Room-temperature superconductivity?

[kcdodd]

You are saying you can calculate the mass of the electron within your theory? What do you get, and how does it compare to the accepted value?

[Giorgio]

In fact, when solving the wave-equation with an applied magnetic field, one finds that the energy of the wave becomes a functiion of the angle between this magnetic moment and the applied magnetic field; and that there is no increase in energy when the magnetic moment is either parallel or antiparallel to the applied magnetic field. Thus there is a real physical cause why an electon's "spin" aligns either parallel or antiparallel to the applied magnetic field. It has nothing to do with an inbuilt probability into the laws of nature at all. The cat cannot be alive and dead at the same time!

That's why I like Johan, his way of seeing nature just places nature back to a logic frame.

The hard point unfortunately will be to set up suitable experiments to test these ideas with actual technology.

[johanfprins]

.... and so what does all this mean for the renormalisaton? It goes away because we don't use Dirac equation ... ? Is that the bottom line here?

To certain extent yes, but it goes deeper than this. Renormalisation is required because it is assumed that an electron must have a point charge with an electric-field energy around it.

In terms of a time-independent wave-intensity the charge is distributed within the wave, as well as the total electric-field energy of the wave. So the assumptions which lead to renormalisation, are invalid and therefore the theory of electron-interactions does not lead to exploding integrals.

Electron-waves can exchange energies (delta)E for limited times (delta)t, and thus model the Lamb effect, without requiring the path-integral methods of Feynman. The latter are obviously invalid, since a harmonic wave cannot have a "phase-angle field" S(x,y,z) as required by the path-integral. This is underlined by the fact that one is forced to postulate that a circular integral over the vector field generated by taking the gradient of S(x,y,z) can be non zero: This is a mathematical impossibility!

[johanfprins]

You are saying you can calculate the mass of the electron within your theory? What do you get, and how does it compare to the accepted value?

Nature is not so kind to allow you to calculate this value absolutely, but only to derive it in terms of another parameter.

In the main stream models this parameter is usually called a "coupling constant". In my case I can derive it in terms of a "spring constant"; which is essentially the same concept, and the constants you find within the "fine structure constant"

By next analysing a possible mechanism for the spring constant, I derive the mass as a function of the constants one find in the "fine structire constant" and a distance d, which can be intepreted as a radius along a fourth space dimension which describes curvature in three-dimensional space.

I am not yet claiming that I am correct; but my model seems to unify Einstein's theory of gravity with "quantum" wave-theory. Whether I am proved correct or wrong in the end, I consider the latter possibility to be so important that it should be followed up. I am furiously trying to get my rusty mathematics on tensor analysis up to date to attempt clearing up this possibility. I will welcome bright young physicists with open minds to cooperate with me, since most of my time is at present being spent to fend of people who are trying to brand me as being a "crackpot".

[johanfprins]

That's why I like Johan, his way of seeing nature just places nature back to a logic frame.

Thanks, I really appreciate this comment.

The hard point unfortunately will be to set up suitable experiments to test these ideas with actual technology.

I do not think that it will be so difficult once scientists think about ways to test my theories; instead of just rejecting them as impossible since my insights go against the main stream of the past 100 years.

I know it is difficult to believe that the main stream made mistakes which could not be picked up for nearly 100 years: But maybe it is exactly this unwillingness which is keeping physics sailing into the wind. Nothing is impossible if there exists a possibility that it can happen!

[ladajo]

Johan,
Please have a look...
http://www.superconductors.org/276K.htm
They are reporting 0 degrees celcius superconductivity.
I thought the last sentances on how they made the sample were interesting.
Does this finding fit your predictive modeling for the material discussed?

Edit: added modeling question

[johanfprins]

Johan,
Please have a look...
http://www.superconductors.org/276K.htm
They are reporting 0 degrees celcius superconductivity.
I thought the last sentances on how they made the sample were interesting.
Does this finding fit your predictive modeling for the material discussed?

