Scientists uncover clues to role of magnetism in iron-based superconductors

Aug 21, 2014 by Morgan Mccorkle
Oak Ridge National Laboratory scientists used scanning transmission electron microscopy to measure atomic-scale magnetic behavior in several families of iron-based superconductors. Credit: ORNL

New measurements of atomic-scale magnetic behavior in iron-based superconductors by researchers at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Vanderbilt University are challenging conventional wisdom about superconductivity and magnetism.

The study published in Advanced Materials provides experimental evidence that local magnetic fluctuations can influence the performance of iron-based superconductors, which transmit electric current without resistance at relatively high temperatures.

"In the past, everyone thought that magnetism and could not coexist," said ORNL's Claudia Cantoni, the study's first author. "The whole idea of superconductors is that they expel magnetic fields. But in reality things are more complicated."

Superconductivity is strongly suppressed by the presence of long-range magnetism—where atoms align their magnetic moments over large volumes—but the ORNL study suggests that rapid fluctuations of local magnetic moments have a different effect. Not only does localized magnetism exist, but it is also correlated with a high critical temperature, the point at which the material becomes superconducting.

"One would think for superconductivity to exist, not only the long-range order but also the local magnetic moments would have to die out," Cantoni said. "We saw instead that if one takes a fast 'picture' of the local moment, it is actually at its maximum where superconductivity is at its maximum. This indicates that a large local moment is good for superconductivity."

The ORNL-led team used a combination of scanning transmission and electron energy loss spectroscopy to characterize the magnetic properties of individual atoms. Other experimental techniques have not been able to capture information on the local magnetic moments in sufficient detail.

"This kind of measurement of magnetic moments is usually done with more bulk-sensitive techniques, which means they look at the average of the material," Cantoni said. "When you use the average, you might not get the right answer."

The team's four-year comprehensive study analyzed compounds across several families of iron-based , revealing universal trends among the different samples. The researchers were able to figure out the total number and distribution of electrons in atomic energy levels that determine the local .

"We find this number remains constant for all the members of this family," Cantoni said. "The number of electrons doesn't change—what changes are the positions and distribution of electrons in different levels. This is why the magnetic moment differs across families."

The ORNL scientists also say the technique they demonstrated on could be useful in studies of other technologically interesting materials in fields such as electronics and data storage.

"Electron microscopy has long been an imaging technique that gives you a lot of crystal structure information; now we're trying to go beyond to get the electronic structure," Cantoni said. "Not only do we want to know what atoms are where, but what the electrons in those atoms are doing."

Explore further: Scientists discover new magnetic phase in iron-based superconductors

More information: The research is published as "Orbital occupancy and charge doping in iron-based superconductors." onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10… a.201401518/abstract

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Ti-V alloys' superconductivity: Inherent, not accidental

Jun 23, 2014

Physicists from India have shed new light on a long-unanswered question related to superconductivity in so-called transition metal binary alloys. The team revealed that the local magnetic fluctuations, or ...

Superconducting secrets solved after 30 years

Jun 17, 2014

(Phys.org) —A breakthrough has been made in identifying the origin of superconductivity in high-temperature superconductors, which has puzzled researchers for the past three decades.

Study finds physical link to strange electronic behavior

Aug 01, 2014

Scientists have new clues this week about one of the baffling electronic properties of the iron-based high-temperature superconductor barium iron nickel arsenide. A Rice University-led team of U.S., German ...

Manipulating magnetic forces with light

Aug 06, 2014

The magnetic forces in magnetic materials like iron can be rapidly manipulated with light. Rubicon Researcher Johan Mentink, together with Martin Eckstein from the University of Hamburg CFEL/MPSD, has theoretically ...

Recommended for you

Universe may face a darker future

2 hours ago

New research offers a novel insight into the nature of dark matter and dark energy and what the future of our Universe might be.

High-intensity sound waves may aid regenerative medicine

20 hours ago

Researchers at the University of Washington have developed a way to use sound to create cellular scaffolding for tissue engineering, a unique approach that could help overcome one of regenerative medicine's ...

User comments : 62

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2014
More millions of dollars wasted to find the obvious!!

