Room-temperature superconductivity?

[ladajo]

Johann,
These days I am in Rhode Island. If you do find yourself here, I would be happy to buy YOU a beer.

[lwillis]

This may be a foolish question, but here goes...

If an electron is not a point/discrete particle at all, is there any meaningful difference between an electron and it's field? Or is it really all the same thing?

[KitemanSA]

Johann,
These days I am in Rhode Island.

You may want to modify your profile. Says you are in Eastern VA.

[icarus]

prins said:

BTW I like Icarus's "foot in mouth remarks" since he espouses dogma which has been believed for nearly 80 years as being "holy" within the physics-church. It gives me the opportunity to state my viewpoints. It is just a pity that he rarely follows up to say that he disagrees with what I have argued but just re-appears when he thinks he has another argument to corner me with.

You don't seem to "need an opportunity to state your viewpoints". What does seem apparent is that you can dish it out but you definitely can not take criticism or rebuke at all, when it comes to the detailed physics or math. I have no wish to 'corner you' or anything else you may be imagining, in fact, I have little desire to engage with you at all given your past diatribes directed towards me and my legitimate questions.

Your 'theories' are long on wind and verbiage but extremely lacking in equations and numbers. It is too bad that successful theories need numbers to back them up or you may be famous! I have the strong feeling you are a charlatan but the blizzard of words and bluster make it difficult to discern so who knows? Revolutionary geniuses who are full of bluster and short on numbers are extremely rare in the historical evidence though.

[krenshala]

Johan, I have a suggestion that might improve the beginning portion. Instead of what you wrote, I believe it reads better phrased like this:

A groundbreaking experiment conducted ten years ago by the author, internationally known in the field of diamond physics, extracted electrons from a modified diamond-substrate ...

[johanfprins]

This may be a foolish question, but here goes...
If an electron is not a point/discrete particle at all, is there any meaningful difference between an electron and it's field? Or is it really all the same thing?

Not a foolish question at all, but THE QUESTION that the Copenhagen three should have asked before leading physics into never-never land. An electron IS a field, which, within our three-dimensional space manifests as a time-independent intensity distribution when the boundary conditions do not change with time. . This follows directly from Schroedinger's equation.

Now from physics immemorial we know that the intensity of all fields is the energy distribution of the field: It has nothing to do with probabilities. The energy of a free electron is its mass and therefore it is experimentally compelling that a solitary electron IS a stationary localised wave (within its inertial reference frame) with its intensity equal to its a mass, and thus it has a centre-of-mass. When an obserever moves relative to such a wave, its centre-of-mass moves like a "pont-particle" and the observer thus concludes that it is a particle while it is not.

Thus, where is the electric-energy field around an electron? It does not exist, since the mass-energy of the electron-wave IS its total electric field-energy within three-dimensional space. Therefore if you assume that there is an additional electric-energy field around the centre-of-mass of an electron, you include something that does not exist. I have found in my career that when one does this, the associated mathematics usually turns into nonsense: Therefore in QED the integrals become infinitely large and therefore one has to fiddle them by "renormalisation".

When such a localised solitary electron-wave moves past, one also has to use the Lorentz transformation to interpret what is happening. One then finds that the electron-wave elongates and sprouts wave-fronts: Therefore it can now diffract even though when it does not diffract it moves like a particle. Classical mechanics and Wave mechanics thus merge seamlessly. We do not have to have multiverses, implicate-explicate laws, Wheeler's delayed choice, and other fairytales to understand what happens on the quantum level.

A photon is a wave which changes in shape and size when the boundary conditions demands that it does. The same for an electron: In fact an electron is nothing else but a light wave which has inertia so that it moves at speeds less than light speed. It is for this reason why it can absorb a photon by entanglement to increase its mass energy. This is happening all the time for the electrons outside the nucleus of an atom.

[johanfprins]

You don't seem to "need an opportunity to state your viewpoints".

