Quantum fluctuations are key in superconductors

Jan 08, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- New experiments on a recently discovered class of iron-based superconductors suggest that the ability of their electrons to conduct electricity without resistance is directly connected with the magnetic properties of those electrons.

Results of the experiments appear in the Jan. 8 issue of Physical Review Letters. The tests, which were carried out by a team of U.S. and Chinese physicists, shed light on the fundamental nature of high-temperature superconductivity, said Rice physicist Qimiao Si, a co-author on the study.

If better understood, high-temperature superconductors could be used to revolutionize electric generators, MRI scanners, high-speed trains and other devices.

In the study, scientists from Rice University, the University of Tennessee, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Chinese Academy of Sciences' Institute of Physics and Renmin University in Beijing examined several compounds. These are the "undoped" parents of the iron "pnictides" (pronounced: NICK-tides), a class of materials that were found to be high-temperature superconductors in 2008.

The experiments set out to test theoretical predictions that Si and collaborators published in the last March. They predicted that varying the size of some atoms in the parent compounds could allow physicists to tune the material's quantum fluctuations. These types of fluctuations can create tipping points called magnetic "quantum critical points," a state that exists when a material is at the cusp of transitioning from one quantum phase to another.

Using neutron-scattering facilities at NIST and ORNL, the team bombarded the materials with neutrons to decipher their structural and magnetic properties. The tests, which supported Si's theoretical predictions, determined that the strength of magnetic order in the materials was reduced when arsenic atoms were replaced with slightly smaller phosphorus atoms.

"We found the first direct evidence that a magnetic quantum critical point exists in these materials," Si said.

The results were made possible by the efforts of Nanlin Wang, a physicist from the Chinese Academy of Sciences' Institute of Physics, and his research group. They created a series of samples with varying amounts of phosphorous substituting for arsenic.

The discovery of high-temperature superconductivity in copper-oxide ceramics in 1986 led physicists to realize that quantum effects in electronic materials were far more complex than anticipated. One of these effects is quantum criticality. Criticality occurs near a tipping point that a material goes through when it changes phases. Many phase changes -- like ice melting into water -- occur because of thermal fluctuations. But quantum criticalities and quantum phase changes arise solely from quantum fluctuations.

"Our finding of a quantum critical point in iron pnictides opens the door for new avenues of research into this important class of materials," said University of Tennessee/ORNL physicist Pengcheng Dai, a neutron scattering specialist.

Si said, "The evidence from this study bolsters the hypothesis that in the iron pnictides originates from electronic magnetism. This should be contrasted to conventional low-temperature superconductivity, which is caused by ionic vibrations."

Explore further: Researchers make temporary, fundamental change to a material's properties

Related Stories

Physicists offer new theory for iron compounds

Mar 12, 2009

An international team of physicists from the United States and China this week offered a new theory to both explain and predict the complex quantum behavior of a new class of high-temperature superconductors.

Secrets behind high temperature superconductors revealed

Feb 22, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists from Queen Mary, University of London and the University of Fribourg (Switzerland) have found evidence that magnetism is involved in the mechanism behind high temperature superconductivity.

Recommended for you

How cloud chambers revealed subatomic particles

14 hours ago

Atoms are made of electrons, protons and neutrons. Protons and neutrons are in turn made up of quarks. These are just some of the elementary particles that make up the foundation of modern particle physics. ...

When a doughnut becomes an apple

15 hours ago

In experiments using the wonder material graphene, ETH researchers have been able to demonstrate a phenomenon predicted by a Russian physicist more than 50 years ago. They analyzed a layer structure that ...

User comments : 90

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

in7x
2.5 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2010
"If better understood, high-temperature superconductors could be used to revolutionize..."

EVERYTHING.
johanfprins
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2010
It is already well understood; but the so-called "experts" (they should rather be called cranks) on superconduction do not want to understand it since it would mean that "pairing of charge carriers" ARE NOT REQUIRED. In fact ALL superconduction occurs owing to quantum fluctuations as allowed by Heisenberg's uncertainty relationship for energy and time. The underlying mechanism is the same for ALL superconducting materials from metals to ceramics once they have gone through a suitable phase transformation which allows quantum fluctuations to dominate. These conditions lead to a simple quadratic equation which models superconduction as movement of charge-carriers (not necessarily pairs) by means of quantum fluctuations.
WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO GET THIS MESSAGE THROUGH THE THICK SKULLS OF THE SUPERCONDUCTING "EXPERTS"?
Nik_2213
not rated yet Jan 09, 2010
Okay, JohanFPrins, would your equation predict a mix that will work at -40 ?? Or predict that such is impossible ?

One opens the solar system and the other saves us chasing phantoms...
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2010
Okay, JohanFPrins, would your equation predict a mix that will work at -40 ?? Or predict that such is impossible ?

My equation predicts that the present CuO ceramics will not be able to superconduct above 200 K ever! I suspect that the same is true for pnictides: I have not studied their structure and can thus not state this with certainty: However, the masses of the atoms involved should prevent higher temperature superconduction.

My model predicts what the properties of a material should be to superconduct above room temperature: And I have prototype substrates which do exactly this: I have offered to demonstrate them to Electronic Companies which have the infrastructure to develop devices on them: So far no takers.

We are still in Galileo's time: "The earth is not moving since Aristotle and Ptolemy said so". Superconductors require Cooper Pairs because Bardeen, Cooper and Shrieffer said so! What a bunch of cranks!
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2010
Unfortunately there's too much emotional content. Otherwise I'd rated the comment "5".
flaredone
not rated yet Jan 10, 2010
The simplest explanation of high temperature superconductivity consist in fact, movable electrons are attracted to hole stripes inside of superconductor lattice in such a way, their repulsive forces are compensating mutually - so that some electrons can move freely in resulting dense electron clouds, surrounding the holes. This behavior corresponds so-called pseudogap state and ballistic transport of electrons, as observed in graphene.

At the moment, electron clouds are connected mutually, a superconductivity arises. The intriguing point of this model is in fact, the superconductive phase could be formed well outside of superconductor phase, i.e. near surface of insulator, to which electrons are attracted by electrostatic force. This behavior was revealed just by J.F.Prins experiments:

http://www.iop.or...8/3/319/
Nik_2213
not rated yet Jan 10, 2010
If I've understood the linked abstract, JFP's approach creates 'virtual' superconductor, side-stepping many material issues. Neat !

I'd guess that you'd need orbital nano-grav fabrication of mono-isotopic macro-diamond slabs to do it justice, but even that's nearer-term tech than eg ITER break-even...
flaredone
not rated yet Jan 10, 2010
Yep, you understood it well. No "mono-isotopic macro-diamond slabs" are required, after all - as Prins revealed his effect in ordinary CVD diamond layers. But the main problem is, J.F.Prins findings are essentially ignored by rest of superconductor community in similar way, like cold fusion or antigravity research. Thirty years delay is quite common here.
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2010
Unfortunately there's too much emotional content. Otherwise I'd rated the comment "5".

