intensity" of the electron-wave; where the latter is the mass-energy of an electron. Thus, the wave is a localised entity within its own inertial reference frame; and it has a centre-of-mass. Thus, when observing this electron-wave from another inertial reference frame moving with a speed v relative to the centre-of-mass of the "free" electron-wave, the electron-wave moves like a body with distributed mass that has a centre-of-mass: i.e. with a constant momentum p=mv. We, thus conclude that the electron is a "particle". It is, however, not.

In fact, when the electron-wave moves relative to an observer with speed v it is in addition observed within the observer's refrence frame as having another set of boundary conditions: The latter conditions are determined by the Lorentz transformations. Where-as the electron within its own inertial refrence frame has a Gaussian-spherical shape with a mass-intensity which is time-independent, the Lorentz transformation causes the mass-intensity to elongate along the direction in which it is moving (YES it elongates since there is not a length contraction occurring as Einstein has incorrectly derived; and is still incorrectly being taught as holy dogma within our physics text books).

Furthermore, since the Lorentz transformation also involves time, the mass-intensity along the direction in which the wave is moving now have a time-dependence. This time-dependence causes crests and throughs to appear within the wave-intensity within three dimensional space (a De Broglie wavelength appears): And Voila, the electron, although moving like a particle, can in addition diffract when the boundary conditions demand that it must.

Furthermore, there are NO "free" valence-electrons within ANY solid material. What one observes after switching on an electric-field so that a current flows through a metal are NOT "free electrons" within the metal, but wave packets that formed from the stationary standing waves which bond the metal atoms when there is no current flowing. When applying an electric-field one changes the boundary conditions; and it is this change in boundary conditions which generates the wave packets. Before, applying the electric-field there are very few "free" charge-carriers. This is proved by the low heat capacity of the valence-electrons that bonds the metal's atoms.

Thus an electron wave when not applying an electric-field, so that wave-packets must form, can be meters long: Just as Carver Mead claimed that he has measured.

The concept of "wave-particle" duality is a paranormal concept and it has led a large part of physics (namely quantum-field theory) to become nothing more than metaphysics. Physics that should be presented by illusionist-magicians to amuse the masses.

[johanfprins]

From a layperson; Going by Johan's ideas, is the decoupling of the EM wave and mass wave (and subsequent displacement of the mass wave in a desired direction) supposed to be the basis for the Woodward-Mach effect in the other thread?

I do not want to start a discussion on the Woodward-Mach effect. Suffice to say that in my opinion Woodward is on the right track. All matter-waves represent mass-energy, and any change in energy (delta)E is thus a change in mass energy which can last for a time (delta)t: Such an occurrance is thus clearly a quantum-fluctuation (a transient change in mass-energy just like Woodward has postulated); and in my model it is these quantum fluctuations that enable superconducting charge-carriers to transport a current when one injects charge-carriers into such a material.

I believe that one day we will build spaceships that will enable us to visit any place within our universe and return within a short time: And I believe that these space ships will have to function in terms of massive quantum fluctuations of matter: Guth's inflation of our universe during an infinitely small time-interval during the so-called "Big Bang" is most probably such a quantum fluctuation involving continuously distributed "Dark Matter". I also believe that the superconducting phase that I have discovered 10 years ago can, and should be used as a starting point to understand quantum fluctuations and how to control them.

[johanfprins]

Johan,
Thought you might take some solace in this scientist's vindication.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/05/d ... more-48718
Better sooner than later though.
best regards

I do not know whether I shoulod take solace or become even more depressed: Since it illustrates that those nitwits in charge of science has not changed a single bit since the time of Galileo. Yes, it seems that at least thirty years have to pass for the old ossified nitwits to be replaced by new nitwits who will then allow the idea to be considered as it should have been done from the start. Unfortunately, these new nitwits soon become ever greater nitwits.

Ten years have passed since I discovered superconduction at room temperature: If I live for another 20 years, I will be 89, and probably incapable of giving a coherent Nobel Prize lecture.

PS would a gravity wave be a pure complex wave?

