Room-temperature superconductivity?

[tomclarke]

You claim that it describes physics well when it requires two clocks, which are both stationary within their respective inertial reference frames, to keep different times? Just answer a simple question which I just the other day asked my grandson, and he gave the correct answer. When two inertial reference frames move relative to one another with a speed v, which one is stationary and which one is moving? You do not need mathematics to answer this simple question.

We will I think differ over this. For the record I will restate what I and others here have said about this question:

(1) For two clocks in different inertial frames "keeping different times" is not physically meaningful. You would have to describe an experiment to verify or deny this.

(2) relative motion is symmetrical, both F.O.R. move, and we have never said otherwise.

(3) (2) does not create a contradiction because (1) is meaningless unless you introduce change of F.O.R. into one or both of clocks to bring them together again. In which case relative time depends on which chnage FOR. If both do so symetrically there is no difference.

[Teemu]

These might be a helpful pictures and videos to demonstrate how in twin paradox one is inertial observer and one is inertial observer most of time, but that "turn" breaks the inertia

http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/ ... ock/#twins

[johanfprins]

We will I think differ over this. For the record I will restate what I and others here have said about this quesytion:

I know what you and others have said about this question since it is the same paranormal, metaphysical interpretation of the Lorentz transformation that I have taught for many years to my own students. So repeating Voodoo arguments on this thread is not helping much at all. Take, for example, your next statement:

(1) Two clocks in diferent inertial frames "keeping different times" is not physically meaningful.

Now just answer the following questions:
(i) Does a clock keep time? Yes or No.
(ii) Do two separate clocks each keep time? Yes or No?
(iii) Do two separate clocks which are both stationary within the same inertial reference frame each keep time? Yes or No?
(iv) Do these clocks keep time at different rates? Yes or No?
(v) Do two clocks moving relative to one another each keep time within their own inertial reference frames? Yes or No?
(vi) Now since they both must keep time, and since you claim that “keeping different times” is not physically meaningful, it MUST mean that they are keeping time at the same rate. Yes or No?

You would have to describe an experiment to verify or deny this.

The experiment is in the text books where it is claimed that one twin will age faster than the other. This can ONLY be possible if their respective clocks keep different time rates within their respective inertial reference frames. Yes or no? Try and give some straight answers for a change!

(2) relative motion is symmetrical, both FOR move, and we have never said otherwise.

So the two twins will not age at different rates as long as they move with a constant velocity v relative to one another? Yes or no? This means that the clocks travelling with the two twins MUST keep time at the same rate: Yes or No?

If, as claimed on this thread, the flying clocks experiment does prove that there is in addition to the gravitational effect on a clock also, a slow-down just because the clock is moving relative to another clock on the earth, then it does prove a slowing down under symmetrical conditions; and thus also proves you wrong: Does it not?. Do you, thus, agree that the flying clock experimental results must be wrong in this respect?

(3) (2) does not create a contradiction because (1) is meaningless unless you introduce change of FOR into one or both of clocks to bring them together again.

Why? Do they both only tick when they are together? Furthermore this is false, since acceleration of a clock DOES ALSO NOT change its time rate at all (see the discussion in my manuscript).

In which case relative time depends on which change FOR. If both do so symetrically there is no difference.

Thus the two twins do not age at different rates when they move with a constant velocity v relative to one another? Yes or no?

Furthermore, since you have only two reference frames involved, acceleration relative to one another is also symmetrical (see discussion in my manuscript based on Fig. 2) and therefore even acceleration and thus change in speed can also not cause one twin to age faster than the other. Thus, if one twin accelerates away, decelerates, comes to a stop, and accelerates back, the two twins will still be the sane age when the meet up since their clocks kept exactly the same time throughout the whole journey.

With all due respect Tom, you are arguing through your neck. The first principle of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is that within ANY inertial reference frame the laws of physics MUST be EXACTLY the same. You claim that two clocks which are stationary within two different inertial reference frames respectively do NOT follow the same physics; since this is for some obscure reason, which you cannot explain, not “physically meaningful”. Really!!

[mvanwink5]

Johan,
Earlier, in an attempt to set up a hypothetical experiment, I referred to a particle, sorry for being a little lazy in terminology. I completely accept the insight that what is viewed as a particle is actually a stationary EM wave, and was just using convention when talking about "particles".

