Room-temperature superconductivity?

[GIThruster]

But, but... Einstein said Einstein was wrong (in that specific area). Duh.

but, Butt. . .

Heh!!! Lets stop pretending we know better than uncle Al.

[DeltaV]

But, but... Einstein said Einstein was wrong (in that specific area). Duh.

but, Butt. . .

Heh!!! Lets stop pretending we know better than uncle Al.

Are you saying Uncle Al was twins?

[GIThruster]

But, but... Einstein said Einstein was wrong (in that specific area). Duh.

but, Butt. . .

Heh!!! Lets stop pretending we know better than uncle Al.

Are you saying Uncle Al was twins?

You'll never hear it from me.

[Teemu]

I would have some questions about your original paper
http://rtn.elektronika.lt/mi/0304/2prins.pdf

So in your gap, why do you assume there is no electron-electron scattering, which is apparently at low temperatures the major if not main contributor to resistivity in many materials. For superconductors, with good experimental setup you can show that resistivity is at least hundred trillion times lower than resistivity of copper, apparently the experimental error margin was larger than resistivity of undoped silicon for your demonstration.

In order to ensure that these results were not caused
by some other mechanism, for example, by contamination
or another extraneous contact between the diamond and the
probe, the experiment was repeated using a large number of
alternative substrates. Not in one of these cases could the same,
or even similar, results be obtained. For example, a p-type
semiconducting (type IIb) diamond as well as a polished
cemented tungsten carbide block with the same surface area
as the diamond, was studied

That doesn't mention details about how many tests where done to different n-type semiconductors. Was there done tests with different n-type semiconductors and probes with metals of different work function to ensure it was not some phenomena related to those properties?

New Scientist:

Physicist Johan Prins conducted an experiment to develop a superconductor that worked at room temperature. He used a layer of synthetic diamond doped with oxygen atoms, and by applying a voltage to the gold-plated probe above the surface of the diamond, he was able to draw electrons out of the diamond into the vacuum which completed the circuit. In opinion of Archie Campbell, Cambridge, UK it would be quite impossible to detect superconductivity with his measurements.

In his experiment Johan Prins found that the current through his crystal did not change detectably when the thickness of the vacuum gap between the diamond and positively charged probe was reduced to zero. Since he was applying 1000 volts and drawing only half a milliamp, the resistance of his circuit was 2 megohms. And since the noise in his current was at least 1 per cent, any resistance in the gap less than 20 kilohms would be undetectable.

If the gap were made of copper the resistance would be about 0.04 micro-ohms, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the resistivity of the electron gas is no greater than around 10^11 times that of copper. This cannot be regarded as evidence of superconductivity.

In other words the experimental error for resistivity of the vacuum gap was larger than resistivity of undoped silicon

[Teemu]

When it comes to Einstein and twin paradox:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

Neither Einstein nor Langevin considered such results to be literally paradoxical: Einstein only called it "peculiar"...

[Giorgio]

Peeps who think they know better than Einstein, can go grab shit.

I am not really sure I understand how grabbing excrement can help anyone improving his knowledge of Einstein theories, but maybe I am missing something here.

You think we can keep this thread clean without reverting to name calling and poor taste expressions?

[Giorgio]

That doesn't mention details about how many tests where done to different n-type semiconductors. Was there done tests with different n-type semiconductors and probes with metals of different work function to ensure it was not some phenomena related to those properties?

In other words the experimental error for resistivity of the vacuum gap was larger than resistivity of undoped silicon

These are two extremely interesting and non trivial objections Teemu.
I think to remember that in a past discussion with him he addressed at least the issue of the electron-electron scattering.
I am eager to see Johan reply.

[GIThruster]

But, but... Einstein said Einstein was wrong (in that specific area). Duh.

Em, I left off after the second page when it became obvious Sachs was straining the text he was using and abusing. Where he writes:

"Thus we see that, on the one hand, Einstein admitted that one must not, in principle, interpret the theory of relativity to imply that similar physical entities age differently by virtue of their relative motion. "

he is most certainly misrepresenting Einstein's intention. And that's part of a pattern with Sachs. He uses slight of hand, drawing conclusions that are anything but.

Einstein is certainly allowed to change his mind, but he did not change his mind on this subject, so far as I can see. And given the preponderance of physical evidence to date, its pretty hard to argue for anything other than a literal interpretation of time dilation.

We're going from argument to evidence to argument to evidence, and all you have in support of this non-literal view that is completely a-historic, is a single physicist supporting the same crappy argument he'd made a decade before. Maybe instead of searching the web to find support for Johan's crazy theory, you ought to search the web for evidence of time dilation?

[Teemu]

http://rtn.elektronika.lt/mi/0304/2prins.pdf
You seem to get out of equations that the electron density increases to infinity, and conclude that because of this eventually the average distance between electron will be smaller than Heisenberg principle for individual electron, thus forcing them to form Bose-Einstein condensate to avoid Pauli exclusion.