"In the past, everyone thought that magnetism and superconductivity could not coexist,"
Only those morons who believe that electron-pairing is required for SC to occur, have been barking up this wrong tree.
Toiea
1 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2014
This research is actually very distant from the frontier findings of superconductors, which are working above room temperature or even ultraconductors, where the principle of superconductivity manifest itself in very straightforward way and it's known for decades. The iron superconductors are of complex behavior due to paramagnetism of their atoms and of low temperature of superconductive transition = unsuitable for practical applications. But the mainstream scientists are attracted not to the useful & theoretically transparent topics - but to the topics, which are promising most of research and jobs places.
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2014
@ Toiea,

Master of Bullshitting boring us again with the absurd!!
Toiea
1 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2014
I can imagine, you feel offended, but try to explain the working of ultraconductors by your own words - and we'll see.
johanfprins
2 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2014
I can imagine, you feel offended, but try to explain the working of ultraconductors by your own words - and we'll see.


I have mathematically modelled the mechanism responsible for ALL superconductors: It explains low temperature metals, ceramics, semiconductors, polymers etc. It has nothing in common with your hallucinations which are based on ducks farting in the aether. Can you do calculus?

It is impossible to be offended by a nincompoop joker!
Toiea
1 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2014
I have mathematically modeled the mechanism responsible for ALL superconductors
OK, so you have done a regression of it - you just derived the function curve passing through experimental points. OK, so we know it's a parabola (or whatever else function) - but where the explanation is? What happens during it? You're just repeating the dull reductionist approach of mainstream physics.
johanfprins
2 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2014
@ Toiea,
I have posted the mechanism at least a 100 times on these forums: So let me try again to get it through your thick skull.
The charge-carriers are localised Mott-type orbitals, which are STATIONARY when no current is flowing. When injecting a charge-carrier, it replaces a stationary orbital near the contact, which then "tunnel"-jump further to replace the next orbital, which then "tunnel "-jump further etc.
A t-jump only occurs when the orbital has energy (delta)E to break loose AND have kinetic energy to move to the next site. This energy comes from a quantum fluctuation which allows it only to manifest for a limited time (delat)t.Thus there is after the jump no energy to dissipate.
If the orbitals are too far from one another t-jumps are not possible. Within the ceramics these orbitals already form before the distances between them become small enough to allow SC. They then form the pseudogap phase.When their density becomes high enough, t-jumps kick in: SC occurs.
Toiea
1 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2014
OK, try to comment this picture of ultraconductor mechanism. What is good and wrong in the description of this picture? What this picture has in common with your description and what it hasn't? What is what by your mechanism there? For example, I don't see any tunneling there.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2014
The charge-carriers are localised Mott-type orbitals, which are STATIONARY when no current is flowing. When injecting a charge-carrier, it replaces a stationary orbital near the contact, which then "tunnel"-jump further to replace the next orbital, which then "tunnel "-jump further etc.
A t-jump only occurs when the orbital has energy (delta)E to break loose AND have kinetic energy to move to the next site. This energy comes from a quantum fluctuation which allows it only to manifest for a limited time (delat)t.Thus there is after the jump no energy to dissipate.
If the orbitals are too far from one another t-jumps are not possible. Within the ceramics these orbitals already form before the distances between them become small enough to allow SC. They then form the pseudogap phase.When their density becomes high enough, t-jumps kick in: SC occurs.
So where in here specifically does the leap of faith occur? Can you quantify it for the audience?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Aug 23, 2014
@ Toiea,

I see nothing about stationary localised sates that move by means of qunatum fluctuations. In ffact they talk about running waves, which cannot be responsible for superconduction EVER!
johanfprins
3 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2014
@ TheGhostofOtto1923
So where in here specifically does the leap of faith occur? Can you quantify it for the audience?


The FULL quantitative model has been available since 2005 and also on the internet since 2011. I have posted the reference time and again. I will do so again and hope that you will try and read it. It is spelled out mathematically in detail and applied to metals, ceramics, semiconductors and amorphous metals: It fits all the data that I have encountered so far. Now please read it at:
http://www.cathod...nism.pdf

For God's sake!!!!
johanfprins
2 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2014
For a charge-carrier to move from one position to the next, it MUST do work. Only when it can borrow energy to do this work, and then return the energy en toto afterwards can there be no dissipation of energy. Quantum Mechanics through (delat)E*(delta)t=g*(hbar) makes this possible, or else energy MUST be dissipated owing to the Second Law of

BTW: the claims that they measure a charge of minus 2e is false since what they meusre is (minuse)/g: and for localised stationary states g is usually near 1/2.THERE ARE NO COOPER PAIRS THAT CAUSES SC!!!!!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2014
My sentence became chopped: It should have read the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2014
For God's sake!!!!

