To Surf, or to Dance? Electrons' Extracurricular Activities Affect Superconductivity

Apr 06, 2010 by Kelen Tuttle
To Surf, or to Dance? Electrons' Extracurricular Activities Affect Superconductivity
From left to right: Tom Devereaux, Makoto Hashimoto, Rui-Hua He and Zhi-Xun Shen. (Photo by Kelen Tuttle.)

(PhysOrg.com) -- Superconductors, the wonder materials that transport electricity without any resistance or energy loss, appear to be more complex than previously thought, according to research published online this week in Nature Physics by scientists at the Stanford Institute for Materials and Energy Science, a joint institute of SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory and Stanford University.

The work provides a new understanding of how high-temperature work—with potential applications toward the design of new superconductors that work at or near room temperature, allowing them to be used in everything from electronics to smart grids that deliver energy with dramatically higher efficiency.

This is not the first time the field of superconductivity has gone through a revelation. In the 1980s—75 years after the discovery of superconductivity—scientists stumbled upon a completely new type of superconducting material. Previously, all superconductors carried current without resistance only at very low temperatures, the warmest of them operating at about -425 degrees Fahrenheit. But this new class of superconducting materials mysteriously worked up to 200 degrees warmer; still not room temperature, but far warmer than researchers previously believed possible.

"High-temperature is one of the most important unsolved modern physics problems today," said SIMES Director and paper co-author Zhi-Xun Shen.

When a conventional superconductor reaches a , called Tc, electrons begin to overcome their preference to mutually repel one another, and instead begin to bunch in pairs that like to cooperate with other pairs. When these linked electron duos liaise to form "coherent motion," with all pairs moving in synch much as couples dance to the same music at a ball, they flow through a material effortlessly. Scientists first understood this by detecting a gap in the electron's that reflects the benefit of the electrons' pairing.

A decade ago, scientists discovered an analogous "pseudogap" in high-temperature superconductors, at temperatures above the superconducting threshold Tc, that was originally thought to also be related to electron pairing. In this gap, scientists theorized, the pairs are formed but they lie dormant; the couples are ready but music has yet to begin.

Yet experiments led by SIMES researchers Makoto Hashimoto and Rui-Hua He suggest that the electron-pairing model does not describe what happens in the newer high-temperature superconductors.

"In 2006, our group published a paper suggesting that there are two types of distinct energy gaps," He said. "This more recent work provides a conclusive argument that there are two different mechanisms involved here."

The researchers trained the X-ray beam of SLAC's Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource on a high-temperature superconductor to reveal the material's electronic structure and explore the nature of the pseudogap. They were on a hunt for evidence of the electron pairing seen in conventional superconductors, in the form of what's called "electron-hole symmetry"; if it were present in the pseudogap, then the road to designing even higher temperature superconductors would be to make the pairs dance together instead of resting dormant.

But that's not what the researchers found; under the bright X-ray beam, the high-temperature superconductor showed a clear lack of the telltale symmetry—and thus of electron pairing. This suggests that the electron pairs were not lying dormant; they were simply not there.

The researchers posit that the electrons do not pair in this temperature range and instead travel in a wave; what they observed at SSRL were crests and troughs of electron density. The electrons' tendency to travel in a density wave may compete with their efforts to pair, suggesting that scientists will need a different approach in order to create a room-temperature superconductor.

"This is a very difficult problem, but an important one to solve," said Hashimoto. "We don't yet know the details of the density wave, but by extending our studies to different materials we are now seeking to understand it."

Once researchers better understand how electrons travel in high-temperature superconductors, they can then begin trying to design materials that superconduct at even higher temperatures. So far, high-temperature superconductors have been found only through serendipity. A robust understanding of how travel at high temperatures may allow researchers to design new superconductors from the ground up, pinpointing the most useful temperature range for each application.

"If we can figure out the elusive recipe for making a superconductor," said SIMES Co-deputy Director and paper co-author Tom Devereaux, "we can begin designing them for important applications in human health, communication, and energy transportation as well as accelerator technology."

Explore further: Researchers devise broad-bandwidth amplifier that ups gain by more than 10 db

Related Stories

Closing the 'Pseudogap' on Superconductivity

Mar 13, 2008

One of the biggest mysteries in studying high-temperature (Tc) superconductors - materials that conduct electrical current with no resistance below a certain transition temperature - is the origin of a gap in the energy level ...