Edit: added modeling question

The crystallographic layers contain holes since these are the charges that remain on the donors within these layers which inject electrons to form suitable stationary orbitals between the crystallographic layers. These orbitals causes SC when their denisty is high enough to overcome their binding energy and move on to the next site.

To increase the critical temperature requires an increase in binding energy of electron-orbitals between the layers and a concomitant increase in the density of the orbitals so that the adjacent distances between them are smaller than a critical value; as determined by the binding energy.

It seems that they have increased the density of holes within the crystallographic layers, which indicates an increase in donated electrons between the layers. By alternating the doped layers they most probably also caused pressure which decreases the distances between these interlayer orbitals further and which, in this manner, helps to increase the the critical temperature further.

They seem to be on the right track according to my model. I suspect, however, that they have superconducting islands experiencing presseure from surrounding normal material. It will be interesting to see whether they can make a single superconducting layer from this material. It is also interesting that their curve is flattening out at a value below 300K.

There is another way to increase the critical temperature which relates to the geometry of the electron-orbitals; which I do not want to elaborate on at present. If the latter is happening, although I doubt that it is, they could go to even hgher temperatures.

[Teahive]

In the case of a superconductor a current only initiates at the contact at which you inject charge, and this charge only reaches the ejecting contact after it has passed by means of a relay race to reach the other contact. Although still at a very high speed, the time for a charge-pulse to reach the other contact is far shorter than the speed of light. This just made me think that a TOF experimernt on a superconductor might be a cinch using the available TOF apparatuses.

If this is true then superconductors are probably unsuitable as signal traces in high performance microchips, as the signals would propagate too slowly to allow clock frequencies in the GHz range.

[johanfprins]

If this is true then superconductors are probably unsuitable as signal traces in high performance microchips, as the signals would propagate too slowly to allow clock frequencies in the GHz range.

Wow! You really are incisive. I never thought of this aspect! It is probably true for the superconductors which conduct by running a relay race from anchored orbital to anchored orbital. These include all the superconductors, bar one, which have been discovered to date.

The superconductor which I extracted from a diamond by an anode ten years ago, is a single macro-wave ("electron dark matter"). In this case there are no "orbitals" which run a relay race.

When you inject an electron on one side it entangles with the whole wave and an electron appears at the other side. The electron "teleports" across. The time between disappearing and re-appearing at the other contact is controlled by Heisenberg's relationship for energy and time. For such a superconductor it might be possible to teleport a signal at a speed that exceeds light speed.

[johanfprins]

Hi Teahive,

I have thought about the issue of signals through a superconductor. There seems to be two issues involved:

(1) Sending in a pulse of charge and seeing when this charge exits at the other contact: This will be far slower than light speed.

(2) Sending through a time varying electric signal. The superconducting phase is in essence a dielectric and will thus respond in this manner. If the frequency of the electric-field matches the frequency with which the localized orbitals can vibrate, electric-energy should be absorbed and emitted as EM radiation.

If the frequency is far higher, (Gh?) it could just transmit the electric signal without any resistivity. Thus it might very well act as loss-free high frequency connections.

Oh I wish I had equipment to test this expected behavior!

[Grurgle-the-Grey]

It seems clear to me that whatever leaps between lattices in Josephson Coupling is disobeying Schroedinger's equation by a few orders of magnitude.
Also Maxwell's second Law states that div B = 0, ie. that magnetic field lines cannot end or fade, they must always be loops. Yet the London Moment shows magnetic field lines fading somewhere between a micron above the surface of the spinning super-conductor and a micron below.
Electrons do obey both Maxwell and Schroedinger rather accurately, so it seems deeply perverse to suggest that two electrons may abandon these constraints.
I'd be grateful for thoughts on this?

[johanfprins]

It seems clear to me that whatever leaps between lattices in Josephson Coupling is disobeying Schroedinger's equation by a few orders of magnitude.

