Room-temperature superconductivity?

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

Johan,
Check this out...

viewtopic.php?p=74102#74102

Tajmar research update and paper

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

Post by johanfprins »

tomclarke wrote: ave a good trip.
Thanks! I have a small break at present and looked at your post.
I'll happily agree that einstein's two axioms for SR must remain correct.
Thanks again. But I asked you to formulate them in order to prevent semantic issues later: Issues like: it is not "physically relevant" that two clocks moving relative to one another MUST, as impeccably derived from the Lorentz transformation, keep the same time.
Our disagreement will come over what "laws of physics remaining the same" means.
Exactly, and therefore it is imperative that we first have total agreement on the two axioms. So please formulate them concisely as you understand them.
I will insist that this relates to physical experiments giving the same answer.
In fact it is you who do not interpret physical experiments correctly and then worms out by claiming that it is not "physically relevant" to state that two clocks moving with a speed v relative to one another can keep exactly the same time. Obviously both clocks MUST keep time: Thus, either they keep different times within their respective reference frames or the same time within their respective inertial reference frames: What is "physically irrelevant" about this?
You will believe it means coordinate systems must be the same.
It is you who believe that time can change with position within an inertial reference frame: The latter is not possible. And in fact, different inertial coordinate systems are the same, since any one of them can be chosen as the primary coordinate system from which you model physics.
Regards,
Johan

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

johanfprins wrote:
tomclarke wrote: ave a good trip.
Thanks! I have a small break at present and looked at your post.
I'll happily agree that einstein's two axioms for SR must remain correct.
Thanks again. But I asked you to formulate them in order to prevent semantic issues later: Issues like: it is not "physically relevant" that two clocks moving relative to one another MUST, as impeccably derived from the Lorentz transformation, keep the same time.
Our disagreement will come over what "laws of physics remaining the same" means.
Exactly, and therefore it is imperative that we first have total agreement on the two axioms. So please formulate them concisely as you understand them.
I will insist that this relates to physical experiments giving the same answer.
In fact it is you who do not interpret physical experiments correctly and then worms out by claiming that it is not "physically relevant" to state that two clocks moving with a speed v relative to one another can keep exactly the same time. Obviously both clocks MUST keep time: Thus, either they keep different times within their respective reference frames or the same time within their respective inertial reference frames: What is "physically irrelevant" about this?
You will believe it means coordinate systems must be the same.
It is you who believe that time can change with position within an inertial reference frame: The latter is not possible. And in fact, different inertial coordinate systems are the same, since any one of them can be chosen as the primary coordinate system from which you model physics.
Regards,
Johan
Well, we have here the difficulty. You use concepts like "keep time" which appear to me to have limited scope, and be physically meaningless in the context you use them.

The resolution is straightforward. you describe an experiment which can determine whether two clocks in different inertial reference frames are keeping the same time.

I will then apply this to the twins paradox. Or give a thought experiment which shows that its results are not well-defined, or otherwise implausible.

We can use the physically defined definition to avoid philosophical squabbles about words.

Best wishes, Tom

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

It is you who believe that time can change with position within an inertial reference frame
Johan, does not this imply a split between time and space which is at conflict with Minkowski space, where the 3D slice representing "space" orthogonal to the time axis changes with the veocity of the FOR?

So you will understand why, thinking Minkowski spacetime to be useful, I cannot accept an srgument against it which has as axiom something contradictory within a mInkowski framework.

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

Post by johanfprins »

tomclarke wrote: Johan, does not this imply a split between time and space which is at conflict with Minkowski space, where the 3D slice representing "space" orthogonal to the time axis changes with the veocity of the FOR?
You can also represent Newtonian space like this. So if it pleases you to make a Minkowski construction, please do. But when you derive results from this construction that invalidate Einstein's two original axioms AND the Lorentz equations, then your interpretation of the Mikowski construction MUST be wrong.
So you will understand why, thinking Minkowski spacetime to be useful, I cannot accept an srgument against it which has as axiom something contradictory within a mInkowski framework.
Oh, I uderstand your arguments very well indeed; since, as already mentioned time and again above, I taught these incorrect arguments for years to my own students. So has every professor of physics for more than 100 years. This, however, does not make the arguments correct! No matter how many times an incorrect argument has been repeated, it is still wrong when it has been incorrect from the start.