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.

Illuminating a Second 'Kink' in High-Tc Superconductors

Jul 06, 2007

There’s another kink in the mystery of high-temperature (Tc) superconductors – literally. Using photoemission studies at the NSLS, a group of researchers has revealed a new anomaly, or “kink,” in the ...

Recommended for you

Three-dimensional metamaterials with a natural bent

8 hours ago

Metamaterials, a hot area of research today, are artificial materials engineered with resonant elements to display properties that are not found in natural materials. By organizing materials in a specific way, scientists ...

Scientists develop compact medical imaging device

Oct 23, 2014

Scientists at the MIRA research institute, in collaboration with various companies, have developed a prototype of a handy device that combines echoscopy (ultrasound) with photoacoustics. Combining these two ...

User comments : 69

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

seneca
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2010
The explanation of high Tc superconductivity is trivial: electrons are attracted to holes, thus forming chaotic fluid around it, where charge propagates in waves. In 1992 J.F.Prins prepared such electron fluid by injecting of oxygen holes into diamond layers - after then the electrons attracted to diamond surface above layers started to behave like superconducting phase even at room temperature.

http://www.iop.or...8/3/319/

It's evident, the research of superconductors is completely separated from J.F.Prins findings and the ideas, in which we are describing them here. But the mainstream science isn't very motivated in such understanding, because it enables it to ask it for money for another research. It's a running machine, which just needs to justify its own existence. If they would solve some problem, they would lost the reason of its own existence at the same moment. In this extent the behavior of mainstream research resembles self-reinforcing quantum wave.
seneca
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2010
The acceptation of many trivial ideas has an interesting "shame" effect. They're so simple, so that most scientists are ashamed to adopt it openly, because everyone could see, whole previous research done by experts was blind and meaningless.

In this way, many trivial concepts like superconductivity or dense aether concept are behaving like negative bubbles of information and they're avoided by educated experts purportedly. The mechanism of cold fusion is unexplained yet, but its evidence is so obvious in certain cases, it makes similar difficulties in its acceptation of mainstream. In general, the rest of civilization is losing huge amount of money by such ignorant stance of mainstream science.
axemaster
not rated yet Apr 06, 2010
"But the mainstream science isn't very motivated in such understanding, because it enables it to ask it for money for another research."

Yes, scientists ask for money so they can do nothing. That totally makes sense. I can totally see why people would spend millions to fund that.
seneca
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2010
Look, I'm not any expert to superconductivity and I still know about J.F.Prins's experiments well from publicly available press (in similar way, like about any other theories), I can understand their interpretation etc.. Without single dollar of investments from public taxis. Whereas these guys are dealing with superconductivity in full-time jobs, and they're writing about it like these experiments would never exist. What game they're playing for us? A parasite game?
seneca
1 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2010
Scientists apparently need some supervisor which would say:

"Look, it's nice, you're developing theory of superconductors at -190 C - but there is a guy, which measured superconductivity routinely at 200 C. Stop with everything and replicate his experiments first."

http://www.iop.or...8/3/319/

or

"Look, it's nice, you don't believe in cold fusion, but there is a video of hot spots formed during palladium electrolysis. Stop everything and replicate it - or you get fired!"

http://www.lenr-c...Navy.htm

It's evident, scientists are unable to distinguish, what is important for further progress and what not. What they're interested about is just a continuity of research, not its result at all. It's a salary and PhD thesis machine - and no one apparently cares about.
seneca
1 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2010
The whole source of problems with science is, scientists are payed (mostly) by publicity like politicians, but they have (nearly) no public feedback. Every sponsored system without public feedback converges into sort of communism (in terms of effectiveness) undeniably. It's ignorance can be measured objectively by lack of attempts for replication.
Parsec
5 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2010
seneca - what makes you believe that scientists do what they do in pursuit of a salary? After all, most of them could have MUCH higher paying careers in law, medicine, or industry.