And God spake -
"Hunh-unh.. leave me out o' this..."
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2014
I can imagine, you feel offended, but try to explain the working of ultraconductors by your own words - and we'll see.
@zephir
actually, if you will look at his background in materials science and his page of publications you will find that he likely knows FAR more than you zephir... start here with this study: http://rtn.elektr...rins.pdf , http://iopscience...18/3/319

when you can publish a like study, perhaps then we will take into consideration your continued soliloquy into superconducting materials
Toiea
1 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2014
The fact you know about subject more details doesn't mean, you cannot be more biased also. We already have whole generations of physicists, who studied the non-working theories and models to amazing depth (string theory as an example). Illustratively speaking, they studied continental bugs inside of deep forest and they missed the point, they're at island and these bugs are died out already. Isn't it a waste of tax payers money and human effort? Couldn't we employ these physicists for solving of more perspective if not urgent and useful projects? Apparently not for scientists who just enjoy their stuffs. Are we really investing into science only for enjoyment of scientists and their feeling of expertise?

Anyway, regarding Prins, I respect his achievements on the field of HT superconductivity, but room temperature superconductors were revealed in 1981 and explained before Prins.
Toiea
1 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2014
To be honest, the fact J.F.Prins never cited these findings and its research/explanations in his books one could perceive as a sorta fraud and attempt for plagiarism. And regarding his opinion to quantum mechanics he is just plain silly. I'm afraid, his models of superconductivity will be ignored and forgotten with no mercy, partially due to his crackpotism of theoretical physics and bias in the field of quantum mechanics, partially due to his unscrupulous and personal attacks of members of scientific community. At any case, for explanation of high temperature superconductors you don't need to know anything about J.F.Prins and his theories - these explanations existed before nearly forty years already in connection with ultraconductors research. This doesn't say, the formal theory of J.F.Prins isn't step forward - but frankly, it's only framework, which you cannot apply to particular superconductor anyway. It will not help you calculate the temperature of superconductivity anyway.
Toiea
1 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2014
Currently J.F.Prins is considered an official crackpot, because his experiments were never replicated and they were dismissed as such. Which I personally disagree with and IMO the situation with cold fusion just repeated here. But today we already have another successful researchers and even industrial projects focused to practical applications, rather than merely esoteric effects at the surface of diamond layers.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2014
The fact you know about subject more details doesn't mean, you cannot be more biased also
@zephir
never said that was the case, only said that he brought more evidence to the table.
When you REFUTE something, you should bring the same level of evidence (or better) than what is used to prove something. In science, and in studies, this is the peer reviewed publications in reputable journals with an impact in the area you are publishing (ie cosmology, materials physics, etc). if you will REFUTE him, skip the blogs and conjecture and use the studies
IOW - he has a background in the area so argue with studies in that area... not with comments
http://i.imgur.com/K8VC9mi.gif
satire and hyperbole are not your strong suit, are they?
Currently J.F.Prins is considered as an official crackpot
I know he can be here at times!
so....
use evidence AGAINST him, not just comments

Toiea
2 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2014
he has a background in the area so argue with studies in that area
Frankly, regarding the qualification, which background do you have? You're not supposed to advice anyone here, only to argue logically (which is systematical problem for you).
When you REFUTE something, you should bring the same level of evidence (or better) than what is used to prove something
This was just the subject of my last question, which I asked J.F.Prins. He dismissed many stuffs here, so I asked for evidence.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2014
The FULL quantitative model has been available since 2005 and also on the internet since 2011. I have posted the reference time and again. I will do so again and hope that you will try and read it. It is spelled out mathematically in detail and applied to metals, ceramics, semiconductors and amorphous metals: It fits all the data that I have encountered so far. Now please read it at:
Well actually I would rather read it in the news. Or here at physorg in a nice article.