My conclusion is that what we call "tunnelling tails" of a matter wave, is actually the gravity field around the mass of the matter-wave. If I am correct, this would mean that gravity is an integrated part of a matter-wave: Since the matter-wave requires a complex wave-amplitude, this must then also be true for the gravity field around the mass of the matter-wave. If gravity is the curvature of both space and time as Einstein postulated, and I believe that he is correct (but for the wrong reasons), then the gravity field must have a complex amplitude.

Since a matter-wave can inflate and collapse instantaneously this might imply that the gravity field around matter does the same. This, however, implies that there might not be any seperate gravity-waves moving with the speed of light; but that Newton was correct when he assumed that the force of gravity is an instantaneous force. Ligo? Graviton, Higgs boson? My gut feeling is that the latter searches are a massive waste of time and money.

[icarus]

Prins Josephon tunnelling his way about the galaxy in his quantum fluctuation craft makes for some interesting imagery, here one moment alpha centauri the next ... sci fi writers have been kind of lacking in their imagination of late.

PS: I think "speed" of gravity has been recently measured to be the same as that of light, maybe there is another component that cannot be measured in the traditional way?

[johanfprins]

Prins Josephon tunnelling his way about the galaxy in his quantum fluctuation craft makes for some interesting imagery, here one moment alpha centauri the next ... sci fi writers have been kind of lacking in their imagination of late.

Yes I think they have. Star Trek's space warps are supposed to do the same but there is less scientific proof that this is possible. I also did make it clear that I was speculating on these aspects.

I am, however, still waiting for you to define what a "particle" is: What characteristic does a "particle" have that any extended body with a centre-of-mass does not have? You always fudge this answer when I ask.

PS: I think "speed" of gravity has been recently measured to be the same as that of light, maybe there is another component that cannot be measured in the traditional way?

I would like to obtain a reference on this if possible. As far as I understand, the Ligo experiment will be an attempt to observe gravity waves which have not yet been observed. If you have not yet observed a gravity wave, how was its speed measured?

[icarus]

Yes I think they have. Star Trek's space warps are supposed to do the same but there is less scientific proof that this is possible. I also did make it clear that I was speculating on these aspects.

I thought it was clear it was tongue-in-cheek moment of idle fun ... sorry for that.

I am, however, still waiting for you to define what a "particle" is: What characteristic does a "particle" have that any extended body with a centre-of-mass does not have? You always fudge this answer when I ask.

Have no idea what you are talking about here, you may have me confused for someone else?


Have you seen such interesting experiments with graphene as below, showing it has a very stiff lattice that leads to a reduced phonon-electron coupling ... had you considered putting a graphene layer on one of your diamond substrates to enhance whatever effect it is you think you are observing?

http://torcuil.wordpress.com/2008/03/24 ... -graphene/

http://www.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/grap ... -1007.html

"The reason for this unusual thermal response, Jarillo-Herrero says, is that graphene is, pound for pound, the strongest material known. In most materials, superheated electrons would transfer energy to the lattice around them. In the case of graphene, however, that’s exceedingly hard to do, since the material’s strength means it takes very high energy to vibrate its lattice of carbon nuclei — so very little of the electrons’ heat is transferred to that lattice"

I would like to obtain a reference on this if possible. As far as I understand, the Ligo experiment will be an attempt to observe gravity waves which have not yet been observed. If you have not yet observed a gravity wave, how was its speed measured?

I'll get back to you ... someone else pulled me up on it but it is out there ... something to do with jupiter affecting something else that is observed at a time/distance equivalent to speed of light I vaguely recall.

Found it! .... google "speed of gravity measured"

[icarus]

Here's another one that maybe of interest to you johan ... electron clouds seem to be facilitating superconductivity in pnictides ... they call it a third face of superconductivity unmasked!

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-sup ... asked.html

"Shimojima and colleagues were surprised to discover that interactions between electron spins do not cause the electrons to form Cooper pairs in the pnictides. Instead, the coupling is mediated by the electron clouds surrounding the atomic cores. Some of these so-called orbitals have the same energy, which causes interactions and electron fluctuations that are sufficiently strong to mediate superconductivity. "

[D Tibbets]

...

I would like to obtain a reference on this if possible. As far as I understand, the Ligo experiment will be an attempt to observe gravity waves which have not yet been observed. If you have not yet observed a gravity wave, how was its speed measured?

