Room-temperature superconductivity?

[Teemu]

There seems to be this kind of human everyday experience centered thinking, similar to this:
"I can somewhat connect general relativity to real everyday force, gravity, thus it is real, I can't do the same with special relativity thus it is not real"

However the key idea of Einstein's theory of general relativity is that gravity is not an ordinary force, but rather a property of space-time geometry. So is the gravity causing curvature of space time, or is curvature of space time causing gravity? Just because the other properties of space-time might not be such a part of everyday experience, does it mean they can't have any "real" effect, only "distorting" effects? I don't think so.

[johanfprins]

I am still in transit. Looking forward to respond.

Best regards,
Johan

[johanfprins]

I am still in transit. Looking forward to respond.

Best regards,
Johan

[kcdodd]

There is a somewhat famous thought experiment on the reality of SR effects. Right now I do not recall the origin of the story but I am sure it would not be hard to find for the interested. The thought experiment is imagine two space ships, one in front of the other initially separated by some distance. The two ships are then connected by a string cut to the exact spacing between the ships, but no tension in the string so the ships are not forced upon by it. The ships then undergo identical uniform acceleration.

Now, one must ignore the exhaust from the engines, as the exhaust from the first ship would incinerate the string and put a force on the ship behind it. But ignoring the issue of the exhaust, the question is do the ships actually move apart and break the string tied between them. Initially the question arises because according to SR the ships will appear to length contract in the direction of travel, and transforming to a ship's frame the other ship would seem to get further and further away. So, the question is does the string break, which would be a physically real and testable event.

[ladajo]

If no forces are acting on the string, why would it even move?
If the string moves, then it shares the frame, and itself would contract. The entire moving frame of the two ships and the string would act together and become a smaller version of itself.

I think to suggest anything else would be introducing magic (which was already doen to some degree).

[kcdodd]

I didn't say no forces acted on the string, just that it was cut perfectly to size to start with. Clearly if the string has mass there has to be a force on it to accelerate it as well. The point is that the distance between the ships in the original rest frame does not change, since they are both accelerating at the same rates in that frame. Therefore the length of the string does not change in that frame either, assuming it stays attached to both ships.

[ladajo]

Ok, so they are all moving together in the same frame, thus no issue between them.

[Teemu]

I did NOT ASSUME this at all. What I pointed out clearly is that the electron phase within the gap is one-half of a dipole layer across the surface of the diamond: And as anybody who calls him/herself a physicist, and even a high school kid will know, a dipole layer forms in order to cancel an existing electric field. Thus when applying an electric field between the diamond and the anode, the dipole adjusts UNTIL EQUILIBRIUM IS REACHED: AND THIS IS REACHED WHEN THE DIPOLE FIELD CANCELS THE APPLIED ELECTRIC FIELD. Thus after reaching equilibrium there is no NET electric field within the depletion layer below the surface of the diamond NOR within the electron phase between the diamond surface and the anode.

Almost all basic equations describing electron related phenomena are based on electron gas assumption, thus not taking into account electron-electron scattering. This ideal gas assumption can lead to ideal metal results, the electron density increasing to infinity in equations.

What my experiment shows is that although it is physically impossible for an electric field to be present within the electron phase, charge is still transferred from the diamond to the anode. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A BETTER PROOF FOR SUPERCONDUCTION EVER!!!!

I would still prefer actual experiment that shows the resistivity to less than hundred trillionth of copper's resistivity.

[kcdodd]

Ok, so they are all moving together in the same frame, thus no issue between them.

Well, there is. If the total length stays the same in the original rest frame, and yet the whole system is moving faster and faster, then if you transform to the moving frame the distance between the ships must be getting bigger and bigger in the co-moving frame. Thus at some point the string becomes too stretched and breaks. The resolution is that in order to keep the string from breaking the ship in the back must have a slightly higher acceleration then the one in the front. Or conversely, if the string were strong enough, the tension forces in the string would speed up the ship in the back and slow down the ship in the front. Thus length contraction, if it exists at all, must be a physical phenomenon which causes stress in materials. In fact, even within the two ships themselves. The fronts of the ships must accelerate at a lower rate then the back of the ship due to structural stresses in special relativity, even for "constant" acceleration. The G-force would also be ever so slightly lower in the front of the ships than in the back. Of course, the effect would be minuscule for human scale ships and accelerations.

[tomclarke]

Ok, so they are all moving together in the same frame, thus no issue between them.

Well, there is. If the total length stays the same in the original rest frame, and yet the whole system is moving faster and faster, then if you transform to the moving frame the distance between the ships must be getting bigger and bigger in the co-moving frame. Thus at some point the string becomes too stretched and breaks. The resolution is that in order to keep the string from breaking the ship in the back must have a slightly higher acceleration then the one in the front. Or conversely, if the string were strong enough, the tension forces in the string would speed up the ship in the back and slow down the ship in the front. Thus length contraction, if it exists at all, must be a physical phenomenon which causes stress in materials. In fact, even within the two ships themselves. The fronts of the ships must accelerate at a lower rate then the back of the ship due to structural stresses in special relativity, even for "constant" acceleration. The G-force would also be ever so slightly lower in the front of the ships than in the back. Of course, the effect would be minuscule for human scale ships and accelerations.