In terms of the accepted Copenhagen interpretation and the models currently in vogue to 'model" superconduction you are absolutely correct. If you, however, model superconduction as movement allowed by Heisenberg's "uncertainty" relationship for energy and time (which has nothing to do with uncertainty whatsoever) you can calculate the allowed distances and obtain a perfect fit for all known superconductors. I have been trying to publish this for more than 5 years now but have been consistently blocked by the argument that "the BCS model fits the low temperature metals so well that we do not need another model".

Similar to Ptolemy's model of the universe "fits the facts so well we do not need a sun-centered model"! And we believe that physicists have become more open-minded over the last 400 yeaRs? FAT CHANCE!

Also Maxwell's second Law states that div B = 0, ie. that magnetic field lines cannot end or fade, they must always be loops. Yet the London Moment shows magnetic field lines fading somewhere between a micron above the surface of the spinning super-conductor and a micron below.

This is correct in vacuum but they can fade when interacting with other magnetic fields and materials.

Firstly, magnetic field lines can be cancelled by opposite magnetic field lines; and they can also be absorbed so that their energy is stored in a different manner.

According to the main stream models on superconduction the applied magnetic field is cancelled by induced currents on and below the surface which cause an opposite magnetic field. The only problem is that such currents have never been experimentally seen in a type I superconductor. They only appear at very high magnetic fields in a type II superconductor. And we know that below these high fields an applied magnetic field is still absorbed by a superconductor.

What really happens is that the superconducting charge carriers absorb the magnetic field so that all its energy is absorbed within a layer (a penetration depth) below the surface. Superconduction is not possible for charge-carriers which have absorbed more than a critical amount of magnetic energy.

Electrons do obey both Maxwell and Schroedinger rather accurately, so it seems deeply perverse to suggest that two electrons may abandon these constraints.

Not just perverse but paranormal. The interpretation of quantum physics is paranormal "magic" which we can supposedly "not understand": The abacadabra-word to "explain" modern physics is to state that "it is a quantum mechanical effect" . Main stream physicists then all nod their heads in agreement since the matter has been "solved".

Like Bohr said to Einstein: "Stop telling God what He he can and cannot do". So physics went back to "miracles" and superstition: Suddenly cats can be alive and dead, one's brain collpases waves so that all the probabilities surrounding you become actualitais; etc., etc, etc. No wonder the paranormal sciences all embrace quantum mechanics with gusto!

I have only now read the article that you attached. Thank God there are other people who see the absurdities in the main stream models of superconduction; and he makes a very commendable effort to bring order to the subject. There are only two aspects I want to point out at this stage:

(i) In most of the superconductors, if not all of them, discovered to date the charge-carriers are not bosons but fermions.

(ii) You can generate a superconducting phase that is an actual Bose-Einstein condensate, and as anticipated by this person, such a phase does not have separate charge-carriers but form a single, holistic wave after many electrons have entangled. I generated such a superconductor 10 years ago by extracting electrons with an anode from an n-type diamond surface.

[Grurgle-the-Grey]

That's me who wrote the article. And since we're both grumpy old buggers with little respect for academia, may I add 'super-currents' as an abracadabra word for avoiding facing the possibility of magnetism beyond Maxwell. This video should tell any competent physicist that the magnetic field produced by the block is way beyond Maxwell, notice in particular the lateral retitution force on the magnet and try and picture the fields. I'd love to map the field lines of an impressed SC block
You say the charge carriers are always fermions but that's because no-one's checked how a bosonic mass behaves.
It used to confuse me that for B-E stats the number of ways N particles in the ground state could enter the first excited state is 1 (barring degeneracy), too many accept this as abracadabra and don't think what it means. My answer is bound up with the idea of saying "I think there's about 20 pints left in the barrel". Actually there is only beer in there, 20 pints worth maybe, but there isn't 20 of anything tangible there. So the barrel may have been untouched and the beer perfectly still to analogize to a ground state and it's easy to see that the lowest ripple will be the first excited state no matter how many pints the beer could make.
So actually your charge carrier cloud is precisely what a barrel of bosons looks like.
Obviously the bosons are in thermal equilibrium with their decay products, a Cooper Pair of electrons, just as there is a vapour layer above a volatile liquid, these excess electrons have been assumed to be the charge-carriers because the bose mass is too big and even to see.
Another reason we must talk boson is because a spin of +1/2-1/2 = 0 isn't good enough, we know how that would behave under Maxwell and this thing misbehaves. Surely a genuine spin 0 something would object to the twist of a magnetic field?