If after 10 years you could not succeed to explain to ANY superconductor-physicist when Ohm's law applies and when not, YOU will also be emotional. If not, you are not a human being.
It is impossible to be at peace if you know that such an important field in physics is under the control of such idiotic buffoons and cranks!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2010
The simplest explanation of high temperature superconductivity consist in fact, movable electrons are attracted to hole stripes ..

What nonsense will you invent next? Consider NORMAL conduction: There are two major processes (i) By means of wave-packets when the electron-waves are delocalised, and (ii) by means of thermal hopping when they are localised (i.e. when forming an insulator).
A superconductor is an insulator which conducts because its localised states move by quantum-mechanical "hopping" (I.E. NON-THERMAL FLUCTUATIONS). Therefore there can be no dissipation of energy and therefore there is NO resistance. IT IS SO SIMPLE: REALLY!!
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2010
If I've understood the linked abstract, JFP's approach creates 'virtual' superconductor, side-stepping many material issues. Neat !

Thanks! But it is not virtual: It is a real superconductor. The only virtual reality in superconduction is the BCS-model
I'd guess that you'd need orbital nano-grav fabrication of mono-isotopic macro-diamond slabs to do it justice, but even that's nearer-term tech than eg ITER break-even...

Come down from cloud-cuckoo land: The original phase I discovered led to the REAL mechanism for superconduction. For this reason I can now manufacture substrates that superconduct at room temperature; and even 100 C above room temperature. These substrates are reproducible and I invite anybody with the required lab facilities to test them.
WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT ME TO DO?????
flaredone
5 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2010
You should stop your fight against BCS-model, because it's working well for temperatures bellow 17 K.
johanfprins
3 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2010
You should stop your fight against BCS-model, because it's working well for temperatures bellow 17 K.

It does NOT: As I have asked you before, and then you just disappeared without answering, how does BCS explain the FACT that an applied conservative electric field is cancelled when superconduction initiates.
This is THE DEFINING characteristic of superconsduction at ANY temperature and BCS cannot model it and WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO MODEL IT!
As Einstein said: Only one small fact is sufficient to prove any model wrong!
RealScience
not rated yet Jan 10, 2010
JFP: I'd love for a room-temperature superconductor to be true, and a 100C+ one even more so.

What more can you do?
If I had such a discovery and no one in the field believed me, I would make a disk large enough to levitate a good-sized magnet (and as thin as possible), and exhibit it in the lobby at the next major meeting in the field, sitting on a glass stand so that everyone can see that there is no cooling system and no electromagnets.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Jan 11, 2010
What more can you do?
I would make a disk large enough to levitate a good-sized magnet (and as thin as possible), and exhibit it in the lobby at the next major meeting in the field, ...

Nice idea: But I am not Bill Gates. To make a device like that you need equipment and money. I am retired on a small pension and cannot obtain the money because the nincompoops in the field of superconduction block me (Catch 22).
As soon as I do get a sponsor with common sense, one can consider doing what you propose: However, it is NOT my primary concern to convince physicts anymore. They have proved to be too stupid to even understand when Ohm's law applies. The physics community sufferred a frontal lobotomy in Belgium during 1927; and I doubt whether it is possible to activate a single synapse within a modern physicists bony skull: Especially the buffoons and cranks who are doing research on superconduction!
Nik_2213
not rated yet Jan 11, 2010
Sorry, JFP, I was not being facetious with my comment about mono-isotopic diamond slabs: As a substrate, an insulator, a thermal conductor, a mechanical interface etc, it is the ideal material to support ambient temperature superconductors and allow their full potential.

Uh, would local Uni be helpful ? Bound to be some-one who needs an interdisciplinary project...
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2010
Sorry, JFP, I was not being facetious with my comment about mono-isotopic diamond slabs: .....

Thanks! The great thing is that one does not need such a "wonderful" material. I can generate superconduction on suitable non-isotopic substrates, substrates that contain high levels of contamination and even polycrystalline substrates.
Uh, would local Uni be helpful ? Bound to be some-one who needs an interdisciplinary project...

I suppose by Uni you mean University! No, rather not: Physicists at universities have deteriorated into a bunch of buffoons and idiots. This is easy to prove: If physicists who chair departments at Univeristies cannot even understand that Ohm's law ONLY applies when a material has sufficient resistivity, I will be better off catching a bunch of baboons in the Kruger National Park to assist me in an interdisciplanary project.
I can give the names of these physicists here in South Africa. Unfortunately the rot is worldwide!
Auxon
5 / 5 (1) Jan 11, 2010
@JP - For the layman, how does your understanding of Ohm's law work vs. what physicists think today? Can you explain why/how Ohm's law only applyies when a material has sufficient resistivity and what is sufficient? Interested in hearing about it.
in7x
not rated yet Jan 12, 2010
What is the molecular formula for your room temperature super-conductors? Or is that asking too much?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 12, 2010
@JP - For the layman, how does your understanding of Ohm's law work .....

Sorry I am only responding now. Sometimes "darkest Africa" becomes even darker: Expecially when the copper cables at your substation are stolen!
Ohm' law is an empirical relationship which only applies when the acceleration-scattering events of the charge-carriers are sufficiently high so that one can approximate their movement with a constant drift speed. When the resistivity is zero, the charge-carriers must be accelerated all the way; so that they cannot have an average constant drift speed: Ohm's law does not apply.
Thus the absence of voltage measured by Onnes when he discovered SC cannot be explained by invoking the mere absence of resistivity. What one must explain is why, in the absence of resistivity, the charge-carriers are not accelerated and how they can transport a current without being accelerated.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Jan 12, 2010
What is the molecular formula for your room temperature super-conductors? Or is that asking too much?

It is really very simple, but at this stage I can only say that one would prefer light atoms and bonds which maximise a certain parameter (which has nothing directly to do with phonons). This parameter cannot be maximised to te required level within the low temperature metals or the "high-temperature" ceramics in order to generate superconduction at room temperature. It is this parameter and the minimum value it must have which I am trying to safeguard as my IP.
For this reason I am not ready to disclose a molecular formula at this stage: Sorry!
flaredone
not rated yet Jan 12, 2010
..how does BCS explain the FACT that an applied conservative electric field is cancelled when superconduction initiates...
Law of electromagnetic induction considers counter-voltage, which prohibits the electron in motion.
For this reason I am not ready to disclose a molecular formula at this stage: Sorry!
Why not to publish it on ArXiv or ViXra? After all, we know about (nearly) room temperature superconductors already.

http://www.superc...254K.htm
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2010
Law of electromagnetic induction considers counter-voltage, which prohibits the electron in motion.