I'll repeat what others have said, with some detail:

(1) in the (instantaneous) ship rest frame, at any time, the lengths are as normal. No breaking.

(2) as seen from a non-accelerating observer, the ship instantaneous frame, with two ships and string, moves with speed v. the length contraction gamma applies to the distance between the ships, and equally to the string (think of the string is having micron pips, which must contract, if it helps). This contraction applies to the string at every level (including atomic) so makes no change in physical properties.

[GIThruster]

This contraction applies to the string at every level (including atomic) so makes no change in physical properties.

Its probably also fair to say that, it's not just the string that contracts--it's the spacetime the string is residing in, so the string doesn't even suffer tension. One couldn't possibly notice from the string's rest frame, because the entire frame is contracting.

[kcdodd]

I don't understand how I am not conveying the situation properly. The ships are undergoing identical acceleration. I'll just repeat it a few more times since it looks like I will anyway. The ships are undergoing identical acceleration. The ships are undergoing identical acceleration.

Lets say ship 1 starts at position x=0, and ship two at position x = dx. If they both undergo identical acceleration, then at a later time the positions of the two ships will be x1 and x2, where x2 - x1 = dx. Simply integrate the acceleration versus time twice to get the positions of the ships and you will see it must be true that the distance between the ships does not change in the rest frame. Again, the distance between the two positions of the ships does not change. The distance does not change. The distance does not change. Bueller. Bueller.

I know this seems counter-intuitive but when you get it you'll have learned something new. Trust me I do know what I am talking about.

[johanfprins]

OK, Im am back in South Africa and not at present in a good mood since my laptop was stolen by a bunch of scumbags on the train from Amsterdam Central to Schiphol. What is even worse is the my breathing apparatus to counter apnea while I sleep was also stolen, including other valuable items. So I will be very busy for a while to get everything back to normal.

Scanning the nonsense that has been posted by people like GIThruster, TomClarke, KCDodd, Teemu while I was travelling is annoying me even further. It is impossible to argue against chaff. So I am going to plead to you to PLEASE argue physics. When I do a calculation, like proving that the Lorentz transformation demands that two clocks moving relative to one another MUST keep exactly the same time WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE REFERENCE FRAMES and you do not agree, then show where I have gone wrong. To inore this proof and argue about how accurate clocks can be etc. is deviously dishonest, since these arguments do not prove that my derivation from the Lorentz transformation is wrong. If such a time dilation (other than through gravity) actually DOES experimentally occur on the "moving" clock within its own inertial reference frame, it actually proves that the Lorentz transformation must be wrong. If you do not agree with my derivation which proves that this is so, then give the an alternative derivation which you believe is correct. Only then will we be discussing real physics as grown-ups should do.

Thus to start off I want to first return to the assertion that has been consistently made on this thread: Namely that a clock (say number 2) that moves relative to another clock (say number 1) will keep time at a lower rate within its inertial refrence frame (of clock 2) than clock 1 will keep within its own inertial reference frame. After this issue is settled I willl discuss the dipole formation in my superconducting experiment. Clearly TomClark does not know how a dipole layer forms and under which conditions the applied field is totally cancelled by such a dipole field. It is a pity he he did not attend the lectures I was invited to give on this specific and related topics in 1996 at the Fermi-School of Physics at Lake Cuomo in Italy. It would also have helped GIThruster if he could hava attended the lectures on the Special Theory of Relativity which I attended when I did my MSc in Physics, before deciding to do my DSc in Materials Science. Clearly GIThruster is a complete nincompoop who cannot even handle simple algebra and calculus.

To make it easier I will give a choice question: Consider a moving clock. Relative to how many inertial reference frames does it move?

(i) One?
(ii) Ten?
(iii) A Thousand?
(iv) A billion?
(v) An infinite number?

I am looking forward to your answers. Especially by TomClarke and the moron on the block GIThruster.

[ladajo]

Johan,
What do you see as the reasons for the 46us and 8us adjustments on the GPS bird clocks prior to launch to give the 38us correction factor on orbit?
As I understand you are ok with gravity well correction...

PS: I am sorry about your stuff being taken. That is just obnoxious. I pray that you had nothing unrecoverable on the laptop.

[tomclarke]

Thus to start off I want to first return to the assertion that has been consistently made on this thread: Namely that a clock (say number 2) that moves relative to another clock (say number 1) will keep time at a lower rate within its inertial refrence frame (of clock 2) than clock 1 will keep within its own inertial reference frame. After this issue is settled ...

It is not settled. No-one to my knowledge has said this. Certainly I have not. The moving clock ends up with lower elapsed time than a stationary clock. that is not because it behaves differently in its rest frame, clearly. It is because in order to return to to be compared with the other clock it must change velocity. It is the change in velocity (and therefore frame) that means the elapsed time is different.

I posted above a link to very clear analysis of how "time dilation" and "time slippage" together make everything happen..

In two inertial frames which with constant relative velocity both clocks correctly observe the other clock has time dilation. But there is no unique way to compare clocks far apart, each clock is using a different definition of simultaneity, so all is consistent.

Whether each clock "really" has time dilation - in this case where the clocks are never brought back together is not well posed.

In the case that they do have time dilation this is not wrt their rest frame, it is wrt the other frame.

Why do I say wrt? Because time can only be measured relative to some other time. nd this measurement is compromised (not unique) when the clocks are physically separated.