I believe that direct measurements of the properties of superconductors to be immensely valuable, and has the potential benefit of allowing scientists to devise a theory that allows (as the article mentions) discovery of new superconductor types from first principles rather than trial and error. These experiments directly proved that the theories you mentioned were incorrect. By direct measurement.
finitesolutions
Apr 07, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
broglia
1 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2010
These experiments directly proved that the theories you mentioned were incorrect. By direct measurement.
They never considered them. J.F.Prins experiments were widely ignored just because scientists tend to love THEIR work so much - it leads to ignorance of the findings of others.
broglia
1 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2010
We can try to imagine, what will happen, if we press electrons into small pipe. These mutually repulsing particles will form less or more regularly spaced hexagonal lattice inside it known as a Wigner crystal (we can model this situation by tiny charged particles, so called plasma crystals).

But when we increase the density of electrons, their repulsive forces would overlap and the symmetry of lattice would increase up to level, every electron will be surrounded by many electrons from all possible directions. After then the interior of pipe changes into chaotic superconductive fluid.

Such transition can be modelled by particle softbody simulation on computer: after reaching certain critical density the system becomes numerically unstable and it will change into chaotic noise. It's evident, this mechanisms has nothing to do with Cooper pair formation and it could occur at arbitrary temperature - the only limitation is mechanical strength of vessel, which keeps electrons together.
broglia
1 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2010
Because electrons are pretty volatile and they leak by holes between atoms, their compression in real superconductors must be achieved in different way. Electrons are attracted to rows of positivelly chargerd atoms there, so called hole stripes. Most of electrons remains inmovable here, but the electrons near holes are compressed by pressure of neigboring atoms up to level, which enables to form superconductive phase, so called pseudogap state. At the moment, when islands of superconductive electrons are connected mutually, the material becomes superconductive in the bulk state.

The density of hole stripes can be increased by increasing of hole concentration, but because hole atoms are repelled mutually, it leads to the decreasing of electron density near hole stripes, too. Therefore for every high Tc material optimal hole density exist, which depends on so-called "doping distance" only and not on other properties of superconductor. A semiemp. Röser's equation takes account into it.
broglia
1 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2010
What J.F.Prins revealed accidentally was, the electrons engaged in superconductive state may not be part of superconductor lattice at all. They can be attracted to superconductor from outside by strong external electric field. Prof. Prins has used oxygen atoms injected into diamond layers, which attracted electrons above diamond surface by their electric field. Because diamond lattice is strength enough, it enables formation of superconductive electron fluid attached to the surface of diamond. Such arrangement has indeed a number of implications - we aren't required to deal with material structure at all to be able to prepare superconductive phase. And we could use external electrical field to switch superconductivity on and off, thus creating ideal switch with zero resistance - without any cooling.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2010
If we can figure out the elusive recipe for making a superconductor," said SIMES Co-deputy Director and paper co-author Tom Devereaux, "we can begin designing them for important applications in human health, communication, and energy transportation as well as accelerator technology.

Since my name has been mentioned in the discussion, I just want to state that what Devereaux wants has already been achieved by myself more than 5 years ago. But NOBODY wants to even listen, NOT even to prove me wrong. They want to proceed with the accepted terminology of "electron pairs", which do not even form within low temperature metals, and "cooperative wave motion". A single injected charge can move through a superconductor: So how is this possible by means of wave motion?. ALL superconduction by charge-carriers can be modelled by a simple quadratic equation. The superconducting phase I discovered is REALLY a BEC that forms at room temperature. So for God's sake, stop wasting time!!!

seneca
1 / 5 (3) Apr 12, 2010
.. has already been achieved by myself more than 5 years ago. But NOBODY wants to even listen, NOT even to prove me wrong. ..stop wasting time
LOL, this mafia is wasting twenty years of cold fusion research, and you're expecting progress in superconductivity after five years?

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

We may be left with the grim scenario described half a century ago by the famous physicist Max Planck:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
johanfprins
3 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2010
The problem is that we cannot afford the luxury of waiting for the old F...S to die off. At my age it means that I will also have to die off.
One can still argue that with "cold fusion" the experiment could not so far be reproduced easily. My experiment is easily reproduced and even though I have offered to prepare the superconducting substrates nobody wants to even try. One person did reproduce my results but refuses to accept the logic.
This probably relates to the fact that my result proves that the Copenhagen interpretation is just plain claptrap, and that all quantum physics which had been developed since 1930 based on Bohr's principle of complermentarity is just a fairytale.
The latter is probably just too horrible to contemplate by the high priests in charge of the physics church!
I think it will be easier to convince the pope that Christ is not the Messiah, than to convince a modern theoretical physicist that Bohr's principle of complementarity is just plain nonsense.
broglia
1 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2010
I'd reccomend You to focus on the confirmation of room Tc superconductivity finding itself for to experience satisfaction during your life. The extrapolations of its model against quantum mechanics are sort of trollism, which actually delays the acceptation of the whole finding.

