Room-temperature superconductivity?

[Giorgio]

Can you share more on those magnetic measurements results?

I would love to: But it is more prudent to first do measurements at higher magnetic fields and confirm that I can break up the conduction completely. I cannot levitate a substrate since one needs a bulk sample: My layers are too thin. The best approach will be to generate perpetual currents and my calculations indicate that we need a magnetic field that is in excess of the 5 tesla we have at the moment.

I understand that, I will wait until you complete all the necessary verifications.
This might be of interest to you:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-sup ... netic.html
If you are coming to USA you might want to contact them and see if there can be some kind of collaboration.

What is important to note is that the shape and size of a wave is determined by the boundary conditions under which the wave finds itself. When you change the boundary conditions the wave must morph. In most cases when you do a measurement, you change the boundary conditions, and the wave must then morph; and if the measurement is an instantaneous measurement, the wave must morph instantaneously. Thus when a matter-wave is spread over a large volume in space so that its energy is distributed within this volume, and you change its boundary conditions instantaneously so that it must occupy a far smaller volume, its distributed mass energy must collapse instantaneously into this smaller volume.

For as much as I like your theory this issue of the instantaneous collapse of a wave to adapt to an external measurements/observation never really made a breakthrough into me.
I have been wondering some time and come out with this question for you:

If an external measurement of an even creates a collapse of the related event-wave, than the same event could never be observed by two independent (not linked) observers but the two should observe a different event (even if slightly).
How do you reconcile this?

Thanks as always for the time you spend in these interesting discussions.

[johanfprins]

I understand that, I will wait until you complete all the necessary verifications.
This might be of interest to you:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-sup ... netic.html
If you are coming to USA you might want to contact them and see if there can be some kind of collaboration.

Thanks for the info.

For as much as I like your theory this issue of the instantaneous collapse of a wave to adapt to an external measurements/observation never really made a breakthrough into me.
I have been wondering some time and come out with this question for you:

If an external measurement of an even creates a collapse of the related event-wave, than the same event could never be observed by two independent (not linked) observers but the two should observe a different event (even if slightly). How do you reconcile this?

If the wave is a single photon wave, then indeed only one observer will "see" this wave when it collapses into this observer's eye. Fortunately for us, most light waves are a superposition of billions of identical photons, and therefore there are more than a single photon available: Identical photons can then collapse within the eyes of more than a single observer. Our eyes see the aggregate effect of many photons.

The fact that a single photon-wave can only be detected by a single detector is the reason why it is reasoned incorrectly that a photon can only move through one slit of a double-slit diffractor at a time: However, the slits are not detectors but act to split the photon into two fragments which then move through both slits. If you do not put a detector behind the slits, these two fragments interfere with each other so that the resultant single photon wave develops the intensity-distribution of a diffracted wave by the time it reaches the observation screen. When it arrives at the screen to be detected, only a single photon can be detected as a spot at a time, and therefore the photon must collapse to be recorded as a spot. After many spots, the identical intensity distribution, which each photon has after having moved through both slits, then appearas on the screen.

Although our eyes can act as single photon detectors, our brains can only interpred the aggregate effect of many photons. For example, many photons are moving through the diifraction slits per unit time so that we see the diffraction pattern not as spots or pixels: Similar to watching pictures on a TV screen.

If you place two detectors behind the screen to determine through which slit a single photon has moved, each detector can just see a single photon. The two lobes (fragments of the single photon) which move simultaneously through both slits must then collapse to be observed by one of the two detectors. There is thus a 50/50 probability that single photon will collapse to be detected by one or the other detector. After many photons have passed through the slits, we then conclude from the aggregate of collapses that half of the photons has passed through one slit and the other half has passed through the other slit; while this is not so.

Furthermore, in this case, the aggegate of spots on the observation screen does not now form a diffraction pattern anymore, since the two fragments of each single photon, collapsed to form a single photon before the two fragments could intefere in order to generate an identical diffracted intensity distribution for each photon.

[mvanwink5]

Johanprins,
I found your explanation satisfying with respect to the apparent fast neutrino phenomena. Thank you for taking the time to explain it. Good fortune to your superconductor efforts and please keep us informed.

[bennmann]

I think I just learned something I will never forget by reading Johan's latest posts. Thank you.

[DeltaV]

Johan, I and other engineers wish you full success in all of your research efforts. The potential applications are tantalizing.

In what (major) points does your theory agree/disagree with the hypothesis that electrons and protons are actually closed-loop photon "knots"?
viewtopic.php?t=3311

[johanfprins]

Johan, I and other engineers wish you full success in all of your research efforts. The potential applications are tantalizing.

Thank you for your support.

In what (major) points does your theory agree/disagree with the hypothesis that electrons and protons are actually closed-loop photon "knots"?
viewtopic.php?t=3311

I am still working on this problem: It is my hope that I will be able to derive a differential wave equation for a free electron from Maxwell's equations for light waves.