With all due respect: It is unbelievable that people like you just cannot understand Maxwell's equations. It is impossible to cancel a conservative electric field by induction. I know that the London bros propagated this claptrap but it is easy to show that they were unable t understand calculus.
Why not to publish it on ArXiv or ViXra? After all, we know about (nearly) room temperature superconductors already.

I have published the mechanism on ArXiv: Obviously, the buffoons and cranks in charge of superconduction research just ignored it. A better exposition will follow in my upcoming book entitled "The Physics Delusion".
Your 254 K is really "impressive": A blip in the voltage without it going to zero is suddenly enough to prove superconduction. PLEASE!!!
Even so I am open to being convinced: Maybe this material does have a higher parameter than the other CuO's
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2010
In fact the London bros, took two expressions, each of which is zero, and then equated them since they are the "same value". Not even my grandson in Kindergarten is as stupid as this!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 13, 2010
Law of electromagnetic induction considers counter-voltage, which prohibits the electron in motion.

I just want to hear from other readers who are reading this blogg whether thEy think that this statement has any intelligence or scientific coherence. "law of induction considers counter voltage". How does "consideration" model physics? And what the hell does "prohibits in motion" means?
really!!!
flaredone
not rated yet Jan 13, 2010
It is impossible to cancel a conservative electric field by induction.
Basically, low temperature superconductivity differs from high temperature one just by number of electrons involved. BCS theory considers formation of Cooper pairs, which are held together by spin-spin interactions. In "high" temperature superconductivity electrons are held together by pushing force of neighboring atoms predominantly (but the residuals of spin-spin interactions are still observable - compare the Collin Humpreys theory).

Now, my question is, why "duplet theory" like BCS should have problem with explanation of superconductivity, while multiplet theory hasn't? Such stance simply has no meaning.

that an applied conservative electric field is canceled when superconduction initiates
Wait, wait - please. Such field is not conservative in the moment, when electrons suddenly get into motion. They radiate EM wave to outside due the inductance.
flaredone
Jan 13, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 14, 2010
BCS theory considers formation of Cooper pairs, which are held together by spin-spin interactions.

When analysing the em radiation from a Josephson junction with a voltage across it, by just using simple band theory (and not invoking a fictitious classical ac current acros the junction) one finds that the charge carriers within low temperature metals are SINGLY charged. When deriving the flux quantum through a SC ring without violating vector calculus in the manner Aharanov and Bohm have done, you also find that the charge-carriers are SINGLY charged. So where are your Cooper Pairs?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 14, 2010
In "high" temperature superconductivity electrons are held together by pushing force of neighboring atoms predominantly (but the residuals of spin-spin interactions are still observable - compare the Collin Humpreys theory).

Such a force does not exist: Prove it to me experimentally that it must exist. You cannot. Thus what you are posting is pure speculation without any scientific basis. The fact is that a superconductor (all of them) are insulators formed by arrays of localised orbitals which conduct by means of quantum fluctuations. Any other mechanism must lead to energy dissipation.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 14, 2010
Now, my question is, why "duplet theory" like BCS should have problem with explanation of superconductivity, while multiplet theory hasn't? Such stance simply has no meaning.

Your whiole question is meaningless since "duplets" and/or "multiplets" have NOTHING TO DO WITH SUPERCONDUCTION WHATSOEVER.
Wait, wait - please. Such field is not conservative in the moment, when electrons suddenly get into motion. They radiate EM wave to outside due the inductance.

Wait wait - please. The fact that when electrons suddenly go into motion they generate fields by induction, has NOTHING to do with the fact that their motion is INITIATED by a conservative electric field; And that this field should thus still be present after steady-state has been reached.
johanfprins
Jan 14, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 14, 2010
The same phenomena occurs, when cloud of electrons becomes superconductive. The external voltage drop is consumed into electromotive force, which is released back again, when superconductivity is destroyed. Did you hear about superconductor quenching? This is just the moment, when electromagnetic energy of electrons in motion is released back again into superconductor.

Pure unsubstantiated speculation. Prove it experimentally or derive it from Maxwell's equations. All I can say after I have read your comments is to qoute Mark Twain, who said: "Today I have met a man who knows more things that are not so than any other man I have ever met".
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 14, 2010
When will the "superconduction experts" learn that when you add a conservative vector field to a circular vector field the two can NEVER cancel each other. I am sure that by now even children in primary school know that this is impossible!
flaredone
not rated yet Jan 14, 2010
If I could advise you, you've already a solid place in scientific history as a founder of room temperature superconductivity, so you're not required to fight against BCS theory in similar way, like Einstein fighted against quantum mechanics - because you cannot win in this point.

The same stuff exists in superfluid helium, where atoms are forming vortex pairs under low Reynolds number. High temperature superconductivity correspond the turbulent flow in quantum fluids, where stripes of quantum vortices are formed in analogy to hole stripes in cuprates.

This is how Cooper pair analogy appears in superfluid hellium - it forms vortex pairs coupled tighly by their spins:

http://ltl.tkk.fi...line.gif

And this is how above analogy appears in turbulent flow, where vortices are forming 2D "stripes", i.e vortex sheets:

http://ltl.tkk.fi...eet.jpeg

I could explain you the Maxwell field controversy in more detail, but there is no place for it.
flaredone
not rated yet Jan 14, 2010
It means, high temperature superconductors are related to low temperature ones in similar way, like the 3He-A superfluid is related to 4He superfluid. This analogy is quite exact - it's just two-dimensional. If we didn't observe Cooper pair superconductivity, we should find it, because such mechanism exists in superfluid, too.

Of course, real 3He-A superfluid consist of dynamic mixture of vortex stripes and individual vortex pairs in similar way, like high temperature superconductors exhibits both electron dimers, both polymer stripes. Ferromagnetic superconductors are just specific by their higher portion of spin-spin interactions via d orbitals, i.e. pycknides are more pronounced type I superconductors, then cuprates - just the lattice vibrations are replaced by antiferromagnetic fluctuations there.
flaredone
not rated yet Jan 14, 2010
Your 254 K is really "impressive": A blip in the voltage without it going to zero is suddenly enough to prove superconduction.
The main problem is, how to prepare sparse, but continuous lattice of hole stripes at atomic level through the whole bulk of superconductor. This is real challenge for nanotechnology. The hole stripes must be separated by sufficient amount of atoms, because they're behaving like pipes for electrons. The high pressure of electrons would break the lattice, if the repulsive force of electrons wouldn't balanced by attractive force of neighboring atoms. The existing technique is based on "glass metal" technology: the mixture of many atoms of slightly different radius makes periodicity of lattice sufficiently sparse. But the probability, such sparse lattice of holes will form a continuum decreases with increasing lattice constant fast.

J.F.Prins has used a diamond, which is extremely strength material. On my blog I proposed a "damask steel" technique.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 15, 2010
If I could advise you, you've already a solid place in scientific history as a founder of room temperature superconductivity, so you're not required to fight against BCS theory in similar way, like Einstein fighted against quantum mechanics - because you cannot win in this point.