When you reach the credit, you can continue safely - but frankly, I don't see the way, how the finding of Yours could refute complementarity principle and copenhagen intepretation anyway - just because your finding doesn't play well with BCS theory. This is simply ridiculous idea.
johanfprins
3 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2010
I'd reccomend You to focus on the confirmation of room Tc superconductivity finding itself for to experience satisfaction during your life.

I have found it and it is incontrovertibly proved that charge is transferred through it at room temperature while the applied electric field is cancelled to be exactly zero.
The extrapolations of its model against quantum mechanics are sort of trollism, which actually delays the acceptation of the whole finding.

I am not extrapolating: Just pointing out that this SC phase proves without doubt that the principle of complementarity is pure claptrap. It proves that both matter andc light consist only of waves which can superpose and entangle.
.. how the finding of Yours could refute complementarity principle and copenhagen intepretation anyway - just because your finding doesn't play well with BCS theory.

BCS is just a casualty of the fact that the Copenhagen interpretation is plain wrong. See my website for proof.
broglia
1 / 5 (1) Apr 14, 2010
.. It proves that both matter andc light consist only of waves which can superpose and entangle...
You cannot have wave without packets, i.e. particles. Even waves inside of electron fluid near holes propagate in more and less dense zones of charge density, i.e. the plasmons. Another property of soliton wave transfer is, it makes environment more dense at the place, where soliton is spreading like blob, i.e. like particle. Schrodinger equation describes it clearly, no matter whether you're believing in some particular intepretation of it.
johanfprins
3 / 5 (2) Apr 14, 2010
You cannot have wave without packets, i.e. particles.

A wave-packet is NOT a particle: What has gone wrong is the insane idea of Born that the intensity of a matter-wave is a probability distribution.
The total intensity of ANY harmonic wave EVER KNOWN is a measure of its total energy. Why will this be different for a matter wave? Thus when you have a wave packet forming, the total intensity of this wave packet is equal to its mass: It thus has a centre of mass: Therefore it seems to move like a single particle; even though it is a wave.
A solitary electron is thus a time-independent wave which is stationary within an inertial refrence frame. When viewed from another inertial refrence frame it moves with a momentum p. Using the Lorentz transformation one finds that the moving electron wave "sprouts" wave fronts owing the time-transformation. This defines the de Broglie relationship.
In contrast an atomic electron around a nucleus
has no momentum.
See forum on cathodixx
seneca
1 / 5 (2) Apr 14, 2010
..insane idea of Born that the intensity of a matter-wave is a probability distribution..
So Born is saying (by You), "intensity of a matter-wave is a probability distribution", which is wrong or even insane (by You). What is the correct claim by You?

Frankly, I can perceive many of Your sentences incoherent at logical level. When you're saying, some claim of Born is wrong, you should tell us the correct version of the same claim - not completely different claim.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 14, 2010
When you're saying, some claim of Born is wrong, you should tell us the correct version of the same claim - not completely different claim.

There cannot be a "correct" version of Born's claim. The only known version for ALL harmonic waves we know is that the total intensity of a wave equals its total energy: Its intensity-distribution equals its energy-distribution. Thus the intensity distribution of a matter-wave relates to its mass and gravity field.
The fact that an electron-wave can form a picture of the wave's intensity on a screen has NOTHING to do with the wave-intensity being a probability distribution. It has to do with the fact that the screen presents a multitude of absorber sites (pixels) each off which can absorb the wave. The first site it resonates with causes the wave to collapse and make a spot. Obviously for pixels at which the wave intensity is higher more collapses occur! Thus the appearance of the wave-intensity is determined by the apparatus.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 14, 2010
Thus on the other side of a double slit, one records a diffraction pattern on a screen since each electron wave moves through both slits simultaneously and then collapses at one of the pixels on the screen. But if you train two photodetectors on the slits the diffracted wave has a 50/50 probability to collapse in one detector or the other before reaching the screen. A moron looking at this then concludes that the "electron" can only move through a single slit at a time: And he/she concludes and maintains that this is so even though the diffraction pattern now disappears; thus proving that the diffracted wave has collapsed before it could reach the screen to first collapse on the scree: Therefore there can be no diffraction pattern anymore. Jeesh!!This IS physics: Not Born's insane postulate.
seneca
1 / 5 (2) Apr 14, 2010
the total intensity of a wave equals its total energy
It would mean, intensity equals energy, which is an apparent nonsense. What I recognize for wave concept is just an amplitude - "total intensity" concept has no meaning for me as a definable quantity with respect to the dimensional check. And how "total energy" of wave is defined? Wave is atemporal, infinitely "long" stuff so to say naively - it has no "total power". Wave energy could be described only differentially by using of "power" quantity.