With the view that "particles" are really stationary EM waves, it would clearly not be possible to travel faster than light as the pseudo-particle is the twin brother to light and so is limited to wave speed. To travel faster, one would have to change permittivity and/or permeability of space, then what would happen?

This unifying EM view might imply that there is no other unrelated wave. We know E and M are really just transformations of each other. Is there no other factor, like for instance granularity of space, that might relate to e0/u0? Sorry for being metaphysical.

Very best regards,
Mike

[johanfprins]

These might be a helpful pictures and videos to demonstrate how in twin paradox one is inertial observer and one is inertial observer most of time, but that "turn" breaks the inertia

http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/ ... ock/#twins

They are not useful at all since they are based on the wrong interpretation of the Lorentz transformation. What must be compared are the times on the clocks as these times are transpiring WITHIN EACH INERTIAL REFERENCE FRAME. In these diagrams the first clock is compared with the transformed time on the second clock which is moving relative to the first clock: And not, as it should be, to the actual time on the second clock as it transpires within the inertial refrence frame of this second clock. In my manuscript I prove directly from the Lorentz transformation that the two clocks MUST keep exactly the same time WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE INERTIAL REFERENCE FRAMES EVEN WHEN THESE REFERENCE FRAMES ACCELERATE RELATIVE TO ONE ANOTHER. THIS IS DEMANDED BY THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION ITSELF!! SO HOW CAN ONE TWIN AGE SLOWER THAN THE OTHER TWIN WHEN THE CLOCKS THEY HAVE WITH THEM MUST KEEP TIME AT EXACTLY THE SAME RATE WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE REFERENCE FRAMES?

[Teemu]

http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/ ... ock/#twins
I think the animations show really well, that for the light speed to be measured as absolute to every direction, the time can't be absolute, the balls symbolizing light pulses really illustrate it well, as do the light cones, also need for contraction for moving Michelson Morley experiment is illustrated really well in the other animations on that page. Can you try to explain how would both time and speed of light be absolute, in similar terms as on that site, a device moving near light speed, that measures light speed to different directions by sending light pulses?

Lorentz transformation is just a subset with limitations of a subset, so it has limitations as tool of logic, you can't really base everything on it. The real physics, complying with experimental results must come first. Ohm's law can't be used to disprove existence of superconductivity. Lorentz transformation has it's limits.

The Lorentz transformation describes only the transformations in which the spacetime event at the origin is left fixed, so they can be considered as a hyperbolic rotation of Minkowski space.

What do you mean by keeping the same time within it's inertial reference frame? If you have inside space ship some system measuring amount radiation coming from a known amount of several kilograms of radioactive material inside the system and comparing it to estimated expected radiation, if the ship accelerates to near light speed of course the system does not notice any sudden huge reduction or increase in the amount of radiation relative to the measured time, but the radiation keeps coming around the rate you would expect based on the half life, and on the time measured by the clock, no matter what the speed. So in a practical sense, of course the clock is keeping the "same" time within it's inertial reference frame. But that saying has in my opinion no real meaning.

By the way if you didn't like it how that diagram/picture described it only from the reference frame of one, here is the diagrams for both in similar situation.
http://www.csupomona.edu/~ajm/materials ... /twins.jpg

[johanfprins]

With the view that "particles" are really stationary EM waves, it would clearly not be possible to travel faster than light as the pseudo-particle is the twin brother to light and so is limited to wave speed. To travel faster, one would have to change permittivity and/or permeability of space, then what would happen?

Absolutely correct when a wave moves without any change in the boundary conditions it finds itself under. Boundary conditions determine the shape and size of a wave and when the boundary conditions suddenly change the wave has to “suddenly” morph to conform to the new boundary conditions. This “morphing can happen faster than the speed of light: For example, a large photon resonates with an atomic electron so that it instantaneously collapses to be “gobbled up” by the electron wave. The latter wave then finds that it has too much energy to retain the shape and size it has had before it “swallowed” the photon: It thus “instantaneously” changes it shape and size to form a higher energy allowed electron wave. Bohr and Heisenberg interpreted this “faster than light speed” morphing of waves (both light and electron) as “quantum jumps of an electron particle from one energy level to another. Unfortunately the latter paranormal metaphysical interpretation became accepted as being real. Thus a light-wave and an electron-wave can actually collapse or inflate so that energy is displaces through space at a rate that is faster than the speed of light.