Thanks for giving me credit for having discovered SC at room temperature: However, one swallow does not make a summer. The buffoons in charge of the "physics church" have now for 10 years suppressed and ridiculed my discovery in a vicious manner.
I am not arguing against BCS to defend my discovery: The latter stands on its own legs. I am attacking BCS because it is just plain wrong.
I realise that researchers in this field will refuse to listen to logic, just as you are doing now. How can they have been wrong for over 50 years? Remember physicists were wrong about Ptolemy's model for over 1500 years.

johanfprins
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2010
Oh by the way, Einstein did not argue AGAINST quantum mechanics, but against the Copenhagen fairytale interpretation of quantum mechanics.
In this he was correct. An intensity distribution for which the "most probable position to find an electron" can be at zero in intensity, cannot be a probability distribution.
Furthermore he pointed out that QM cannot be complete if instantaneous communication "between two entangled particles" has to manifest. Again he has been proved correct. It can be experimentally proved that two electrons separated from each other can only communicate by light speed. The fact that after entanglement they can do so faster than light speed needs an explanation which the Copenhagen interpretation cannot give. Thus their interpretation is NOT complete.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 15, 2010
Now let's see if we can find common ground on the following elementary-fundamental points:
1. The defining characteristic of a superconductor is the fact that an applied conservative electric field is cancelled: This is what Onnes discovered.
2. A conductor, defined as a material with free charge-carriers, is a perfect dielectric as long as a current does not flow through it.
3. Such a conductor CAN however NEVER cancel an electric field while a current is flowing through it (primary school physics).
4. Cooper pairs are free charge carriers and therefore an electric field can never be cancelled through such a material while a current is flowing through it.
5. Therefore the BCS model cannot even explain the defining characteristic of a superconductor.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 15, 2010
This is how Cooper pair analogy appears in superfluid hellium - it forms vortex pairs coupled tighly by their spins:

The analogy between the two cases rests on the fact that in both cases quantum fluctuations drive the movement. Cooper pairs move by acceleration and not by quantum fluctuations.
I could explain you the Maxwell field controversy in more detail, but there is no place for it.

You do not hacve to: I am well versed in all these derivations: They all contain the mathematical error of equating a circular force field to a conservative force field: A mathematical and physicsl impossibility.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 15, 2010
It means, high temperature superconductors are related to low temperature ones in similar way, like the 3He-A superfluid is related to 4He superfluid. This analogy is quite exact - it's just two-dimensional. If we didn't observe Cooper pair superconductivity, we should find it, because such mechanism exists in superfluid, too.

I wish you luck! As I have pointed out above it can be easily proved from the radiation emitted by a Josephson junction that the charge-carriers within low temperature metals are SINGLY charged. Any Sold State Electronics Engineer can prove this without even knowing that SC exists. So if Cooper pairs do not cause SC in the metals why will they do so in the ceramics?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 15, 2010
The main problem is, how to prepare sparse, but continuous lattice of hole stripes at atomic level through the whole bulk of superconductor. This is real challenge for nanotechnology. ....

You are hearing the bell tolling but you do not know where the tongue is hanging: In the ceramics localised states form between the layers from electrons donated from within the layers; thus leaving holes behind; which you now call "hole stripes". SC occurs when the density of localised states becomes high enough to allow movement by quantum fluctuations. In a metal, the localised states form by means of a metal-insulator transition within non-ideal metals (This is why "ideal" metals do not SC). When their density becomes high enough they can move by means of quantum fluctuations.
J.F.Prins has used a diamond, which is extremely strength material. On my blog I proposed a "damask steel" technique.

Where is your blog?
flaredone
1 / 5 (1) Jan 15, 2010
..In the ceramics localized states form between the layers from electrons donated from within the layers; thus leaving holes behind; which you now call "hole stripes"...

When I read your article, I realized immediately, you made a great discovery. But I realized too, you didn't understood its mechanism well. This is nothing very new in history of physics, in history of random findings the more.

Electrons are attracted to holes like bees to honey, because hole atoms are positively charged. They don't "leave holes behind" - why they should do it, after all? Instead of it, electrons surround holes in clusters. You visited my blog already - after all, it's still the only one, which deals with your finding seriously.
flaredone
1 / 5 (1) Jan 15, 2010
..Thus their interpretation is NOT complete...
Whole quantum mechanics is incomplete. For example, from Schrodinger equation follows, free particles should expand fast into infinity and to dissolve in vacuum. This doesn't mean though, interpretations of QM are incomplete, too. They're simply doing their very best in context given.
..charge-carriers within low temperature metals are SINGLY charged...
Of course, why not? The fact, electrons are spreading in pairs doesn't mean, they're double charged. Here is intuitive picture, which explains mechanism of Cooper pair superconductivity. I draw it for my daughter, 'cause I'm explaining modern physics in stories to her. If she understand the principle, I can be sure, this explanation works.

http://tinyurl.com/yagk2bq

Cooper pairs are like pairs of skiers, who are traveling through hill-country. They could save their energy, if they would travel in pair connected at proper distance, which corresponds lattice constant
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2010
When I read your article, I realized immediately, you made a great discovery. But I realized too, you didn't understood its mechanism well.

Thanks for the compliment but it is YOU who do not understand the mechanism well. My mechanism models how a superconducting phase forms at room temperature from electrons extracted into the vacuum: It also models what happens in low temperature metals; in highly-doped p-type diamond; in disordered metals as well as the superinsulating phase formed in this case; as well as in the ceramics. Same mechanism!! So how can you say that I do not understand the mechanism?

Electrons are attracted to holes like bees to honey, because hole atoms are positively charged. They don't "leave holes behind" - why they should do it, after all?

Simply because the hole is at a higher energy than the electron: This is simple, well-known mechanism in Solid State Electronics.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2010
Whole quantum mechanics is incomplete. For example, from Schrodinger equation follows, free particles should expand fast into infinity and to dissolve in vacuum. This doesn't mean though, interpretations of QM are incomplete, too.

The Schrodinger equation only applies to bound electrons which have energy less than their rest mass energy (no kinetic energy). It cannot model a "free" electron.
A free electron is a localised wave with a centre of mass which is stationary within its inertial refrence frame (goodbye uncertainties in postion and momentum!). If this is not so, ALL physics will have to be rewritten from Galileo, Newton's laws to the Schrodinger equation.
When this wave moves relative to an observer, one has to apply the Lorentz transformation: It is then found that it changes into a coherent wave with wave fronts within three-dimensional space. For this reason such a wave can diffract even though it moves as if it is a particle; since its centre of mass moves
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2010
Of course, why not? The fact, electrons are spreading in pairs doesn't mean, they're double charged.