Maybe you're talking about wave packet, instead of wave? Anyway, briefly speaking, I'm deeply confused even from the very first sentence of yours, not saying about the rest.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 14, 2010
It means, intensity equals energy, which is apparently nonsense.

It seems that you do not know anything about waves. It is a basic fact that the wave intensity relates to its total energy. It is for this reason that physicists expected during the 19th century that the energy of electrons dislodged from a metal during the photo-electric effect must be proportional to a wave's intensity. The fact that a light wave cannot have a lower intensity than a quantum of energy does NOT mean that its total intensity is not its energy. A single light wave with a single frequency can have an intensity which is equal to millions of quanta: An entangled wave (for example a laser beam). When it interacts with electrons in a metal it disentangles into quantum-waves each having the lowest energy (we now call them photons) which then entangles with electron waves: When the entangled energy is more than the rest mass of an electron, an electron is ejected: No "particle-colission" involved.

johanfprins
3 / 5 (2) Apr 14, 2010
Maybe you're talking about wave packet, instead of wave? Anyway, briefly speaking, I'm deeply confused even from the very first sentence of yours, not saying about the rest.

A wave-packet is still a wave. So how can I talk about a wave-packet as if it is NOT a wave. I am sorry you are confused since I have been trying my utmost to make it simple. The fact is that a wave with an intensity proportional to its mass energy will have a centre of mass, and will thus be moving like a particle if it does not encounter boundary conditions which require it to change its shape and size. When the boundary conditions are such that it has to diffract, it will diffract, even though before reaching the diffraction apparatus it moved like a body with a centre-of-mass: A non-intelligent physicist will conclude that it is a "particle".
Just note: A particle can never act like a wave, but a wave with a centre of mass can beahve like a "particle": No duality or complementarity are required!
johanfprins
3 / 5 (2) Apr 14, 2010
Wave is atemporal, infinitely "long" stuff so to say naively - it has no "total power". Wave energy could be described only differentially by using of "power" quantity.

Infintely long within a finite universe? Come on you are not really as stupid as that. Infinitely long waves only exist mathematically; not physically. If they did we would not have had waves with energy equal to a single quantum of energy!
seneca
1 / 5 (2) Apr 14, 2010
A particle can never act like a wave, but a wave with a centre of mass can beahve like a "particle": No duality or complementarity are required!
But just the soliton is the evidence of such complementarity/duality - it doesn't contradict it - it explains it, instead.
johanfprins
3 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2010
But just the soliton is the evidence of such complementarity/duality - it doesn't contradict it - it explains it, instead.

A soliton is formed by non-linear restoring forces in a wave medium. It is not a harmonic wave. Light and matter-waves (Schroedinger waves) are harmonic waves which have NOTHING in common WITH a soliton wave. But even if they do, a "soliton" is still not a particle: It is a wave all the way.
Thus to have a principle of complementarity is just as insane as Born's postulate that the intensity distribution of a matter wave is a probability distribution. Any "statistical" distribution of measurements on an ensemble of waves is caused by the apparatus. If the apparatus is so small that it can only measure the position at a single point, all the incoming waves which collapse owing to the measurement will collapse at this point. Or do you want to say that if you can only measure at a single point the wave collapses all over space? PLEASE!!! BECOME REAL!!
broglia
1 / 5 (1) Apr 15, 2010
A soliton ... is not a harmonic wave. ... A soliton .. is a wave all the way..
Please, become coherent in at least single claim. So, is the soliton a wave or not? If it's not a harmonic wave, why soliton cannot be a wave packet (i.e. a mixture of waves of different amplitude, phase and frequency), as quantum mechanics proposed?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 15, 2010
So, is the soliton a wave or not? If it's not a harmonic wave, why soliton cannot be a wave packet (i.e. a mixture of waves of different amplitude, phase and frequency), as quantum mechanics proposed?

