The centenary of Super-Conductivity approaches

[happyjack27]

firstly, the individual trajectories here are classical path integrals, which means you're using classical time (well once you integrate over the space of different paths it's no longer classical, but this is before you integrate over that). and classical time is completely reversible. and it doesn't violate causality.

Really!? So spilled milk can jump back into a bottle?

that is not classical time. you're implying entropy. that's thermodynamic time, which unlike classical time, is not reversible.

it just says that some positron was emitted at one point and some indistinguishable positron was absorbed at another, with probability p.

It "says" nothing of the sort! That is the paranormal claptrap that you want to believe.
[/quote]
in fact it says nothing besides. that is how you read a feyman diagradm. mind you "absorb" and "emit" are a bit presumptuos; "couples" is the traditional term.

i see you like calling stuff "paranormal claptrap". really, it adds nothing to the conversation, at best its "appeal to ridicule" logical fallacy. it has no logical or rational value. and i'd appreciate it if you stop with that nonsense.

and to correctly calculate the fine structure constant you need to include that "paranormal claptrap" stuff that is perfectly rational and consistent and doesn't require any unexplained physics or unjustified constraints, unlike your explanation.

What is rational about time being reversible? I wish it were, then I can reverse any accident I might have in future.
[/quote]
remember i'm talking about classical time i.e classical approximations. that means they don't have any entropy or statistical effects or anything like that. and they at most consider two bodies, usually point masses. in their world reversing time doesn't violate any physical or mathematical laws. prior states are fully recoverable.

any "accident" you might have in the future does not follow this context, as it no doubt would involve more than 2 particles, entropic processes, and macroscopic time scales. sorry to disappoint.

also, this "traveling back in time" of an electron is known more commonly as a "positron", it is an electron's antimatter pair. and we have created it in the lab. like all antimatter, it is a universally accepted part of the standard model, and has been for decades.

There are rational theoretical physicists who do not agree with you; but are blocked from publishing non-paranormal interpretations.

and now you're adding paranoia to your obsesive ridiculing. wonderful. maybe there's a simpler, less paranoid reason that they are not getting published. like, for instance, a mistake in their math and/or physics, or that it disagrees with experiment.

[happyjack27]

So when I send separate electrons one-by-one into a counter I am not able to distinguish between them? You are amazing!

how am i amazing? if you are able to distingish between them in such an experiment, then i will certainly find _you_ amazing. i am certain you will win a nobel prize for that.

You see you do not even know what you are talking about. The molecules of a gas are distinguishable and thus follow Maxwell Boltzmann statistics. If you separate entities far enough they will also become distinguishable in the same sense. Unfortunately the Nobel Prize has already been awarded for the concepts distinguishable and non-distinguishable.

how did you go from electrons hitting a counter to molecules of gas? i can see how you get so confused! we are not talking about that and never were. we're talking about telling two electrons in the same eigenstate apart. remember?

so then you get into quantum field theory and the probability amplitudes aren't amplitudes for a single particle but for an entire field of indistinguishable particles.

How do you know that there are "particles forming the field" Stop talking paranormal nonsense.

clearly you don't undestand me. going from QED to QFT is a straightforward mathematical transformation.

But not physics!

I recommend that if you don't understand how it is done that you look it up, instead of ridiculing those who do. this principle holds in general.

I know how it is done and it is nothing more than mathematical claptrap. It has nothing to do with real physics.

[/quote]

claptrap. claptrap. claptrap.

it is _very_ spatially intuitive. clearly you don't understand.

[johanfprins]

Really!? So spilled milk can jump back into a bottle?

that is not classical time. you're implying entropy. that's thermodynamic time, which unlike classical time, is not reversible.

No time is reversible whatever you want to call it.

in fact it says nothing besides. that is how you read a feyman diagradm. mind you "absorb" and "emit" are a bit presumptuos; "couples" is the traditional term.

I know that is the way you "read" a Feynman diagram. But a Feynman diagram is not real physics. Any theory constructed by subtracting infinity from infinity to get the answer you want to get is paranormal claptrap.

i see you like calling stuff "paranormal claptrap". really, it adds nothing to the conversation, at best its "appeal to ridicule" logical fallacy. it has no logical or rational value. and i'd appreciate it if you stop with that nonsense.

Then how about talking real physics?

remember i'm talking about classical time i.e classical approximations. that means they don't have any entropy or statistical effects or anything like that.

It is still not physics. In the real world time only changes when entropy changes. When entropy reaches a maximum or become zero, there is no real time change possible.

and they at most consider two bodies, usually point masses. in their world reversing time doesn't violate any physical or mathematical laws. prior states are fully recoverable.

What is mathematically possible has in many cases nothing to do with what is physically possible.

any "accident" you might have in the future does not follow this context, as it no doubt would involve more than 2 particles, entropic processes, and macroscopic time scales. sorry to disappoint.