So why are they supposedly measuring double charges from Josephson radiation and flux trapping and using these results to vindicate the assumption of Cooper Pairs?
Here is intuitive picture, which explains mechanism of Cooper pair superconductivity. I draw it for my daughter, 'cause I'm explaining modern physics in stories to her. If she understand the principle, I can be sure, this explanation works.
Children do believe fairytales. I have seen this illustration before. What you are telling your daughter is that it is actually possible to lift yourself into the air by pulling on your bootstraps. You should be ashamed of yourself to mislead her in this manner.
rdza
5 / 5 (1) Jan 17, 2010
@jfprins - If it is indeed true that you understand this subject better than anyone else and the rest of us are but children to your wisdom, it is in fact _you_ who should be ashamed of yourself for repeatedly abusing and calling a bunch of children idiots rather than patiently explaining the truth as best you can - with citations.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2010
@jfprins - it is in fact _you_ who should be ashamed of yourself for repeatedly abusing and calling a bunch of children idiots rather than patiently explaining the truth as best you can - with citations.

I have for 10 years now tried to explain "patiently" simple undergraduate physics, like Ohm's law, to mainstream physicists like for example Brian Josephson. I have also patiently tried to publish "with citations" but was blocked by people like Michael Berry, Frank Wilczek, and Gerhard 'tHoofd. They just close their minds and do not want to understand that, although the measurement of zero voltage while a current is flowing means zero resistivity, zero resistivity does not guarantee zero voltage. They know that as soon as they admit this, the BCS model is dead in its tracks. Not just that, but all quantum field models like QED are also dead. It seems to be too horrible for them to even contemplate. So how long should my patience last?
in7x
not rated yet Jan 18, 2010
Yawnzors.

"Prior Art" protects your "IP"

http://en.wikiped...rior_art

Your only motivation for not sharing something simple like a working room temperature molecular formula is there lack of.

But hey, then again, maybe you'll convince me with another 50 comments spanning 20 articles.
flaredone
not rated yet Jan 18, 2010
..the BCS model is dead in its tracks. Not just that, but all quantum field models like QED are also dead. ..So how long should my patience last?
Yep, I know, there is many objective reasons, which are making every large community ignorant by its very nature. There is a psychological barrier, inertia in thinking and in the way, in which research is sponsored, and so on.

But there is a synergy too: when one ignorant mets with another ones, just a deeper level of misunderstanding arises. The main problem of yours is, you're demonstrating the same ignorance, which you're fighting against. If your theory is more general, you should try to reconcile existing theories of superconductivity on background of your theory, not to fight against them. You've choosed the worst strategy possible.

And I'm not convinced, BCS model is dead. The fact, QM predicts completely different cosmological constant, then the relativity doesn't mean, QM is wrong. It's simply based on different perspective.
flaredone
not rated yet Jan 18, 2010
This is how electron stripes appear in cuprate superconductor http://tinyurl.com/yzd28v5

By Colin Humpreys model, holes at the edges of adjacent blocks are magnetically paired by spin of electrons involved and superconductivity occurs because hole-pairs march collectively along the channels, like trams on pairs of tramlines running between the blocks of houses. It means, even in high temperature superconductivity, where many electrons are involved at the same time, residuals of low temperature mechanism based on electron pairing are still apparent there.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2010
Yawnzors."Prior Art" protects your "IP"
Your only motivation for not sharing something simple like a working room temperature molecular formula is there lack of.But hey, then again, maybe you'll convince me with another 50 comments spanning 20 articles.

My patent attorney costs me a lot of money and when he advises me not to release certain information at this stage, I follow his advice. As soon as the patent examiners are satisfied, the information will be in the public domain.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2010
But there is a synergy too: when one ignorant mets with another ones, just a deeper level of misunderstanding arises. The main problem of yours is, you're demonstrating the same ignorance, which you're fighting against. If your theory is more general, you should try to reconcile existing theories of superconductivity on background of your theory, not to fight against them. You've choosed the worst strategy possible.

You cannot reconcile a theory with another which is based on a nonsense postulate: The postulate that superconduction occurs when electrons or holes pair is claptrap. So how can I reconcile my my model with claptrap.
My book is nearing completion and section 23 in it is a complete exposition about how SC really manifests. Maybe I should post this section on my website. The problem is that I have in the past posted the model in detail on my website but it was just ignored.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2010
This is how electron stripes appear in cuprate superconductor http://tinyurl.com/yzd28v5
By Colin Humpreys model, ...

It is not surprising that "electron stripes" are observed in the cuprate SC's. They relate to localised electron states BETWEEN the crystallographic planes. Each one is SINGLY* charged and they transport a supercurrent by means of quantum fluctuations. The holes are withinn the crystallographic layers and are the charged sites which donated the electrons which are forming the charge carriers between the layers.
*PS: There is of course no reason why they cannot be doubly-charged, but so far all the measurements on the ceramics indicate that they are probably single charged. The fact remains that you do not require pairs for SC to be possible!
broglia
not rated yet Jan 19, 2010
..superconduction occurs when electrons or holes pair is claptrap. So how can I reconcile my my model with claptrap.
Low temperature theory considers, electrons are superconductive, because they're forming pairs, high temperature theory considers, electrons are superconductive, because they're forming paired clusters - it's evident, these theories differ only quantitativelly at conceptual level, so they could be reconciled easily by abinitio quantum calculations.
..localised electron states BETWEEN the crystallographic planes. Each one is SINGLY* charged
They're forming less or more continuous electron clouds (basically they're forming DELOCALIZED d-orbitals AROUND holes of multiple charge) - along which charge spreads in density waves (d-waves). Wanna bet?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2010
Low temperature theory considers, electrons are superconductive, because they're forming pairs,

My my my! What are you telling me. THEY DO NOT FORM PAIRS: PROVE IT EXPERIMENTALLY!
high temperature theory considers, electrons are superconductive, because they're forming paired clusters - it's evident

Why is this evident? You are hallucinating I am afraid.
They're forming less or more continuous electron clouds (basically they're forming DELOCALIZED d-orbitals AROUND holes of multiple charge) - along which charge spreads in density waves (d-waves). Wanna bet?

Yes I wanna bet: How much money do you have?
flaredone
not rated yet Jan 19, 2010
Pairs formation is experimentally supported by the isotope effect and the evidence for a condensation to a boson -like state at the critical temperature for superconductivity. Cooper pairs of electrons can tunnel through the Josephson junction barrier onto the island electrode, and coherent oscillations in the number of pairs were observed. Another evidence is the exponential nature of the heat capacity variation in the Type I superconductors. The evidence for pair interaction with the crystal lattice came first from the isotope effect on the critical temperature. As I explained above, even superfluids are forming two basic kinds of condensates, which correspond to Type I a Type II superconductors, where the former one correspond just the double vortices observed in He 4. In a paper published 22 July 2004 by Science, physicists reported evidence for the formation of Cooper pairs of lithium-6 fermions in the laboratory.
flaredone
not rated yet Jan 19, 2010
The BCS theory can also predict how the energy gap varies with temperature and the result agrees well with experiments. Another evidence of Cooper-pair Bose condensation by an electron density redistribution, was given by Mossbauer spectroscopy. A team from Brown University has found evidence that Cooper Pairs can exist not just in a superconductor, but also in an superinsulator.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2010
Pairs formation is experimentally supported by the isotope effect

Any localised electronic state within a material can have a isotope effect. In fact this is used to analayse the symmetry of localised states. Thus it is total nonsense to mainatain that the isotope effect mandates Cooper Pairs.
and the evidence for a condensation to a boson -like state at the critical temperature for superconductivity.