A harmonic wave's phase angle rotates with a constant angular speed (omega). There are other waves which do not do so. It has been found that a soliton-wave is a superposition of waves which are not harmonic in character. In contrast Maxwell's equations and Schroedinger's equation only give wave components which are harmonic.
Obviously a soliton is a wave packet, but it was found that it is not a superposition of harmonic components: It can thus not be a solution of Schroedinger's wave eauation.
For ALL waves, the shape and size are determined by boundary conditions. But this does not mean that a wave which occupies a small volume is a particle: It stays a wave: Thus there is no "wave-particle" duality! Matter consists of waves which morph when the boundary conditions change.
broglia
1 / 5 (1) Apr 15, 2010
..soliton is a wave packet, but it was found that it is not a superposition of harmonic components..In contrast Schroedinger's equation only give wave components which are harmonic..
Well, it sounds logical at last...

After all, nobody says, Schroedinger's equation is an exact description of reality. In Schroedinger's equation all wave packets of free particles should expand into infinity - whereas we know, they don't evaporate so fast due their gravity field. Anyway, it doesn't means, quantum mechanics is fundamentally wrong - it's just the same approximation of reality, like the relativity theory (which cannot explain, why all objects won't collapse into singularities, instead).
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 15, 2010
After all, nobody says, Schroedinger's equation is an exact description of reality.

Halleluja!
In Schroedinger's equation all wave packets of free particles should expand into infinity -

Wave packets when setting V=0 in "free space" cannot form. A "free electron" is a localised wave since V is NOT zero: If it is there would be no gravity.
..whereas we know, they don't evaporate so fast due their gravity field.

You know the answer!
Anyway, it doesn't means, quantum mechanics is fundamentally wrong -

I have not said this anywhere: All I have said is that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is claptrap.
it's just the same approximation of reality, like the relativity theory (which cannot explain, why all objects won't collapse into singularities, instead).

Singularities do not exist in a continious space-time universe. The only singularities are mathematical; like the centre-of-mass of an extended field with mass.
seneca
1 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2010
Once again - the fact, theory is approximate description of reality doesn't mean, this theory is wrong automatically. Especially at the case of such formal theory, like the quantum mechanics is. Quantum mechanics is merely a formal regression of reality without deeper logical interpretation and such regression simply cannot be wrong - it's just less or more exact.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2010
Once again - the fact, theory is approximate description of reality doesn't mean, this theory is wrong automatically.

I did not say that at all anywhere.
Especially at the case of such formal theory, like the quantum mechanics is. Quantum mechanics is merely a formal regression of reality without deeper logical interpretation

Oh but in terms of waves which morph when their boundary conditions change quantum mechanics is totally a logical extension of classical mechanics and Einstein's gravity theory. Why use confusing terms like regression etc. to confuse reality: Do you not like logic and consistency?

hush1
not rated yet Apr 16, 2010
Without butting in: for me the commentary is more than enlightening. Informative, constructive, creative, never dull. All beside the point. My naive questions are:

What is the DOS (density of states)of an isolated, 'free' electron?
Where do the boundary conditions come from? k-space?
If dimensions create boundary conditions for a isolated, 'free' electron, is the limit a point in zero dimensions?

Because I am naive, I don't know if these are easy questions or not. The answers might not belong here.

johanfprins
3 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2010
What is the density of states of an isolated, 'free' electron? Where do the boundary conditions come from? k-space?

There is no DOS for a free electron just as there is no DOS for an electron bound to a nucleus. The idea of DOS in "free space" stems from solving Schr.'s equation under the assumption that V=0. You then obtain an infinite number of waves which can only manifest within an infinite space. If these solutions could be possible, ONLY ONE OF THEM CAN BE THE ELECTRON! But what is done is to claim that you can superpose these waves to generate a wave-packet. This, however, requires that each wave must be an electron since a wave cannot exist if it is not an electron.
We know that space is not flat around a "particle with mass". Thus it is ridiculous to choose V=0 for a "free electron". There must be a boundary condition which localises the wave and gives it its inertia. This boundary condition must relate to gravity and is thus the key to uniting QM with garvity.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2010
If dimensions create boundary conditions for a isolated, 'free' electron, is the limit a point in zero dimensions?