I think you are bright enough to see that your interpretation of Minkowski space invalidates Einstein's first axiom, and that therefore you refuse point blank to state Einstein's axioms. Have you maybe published papers based on this wrong Minkowski interpretation; and now refuse to admit that your publications might be wrong?

Please state the two axioms before we go any further!

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Post by DeltaV »

tomclarke wrote:Johan, does not this imply a split between time and space which is at conflict with Minkowski space, where the 3D slice representing "space" orthogonal to the time axis changes with the veocity of the FOR?
It does (in my opinion), because the proper way to split time and space is to use quaternions.

viewtopic.php?p=67269&highlight=#67269
viewtopic.php?p=52212&highlight=#52212
viewtopic.php?p=45744&highlight=#45744
viewtopic.php?p=50380&highlight=#50380

Teemu
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:15 am

Post by Teemu »

The postulates from 1905 paper:
...the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

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

Post by johanfprins »

ladajo wrote:Johan,
Check this out...

viewtopic.php?p=74102#74102

Tajmar research update and paper
I could not download the paper by Tajmar; but I do not find it surprising that MSimon could not measure the same effect.

The formation of vortices in superconductors is incorrectly modelled in the mainstream literature. The charge carrirers ARE NOT doubly charged, but singly charged. The correct formula for the flux quantum is (g*h)/e where g=1/2 within the low temperature metals and most of the ceramics. This factor is determined by the shape of the charge-carrier-wave. If the shape is Gaussian one has that g=1/2. In metals which show a strong isotope effect, the charge-carrier-waves are all Gaussian along all directions. Within ceramics the wave-entities are only Gaussian along the crystallographic planes. For this reason the isotope effect is not as pronounced as it is in metals which show a strong isotope effect.

It is thus possible that one can have other values for g and thus other values for flux quanta. This is probably related to the reason why there is a fractional quantum Hall effect. The fractional quantum Hall effect has been on my backburner for quite a number of years.

pbelter
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:52 am

Status?

Post by pbelter »

Johan,

I read about your original research yeas ago when it became global news for a few days and then quickly dissipated for no apparent reason. It looked at that time like nobody really wanted to take a closer look at what you were doing. I was wondering throughout the last couple years what happened to your discover and was very happy to see you here on this forum.

Could you summarize where you are and if there any prospects for making a demonstration material or maybe even a commercial product?

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Post by icarus »

DeltaV wrote:
tomclarke wrote:Johan, does not this imply a split between time and space which is at conflict with Minkowski space, where the 3D slice representing "space" orthogonal to the time axis changes with the veocity of the FOR?
It does (in my opinion), because the proper way to split time and space is to use quaternions.

viewtopic.php?p=67269&highlight=#67269
viewtopic.php?p=52212&highlight=#52212
viewtopic.php?p=45744&highlight=#45744
viewtopic.php?p=50380&highlight=#50380
Or the spacetime algebra of Hestnes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime_algebra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_algebra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hestenes

Only when you get a grasp on "negative areas", orientations, tensor rotations and what "i" [sqrt(-1)] can hide/symbolise can you even begin with an adequate co-ordinate (meta-physical) framework.

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

Re: Status?

Post by johanfprins »

pbelter wrote:Johan,

I read about your original research yeas ago when it became global news for a few days and then quickly dissipated for no apparent reason. It looked at that time like nobody really wanted to take a closer look at what you were doing. I was wondering throughout the last couple years what happened to your discover and was very happy to see you here on this forum.