So physics must be restricted to apply to two particles at a time? What happens to me if I am not one of the two particles?

also, this "traveling back in time" of an electron is known more commonly as a "positron", it is an electron's antimatter pair. and we have created it in the lab.

So have you sent an electron back in time in the lab.? Did you use the car from the movie "back to the future"?

like all antimatter, it is a universally accepted part of the standard model, and has been for decades.

It might be "universally accepted" but it is wrong. You see particles do not exist. How can something exist which you cannot even define? Please define to me what a particle is before we waste anymore time.

And now you're adding paranoia to your obsesive ridiculing. wonderful. maybe there's a simpler, less paranoid reason that they are not getting published. like, for instance, a mistake in their math and/or physics, or that it disagrees with experiment.

Sorry, there are too many cases where there is nothing wrong with a manuscript except that it contradicts what is "universally accepted" by the crackpots in charge of main stream physics.

[happyjack27]

this is not the path,

Heisenberg said it is. Who should I believe Heisenberg or a "happyjack?

neither, of course. this is science, isn't it? you should always be skeptical. you should carefully check the premises and the reasoning/math.

it is quite a trivial matter to distinguish a "state" from a "trajectory" mathematically: a "trajectory" is a continuous succession of states. that makes it fairly easy to distinguish.

"this is an eigenvalue of the operator associated with an eigenstate. and there is no way to know what eigenstate you will get.

What operator? Your eyes? Even the paranormal interpretation of quantum physics agrees that if I measure that an electron has a momentum p then I know that when I measure again it will have the same momentum.[/quote]
"operator" is a mathematical term. you apply it to a vector. if you apply it to a vector multiple times ("square", "cube", etc. the operator) the vector will grow along a number of directions. these directions are called "eigenstates", and the amount that it grows in each direction is called an "eigenvalue". that's a quick and dirty explanation, but if you're discussing this you should already know what an operator is.

you are dead wrong on the momentum thing. the momentum at time t+x cannot be exactly determined from the momentum at time t. an easy way to see this is to realize that to know the momentum at time t+x you need to know both the momentum _and position_ at time t, and since the momentum and position operators are not commutative, you can't. (as shown more directly by heisenberg's uncertainty principle.)

So I do know what "eigenstate" I will get! Furthermore, this same paranormal interpretation states that I cannot measure an eigenstate for which both the position and momentum are known simultaneously; but you just now stated that a path, for which this must be the case, is an eigenstate!

i don't need to discuss this logic because i already (just above) showed the premise on which it is based to be false.

lauch an electron with momentum p except maybe you can calculate that you will get any given eigenstate with a probability p associated with the system. or by empirically measuring the same system a whole bunch of times you can get an a posteri estimate of the probability associated with each eigenstate, and then perhaps an expectation. none of this tells you anything about the path any given electron takes in any given experiment.

Like I said this is paranormal claptrap! There is no such inbuilt uncertainty in nature and this claptrap is not needed to model anything using wave equations.

[/quote]
you saying claptrap claptrap claptrap again is utterly meaningless. you can say it as many times as you want and it won't make a lick of difference.

[Grurgle-the-Grey]

Which orbitals of which atoms in which SC lattice? All known SCs?
But anyway the point of that clip is that there is a lateral restitution force on the magnet.
I'd suggest we are seeing the interplay of 3 magnetic entities. There is the magnetism of the ferromagnet, the captured magnetism in the SC block and a Meissner repulsion from the block.
What we see at 40 secs in is a lateral restitution force.
We can presume that the ferromagnet has a standard solenoidal field, so what must the field shape emanating from the block be like to give the observed phenomena?
How paranormal is it to say that the block contains at the same time contains attractive super-currents and repulsive super-currents? All magnetic fields from Maxwell compliant super-currents should be solenoidal, ie div(B) =0. What we see there can't be the super-position of solenoidal only fields.

[johanfprins]

how did you go from electrons hitting a counter to molecules of gas? i can see how you get so confused! we are not talking about that and never were. we're talking about telling two electrons in the same eigenstate apart. remember?

I was not talking about two electrons in an eigenstate. In fact such a paranormal entity does not even exist. Two electrons with opposite spins are not separate entities after they have entangled. So to talk about them as if they are still separate entities, it is really you who claim that they can be distinguished; not me.

I was talking about an electron following a classical path which according to Heisenberg is (pregnantly) possible if you "look" at the electron.
You said that such a path is an "eigenstate"; and I asked you define the operator for this "eigenstate". And so far you have come with all kinds of hazy mathematical arguments. Note that I have already asked you twice to define what a "particle" is; and so far you just skirted this question.