It has been deduced that the neutrinos change their “character” while they move. This indicates that their wave structure morphs. I thus deduce that if the recent experimental result is correct that they moved from one position to another in space at a speed faster than light, this increase in speed must relate a morphing or consecutive morphings while they travelled through this distance.

This unifying EM view might imply that there is no other unrelated wave. We know E and M are really just transformations of each other. Is there no other factor, like for instance granularity of space, that might relate to e0/u0? Sorry for being metaphysical.

All waves, both light and matter, consist of E and M energy: That is why an electron has “spin”. The latter has nothing to do with a charge spinning, since a single spinning charge CANNOT generate a magnetic moment on its own. The “spin” is simply the magnetic component of the wave and the mass is the wave’s electric component. “Granularity” of space is in my book nothing else than Vodoo. Space and time are continuous.

[mvanwink5]

Thank you for that reply.

Regarding boundary condition changes, can those changes happen and cause energy to move faster than light, or this energy movement just mirage? I am thinking about two screens when moved against each other causes a light pattern move much faster than the actual screens. The pattern movement is just a mirage moving.

[johanfprins]

http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/ ... ock/#twins
I think the animations show really well, that for the light speed to be measured as absolute to every direction, the time can't be absolute,

For light speed to be absolute within all and any inertial reference frame, THE TRANSFORMED TIME AND LENGTHS (which become stretched WITH the time) ARE NOT THE SAME AS THEY ARE WITHIN THEIR OWN INERTIAL REFRENCE FRAME. THE UNTRANSFORMED TIME AND LENGTHS WITHIN ANY INERTIAL REFRENCE FRAME ARE EXACTLY THE SAME AS WITHIN ANY OTHER INERTIAL REFERENCE FRAME OR ELSE THE PHYSICS WILL NOT BE THE SAME WITHIN DIFFERENT INERTIAL REFERENCE FRAMES: THE PHYSICS MUST BE THE SAME OR ELSE EINSTEIN’S MAJOR POSTULATE ON RELATIVITY WILL BE WRONG. IN FACT YOU WILL THEN NOT BE ABLE TO DEDUCE THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION.

. balls symbolizing light pulses really illustrate it well, as do the light cones, also need for contraction for moving Michelson Morley experiment is illustrated really well in the other animations on that page.

obviously you have NOT read my manuscript. Why do you spout on this post without having ascertained what my logic and deductions from my logic are?

Can you try to explain how would both time and speed of light be absolute, in similar terms as on that site, a device moving near light speed, that measures light speed to different directions by sending light pulses?

I have treated this in detail in my manuscript. Why do you ask me to do what I have already done just because you are sure that I must be wrong without having read what my arguments are? This is scientifically unacceptable.

When you are within an inertial reference frame the space coordinates are Euclidean: And when you place a clock at every coordinate point within this reference frame, the clocks WILL ALL show exactly the same. Thus within an inertial reference frame both position and time is absolute. When an event happens within a passing reference frame you will observe it at a different time on ALL your clocks than the time at which it happened on ALL the clocks within the passing reference frame. Unless you are stationary within both reference frames (which is impossible) you will not be able to even know that there is a time difference. The fact that the Lorentz transformation give a transformed time difference from the one in the passing inertial reference frame, does NOT mean that time and space are not absolute within an inertial reference frame. PLEASE read my manuscript . That would be the courteous thing to do. Read the manuscript and point out on which page you do not agree with the logic and why you do not agree with the logic. This is how a scientific discussion should be handled. In my case, I have read EVERYTHING you have posted here, already YEARS ago.

Lorentz transformation is just a subset with limitations of a subset, so it has limitations as tool of logic, you can't really base everything on it.

You are spouting mathematics not talking physics!

The real physics, complying with experimental results must come first.

Correct, so why do you refuse to follow this route?

Ohm's law can't be used to disprove existence of superconductivity.

Exactly: Neither can it explain superconductivity.

zero resistivity and sup Lorentz transformation has it's limits.