Prove to me that it is a "boson" condensate. Any array of localised fermion-states will have the same energy per state: eg. a regular array of donors in a semiconductor.
Cooper pairs of electrons can tunnel ...onto the island electrode, and coherent oscillations in the number of pairs were observed.

It is easy to prove unequivocally by using simple band theory that the charge carriers which tunnel through a so-called Josephson junction are ALL singly charged. The oscillations are caused by the offset in energy-levels over the junction.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2010
Another evidence is the exponential nature of the heat capacity variation in the Type I superconductors.

The fact is that the electronic heat capacity increases instantaneously at the critical temperature. This is only possible when an energy gap opens up at that temperature and the Fermi-level moves into the gap. Cooper pairs have zero energy gaps at the critical temperature: Thus there should not be a sudden increase in the heat capacity at all.
As I explained above, even superfluids are forming two basic kinds of condensates, which correspond to Type I a Type II superconductors, where the former one correspond just the double vortices observed in He 4. etc.

It has been one of the biggest mistakes to model superconduction like the He4 condensate. There are some similarities because in both cases quantum fluctuations play a role. He4 is however a fluid while the charge-carriers within a SC are localised electronic states; which in the case of metals are fermions
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2010
The BCS theory can also predict how the energy gap varies with temperature and the result agrees well with experiments.

For Cooper Pairs it is assumed that the Fermi-level is at the middle of the gap for all temperatures! Any buffoon who knows a bit about Fermi-Dirac statiistics will tell you that the Fermi-level changes its energy position within an electron-energy gap when the temperature changes. What you call the change in energy gap is not a change in energy gap. The full energy gap appears at the critical temperature with the Fermi-level entering the gap. The gap being measured is the energy difference between the Fermi-level and the top of the gap. This increases with decreasing temperature. When modelling the gap in this manner one obtains a far better fit to experimental results: Not surprisingly since this is how Fermi-levels behave!! Please read an elementary book on Solid State Physics.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2010
Another evidence of Cooper-pair Bose condensation by an electron density redistribution, was given by Mossbauer spectroscopy. A team from Brown University has found evidence that Cooper Pairs can exist not just in a superconductor, but also in an superinsulator.

Their interpretation of their data is wrong! Is it maybe wishful thinking because Leon Cooper is a professor at Brown University?
taka
5 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2010
Interesting discussion you have here. It remembers me one historian study about how new ideas are adopted by old authorities in science. The discovery was that they weren’t. Just old authorities become old and finally die. Yong ones come in replacement and they already believed in new ideas.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2010
The only problem nowadays is that the "old" authorities are blocking and censoring new ideas; thus making it impossible for the young ones to hear about them. And thus also discouraging the "young ones" from trying to think originally. It is time to remove these old authorities from their positions of power: A good start will be to close down and liquidate the following institutions: 1. The Royal Society of London; 2. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS); 3. Nature Publishing House; etc.
"Old" should not mean to be a fossil without brains: I still try to think originally although I am turnig 68 today!
broglia
5 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2010
The same problem exists with cold fusion research:

http://www.wired...._pr.html

In a huge, grandiose convention center I found about 200 extremely conventional-looking scientists, almost all of them male and over 50. In fact some seemed over 70, and I realized why: The younger ones had bailed years ago, fearing career damage from the cold fusion stigma.

"I have tenure, so I don't have to worry about my reputation," commented physicist George Miley, 65. "But if I were an assistant professor, I would think twice about getting involved."

Compare the recent study here:
http://www.baycre...4260.asp

It seems, we are facing certain generation conflict in science, in which roles of young and old scientists are reversed: the young scientists exhibit the more schematic and formal thinking, then these older ones. In general, thinking of young people is more schematic, while older people tend to be more gullible.
broglia
Jan 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
broglia
not rated yet Jan 22, 2010
Concerning the superconductivity, all existing theories are based on condensation of charge carriers into larger groups, in which transversal character of charge spreading emerges.

These theories differ by mechanism of electron condensation, though. At low temperatures the spin-spin interactions are sufficient to handle Type I superconductors. Superconductivity at higher temperatures requires the pressure of neigboring atoms in crystal lattice to achieve required electron density. This is why room temperature superconducitivy revealed by J.F.Prins works with diamond layers only: the mechanical strength of cuprates isn't sufficient to resists strong repulsive forces between electrons. We can call it a Type III superconductivity.

But at in range 17 - 300 K both mechanisms could coexist easily: we have large electron clusters here, but these clusters are still paired by their spins like d-orbitals. This mixed mechanism is particularly important in paramagnetic pnictides
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2010
... all existing theories are based on condensation of charge carriers into larger groups, in which transversal character of charge spreading emerges.
What you say is that SC occurs by the movement of all the charge-carriers in a SC. What if you turn down the current so that you inject only enough charge for a single charge-carrier every minute. Will this cause a cascade of movement? Please get real.
Superconductivity at higher temperatures requires the pressure of neigboring atoms in crystal lattice to achieve required electron density.
Although charge density plays a role, SC in diamond has NOTHING to do with "pressure". There is another property which can be instilled when modifying the electronic properties of diamond. This property can also be instilled into other suitable materials.
johanfprins
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2010
The young scientists exhibit the more schematic and formal thinking, then these older ones. In general, thinking of young people is more schematic, while older people tend to be more gullible.

This is exactly lifting out the problem: Young scientists are too scared to criticise mainstream dogma because they know it will NOT be tolerated. The older ones are in a position to explore new avenues without fear: BUT they are even more determined not to challenge existing dogma: After all they were partly responsible for generating it; and will defend their claptrap until they die.
Minich
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2010
To Broglia.
The error in all contemporary superconductivity theories is that these theories are based on cooper paring.

I am sure that BCS theory is wrong and there is way to disclose the "mystery" of HTS.