I'll get back to you ... someone else pulled me up on it but it is out there ... something to do with jupiter affecting something else that is observed at a time/distance equivalent to speed of light I vaguely recall.

Found it! .... google "speed of gravity measured"...

Some additional information about the speed of gravity starts here:
http://torcuil.wordpress.com/2008/03/24 ... -graphene/ See the bottom of the page.

Dan Tibbets

[johanfprins]

[I thought it was clear it was tongue-in-cheek moment of idle fun ... sorry for that.

Have no idea what you are talking about here, you may have me confused for someone else?

I apologise: I am still trying to catch up on the time lag after having flown from South Africa to the USA.

Have you seen such interesting experiments with graphene as below, showing it has a very stiff lattice that leads to a reduced phonon-electron coupling ... had you considered putting a graphene layer on one of your diamond substrates to enhance whatever effect it is you think you are observing?

I am well aware of the studies on grapheme because they relate intimately with the very-low resistivity layers that I generate in diamond: I am planning to use graphene as contacts to my layers. The problem with my layers is that the energy of the charge-carriers is situated at, or very near to, the vacuum level. Metal contacts have large work-functions which suck up the charge-carriers around them and the contacts therefore have large resistances. Nonetheless, using different distances between the contacts the resistivity of the layers between the contacts always extrapolates to zero.

"The reason for this unusual thermal response, Jarillo-Herrero says, is that graphene is, pound for pound, the strongest material known. In most materials, superheated electrons would transfer energy to the lattice around them. In the case of graphene, however, that’s exceedingly hard to do, since the material’s strength means it takes very high energy to vibrate its lattice of carbon nuclei — so very little of the electrons’ heat is transferred to that lattice"

This is to be expected and not surprising at all.

I'll get back to you ... someone else pulled me up on it but it is out there ... something to do with jupiter affecting something else that is observed at a time/distance equivalent to speed of light I vaguely recall.

Found it! .... google "speed of gravity measured"

Thank you. I have missed this. It is, however, not 100% convincing to me since the conclusion is based on an extrapolation of Einstein’s general relativity. It might be possible that Einstein’s equations have nothing to do with relativity (*see correction note berlow), but should rather be derived from the mechanics of matter and light waves. But I will not expand too much on the latter since I already experience too much flak on superconduction. It is possible that these scientists have actually measured light speed. I will therefore wait for Ligo.

* This statement requires an explanation since all physics is subject to relativity. What I intended to say is that the arguments that Einstein used to extrapolate from his Special Theory of Relativity in order to conclude that matter curves space-time, are probably wrong; even though the latter conclusion is correct.

[johanfprins]

Here's another one that maybe of interest to you johan ... electron clouds seem to be facilitating superconductivity in pnictides ... they call it a third face of superconductivity unmasked!

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-sup ... asked.html

"Shimojima and colleagues were surprised to discover that interactions between electron spins do not cause the electrons to form Cooper pairs in the pnictides. Instead, the coupling is mediated by the electron clouds surrounding the atomic cores. Some of these so-called orbitals have the same energy, which causes interactions and electron fluctuations that are sufficiently strong to mediate superconductivity. "

Yes!! I am aware of this work, since my model on superconduction explains it perfectly. The "electron clouds" are my stationary orbitals and they "couple" through the Heisenberg relationship for energy and time once their density becomes low enough.

[johanfprins]

Some additional information about the speed of gravity starts here:
http://torcuil.wordpress.com/2008/03/24 ... -graphene/ See the bottom of the page.

Dan Tibbets

You have lost me here since this is on graphene and not the speed of gravity. What am I missing at the bottom of the page?

[D Tibbets]

Some additional information about the speed of gravity starts here:
http://torcuil.wordpress.com/2008/03/24 ... -graphene/ See the bottom of the page.

Dan Tibbets

You have lost me here since this is on graphene and not the speed of gravity. What am I missing at the bottom of the page?

You have company, I'm lost also. I don't know know where that link came from. The correct link is a Wikipedia article. See under the Possible Experimental Evidence section near the bottom of the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

Dan Tibbets