I do not know how you could convolute zero resistivity with the Lorentz transformation????? It is accepted that the Lorentz transformation IS the seminal equations for the Special Theory of Relativity. So are you saying that they are not complete? If so, why so? Any experimental evidence?

The Lorentz transformation describes only the transformations in which the spacetime event at the origin is left fixed,

No they don’t. You can derive them by synchronizing time at any other position than at the origins of the two passing inertial reference frames

so they can be considered as a hyperbolic rotation of Minkowski space.

Again you are trying to conform physics to mathematics instead of doing it the other way around.

What do you mean by keeping the same time within it's inertial reference frame? If you have inside space ship some system measuring amount radiation coming from a known amount of several kilograms of radioactive material inside the system and comparing it to estimated expected radiation, if the ship accelerates to near light speed of course the system does not notice any sudden huge reduction in the amount of radiation relative to the measured time, but the radiation keeps coming around the rate you would expect based on the half life, and on the time measured by the clock, no matter what the speed.

Correct and since clock speed is determined by physical processes like decay time, and since all atoms which are stationary within ANY inertial reference frame must always decay at the same rate, clocks which are stationary within different inertial reference frames MUST keep time at the same rate. If not, it would mean that the decay rates for stationary radio-active atoms will have no real meaning.

But that saying has in my opinion no real meaning.

With due respect, your opinion is obviously paranormal metaphysics that can only manifest in Alice’s Wonderland.

[johanfprins]

Thank you for that reply.

Regarding boundary condition changes, can those changes happen and cause energy to move faster than light, or this energy movement just mirage?

No it is real but non-local. Energy "disappears" at a point and "appears" at another point. I can illustrate this within the superconducting phase that I discovered 10 years ago.

I am thinking about two screens when moved against each other causes a light pattern move much faster than the actual screens. The pattern movement is just a mirage moving.

No this is not the case.

[tomclarke]

I think we have maybe reached a point where further communication will not happen, but I'll answer your questions, I'm always up for such a challenge:

Now just answer the following questions:
(i) Does a clock keep time? Yes or No.

Johan, you are interested in physivcs, which mean the statements you make must in principle be related to a physical experiment.

I'll give one to define keeping time, so that this is answered positively.

A clock keeps time if it agrees with the time measured from counting caesium electronic transition frequency in the same FOR.

In which case good clocks keep time.

Now, you may prefer some less relative definition: but you will have to define the experiment that establishes whether or not two diffeent clocks keep time.

(ii) Do two separate clocks each keep time? Yes or No?

yes.

(iii) Do two separate clocks which are both stationary within the same inertial reference frame each keep time? Yes or No?

yes

(iv) Do these clocks keep time at different rates? Yes or No?

We have a problem here. What do you mean by "keeping time at a different rate"? How is that different from the opposite of "keeping the same time". Untill you can give a physical (experimentally defined) meaning to this statement I'll just assume you mean "do they not keep time" as above. In which case no.

(v) Do two clocks moving relative to one another each keep time within their own inertial reference frames? Yes or No?

yes

(vi) Now since they both must keep time, and since you claim that “keeping different times” is not physically meaningful, it MUST mean that they are keeping time at the same rate. Yes or No?

As above, keeping time at the same rate is not physically meaningful in this case unless you define it by specifying an experiment. "Keeping time" as defined by me above is physically meaningful, but only relative to a given FOR. Your question supposes the clocks are in different FORs so comparing their times becomes both experimentally and theoretically problematic.

If you think not, give me a canonical experiment that gives a well-defined comparison.

Quote:
You would have to describe an experiment to verify or deny this.
The experiment is in the text books where it is claimed that one twin will age faster than the other. This can ONLY be possible if their respective clocks keep different time rates within their respective inertial reference frames. Yes or no?

No. The textbooks may or may not think the matter through. Most, I think, describe a twin moving away at high speed, changing FOR, returning at high speed. Thus the "stationary" twin has a very different trajectory through Minkowski space than the "moving" twin. The issue is not one of relative movement (the same), but of differently shaped paths.

Consider the two paths of the twins which intersect twice. The local times can be compared at each intersection and therefore the elapsed local times. One will be larger than the other, showing that you can have two different timelike paths through Minkowski space with different lengths. Hardly surprising!