However, the electron density increasing to infinity is "fundamental property" of the theoretical ideal/perfect metal, which in reality doesn't exist. Superconductor is not a perfect metal, it is not a perfect "normal conductor". So every time you use certain equations in a way that assumes the substance to be a perfect metal, you get the electron density increasing to infinity as a result. Through your use of equations in that way you assumed to vacuum to be a perfect metal. One example why the vacuum of course is not a perfect metal is that ideal metal assumes electron's to form an ideal gas, it assumes that there is no electron-electron scattering. However in reality in low enough temperatures this is the major if not main contributor for resisitivity for many materials.

[DeltaV]

And given the preponderance of physical evidence to date, its pretty hard to argue for anything other than a literal interpretation of time dilation.

All of the experiments which do not bring both "clocks" to rest in the same frame for comparison, at the end of the excursions, are crap.
They only used transformed (kinematic) observations. They can say nothing accurate about the intrinsic physics (dynamics).
For example, the muons were not brought to rest in the same frame to have their decay times compared.

As I pointed out earlier, the flying atomic clock experiments are also crap because of

1) the complexity of the Rube Goldberg atomic clocks, with oodles of subtle, nonlinear, poorly understood, fudge-factored, unmodeled, unknown, swept-under-the-rug system variations;

2) atomic clock sensitivities to radically varying environmental conditions involving gravity, magnetism, electrostatics, accelerations, temperature, pressure, humidity, cosmic rays, ambient radiation and numerous unknown unknowns;

(Even the simplest nonlinear systems, such as the simple algorithm that generates the Mandelbrot set, are capable of producing infinitely complex results. How much more so for an extremely complicated atomic clock. Go study nonlinear dynamics, philosopher punk.)

3) and finally, and most perniciously, the bias of true-believer Clock Thumpers such as yourself, who are willing to sacrifice a basic tenet of Special Relativity (that physical laws are the same in all inertial frames) so that they may cling to their precious differential aging.

Since calculus gives you headaches, I see you've allowed geometry to take it's place.

[DeltaV]

A Clock Thumper caught in the act:

[tomclarke]

And given the preponderance of physical evidence to date, its pretty hard to argue for anything other than a literal interpretation of time dilation.

All of the experiments which do not bring both "clocks" to rest in the same frame for comparison, at the end of the excursions, are crap.
They only used transformed (kinematic) observations. They can say nothing accurate about the intrinsic physics (dynamics).
For example, the muons were not brought to rest in the same frame to have their decay times compared.

DeltaV. Would you like to reply to my earlier point on this?

An oscillating motion, even though it is never at rest, works fine for dilation measurement. That is because:

(1) all you need is to synchronise clocks. You can do that when one is moving as long as they are close

(2) Even though the clocks have some distance between them the synchronisation time error (something like distance/c) is limited. Whereas the dilation error increases arbitrarily as the experiment progresses. So you just have to measure your satellites, muons, etc over a long enough time period.

As I pointed out earlier, the flying atomic clock experiments are also crap because of

1) the complexity of the Rube Goldberg atomic clocks, with oodles of subtle, nonlinear, poorly understood, fudge-factored, unmodeled, unknown, swept-under-the-rug system variations;

You stated that atomic clocks were less accurate than people who use them think. Well I can state that the moon's mountains are made of green cheese. that don't make it true.

2) atomic clock sensitivities to radically varying environmental conditions involving gravity, magnetism, electrostatics, accelerations, temperature, pressure, humidity, cosmic rays, ambient radiation and numerous unknown unknowns;

(Even the simplest nonlinear systems, such as the simple algorithm that generates the Mandelbrot set, are capable of producing infinitely complex results. How much more so for an extremely complicated atomic clock. Go study nonlinear dynamics, philosopher punk.)

You can bound these variations, as the people who understand clocks do. Since a repeat of the plane experiment found agreement within 1% with SR it seems unlikely, if the results were as you say random, this could be true.

Further, the people who do experiments look at data and can determine the variance (due to unknown unknowns) from the data. Remember they have controls. These people are not idiots as you would know did you read the (public domain) paper on the first plane experiment metrology, which does extensive error investigation and analysis.

3) and finally, and most perniciously, the bias of true-believer Clock Thumpers such as yourself, who are willing to sacrifice a basic tenet of Special Relativity (that physical laws are the same in all inertial frames) so that they may cling to their precious differential aging.

I don't understand this. I have never disagreed with this tenet. I think you are not following the physical arguments?

Still, it must be fun to be a differentially aged clock thumper. Sounds like Alice in Wonderland.

Since calculus gives you headaches, I see you've allowed geometry to take it's place.