But you do make it easier when you come out your corner leading with your jaw and giving yourself an uppercut before reaching me.

What does seem apparent is that you can dish it out but you definitely can not take criticism or rebuke at all, when it comes to the detailed physics or math.

Ooooh you really "impressed" me with your your "detailed physics or math."

I have no wish to 'corner you' or anything else you may be imagining, in fact, I have little desire to engage with you at all given your past diatribes directed towards me and my legitimate questions.

And you of course launched no diatribes against me!!

Your 'theories' are long on wind and verbiage but extremely lacking in equations and numbers. It is too bad that successful theories need numbers to back them up or you may be famous!

Which of my papers are you quoting now? All my papers with detailed mathematics have been rejected by people like you who do not want to look past their eyeflaps.

I have the strong feeling you are a charlatan

Time will tell.

Now let us look at the "gems" you have posted on this thread:

PS: also take a closer look before you spout off again, the voltage he uses only applies to the open loop case.

You just ignore the fact that there is no voltage differences within any superconductor whether the equilibrium-current flows through an open loop or around a closed loop. Really this displays a shocking lack of knowledge; and then you think that I should take you seriously?

PPSS: 'no electric field' is a terrible place to begin any theory because the potentials are more fundamental than the E,B fields. I.e. begin with the potentials.

Here you show that you have never been able to understand calculus: Differentiation and integration are equally important! Thus to state that the potential, which is derived from an electric field by integration, is more important than the electric-field, which is derived from the potential by differentiation, is clearly spouting poppycock!

The vector potential is the nexus between EM, QM and GR ... hint: Maxwell referred to it as the 'angular impulse', see Kelvin (W Thompson, Maxwell's mentor)) and "Vortex atoms" for background to that statement, sub. particles for atoms.

How about backing this up with mathematics which do not violate vector-field calculus? I have seen such attempts in books on superconduction but all of them end up claiming that "vortices" can form within a conservative vector field. All my first year students knew that this is impossible!!! In fact, this is the defining characteristic of a conservative vector field: It cannot form vortices!

[johanfprins]

Johan, I have a suggestion that might improve the beginning portion. Instead of what you wrote, I believe it reads better phrased like this:

A groundbreaking experiment conducted ten years ago by the author, internationally known in the field of diamond physics, extracted electrons from a modified diamond-substrate ...

Thanks: You have a good point

[johanfprins]

Everytime I try to edit one of my posts, I get the message that I can only edit my own post and then when returning to the thread the "edit" button is gone. Can somebody assist please? Furthermore, it takes endless attempts to submit a message.

[Giorgio]

Flush your cache or log off from the forum and close your browser.
Relog to the forum and check the box "Log me on authomatically each visit".

You should not have any more issues .


As for the serveral attempts to submit the posts, that 99% depends on your internet provider and his backbone to the net and not from the forum.

[johanfprins]

Flush your cache or log off from the forum and close your browser.
Relog to the forum and check the box "Log me on authomatically each visit".
You should not have any more issues .
As for the serveral attempts to submit the posts, that 99% depends on your internet provider and his backbone to the net and not from the forum.

Thanks for the advice: As already mentioned I found out that my grandchildren at birth knew more about computers than I still do.

[Betruger]

What's the name of the internet browser you're using Doc?

[MSimon]

Everytime I try to edit one of my posts, I get the message that I can only edit my own post and then when returning to the thread the "edit" button is gone. Can somebody assist please? Furthermore, it takes endless attempts to submit a message.

My guess is that your internet server is flakey. Or your computer.

Things are fine here.

Is any one else having a problem?

[Betruger]

The only things wrong I remember are the forum search and some login weirdness with a specific browser.

[johanfprins]

What's the name of the internet browser you're using Doc?

Micosoft's internet explorer. I think that I might have picked up an unknown virus. The other evening a trojan was detected when it attempted a break in. I will try and find any other virusses. It might then solve my problems.