The 'main idea' for "phonon superconductivity" (Frohlich collective mode) and for "moessbauer like superconductivity" (cuprates, pnictides,...) is very simple, but it is rather difficult to get SUPERCONDUCTIVE solution without the 'main idea' (even Frohlich could not find superconductive solution for his own hamiltonian and found only nonsuperconductive Peierls like sliding solution in 1D).
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2010
Minich,
I agree: Why people can even think that pairing must occur for SC to occur is beyond me. There is no conclusive experimental proof that this occurs, or must happen. The interpretation of flux quantization in terms of a conservative force field which do not give a zero circular integral is obvious mathematical claptrap; and as I have pointed out on this forum, the light being emitted by a biased Joephson junction proves unequovically that the charge carriers involved are all single-charged.
taka
not rated yet Jan 28, 2010
Did I get it correctly that according to johanfprins theory the superconductor happens because electrons do not move, they just TUNNEL between key atoms/locations inside otherwise insulating media?
As electrons do not move they do not run into atoms and do not dissipate heat, so simple it is. When the temperature go up the Brown movement shake atoms and make insulating gaps to shrink until they disappear, electrons become free and material become conductive and there will be no tunnelling and no superconduction any more. Electric field will extend dipoles around these key atoms/locations that make also insulating gaps to shrink and finally disappear with the same effect as temperature increase.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 29, 2010
Hi Taka,
I also at first used the term "TUNNEL" but soon found out that it is a misnomer. What we observe as tunnelling is the borrowing of energy (delta)E from the vacuum for a time interval (delta)t: The amount of energy and the time interval is determined by Heisenberg's uncertainty relationship for energy and time. A superconducting state is thus an insulator (dielectric) consisting of a spatial; array of anchored localised wave-states. When an electric-field is applied they polarise and cancel the field at their localised positions. Therefore they are not accelerated by the field to gain kinetic energy.
Such arrays form when a non-ideal metal undergoes a metal-insulator transition. Such trabnsitions are well known in non-ideal metals when cooling them to a low enough critical temperature. In 1938, Wigner predicted such a metal-insulator transition in non-ideal metals and derived that such a localised state can be approximated by a localised harmonic vibration of an electron.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 29, 2010
According to Wigner the vibration occurs through an induced positive charge: Thus the frequency of vibration should be isotope dependent as is observed in metal superconductors. Furthermore, when applying an electric field, the "spring constant" increases and the frequency of vibration thus increases.
When the distances between these vibration orbitals decrease to become less than a critical distance, such a wave-state can borrow energy (delta)E to move in a time (delta)t to the site of the adjacent orbital where upon arrival, it replaces the orbital at the adjacent site; which then in turn borrows energy and moves on. Thus, although it has kinetic energy while it is moving such a charge carrier generates it from loaned energy: After having moved there is no kinetic energy left to dissipate. The density of orbitals is determined by the magnitude of the insulating gap (which incidentally is already present at full magnitude at then critical temperature) and the energy of the orbitals.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 29, 2010
When increasing the applied electric field the localised orbitals polarise more, their spring constants increase, their energy increases, and their density becomes less, util at a critical electric field SC becomes impossible. Similar with a magnetic field: It is absorbed by the orbitals to increase their spring constants: This causes the Meissner effect: Not surface currents.
The measured change in gap energy when cooling the SC is caused by the movement of the Fermi-level when it enters the gap at the critical temperature until it reaches the energy position of the orbitals at absolute zero temperature, It is the initial movement of the Fermi-level into the gap which causes the heat capacity to jump at the critical temperature. If there were no gap, like in the case of Cooper Pairs, the heat capacity will not jump. Why should it? The energy spectrum of the electrons have not changed at all at the critical temperature for Cooper Pairs.
taka
not rated yet Jan 29, 2010
May be it is better to use terms people are familiar with? Tunnelling is thing from textbooks. People may not understand how it works, but they know it. I had difficult time reading this energy barrowing and wave function staff until I finally understand that this must be just tunnelling described, but not named. And I was not sure that I get it correctly. With this is only one possible interpretation of it and there could be others, as barrowing energy instead of vacuum form itself after tunnelling (as during tunnelling particle is simultaneously in both locations), not barrowing energy at all, just location uncertainty and so on. If to consider that particle had size it can be interpreted that its edge is pushed over barrier and then it drags the whole thing over it, like water flow throw siphon.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2010
In terms of the accepted Copenhagen interpretation your point is well made, and I also used the term "tunnelling" when I tried to publish my model; which has now been consistingly blocked from being published for more than 5 years. I found that I could model superconduction in all materials discovered to date by describing the "tunnelling"-motion from one point to the next using Heisenberg's uncrertainty relationship for energy and time: i.e. that this tunnelling occurs qwing to quantum fluctuations. One then obtains an expression for the speed of tunnelling which fits ALL the materials to a tee. It also indicates that Josephson's model for tunnelling between two superconductors are not physically possible: Bardeen said so after Josephson's publication, but after tunnelling was demonstrtated he apologised to Josephson not knowing that he had been correct in stating that Cooper Pairs cannot tunnel. Thus although Josephson predicted this tunnelling his model is not physically tenable.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2010
In my model it is obvious why such tunnelling must occur, since this is exactly how a charge carrier moves from one site to another within the superconductor. Thus if the insulating layer has a thickness that is less than the distances through which such a charge-carrier moves within the material, it has no problem to tunnel through this layer. When applying this analysis to the light frequency generated at such a junction one finds unequivocally that the charge carriers are all singly charged.
It is strange that a wrong model can predict an effect which is later observed. This also happenned with the Aharanov-Bohm effect. It is interesting that as in the case of Josephson's derivation their derivation also made use of the quantum phase angle which changes with the path: i.e. Feynmann's "history over paths" method. The problem with this phase angle is that it cannot be part of the phase of a harmonic wave; while Schroedinger's equation mandates that it must be.
johanfprins
3 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2010
It is a simple matter to use Schroedinger's equation to prove that the centre-of charge of the wave's intensity moves smack bang throough ther magnetic field.

It is the model of Aharanov and Bohm which is used to "prove" that the flux quantum through a SC ring is generated by doubly charged charge-carriers. When not using this incorrect derivation one finds that the factor 2 comes from Heisenberg's uncertaity relatiionship for energy and time and NOT because the charge carriers are doubly-charged.

It seems that the whole path-integral method that is being used in quantum field theory is not really physics at all. One can well ask how it is then possible that results are found which seems to model physics. Remember we work with harmonic waves: But it is possible to build up harmonic waves by superposing components which are not harmonic waves. For example violin music can be modelled in terms of digital code, but when playing a violin its strings do not generate zero's and one's.
taka
not rated yet Feb 01, 2010
But it is possible to build up harmonic waves by superposing components which are not harmonic waves. For example violin music can be modelled in terms of digital code, but when playing a violin its strings do not generate zero's and one's.