But I havent. How come? Perhaps universal spellcheck will not allow words like insulduction in the public domain?
Toiea
1 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2014
satire and hyperbole are not your strong suit, are they?
Well, if only this "satire" wouldn't the very sad truth. Currently the cold fusion research gets ignored with mainstream physics for decades for not to doubt the enjoyment of physicists in another areas of research of energy production/conversion/transport or storage. I.e. exactly from the reasons, for which R. Wilson recommended the censorship of all insights, which could threat the happy life of physicists. This is especially not very enjoyable today, when we face a nuclear conflicts for the rest of fossil fuel fields at many places (Middle East, Senkaku Islands or oil fields near Crimea) - and I don't even mention the destruction of life environment in this regard. Every fun has its own tangible consequences here. If you cannot see these consequences, then I can do it definitely.
Toiea
1 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2014
For laymen J.F.Prins explanations are still overly abstract and complex. Their basic idea is correct though - but it still doesn't hits the actual origin: WHY the electrons are forming some Mott-type orbitals at all and the tunneling effect, which he uses for explanation of their free motion isn't always dominant neither - which is particularly just the case of ultraconductors above mentioned. The famous Einstein's remark "You understand your theory if only you can explain it to your grandma" targets just the focus to the actual causal origin of physical models. Once you will not achieve it, then your theory remains abstract, ad-hoced and difficult to swallow for laymen. And also, missing the causal origin of superconductivity also means, you still have no robust criterion for further research. Yes, the electrons are forming Mott orbitals. Which materials therefore should I therefore choose/use/prepare for to get these orbitals? I've a theory, OK. What I should therefore do right now?
Toiea
1 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2014
Please note, that you don't need some formal theory at all once you get the basic principle. Joe Eck is rising the temperature of his superconductors whole years like robot just with using of few simple rules. He doesn't bother with some theory, Mott orbitals and/or tunneling at all. He is just focused to the actual problem. If the other scientists would do the same, we would all have the room temperature superconductors in our kitchen and maybe even toilets.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2014
Anyway, regarding Prins, I respect his achievements on the field of HT superconductivity, but room temperature superconductors were revealed in 1981 and explained before Prins.
I have looked at this data: There might be some truth in it; BUT these results are not explained by any model whatsoever that can be taken seriously. In this regard the so-called "explanation" is just as absurd as the BCS model, for which a Nobel Prize was awarded. One must explain where the energy comes from to move the charge-carriers without any dissipation in this energy: If you cannot do that, you do not know what the hell you are talking about!
johanfprins
2 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2014
This doesn't say, the formal theory of J.F.Prins isn't step forward - but frankly, it's only framework, which you cannot apply to particular superconductor anyway. It will not help you calculate the temperature of superconductivity anyway.
This is EXACTLY wehat I have done in the reference I gave above, and my model fits low temperature SC's , ceramics, semiconductors etc. Please fit YOUR model to the data I have fitted my model to, and let us compare. If you do not post these fits within a week, we will know that you are an incompetent fraud! What is your qualifications? You are just an idiot who cannot even do a differentiation or an integral!! If the latter is not the case, prove your qualifications!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2014
To be honest, the fact J.F.Prins never cited these findings and its research/explanations in his books one could perceive as a sorta fraud and attempt for plagiarism.
I consider this crimen injuria. If I did not know that it came from the biggest idiot on this planet, and I had then resources, I would have sued immediately. I am posting here that I will sue in future if and when my resources allow me to do so!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2014
This doesn't say, the formal theory of J.F.Prins isn't step forward - but frankly, it's only framework, which you cannot apply to particular superconductor anyway. It will not help you calculate the temperature of superconductivity anyway.
I have done this in the refrence I gave aove. BCS and your farting ducks in a pond cannot do this!! So stop lying you backward bastard son of a whore!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2014
Well actually I would rather read it in the news. Or here at physorg in a nice article.

But I havent. How come? Perhaps universal spellcheck will not allow words like insulduction in the public domain?
Because you are to brainless to read anything else than PhysOrg about physics and to understand what you are reading: QED!

You are even to brainless to understand what you read on PhysOrg.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2014
The famous Einstein's remark "You understand your theory if only you can explain it to your grandma" targets just the focus to the actual causal origin of physical models.
Absolutely correct! But Einstein's grandma had brains: she would not havecvproduced an IDIOT like you who will never undwerstand ANYTHING, no matter how simple it is!

Yes, the electrons are forming Mott orbitals.
Now you change your tune!! LOL!!

Which materials therefore should I therefore choose/use/prepare for to get these orbitals?
It is all in my patent! Arsehole!!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2014
Please note, that you don't need some formal theory at all once you get the basic principle. Joe Eck is http://www.superc...mini.jpg whole years like robot just with using of few simple rules.
Where is Joe Eck's superconductors with two contacts between which a supercdonducting current flows? I know of NO such material whatsoever.