Could you summarize where you are and if there any prospects for making a demonstration material or maybe even a commercial product?
Thanks for your post. The "superconductor experts'"quickly saw to it that I was relegated as being a crackpot since the superconducting phase that I discovered 10 years ago raised serious questions about the validity of the accepted mainstream theory (BCS, Ginzberg-Landau etc,). Furthermore, it also raised questions about the validity of quantum computing. This did not resonate well with one of my colleagues in diamond physics, Prof. Marshal Stoneham, who at that time was allocated 12 million British pounds to do research on the latter topic. Marshall was powerful enough in Europe to intimidate editors of physics journals NOT to publish anything further about my work. He died earlier this year while being president of the IOP: So maybe I will outlive him as Planck said that one has to,

Since then I have been forced to look anew at physics dogma and found it seriously wanting. We are at present discussing one aspect of this on this forum: namely the "twin paradox". I also, on a string budget, did some "garage research" on my superconducting phase and it seems that I might at last get some funding to make prototype devices. That it took such a long time is a serious indictment against the physics community since the proof that I have superconduction follows directly from the physics of dipole interfaces, This physics is used every day to design solid state electronic devices: AND IT WORKS!!!.
I hope that you will wish me well!

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

icarus wrote:
DeltaV wrote:
tomclarke wrote:Johan, does not this imply a split between time and space which is at conflict with Minkowski space, where the 3D slice representing "space" orthogonal to the time axis changes with the veocity of the FOR?
It does (in my opinion), because the proper way to split time and space is to use quaternions.

viewtopic.php?p=67269&highlight=#67269
viewtopic.php?p=52212&highlight=#52212
viewtopic.php?p=45744&highlight=#45744
viewtopic.php?p=50380&highlight=#50380
Or the spacetime algebra of Hestnes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime_algebra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_algebra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hestenes

Only when you get a grasp on "negative areas", orientations, tensor rotations and what "i" [sqrt(-1)] can hide/symbolise can you even begin with an adequate co-ordinate (meta-physical) framework.
Yes, geometric algebra is a very neat reworking of conventional methods. It is physically identical, but mathematically very beautiful and satisfying. And such advances is math sometimes reveal underlying structure that is important.

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Post by DeltaV »

Quaternions can be considered as a subset of Clifford Algebra, of Hestenes' Geometric Algebra, and of Spinors. Occam would urge seeking the simplest mathematical tools (but not too simple, Einstein would add).

I'm of the opinion that there was a "Great Train Wreck" in mathematical physics in the late 1800s, when numerous mathematical approaches battled for acceptance in physics, and the most popular methods used today are the debris from that wreck.

A translational, zero-centric bias, due largely to the success of Descartes' coordinate methods, eventually manifested itself in the suppression of quaternions, helped along by a few serious goofs in understanding and presentation by Hamilton.

Energy. Torque. Same physical dimensions. Torque is an axial vector (aka pseudovector, which the vectorial part of a quaternion always is). Hmmmm...
Sphere area. 4 pi Radius^2, of course. Oh, wait... pi Diameter^2. Oh, great circle Circumference times Diameter. Hmmmm... Origin? We don't need no stinking Origin!

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

Post by johanfprins »

tomclarke wrote: Yes, geometric algebra is a very neat reworking of conventional methods. It is physically identical, but mathematically very beautiful and satisfying. And such advances is math sometimes reveal underlying structure that is important.
This remark does not take you out of being in total denial: No matter how “beautiful” the mathematics is, it has to be reconciled with actual physics-reality. If this is not possible, then the “underlying structure” it “reveals” is most probably physically irrelevant.

I have been waiting for you to define Einstein’s two axioms in words that you accept. But you refuse point blank: Just like the Cardinal refused to see mountains on the Moon while looking through Galileo’s telescope. We will thus have to do with Teemu’s direct quotation from Einstein’s 1905 paper: i.e. “...the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.”. His first and most important axiom is what he termed the “Principle of Relativity”. In fact his second axiom does not really require an independent existence since it is a logical consequence of the “Principle of Relativity”.

Teemu also posted many diagrams which were based on the construction of the light cone within (x,t)-space, where x is the three-dimensional Euclidean position space and t is the time coordinate perpendicular to this Euclidean position space. The scale of the time axis is determined by any clock that is stationary anywhere within the three-dimensional Euclidean position space. Any straight line with a slope represents a body moving within the Euclidean position space with a speed v that is given by the inverse slope of the line. The light cone is then defined by the lines that have inverse slopes equal to the inverse of the speed of light: i.e. the inverse of c.