I do not know about general (mathematical) possibility, but example is incorrect:
When music is reconstructed from digital recording several non-linear transforms are used, most notable that high frequencies (also called digital noise) are filtered away.
Also, model means generally loss of something and here high frequencies are scarified.
taka
not rated yet Feb 01, 2010
Model in physic is given by mathematical equations. There is fancy thing with these equations, it is possible to transform them and they still give the same answer. But transformed equations may give different interpretation of tings they model...
Therefore it is not surprise that wrong theory can give right predictions, with it is still based on reality and equations that it is made of are at least partially correct.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2010
But what is worse is when the equations seem to give acceptable physics but violates logic and the fundamental postulates of mathematics. This is what Aharanov and Bohm did in their derivation of their effect and what Dirac did when he predicted monopoles. There are many more examples within our physics text books.
The most hilarious misconception is Heisenberg's interpretation of his uncertainty relationship for position and momentum for a particle with mass. A particle CANNOT have mass unless it is able to be stationary within its own inertial refrence frame. The latter demands that position and momentum must manifest simultaneously. It is this inertia which determines gravitation. Thus what the Copenhagen buffoons did was to excise gravitation from quantum mechanics; and now everybody cannot understand why quantum field theory cannot include Einstein's gravitation. I suppose that after having spent billions on the LHC, they are bound to find the non-existent "Higgs particle".
milz
not rated yet Feb 06, 2010
May I make a small comment here, it would be definitely directed toward Mr. Prins. This is more of a common sense than scientific or technical for that matter.

Ok, as a person who understands ZERO about superconductivity, I will not read your article because I will not be able to make a sound judgment. However, considering that you HAVE, in fact, found room temp SC and that it HAS, in fact, turned out to be to a completely different and not before understood phenomenon. This is not new to physics and science as a whole actually. We all count on discoveries like this for science to actually proceed. Right?

I want to go as far as believe you that the SC community has dismissed your model and cast away your finding because you question what they think is SOLID facts, ok? This also can happen, and has probably happened lots of times before, and science is ashamed.

BUT BUT BUT (to be contnd)
milz
not rated yet Feb 06, 2010
BUT BUT BUT

are you really going to convince me and the rest of us, that this supposedly ground breaking finding, which could find MILLIONS of applications RIGHT NOW (thus the hype of SC), did not convince one single scientific funding foundation, not one university, not one physics professor, and not a person with a couple of grants for you to start up this project ?

HOW can you really explain to me, that at one point you invite people to replicate this in their labs, and at the SAME time you declare hiding one supposedly CRUCIAL parameter from the rest of us?

How can you explain that instead of working you bottom off to try to gain exposure for this finding (and it's not that hard for something of this importance, REALLY), but instead, you chose to channel all your energy and time on a BOOK that attacks the physics community and make you sound like a bitter one who generalizes about the whole of physics?

hm?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Feb 07, 2010
Very valid questions:
It is unbelievable what I have encountered.
Yes I could not obtain funding anywhere during the last 8 years. When I made this discovery I still had funding from the Diamond Industry in South Africa to work on ion implantation into diamond. At that stage I knew zilch about supetrconduction but knew my phase MUST be a SC since from standard solid state interface theory used everyday to model solid state chips, the proof was absolute that the electric field over this phase must be zero, and the experimental result was that although this field is zero a current is flowing through the phase.

The industry consulted SC experts who advised them that it just cannot be : "this is not what SC is all about". They of course did not say what SC "is all about."
My funding stopped and all other avenues I tried led to dead ends. They all approached the SC experts especially those at Cambridge University which stated categorically that I do not know what SC is all about.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Feb 07, 2010
I NEVER stopped trying to publish further information and facts on SC but over the past eight years I have been consistently rejected by inane comments like "This seems to be a misunderstanding of what SC is all about". This comment by the editor of "Supercondtor Science and Technology" is intellegent compared to those I got from other journals. I had NO CHOICE but to start publishing books.
As far as hiding a crucial aspect: It was only an aspect which relates to the preparation of this superconducting phase. Therefore I offered to prepare SC phases which can be tested in other Labs. This offer still stands. I even sent samples to physics laboratories in Japan and England three years ago. So far NO feedback. One of these labs is
at Warwick University.
What else can I do? I do not just sound bitter I AM BITTER. This is not how physics should be handelled. The Vatican was more open minded with Galileo than I found the Royal Society to be at present. No wonder physics took a nosedive!
milz
not rated yet Feb 07, 2010
I see what you mean and I understand now more what has happened.
Obviously they could find no explanation to what you have found, and what you put forward jeopardized their model.

What I suggest, actually what I really hope you do, is maybe to find some quasi-application for your finding. Something that could extend your work into more CONCRETE results. No one could argue with CONCRETE results. You'll gain exposure for this in NO TIME and if you're right, hell, you might even get a NOBEL prize for this. No kidding.

I think there must something that you could work out instead of publishing a book that attacks physics as a whole which would be totally unfair and would only intrigue the laypeople who already have a misconception about mainstream physics. Let's not forget that on the whole its a community that is trying to figure out WHAT IS WHAT in our world around us. There is bound to be the 'human' filthy signature in it, just like in every other field!
Weight the prospects !!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2010
I have CONCRETE results but nobody wants to know. The next step for more CONCRETE results is to make superconducting chips. If you can tell me how I can do this in my garage without any funding, I will do so tomorrow.
I AM right, and therefore, if you are right, I should get the Nobel Prize. But I doubt that this is possible at present until it is realised that the Nobel Prizes awarded for all the physics based on quantum field theory have been awarded for virtual reality. Unfortunately also to one of my heroes Richard Feynman.
I thus have no choice but to point out where physics has gone wrong: In 1927 when the Copenhagen interpretation was forced on the physics community. Thank God one could use Schroedinger's equation "cookbook" style or else we would all be living in cloud cuckoo land. I do not think the lay people have a misconception about mainstreanm physics. I have come to the conclusion that only the lay people still have common sense. That is why I have to appeal to them.
taka
not rated yet Feb 08, 2010
It is human nature that if you come up with something revolutionary then the best reaction you could get is: "It is interesting" fallowed by silence. The tragedy is that the science is organised like any other bureaucratic system and as such conserve itself. It seems indeed that the only way for Johan F Prins is to make this superconducting chip in a "garage". The engineering history is full of such stories. Silicon chip technology is available in many companies today; it should be possible to find one interested to tray.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2010
I have gone as far as I can in a garage by making SC substrates. To make chips require semiconductor lab equipment. I do not even own enough money to buy a RIE apparatus. So please!
Science should not "be organised like any bureacratic system". If the system is more important than new knowledge, then the time has come, in the interest of humankind, to bring science down: Just as Hitler's Third Reich and Apartheid here in South Africa had to be brought down at any cost.
I have been trying to find a silicon chip company for more than 5 years now. You are convinced that it should be possible to find one who would be interested. PLEASE DO and let me know so that I can contact them!
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2010
The greatest irony in all of this:

When dealing with zero resistivity,
the greatest resistance comes from
the minds of researchers who feel
there is more at stake than just
being plain wrong.

Thank you for your invaluable website
posts.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2010
Dear hush1,

Thanks for your support and for visiting my website.