You are just a pathetic idiot! I hope it does not have anything to do with being an Eastern European? No it cannot be: I do have friends in Eastern Europe, who contrary to you, have brains.
Toiea
1 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2014
In this regard the so-called "explanation" is just as absurd as the BCS model
We already know that. We just don't know, why you're believing in it.
One must explain where the energy comes from to move the charge-carriers without any dissipation in this energy:
Huh? No energy is required for motion without any dissipation of energy. The rest of yours posts is entertaining but even less substantiated, then these ones I just cited.
johanfprins
2 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2014
Only people who have something to hide post under pseudonyms. TROLLS thus always do. I do not. So I am not a troll
Only people who are criminals spout about physics without revealing their competency in this subject. I do not do so since my credentials and CV is on internet for all to see. Thus I am not a criminal.
Only people who are incompetent depend on peer review in order to decide what is valid. I am competent enough to decide for myself what is relevant and what not. I do not require faceless peers to form my opinions.
Only scoundrels are willing to act as peer reviewers while remaining anonymous. I always asked the journals for which I did reviewing, for example, Phys. Rev. :etter, Phys. Rev B, Phil Mag, etc. NOT to keep me anonymous. I am not a faceless scoundrel.

I wish that people who post on this forum, would be willing to display the same integrity: But I suppose that this type of honesty in physics have been totally lost during the 20th century after 1927.
Toiea
1 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2014
Only scoundrels are willing to act as peer reviewers while remaining anonymous
This is the whole principle of peer-review to stay anonymous from good reason (or they referee would face the legal threat from people like you all the time). Nobody says, you're a troll, criminal, incompetent and/or faceless scoundrel - but the posting of on topic arguments instead of fallacies and ad-hominem attacks at this forum requires more than this. If you'll continue with it, then the people like me will not take you seriously in the same way, like the other physicists. What counts today in not the number of PDF's presented at the web, but the number of citations, if you didn't realize it.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2014
Only scoundrels are willing to act as peer reviewers while remaining anonymous
This is the whole principle of peer-review to stay anonymous from good reason (or they referee would face the legal threat from people like you all the time).


A further demonstration of how a brainless SOT you are. If people sitting in judgment should be protected by anonymity, all judges should sit behind curtains in court. There are very good moral and legal reasons why this is not allowed: It MUST lead to the same corruption in our justice syustems than we now have in our peer-review systems. Furthermore, even if a referee is anonymous, and a legal reason appears for which I can sue him/her, the editor is obliged to reveal his/her identity to the court.

Anonymity ALWAYS breeds corruption and should thus NEVER be allowed: Also not for criminals like you who post on the internet under pseudonyms. Do you have ANY grey matter between your ears?
Toiea
3 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2014
Also not for criminals like you who post on the Internet under pseudonyms
Do you have brown matter between your ears? Many public forums (like the reddit) even have the violation of anonymity of posters as the first of criterions for immediate and permanent ban. If you don't like it, then just return to scientific community and try to wait for its appreciation under your actual name (you don't have quite lotta time for it already). Anyway, this discussion is not dedicated for senile opinions how the Internet should be working, for personal attacks the less. Return to mechanism of superconductivity, or you'll get ignored and reported.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2014
Well actually I would rather read it in the news. Or here at physorg in a nice article.

But I havent. How come? Perhaps universal spellcheck will not allow words like insulduction in the public domain?
Because you are to brainless to read anything else than PhysOrg about physics and to understand what you are reading: QED!

You are even to brainless to understand what you read on PhysOrg.
Im merely pointing out that it doesn't appear to have had the cultural impact that it should have if it were real, if anybody took it seriously, if it made any sense at all, if it had any practical applications at all, etc.

In other words for something which should have significant impact, your theories seem to have none whatsoever. This was my point. Did you miss it?

You seem to be invisible to the real world. Perhaps because your world is imaginary?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2014
Only scoundrels are willing to act as peer reviewers while remaining anonymous. I always asked the journals for which I did reviewing, for example, Phys. Rev. :etter, Phys. Rev B, Phil Mag, etc. NOT to keep me anonymous. I am not a faceless scoundrel.