Ah - that was Paul, the clock thumper. But, you see, your arguments apply equally to me. And I enjoy calculus, whether Analysis II, or Tensor. Take your pick. Not that they are very relevant in this problem. I would say vector spaces with non-metric inner products is more relevant. I also like vector spaces.

[DeltaV]

The only sort of experiment that will resolve the Twin Paradox is one such as Johan suggested, where two identical atomic clocks (with, I would sincerely hope, an improved, much more linear and robust design), one fixed and one moving, are placed in a (slightly vertically curved) tunnel with constant gravitational potential and very carefully controlled temperature, pressure, humidity, etc.

This is not a trivial engineering challenge, but seems doable.

There are just too many variables with the airplane experiments for them to be relied upon.

[tomclarke]

The only sort of experiment that will resolve the Twin Paradox is one such as Johan suggested, where two identical atomic clocks (with, I would sincerely hope, an improved, much more linear and robust design), one fixed and one moving, are placed in a (slightly vertically curved) tunnel with constant gravitational potential and very carefully controlled temperature, pressure, humidity, etc.

This is not a trivial engineering challenge, but seems doable.

There are just too many variables with the airplane experiments for them to be relied upon.

I'd take the quantification of those variables by experimentalists any day over a bald assertion that the errors are too large.

What (quantitative) justification do you have for it, given that most others disagree with you?

And don't quote Kelly:
(a) Atomic clocks have got 10,000 X better since his comment
(b) Even then, he did not understand how everyone uses atomic clocks. I posted it up above somewhere, it is quite a simple idea which gives effective errors much lower than the absolute error in any one clock.

[johanfprins]

I would have some questions about your original paper
http://rtn.elektronika.lt/mi/0304/2prins.pdf

I apologise that I have only noticed this post before embarking on my plane.

So in your gap, why do you assume there is no electron-electron scattering,

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. 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!!!!

For superconductors, with good experimental setup you can show that resistivity is at least hundred trillion times lower than resistivity of copper, apparently the experimental error margin was larger than resistivity of undoped silicon for your demonstration.

I need not do such a measurement since it is IMPOSSIBLE that there can be an electric-field within the dipole. If there is a field within the electron phase, the depletion layer will inject more charges into the phase until this electric field is exactly ZERO!!!! If the latter does not happen then the physics on which Solid State Electronics is based must be wrong. We know that the latter IS NOT the case. This said: I am not averse to do a 4 point measurement on this phase, even though I already know that the electric field MUST BE ZERO. But to do this I need to insert two voltage contacts between the diamond and the anode. Since the distance between the diamond and the anode is in the order of micrometers, this requires micro-techniques to which I have no access; and have been refused access since I could not obtain any extra funding after I have published my results.

That doesn't mention details about how many tests where done to different n-type semiconductors. Was there done tests with different n-type semiconductors and probes with metals of different work function to ensure it was not some phenomena related to those properties?

YES, YES, YES!!!

New Scientist:

Physicist Johan Prins conducted an experiment to develop a superconductor that worked at room temperature. He used a layer of synthetic diamond doped with oxygen atoms, and by applying a voltage to the gold-plated probe above the surface of the diamond, he was able to draw electrons out of the diamond into the vacuum which completed the circuit. In opinion of Archie Campbell, Cambridge, UK it would be quite impossible to detect superconductivity with his measurements.

Archie Campbell is the typical idiot that you find within the research group on superconduction at Cambridge University. Since he cannot even understand that a dipole layer forms to cancel an existing electric field so that the NET field within my phase is exactly ZERO; I will not even recommend him as a toilet cleaner.

In his experiment Johan Prins found that the current through his crystal did not change detectably when the thickness of the vacuum gap between the diamond and positively charged probe was reduced to zero. Since he was applying 1000 volts and drawing only half a milliamp, the resistance of his circuit was 2 megohms. And since the noise in his current was at least 1 per cent, any resistance in the gap less than 20 kilohms would be undetectable.

You see how stupid he is? I did not argue zero electric field from the IV measurements, but from the well known ability of a dipole to cancel an existing electric field. No wonder Cambridge University is nothing better than a primary school. Not even the passing away of doddering old Brian Pippard has yet changed this fact about the superconducting group at that Institution.

If the gap were made of copper the resistance would be about 0.04 micro-ohms, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the resistivity of the electron gas is no greater than around 10^11 times that of copper. This cannot be regarded as evidence of superconductivity.

Copper within the gap does NOT form one half of a dipole layer. Try and get it through Archie Campbell’s bonehead? IMPOSSIBLE!!

In other words the experimental error for resistivity of the vacuum gap was larger than resistivity of undoped silicon

It just proves that Archie Campbell has not even mastered first year physics on dipoles. If he can read, which I also doubt, he would have known that my arguments were NOT based on IV characteristics, but on the well known properties of dipole layers which I already understood in primary school.