[johanfprins]

That's me who wrote the article. And since we're both grumpy old buggers with little respect for academia, may I add 'super-currents' as an abracadabra word for avoiding facing the possibility of magnetism beyond Maxwell.

Yes I agree.

This video should tell any competent physicist that the magnetic field produced by the block is way beyond Maxwell, notice in particular the lateral retitution force on the magnet and try and picture the fields. I'd love to map the field lines of an impressed SC block

Again I agree!

You say the charge carriers are always fermions but that's because no-one's checked how a bosonic mass behaves.

They can be bosons but in the low temperature metals and the ceramics I have found them to be single-electron charges.

It used to confuse me that for B-E stats the number of ways N particles in the ground state could enter the first excited state is 1 (barring degeneracy), too many accept this as abracadabra and don't think what it means.

Yes again your argument is sound except that a Bose-Einstein Condensate does not exist of "boson-particles"; just like a laser beam does not consist of separate photons. Although liquid helium is a low energy state, it is not a Bose Einstein Condensate, since its minimum energy state can also be derived from Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics.

So actually your charge carrier cloud is precisely what a barrel of bosons looks like.

If you are talking about the electrons I extracted from the diamond, then I hope we agree that it is not a "charge-carrier" cloud but a true BEC. In this case the electrons first form localized waves with zero spin by pairing directly, just as they do when forming a covalent bond, and these bosons then entangle to form a single wave in a similar way that photons entangle to form a laser beam. The wave is a like a massive chemical bond constituted by millions of electrons, instead of just two, or four or six, as one obtains for single, double and triple homopolar bonds.

Obviously the bosons are in thermal equilibrium with their decay products, a Cooper Pair of electrons, just as there is a vapour layer above a volatile liquid, these excess electrons have been assumed to be the charge-carriers because the bose mass is too big and even to see.

In my phase, charge is not transferred by the movement of charge-carriers but by a non-local mechanism which is akin to teleportation.

Another reason we must talk boson is because a spin of +1/2-1/2 = 0 isn't good enough, we know how that would behave under Maxwell and this thing misbehaves. Surely a genuine spin 0 something would object to the twist of a magnetic field?

If I understand your argument correctly, I agree with you again.

[Grurgle-the-Grey]

A Neutron decays into an electron, proton and anti-neutrino but it would be very wrong to talk of 'the electron in the neutron'. So too with this boson, it really is something very different with some very odd properties.
We know it shows contempt for Schro's evanescent equation, so it can't be obeying Schro's wave equation in a lattice.
Therefore it won't be affected by the electron band-structure.
So in a lattice that is more gap than band for electrons, like a doped insulator, it is likely that our boson will take up an energy in a gap.
Since the gap prevents thermal lattice electrons from causing decay of the bosons it can only be the bosons own thermodynamics that causes higher temperature SC.
Further proof that we are dealing with a separate entity that decays to Cooper Pairs is the Tate '89 experiment. She measured e/m using the London Moment and came out with an answer that was 88ev more than 2 stand-alone electrons. The neutron weighs more than its decay products, but nothing within normal QED can surely?
The epileptic semaphore in the various papers trying to explain this avoid the simple point, it weighs too much.