[johanfprins]

it is quite a trivial matter to distinguish a "state" from a "trajectory" mathematically: a "trajectory" is a continuous succession of states. that makes it fairly easy to distinguish.

And for each one of these successive "eigenstates" you know both position and momentum at the same time? I thought it is not possible according to the interpretation of quantum mechanics which you have also listed on this same post; and which I will therefore wipe and ignore since it is clear that you do not understand what you are talking about.

[happyjack27]

Really!? So spilled milk can jump back into a bottle?

that is not classical time. you're implying entropy. that's thermodynamic time, which unlike classical time, is not reversible.

No time is reversible whatever you want to call it.

yes. "proper" time is not reversible. and in any mathematical system in which time is reversible you can reduce everything to time-independant equations. which is a clever way to say that in a time-reversible system time doesn't really exist.

though it also follows that given a system of no more than 2 particles in a flat space where energy is conserved, time is fully reversible, which by the above logic means time does not really exist in that context. in which case, there's absolutely nothing wrong with mathematical statements in that context where it appears that "time is going backwards" - they reduce to time-independant equations!

by mistake (presumably), most "classical physics" exists in this realm. as such, yes it is of course an approximation and not real time. but in situations where we actually _are_ discussing just two particles in flat space where energy is conserved (by this i mean there are no non-linearities), it is applicable. though it does not create time. for that you need entropy. and to introduce entropy you only need to change the context ever so slightly. (introducing gravity ala general relativity would suffice) it would be interesting to see if we can ever measure that small if the fine structure constant is off a little.

in fact it says nothing besides. that is how you read a feyman diagradm. mind you "absorb" and "emit" are a bit presumptuos; "couples" is the traditional term.

I know that is the way you "read" a Feynman diagram. But a Feynman diagram is not real physics. Any theory constructed by subtracting infinity from infinity to get the answer you want to get is paranormal claptrap.

i see you like calling stuff "paranormal claptrap". really, it adds nothing to the conversation, at best its "appeal to ridicule" logical fallacy. it has no logical or rational value. and i'd appreciate it if you stop with that nonsense.

Then how about talking real physics?

if you not appealing to ridicule is conditional on me not discussing physics that you don't consider "real" on account of your appeal to ridicule, then we find ourselves in a logical circle that completely precludes the possibility of us ever having a rational conversation.

[happyjack27]

it is quite a trivial matter to distinguish a "state" from a "trajectory" mathematically: a "trajectory" is a continuous succession of states. that makes it fairly easy to distinguish.

And for each one of these successive "eigenstates" you know both position and momentum at the same time? I thought it is not possible according to the interpretation of quantum mechanics which you have also listed on this same post; and which I will therefore wipe and ignore since it is clear that you do not understand what you are talking about.

well then i see where you come to your understanding of physics: you create the idea in your mind of a contradiction where there truly is none, and use this as justification to wipe and ignore everything!

if only _life_ were that simple!

[happyjack27]

how did you go from electrons hitting a counter to molecules of gas? i can see how you get so confused! we are not talking about that and never were. we're talking about telling two electrons in the same eigenstate apart. remember?

I was not talking about two electrons in an eigenstate. In fact such a paranormal entity does not even exist. Two electrons with opposite spins are not separate entities after they have entangled. So to talk about them as if they are still separate entities, it is really you who claim that they can be distinguished; not me.

I was talking about an electron following a classical path which according to Heisenberg is (pregnantly) possible if you "look" at the electron.
You said that such a path is an "eigenstate"; and I asked you define the operator for this "eigenstate". And so far you have come with all kinds of hazy mathematical arguments. Note that I have already asked you twice to define what a "particle" is; and so far you just skirted this question.

i didn't know you still thought that was relevant. it is not. none of my arguments depend on how one chooses to define a particle, provided the definition doesn't contradict the math - but one would have to go quite out of their way and come up with a rather silly definition in order to do that.

on another note, if your logic depends on the inability to define what a "particle" is, then i fail to see how you could possibly tell apart two things that you can't even define.

[johanfprins]

Which orbitals of which atoms in which SC lattice? All known SCs?

In the metals they form by a process which Eugene Wigner already predicted in the 1930's and in the ceramics they form between the crystallographic layers.

But anyway the point of that clip is that there is a lateral restitution force on the magnet.

I did not have sound. The lateral restitution force is to be expected since moving the magnet laterally will require surrounding orbitals to also absorb magnetic energy. Since the SC is always a minimum energy state it will oppose such an increase in energy.

I'd suggest we are seeing the interplay of 3 magnetic entities. There is the magnetism of the ferromagnet, the captured magnetism in the SC block and a Meissner repulsion from the block.
What we see at 40 secs in is a lateral restitution force.
We can presume that the ferromagnet has a standard solenoidal field, so what must the field shape emanating from the block be like to give the observed phenomena?