I wish that people who post on this forum, would be willing to display the same integrity: But I suppose that this type of honesty in physics have been totally lost during the 20th century after 1927.
Hmmmm so you haven't done peer review since 1927. This explains a lot.
mikep608
1 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2014
"The electrical resistivity of a metallic conductor decreases gradually as temperature is lowered. In ordinary conductors, such as copper or silver, this decrease is limited by impurities and other defects. Even near absolute zero, a real sample of a normal conductor shows some resistance. In a superconductor, the resistance drops abruptly to zero when the material is cooled below its critical temperature. An electric current flowing through a loop of superconducting wire can persist indefinitely with no power source." ........................THE AMOUNT OF PULL A PROTON HAS IS DEPENDANT ON THE FREQUENCY THAT IT EMITS. WHEN THE FORCE OF THIS FREQUENCY SLOWS DOWN THE ELECTRONS ARE NOT SHIELDED FROM AETHER AS WELL. THEY CAN FLOW MORE EASILY. THE POSITIVE CHARGE ALSO WEAKENS AND THE STRONG FORCE INCREASES WHEN THE FREQUENCY IS WEAKEND,
johanfprins
3 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2014
Please post your credentials and CV: Obviously, none of you even have a certificate in masturbating since this is what you try and do on this forum, but without any success. All you are ejaculating is SNOT!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2014
1905 is remembered as a miracle year for physics. Albert Einstein published a series of papers which pointed physics into a new era. The two most important publications are:
1.A model for the photo-electric effect based on the postulate that each electron, which is ejected from a metal, when irradiating the metal with light having a frequency f, absorbs only a quantum of light-energy equal to hf. The existence of such light-quanta had been postulated by Max Planck in 1900 when he modelled black-body radiation; and therefore h is known as Planck's constant.
2 An explanation for the validity of the Lorentz-equations, which had been jointly discovered by Hendrik Antoon Lorentz and Henri Pioncaré during the time-interval 1898 to 1904. Einstein had the insight that light must move with the same speed relative to any matter-entity in the universe, no matter with what speed the latter entity is moving relative to another matter-enity.
continued
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2014
Unfortunately Einstein did not formulate his postulate on light speed in such clear terms: But let us give him the benefit of the doubt! He, at least, correctly mentioned (in passing) that light-waves do not move within a medium (aether).

The latter is easy to prove by simply solving Maxwell's equations for the electric- and magnetic-field componenents (James Clarke Maxwell: 1831 to 1879) of light emitted by different light-sources moving with different speeds. It is thus amazing that one can still find persons who argue that light-waves do move within aether: The latter persons are similar to the members of the "flat-earth society"! We will always have such idiots with us!
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2014
Please post your credentials and CV: Obviously, none of you even have a certificate in masturbating
-And you do, is that what youre saying? Is this something else you havent done since 1927?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2014
Please post your credentials and CV: Obviously, none of you even have a certificate in masturbating...

You have one?!?!? I'm so envious...
I'd like to get one, too. Can you recommend an learning institute that would offer it?
Perhaps the alma mater that provided yours...
mikep608
1 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2014
Unfortunately Einstein did not formulate his postulate on light speed in such clear terms: But let us give him the benefit of the doubt! He, at least, correctly mentioned (in passing) that light-waves do not move within a medium (aether).

The latter is easy to prove by simply solving Maxwell's equations for the electric- and magnetic-field componenents (James Clarke Maxwell: 1831 to 1879) of light emitted by different light-sources moving with different speeds. It is thus amazing that one can still find persons who argue that light-waves do move within aether: The latter persons are similar to the members of the "flat-earth society"! We will always have such idiots with us!


Light waves do not move within aether. They are part of aether itself. Einstein isn't god or fantasy level smart and therefore is wrong. his theory of relativity isn't even that brilliant. the Greeks had a similar concept. Einstein also didn't understand light.
Toiea
3 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2014
prove by simply solving Maxwell's equations for the electric- and magnetic-field componenents of light emitted by different light-sources moving with different speeds. It is thus amazing that one can still find persons who argue that light-waves do move within aether
Somewhat ironically Maxwell derived his equations just from aether model...;-) It seems, you missed some important point - which one?

Only one thing is worse, than the confused mainstream physicist - an old confused mainstream physicist. He cannot learn any new tricks already. The talking with him is similar to convincing the stone.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2014
Light waves do not move within aether. They are part of aether itself. Einstein isn't god or fantasy level smart and therefore is wrong. his theory of relativity isn't even that brilliant. the Greeks had a similar concept. Einstein also didn't understand light.