At present, I am working from the postulate that an electron is a (type of?) light wave which is stationary within its own inertial reference frame (I will call this inertial reference frame the rest-frame for the electron). In contrast a free light wave has no mass energy since it cannot be stationary within any inertial reference frame: However, light energy can be trapped within a black box cavity to form stationary standing waves; and these waves are then also stationary within the inertial reference frame within which the black-box cavity is stationary.

This is how Max Planck modelled black-body radiation: He assumed standing waves but added the condition that a standing light-wave with frequency (nu) cannot have less energy than an amount h*(nu); nor can it increase its energy by less than h*(nu). Thus standing (stationary) light waves which follow Boltzmann’s statistics, model black-body radiation perfectly. There is no need for “light-particles” which flit around with the speed of light c within the black box and follow Bose statistics. In other words, standing light waves and Boltzmann’s statistics work just fine when assuming that each quantum of energy h*(nu) is a “sub”-wave, emitted from the wall of the cavity and which then entangles with an existing standing wave having the same frequency, or which forms a new standing wave with that frequency. The concept that the quantum of wave-energy is a photon-"particle" only came into vogue after Einstein derived his equation for the photo-electric-effect. And Einstein regretted this until the day he died! In fact, it is possible to derive the photo-electric equation by using the assumption that a light wave and an electron wave can merge their energies by entangling with each other. There is no “collision between two particles” involved whatsoever.

The important point to notice is that where-as a free light-wave moving with speed c has no mass-energy, because it can never be stationary within any inertial reference frame, the standing light waves in the black-body cavity are not moving with a speed c. They are stationary and therefore their energies are now purely mass-energy. For this reason I believe that an electron-wave is a light-wave which is stationary within its own inertial reference frame. A free matter wave thus only has a speed within those inertial reference frames which are moving relative to the matter wave’s rest-frame.

Thus in order to solve for an electron wave, one must have a differential wave-equation which gives a suitable solution for a standing light wave within a rest-frame; and the energy of this wave must be the rest mass energy of the electron. Schroedinger’s wave equation uses the rest mass as an input, instead of obtaining the rest mass as the solution of the energy of a free electron. This is why Schroedinger’s equation (and Dirac’s equation) cannot model a free electron. It is, however, a good approximation to obtain the waves for bound electrons around the nucleus of an atom.

Now why will a electron-wave be stationary within its own inertial reference frame (its rest frame)? There must be a “potential” keeping it in equilibrium at its rest position. This means that if one wants to move the electron, there must be a restring force that opposes this attempt to move it. Thus the electron wave at rest must be the lowest energy state of a harmonic oscillator. To make a long story short, when following this route, one also obtains a causal reason why an electron aligns itself “spin-up” or “spin-down” when applying a magnetic field. This has NOTHING to do with any charge spinning and also NOTHING to do with a spin probability wave.

It also explains why an electron radiates dipole EM radiation when it is being accelerated since the restoring force relates to a positive charge that is situated along a fourth space dimension. When not accelerating there is no “vibration” between the negative charge of the electron within our three-dimensional space; but when accelerating there is vibration and the positive charge thus reveals its presence.

I discuss these concepts in more detail within my book.

[MSimon]

Very nice. I get it this time (your previous passed over me). But that brings up a point that you haven't mentioned here (I may have missed it).

What is the black box "made of"? What is doing the confining?

[MSimon]

A free matter wave thus only has a speed within those inertial reference frames which are moving relative to the matter wave’s rest-frame.

I have often thought that the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equation hinted at this. I think I brought it up to some physicist on the board and got sort of a "you dummy look" if that can be done on a message board.

I in fact posited an 8 dimensional universe (maybe 7 would do) where 3 dimensions of space in one subsection are moving away from the 3 dimensions of another section at the speed of light "minus" any motion in the considered section. But my math is not good enough to tell whether that is a useful idea.

[johanfprins]

Very nice. I get it this time (your previous passed over me). But that brings up a point that you haven't mentioned here (I may have missed it).

What is the black box "made of"? What is doing the confining?

Yes calling it a black box is my preference: It is really just plain blackbody radiation. In order to measure the full spectrum, "a box" is used which is constructed so that its internal walls and the cavity these walls enclose heat to a uniform temperature. The light spectrum is then measured through a small hole. This is also why black-body radiation is called cavity radiation.

Within the cavity the light waves form standing waves (not photon-"particles") which are in thermodynamic equilibrium with the oscillators within the walls of the cavity. These oscillators produce and absorb the quanta of energy h*(nu) which keep the total energy of any one the standing waves, in thermodynamic equilibrium with these oscillators. When an oscillator emits a quantum of energy, this energy entangles with an existing standing wave and thus increases its total energy. If the standing wave's energy becomes too large, a quantum of energy disentangles and becomes absorbed by an oscillator within the walls of the cavity. Thus when an oscillator emits a photon-wave this wave inflates to merge with a standing wave that is filling the whole cavity. When an oscillator within the walls absorbs a quantum of energy from a standing wave, this quantum sub-wave disentangles and collapses in order to be absorbed by the oscillator.