I do not agree with this reasoning. It is much simpler.

How paranormal is it to say that the block contains at the same time contains attractive super-currents and repulsive super-currents?

It is not paranormal to surmise that there might be currents involved; but there are no currents involved whatsoever for a type I SC and only for high magnetic fields in the case of a type II SC. The exclusion of a magnetic field from the bulk of a SC does not mandate that currents must form on or near the surface of the superconductor.

[johanfprins]

i didn't know you still thought that was relevant. it is not. none of my arguments depend on how one chooses to define a particle, provided the definition doesn't contradict the math - but one would have to go quite out of their way and come up with a rather silly definition in order to do that.

Exactly so why do you invoke concepts in physics you cannot define?

on another note, if your logic depends on the inability to define what a "particle" is, then i fail to see how you could possibly tell apart two things that you can't even define.

You are stealing my line: I do not tell a particle apart from a wave, since I cannot do so when I do not even know what a "particle" is. You and the main stream physicists tell me there are particles and waves, without defining what a particle is. It is for this reason that the Copenhagen interpretation, QED and QFT are just: guess what? You know the appropriate word by now!!

[happyjack27]

remember i'm talking about classical time i.e classical approximations. that means they don't have any entropy or statistical effects or anything like that.

It is still not physics. In the real world time only changes when entropy changes. When entropy reaches a maximum or become zero, there is no real time change possible.

it is real physics insofar as it is an approximation that applies with a degree of error e << 1 to the particular situation that it is being used to describe. like all physics. and yes, as i mentioned elsewhere (i believe in this same series of responses), "real" time; time with "novelty" ; irreducable time, takes all this crap and adds entropy too it, and then you're s-o-o-l.

and they at most consider two bodies, usually point masses. in their world reversing time doesn't violate any physical or mathematical laws. prior states are fully recoverable.

What is mathematically possible has in many cases nothing to do with what is physically possible.

any "accident" you might have in the future does not follow this context, as it no doubt would involve more than 2 particles, entropic processes, and macroscopic time scales. sorry to disappoint.

So physics must be restricted to apply to two particles at a time? What happens to me if I am not one of the two particles?

i never said this.

also, this "traveling back in time" of an electron is known more commonly as a "positron", it is an electron's antimatter pair. and we have created it in the lab.

So have you sent an electron back in time in the lab.? Did you use the car from the movie "back to the future"?

like all antimatter, it is a universally accepted part of the standard model, and has been for decades.

It might be "universally accepted" but it is wrong. You see particles do not exist. How can something exist which you cannot even define? Please define to me what a particle is before we waste anymore time.

for that i recommend you consult philosophical texts. there is quite a large epistomology on the subject.

in mathematical, though, the short answer is it's a convenience. in experiment, on the other hand, the short answer is its a spatial-temporal singularity.

And now you're adding paranoia to your obsesive ridiculing. wonderful. maybe there's a simpler, less paranoid reason that they are not getting published. like, for instance, a mistake in their math and/or physics, or that it disagrees with experiment.

Sorry, there are too many cases where there is nothing wrong with a manuscript except that it contradicts what is "universally accepted" by the crackpots in charge of main stream physics.

well that is your opinion that you present without evidence. you are entitled to it. but it has no bearing on this discussion. and so long as you recognize the other possibilities, i am content.

[johanfprins]

well then i see where you come to your understanding of physics: you create the idea in your mind of a contradiction where there truly is none, and use this as justification to wipe and ignore everything!

if only _life_ were that simple!

I wiped it because it is just the normal nonsense you find in any text book which invokes John Von Neumann's hallucinations. Rather answer my questions. How can a path be an eigenstate if according to accepted dogma an eigenstate can not simultaneously give tyou the positions an the momentum.

[happyjack27]

i didn't know you still thought that was relevant. it is not. none of my arguments depend on how one chooses to define a particle, provided the definition doesn't contradict the math - but one would have to go quite out of their way and come up with a rather silly definition in order to do that.

Exactly so why do you invoke concepts in physics you cannot define?

oh i can define them. i choose not to. because any definition beyond (by that i mean more specific) that already provided by the confines of experimental evidence would be aribtrary. fortunately, the one provided by experiment evidence is more than sufficient.

on another note, if your logic depends on the inability to define what a "particle" is, then i fail to see how you could possibly tell apart two things that you can't even define.

You are stealing my line: I do not tell a particle apart from a wave, since I cannot do so when I do not even know what a "particle" is. You and the main stream physicists tell me there are particles and waves, without defining what a particle is. It is for this reason that the Copenhagen interpretation, QED and QFT are just: guess what? You know the appropriate word by now!!

[/quote]
i know the word that you use. it seems to hold argumentative weight with you. it holds none for me. see: "appeal to ridicule".