No: A free electron is a localised wave which always has a time-independent intensity distribution within its own inertial reference frame. This intensity distribution is its mass and gravitational field. The reason why the mass and charge of the electron form a stable distribution within three-diensional space is caused by the fact that the harmonic motion of such a wave does not manifest within the electron's inertial frame. Only when observed from another inertial frame does time manifest within our space owing to the Lorentz transformation. The wave can then diffract.
Because I am naive, I don't know if these are easy questions or not. The answers might not belong here.

You are FAR from naive since you are asking the questions that should have been asked in 1927 to stop the Copenhagen mafia from directing QM into the quagmire of QFT.
seneca
Apr 17, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
seneca
1 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2010
My understanding is, you're confused by particle concept, which is of slightly different nature at case of fermion and bosons. Photon is generally considered a particle in the same way, like electron, but it's internal wave follows the definition of yours better, then the quantum wave of electron.
hush1
not rated yet Apr 17, 2010
lol Johan. It is fun (and easier too) to imagine the world with one less assertion - (had your questioning taken place before the Feynman lectures) - Feynman's assertion that probability theory is wrong.
frajo
not rated yet Apr 17, 2010
the observable reality is formed by
There are observables and there might be a reality. But there is no observable reality. Your misunderstanding of physics is fundamental.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2010
@seneca
Your reasoning is complex and without any provable basis; and is therefore most probably dead wrong. There is a simple question that should have been asked already in the 1920's: Can a particle fool an observer to think it is a wave? Obvious answer is NO! Can a wave fool an observer into thinking it is a particle? Obvious answer is YES! So why postulate a bipolar reality called wave-particle duality and complementarity? It is insane. Waves can model everything we know about QM, without introducing stupid concepts like "probabilty distributions inherent in nature", "multiverses" and "a participatory universe" etc. Waves that interact; morph because the boundary conditions change; and this models everything in QM in a causal manner! Stop believing in the Tooth Fairy: By the way Father Xmas also does not exist!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2010
lol Johan. It is fun (and easier too) to imagine the world with one less assertion - (had your questioning taken place before the Feynman lectures) - Feynman's assertion that probability theory is wrong.

Did he assert that? Not in his lectures. It is such a pity that he died at age 70 ( I am also nearly there). Next to Einstein he was my hero: Even though his contributions in QED are most probably, and I believe will turn out to be wrong, this does not make him an incomptent physicist: He still created a framework which can be analysed and proved either correct or wrong. His contribution to physics is immense. I just do not know what I would have done without his "Lectures".
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2010
the observable reality is formed by
There are observables and there might be a reality. But there is no observable reality. Your misunderstanding of physics is fundamental.

Very well said: By observing we modify reality. I have given my ideas under "Observation and measurement" in my forthcoming book: Cathodixx-greetings!
seneca
Apr 17, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
seneca
Apr 17, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
seneca
1 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2010
.why postulate a bipolar reality called wave-particle duality and complementarity? It is insane
In fact, the concept of duality is maybe the best feature of quantum mechanics at all. This is simply a consequence of dual character of energy spreading through every inhomogeneous environment, where energy spreads both in transversal, both in longitudinal waves due the symmetry. In sparse gas the longitudinal waves prevail, in very dense (vacuum) the transversal waves would prevail but never become exclusive

The modern positivist science tends to use biased abstract concepts, which could be never absolutely true. Max Tegmark even believed, Universe could be completely described by formal math. But I'd prefer to be true, rather then clean & abstract. We should learn, how to handle composite reality by using composite concepts, instead of by pure concepts. From evolutionary reasons, the combination of analytic and synthetic thinking would always win over the specialized approaches.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2010
This is why the famous double slit experiment appears so counterintuitive. But does it mean, this experiment is wrong and what we are observing during it IS NOT a wave diffraction pattern?