It is these inflations and collapses of light waves (and also electron-waves around the nucleus of an atom) which have been incorrectly interpreted as "jumps" by photon-"particles" (and the concomitant electron-"particles" within the walls). "Quantum-jumps" are thus actually inflating and collapsing waves (both light and matter waves).

Thus the idea that there are photon-"particles" moving around like a gas within the cavity is pure unadulterated, paranormal metaphysics. Also the concept that electrons are "particles". An electron is a wave with distributed mass-energy which relates to the intensity of the wave. Therefore this wave has a centre-of-mass. Under suitable conditions. it is the motion of this centre-of-mass which leads to the wrong conclusion that an electron is a "particle"; while it is an actual wave that is moving past without changing its shape or size.

[MSimon]

j,

I get all that. What I don't get is what the box is made of. What is the wall material.

BTW every effort at explaining to idiots like me clarifies your explanation. This last one was even better than the one I "got".

Last missing piece: the "walls" of the box.

[johanfprins]

I have often thought that the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equation hinted at this. I think I brought it up to some physicist on the board and got sort of a "you dummy look" if that can be done on a message board.

The most difficult, if not impossible, thing to achieve is to get a physicist to think outside of the accepted dogma. You will have a better chance to convince th Pope that Jesus Christ was not crucified.

What is even more interesting about the Lorentz-transformation is that Lorentz derived it in terms of the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction for one of the arms of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein then brilliantly gave the correct reason why the Lorentz transformation exists: It is so because the speed of light has the same value c relative to ANY uniformly moving body. This removes the requirement for length contraction.

But Einstein then went ahead to argue in reverse; and to derive the LorentzFitzGerald contraction for the case when a Michelson-Morley apparatus moves past with a speed v. This is only possible if the speed of light now again approaches the mirror at the end of the arm with a speed c-v, while approaching the splitter on its return journey with a speed of c+v. But is the latter not faster than the speed of light? Yes it is and therefore it cannot happen.

When using the Lorentz transformation to directly derive the speeds with which a light beam moves to the mirror and then back, one obtains c along both routes, even when the arm is moving with a speed v relative to the observer. This is how it must be relative to any moving object according to Einstein's brilliant insight.

Thus there is no length contraction of the arm at all: But just try and get this simple derivation published anywhere in a peer reviewed physics journal! No ways: Hundred's of thousand's of physicists have for more than 100 years found no fault with Einstein's conclusion of length contraction: So why would an African suddenly be able to do this now?

I in fact posited an 8 dimensional universe (maybe 7 would do) where 3 dimensions of space in one subsection are moving away from the 3 dimensions of another section at the speed of light "minus" any motion in the considered section. But my math is not good enough to tell whether that is a useful idea.

My model is a four-dimensional infinite primordial space within which time does not exist: Only two opposite potential energies which cannot interact since time does not exist. Our universe within whichj we now find ourselves is a subspace which came into being when the fourth space dimension became "bent" to create time and dark matter (Guth's large inflation), then light, and then the matter we consist of (protons and electrons). I discuss this in more detail within my book.

[johanfprins]

j,

I get all that. What I don't get is what the box is made of. What is the wall material.

BTW every effort at explaining to idiots like me clarifies your explanation. This last one was even better than the one I "got".

Last missing piece: the "walls" of the box.

I have never made such a box: But I would guess that one will use metal sheeting, which can stand the tempetrature, to form the box. Then surround the external walls with suitable heater-elements so that they can be heated uniformly: And then place this box with its heater-elements within an insulating cavity; most probably made aluminium oxide blocks. The latter will be required to keep the heat within the walls of the box and within the cavity that these walls surround.

[MSimon]

Not that box.

The box that confines the electron/wave.

[johanfprins]

Not that box.

The box that confines the electron/wave.

Sorry I am so stupid. You mean the boundary conditions that confine the electron-wave to be stationary within its own inertial refrence frame. For all objects in stationary equilibrium, there appears a restoring force when one moves it from equilibrium. Newton defined this resistance from being moved from equilibrium as the mass of an object. Thus mass must relate to a restoring force. It is quite funny that the solution comes from Newton's pet hate: Robert Hooke. One can always write a restoring force along a direction x as equal to -K*x.

Now to make a long story short: If you assume that such a potential causes the mass, and then solve for the minimum wave such a potential will cause, one obtains a Gaussian function that has an intensity which is determined by the mass and the gravitaional field energy around the mass. Furthermore, this force implies an opposite (positiven charge) along a fourth space dimension, and this in turn gives a radius of curvature for three-dimensinal space around the electron-mass. One can then write the mass of the electron as being inversely proportional to this radius of curvature and the constant of proprtionality consists of all the fundamental constants one finds within the fine structure constant. It seems to directly connects wave mechanics to gravitational curvature.

[MSimon]

So the "box" is the charge of the electron?