Shedding some more light for us as an untrained observer, Mike?
For the record, I am still on the fence about the exact nature of light, m'self, though.
But my postulates are kept in my head until I have enough facts to entertain probabilities...
Toiea
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2014
Shedding some more light for us as an untrained observer, Mike?
I could answer it myself, but I just leave that pleasure for Mike. I'm interested about relativity of old Greeks, instead (or just a link?)
mikep608
1 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2014
Unfortunately Einstein did not formulate his postulate on light speed in such clear terms: But let us give him the benefit of the doubt! He, at least, correctly mentioned (in passing) that light-waves do not move within a medium (aether).

The latter is easy to prove by simply solving Maxwell's equations for the electric- and magnetic-field componenents (James Clarke Maxwell: 1831 to 1879) of light emitted by different light-sources moving with different speeds. It is thus amazing that one can still find persons who argue that light-waves do move within aether: The latter persons are similar to the members of the "flat-earth society"! We will always have such idiots with us!

All EMR including light is the same thing with different causes. This means the medium they exist in are the same. Maxwell's equations are just simply that--equations. they need to be applied properly Equations are like a painting. some are more photo realistic than others. they are only a representation.
mikep608
1.3 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2014
Shedding some more light for us as an untrained observer, Mike?
I could answer it myself, but I just leave that pleasure for Mike. I'm interested about relativity of old Greeks, instead (or just a link?)

university student of 5 years. And you? There are no such things as experts in areas of research.Why? it is still being researched.
Toiea
3 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2014
the Greeks had a similar concept
So what can you tell us about it? I don't like, when the aether proponents are inventing stuffs - this just makes the disservice to the whole concept. Even worse, when they call themselves an "university students".
mikep608
1 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2014
the Greeks had a similar concept
So what you can tell us about it? I don't like, when the aether proponents are inventing stuffs - this just makes the disservice to the whole concept. Even worse, when they call themselves an "university students".

being a university student I know what they know and what they don't know. ideas such as relativity, atoms, and infintesimals ( logic that calculus is based on) has inspiration from ideas the Greeks had. Achilles racing the turtle for example. arguments with the Sophists about relativistic attitudes etc.
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2014
the Greeks had a similar concept
So what you can tell us about it? I don't like, when the aether proponents are inventing stuffs - this just makes the disservice to the whole concept. Even worse, when they call themselves an "university students".

being a university student I know what they know and what they don't know. ideas such as relativity, atoms, and infintesimals ( logic that calculus is based on) has inspiration from ideas the Greeks had. Achilles racing the turtle for example. arguments with the Sophists about relativistic attitudes etc.

curious as to your degree direction...
Oh, and - life experience as computer cryptographer, network analyst and artist....
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2014
Shedding some more light for us as an untrained observer, Mike?
I could answer it myself, but I just leave that pleasure for Mike. I'm interested about relativity of old Greeks, instead (or just a link?)

university student of 5 years. And you? There are no such things as experts in areas of research.Why? it is still being researched.

Ok... THAT was kinda funny....
johanfprins
3 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2014
Somewhat ironically Maxwell derived his equations http://ether.wiki...en...;-)
No he DID NOT: He derived it from the mutual induction of magnetic- and electric-fields. Since the differential equations are the same format as those for waves that move within a medium he interpreted electromagnetic waves to also be moving in an aether: Which is impossible.

Within a medium, a wave periodically exchanges potential and kinetic energy WITHIN the medium: Therefore a stationary wave still vibrates. When you trap an EM wave within a perfectly reflecting cavity so that it becomes stationary it cannot vibrate with time since if it does it would mean that its TOTAL EM energy periodically goes to zero: This would violate the conservation of energy.