In fact suppose the contrary (as you claim). Then all such parhs through a 4D space would have to have equal length. That would be weird. BTW by length I mean of course time coordinate in an FOR travelling with the path. (NB see below)

Try and give some straight answers for a change!

You find my answers "not straight" (just as the travelling twin path is not straight) because you are arguing using some concepts that I cannot pin down to physical reality. Therefore I cannot give yes or no answers. I've done my best above to indicate why.

PS - more precisely:
(1) at each point on the path construct a new inertial FOR such that the tangent to the world-line has zero spatial velocity

(2) Parametrise the 1D twin path through 4D Minknowski space with a time function such that it's path derivative is at each point is locally equal to that of the time coordinate of the corresponding inertial FOR.

[GIThruster]

I have impeccable evidence that I can generate an electron phase that transfers charge through it without an electric field being present within this phase. In fact this is the ONLY phase EVER discovered for which the evidence of a zero electric field is incontrovertible. No four point measurements is required. What more do you want?

I want you to submit a sizable sample for testing and to stop playing the victim. The 4 point test is the industry standard for superconductivity. Other tests don't matter at all.

Please note GIThruster, that we are at the present talking about Special Relativity and not superconduction. I will thus appreciate it if you do not come in at an angle and muddy the discussion as you are prone to do.

No, what you are talking about is Special Relativity. You are not however a physicist and that's not what I asked you about. I asked you if you have evidence of superconductivity, and apparently despite all the rhetoric over many, many months, you still do not.

So, just saying the truth one more time--your theory does not matter at all, until you play "show me" with the world. Until you meet the industry standard for superconductivity, you really should stop claiming to have a room temperature superconductor. Your insistence concerning transferring charge without field is interesting and to those who know much more than I do might even be in some ways convincing, but your experience by now ought to be that it certainly is not compelling. In order to get compelling evidence, you need a 4 point test.

[icarus]

Okay, let's just go straight to nature and she what she has to say about these arguments of Einstein's.

Result 1: quantum vortices in a BEC form when the energy is minimised in the rotating frame

Result 2: quantum vortices of BEC have energy conserved in the rotating frame

Seems to be some BIG problems here. Conservation laws only holding in a non-inertial frame of reference.

Explain that Einstein.

[Teemu]

Lorentz transformation

transformation

maths

a. a change in position or direction of the reference axes in a coordinate system without an alteration in their relative angle
b. an equivalent change in an expression or equation resulting from the substitution of one set of variables by another

physics

Compare transition a change in an atomic nucleus to a different nuclide as the result of the emission of either an alpha-particle or a beta-particle

By any reasonable standard Lorentz transformation is as much math as Minkowski space, since it is just a subset of Minkowski space.

Page 6 of your manuscript:
What is the point of
delta t_hor2 = t_j - t_m
if I understood correctly in what it means
(return time) = (light from mirror to junction)time - (light from junction to mirror)time

Even in non-light speeds that would make the return time negative. Let's take example without any relativity. You release an object that goes at speed v, towards object that goes at speed 0.95 v, also you go to the same direction as the objects are going at speed 0.95 v. The distance between you and the object going at 1 v is thus increasing at speed 0.05 v . The object going at speed v changes direction when touches the object going at speed 0.95 v, and now the distance between you and the object is decreasing at speed 1.95 v. Now obviously it takes less time to come back from "mirror" object than it took to get to the "mirror" object. Now according to that formulation the (return time) can be negative without any relativity effects. I don't get what's the meaning of (return time) and even if it has any meaning, I don't see how it being negative isn't anymore paradoxical than the (return time) being negative in the non-relativistic example.

Also look at those simulations, and think that the mirrors among the x axis were removed, and hole was opened to send light signals to one another. How does the light realize that it's speed is supposed to be absolute just in a reference frame of the red one, and change it speed constantly so that it is absolute to each reference frame it takes when it travel's to green one's reference frame? Why is not faster-than-light communication from the red one to green one possible?

[icarus]

Johan,

I think you might be interested in this one (if you haven't already seen it).

"The Einstein Myth and the Crisis in Modern Physics." Friedwardt Winterberg

http://www.scribd.com/doc/45660630/The- ... rn-Physics