Now, if Einstein’s “Principle of Relativity” were not valid, the latter construct would only be valid for an inertial reference frame which is stationary relative to the ether. In all other inertial reference frames, light speed would be different along different directions and the “light cone” would then be severely distorted. But now we know that according to Einstein’s “Principle of Relativity” EXACTLY the SAME IDENTICAL construct is valid within any inertial reference frame. This requires that within ALL inertial reference frames the scale along the time axis must be IDENTICAL. This DEMANDS that all perfect clocks which are stationary within any and all inertial reference frames MUST keep identical time. Thus, to conclude that a perfect clock being carried by your twin, who is moving at a speed v relative to you, keeps time at a slower rate than an identical perfect clock carried by yourself, is such obvious nonsense that it is unbelievable that physicists have believed this claptrap for more than 100 years. It is unbelievable that highly acclaimed theoretical physicists, like Stephen Hawking, Lord Martin Rees, Kip Thorne etc. can write that this is actually the case. It is clearly nothing else than metaphysical Science Fiction; NOT SCIENCE!

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

johanfprins wrote:
tomclarke wrote: Yes, geometric algebra is a very neat reworking of conventional methods. It is physically identical, but mathematically very beautiful and satisfying. And such advances is math sometimes reveal underlying structure that is important.
This remark does not take you out of being in total denial: No matter how “beautiful” the mathematics is, it has to be reconciled with actual physics-reality. If this is not possible, then the “underlying structure” it “reveals” is most probably physically irrelevant.

I have been waiting for you to define Einstein’s two axioms in words that you accept. But you refuse point blank: Just like the Cardinal refused to see mountains on the Moon while looking through Galileo’s telescope. We will thus have to do with Teemu’s direct quotation from Einstein’s 1905 paper: i.e. “...the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.”. His first and most important axiom is what he termed the “Principle of Relativity”. In fact his second axiom does not really require an independent existence since it is a logical consequence of the “Principle of Relativity”.

Teemu also posted many diagrams which were based on the construction of the light cone within (x,t)-space, where x is the three-dimensional Euclidean position space and t is the time coordinate perpendicular to this Euclidean position space. The scale of the time axis is determined by any clock that is stationary anywhere within the three-dimensional Euclidean position space. Any straight line with a slope represents a body moving within the Euclidean position space with a speed v that is given by the inverse slope of the line. The light cone is then defined by the lines that have inverse slopes equal to the inverse of the speed of light: i.e. the inverse of c.

Now, if Einstein’s “Principle of Relativity” were not valid, the latter construct would only be valid for an inertial reference frame which is stationary relative to the ether. In all other inertial reference frames, light speed would be different along different directions and the “light cone” would then be severely distorted. But now we know that according to Einstein’s “Principle of Relativity” EXACTLY the SAME IDENTICAL construct is valid within any inertial reference frame. This requires that within ALL inertial reference frames the scale along the time axis must be IDENTICAL. This DEMANDS that all perfect clocks which are stationary within any and all inertial reference frames MUST keep identical time. Thus, to conclude that a perfect clock being carried by your twin, who is moving at a speed v relative to you, keeps time at a slower rate than an identical perfect clock carried by yourself, is such obvious nonsense that it is unbelievable that physicists have believed this claptrap for more than 100 years. It is unbelievable that highly acclaimed theoretical physicists, like Stephen Hawking, Lord Martin Rees, Kip Thorne etc. can write that this is actually the case. It is clearly nothing else than metaphysical Science Fiction; NOT SCIENCE!
It seems a shame for me to argue on the side as all these acclaimed physicists, but that is what I must do.

I agree that light will be observed to have the same velocity in all inertial frames. You conclude from that, that clocks must run at the same speed.

Specifically, since it is the only way we can define "same speed", let us compare a clock at origin of our home FOR with a clock on a rocket moving away from origin at 0.99c for 10s "home" time and then back at 0.99c for 10s "home" time.

You claim the clocks must read the same elapsed time when the rocket returns.

I claim the stationary wrt "home" clock will read a time 7X longer than the rocket-based clock.

Here is a nicely argued "standard"explanation:

Length contraction
Synchronising clocks
Time dilation

All nicely consistent.

Post Reply