Only one thing is worse..., He cannot learn any new tricks already.
No it is worse to talk to an idiot who cannot even understand calculus, but who thinks he knows while he knows F-ALL. Quack! Quack!

johanfprins
3 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2014
All EMR including light is the same thing with different causes.
At last an intelligent remark.
This means the medium they exist in are the same.
Followed by an idiotic reamark! The waves exist within empty space: The latter is NOT a medium like air or water.
Maxwell's equations are just simply that--equations. they need to be applied properly
Correct: But they are being ignored by modern theoretical physicists who believe in the Voodoo of "wave-particle duality".
Equations are like a painting. some are more photo realistic than others
Bullshit! Equations are either fitting the results or not fitting the resuls. And even when they fit the resultsa new result might be found which proves that they were all along deeply flawed. If you are a modern theoretical physicist, you, instead of looking for new physics,then fudge the equations to suit what you WANT to believe. The latter is called RENORMALIZATION!
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2014
the Greeks had a similar concept
So what you can tell us about it? I don't like, when the aether proponents are inventing stuffs - this just makes the disservice to the whole concept. Even worse, when they call themselves an "university students".

being a university student I know what they know and what they don't know. ideas such as relativity, atoms, and infintesimals ( logic that calculus is based on) has inspiration from ideas the Greeks had. Achilles racing the turtle for example. arguments with the Sophists about relativistic attitudes etc.

curious as to your degree direction...
Philosophy obviously. Figures.
Watebba
not rated yet Aug 25, 2014
But they are being ignored by modern theoretical physicists who believe in the Voodoo of "wave-particle duality".
You apparently missed the introduction of whole quantum mechanics into physics. If everything would be "just a wave", then we don't need to bother with some Dirac/Schrodinger equations at all - the Maxwell waves would be enough. But they aren't - the Maxwell waves are pure transverse waves, the quantum waves are forming wave packets, because they describe the waves of environment, the density of which depends on momentary energy density. No Maxwellian wave behaves so - with boundary condition or without it. Even the quantum equations need some boundary condition, after all.
Watebba
1 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2014
The mutual connection between classical, quantum and relativistic electrodynamics is not very difficult to understand in context of water surface analogy of AWT. At the water surface the ripples undergo three regimes according to their wavelength/distance scale. The ripples of certain wavelength (~ 2 cm) do behave like pure transverse waves and they therefore correspond the classical Maxweell equations. Also, special relativity is based on transverse wave spreading (with no interference / reference frame of underwater).

Bellow this distance scale the influence of Brownian noise at the water surface cannot be neglected. Every wave reveals another density fluctuations and it slows-down another ripples, moving across it. The increase of specific are corresponds the frequency, which corresponds the energy density. After then the water surface behaves like elastic membrane, the mass density of which increases proportionally with energy density - we are in realm of quantum mechanics.
Watebba
1 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2014
The same relativistic mass/energy dependence applies to larger scale, where the transverse waves are getting scattered in the same way, like at the smaller scales - the celerity curve goes through minimum at the 2 cm wavelength. Again, the mass-energy equivalence applies to deform of water surface - the density of water surface is proportional the specific area of it which is proportional to deform of water surface, i.e. the curvature of space-time formed with water surface. Which is essentially, what the Einstein's field equations are about (the energy content of gravity field is proportional to energy density of its curvature). We have whole contemporary physics pretty well demonstrated/illustrated at the water surface.
Watebba
1 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2014
Errata: "The increase of specific are" = the increase of specific area.

The undulations of water surface always expand the water surface, but it doesn't make a problem at the classical scale, where the positive curvatures of space-time balance these negative ones. Outside of this scope the dilatation of water surface due to its curvature exposes excess of density fluctuation of one type. These density fluctuations represent an obstacles or just density gradients, which are slowing the spreading of ripples. From this moment the behavior of surface ripples becomes nonlinear and it changes into solitons, i.e. particle-wave packets.

Analogously, the quantum fluctuations of vacuum (which are known as a Higgs field at smallest scales) do represent a nonlinearity for light waves, once their wavelength falls bellow 2 cm, which corresponds the wavelength of CMBR). In this way the connection of Higgs field to E=mc2 equation becomes apparent - it gives the "mass" to energy waves.
Watebba
1 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2014
For Johann it would be difficult to convince me about invalidity of particle-wave duality and Higgs field, because just these things give a very good meaning for explanation of mass energy equivalence and nonlinear behavior of quantum waves or space-time curved. These things simply fit quite well each other at the logical/geometric level. I can imagine the inner working of these equations in my head in geometric way - and after the above explanation you should be able to imagine it too.

What Johann did was, he replaced the postulate of Higgs field with Lorentz invariance postulate. We already told, that when the water surface gets curved too much, then the nonlinear effects of its density fluctuations (Higgs field analogy) manifest itself. As the result, the surface wave get slowed in just the way, which is required for maintaining of its fixed speed along curved surface. The requirement of Higgs field can be therefore formally replaced with introduction of Lorentz invariance.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.