It is NOT counterintuitive since the electron wave DOES move through both slits to interfere with itself on the other side of the slits. When the diffracted wavefront reaches the screen it resonates with one of the absorbers in the screen and collapses to record a point. On its way towards the slit the wave has wave-fronts, but its intensity is its mass intensity. Thus it has a centre of mass: An idiot measuring its movement will thus conclude that it is a particle: which it is NOT.
In dense Aether theory such insight is quite natural - every undulating blob of elastic foam appear both wave..

Prove the existence of "foam" experimentally before hallucinating any further!
you simply cannot explain all aspects of observable reality just by waves in similar way,

I can!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2010
In fact, the concept of duality is maybe the best feature of quantum mechanics at all.

Absolute nonsense!!
seneca
1 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2010
It is NOT counterintuitive since the electron wave DOES move through both slits to interfere with itself on the other side of the slits.
The worse for you, it's not wave of electron iself, but the wave of vacuum surrounding this electron like waves surrounding the floating duck. Electron itself remains quite small particle and it can indeed pass through only one of slits during each run...

http://tinyurl.com/y82ux3j
hush1
not rated yet Apr 17, 2010

Did he assert that?


Yes, he did. You are correct - it was not in his lectures. I will provide you with the citation, if you desire. Yes, he remains one of the greatest men of science. His assertion in no way diminishes his invaluable contributions to science.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2010
The worse for you, it's not wave of electron iself, but the wave of vacuum surrounding this electron like waves surrounding the floating duck.

Prove this experimentally please: When the duck moves through one slit you assert that the wave will move symmetrically through both slits.
Electron itself remains quite small particle and it can indeed pass through only one of slits during each run...

Yes this is the claptrap that the Copenhagen mafia succeeded into sending into the world and in the process they derailed modern physics into Alice's wonderland.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2010
Yes, he did. You are correct - it was not in his lectures. I will provide you with the citation, if you desire.

Please do so: I would like to use it in my forthcoming book!
seneca
Apr 18, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2010
Nott quite symmetrically, but this is just a reason of interference of fringe patterns during double slit experiment.

PLEASE: If it is not symmetrically you must have shift in the double slit pattern!
I don't think, proponents of Copenhagen interpretation are mafia.

Maybe I should not have used such a harsh term: But there is no doubt that Bohr shouted down Schroedinger in 1926!
Firstly, there exists at least dozen of another quantum mechanics interpretations, at second everyone is using Schrodinger/Dirac equation, when he need to compute something seriously and he ignores some interpretations.

So what: We are talking about interpretation here. And the interprteation called "wave-particle duality which leads to the bipolar princile called "complementarity". Only people who still believe in the Tooth Fairy, believe the latter fairytales. It is not necessary

johanfprins
3 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2010
Aether theory explains, the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics has a good reason - it's impossible to estimate motion of individual balls inside of pile just by observation of surface of pile, because part of information about balls position is always lost. In AWT the universe is indeterministic because it simply IS random.

From your own description Aether Wave Theory must be bollox: You have now gone from particles, to ducks to balls. The fact is that "our universe" can be causally modelled in terms of fields, some time-independent and some time dependent, and their interactions. NOTHING ELSE IS NEEDED. No indeterministic, random particles, ducks or balls involved whatsoever.
seneca
1 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2010
But there is no doubt that Bohr shouted down Schroedinger in 1926!
Yes, I know about it. Schrodinger was a convinced aetherist and a proponent of deterministic approach to QM, whereas Bohr was a pure abstract positivist (Schrodinger: "If we are going to stick to this damned quantum-jumping, then I regret that I ever had anything to do with quantum theory.")

In the similar way the Lorentz or even Einstein's approach to aether (note his Leyden's lecture) was shouted down by proponents of abstract relativity interpretation. But both these theories still have deep roots in aether.

But now it's just you, who is rather playing a role of positivist here. The Schrodinger's argument regarding his poor cat is wrong - the cat will not be both live, both death, because its destiny is causally connected with the destiny of radioactive atom in trigger. It's entangled with it, so it doesn't matter, whether observer can see it or not, the cat will be dead for sure, whenever atom decompose.
seneca
1 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2010
the interpretation called "wave-particle duality which leads to the bipolar principle called "complementarity"
I don't deny, all particles are formed by standing waves of something. But these standing waves are just formed by collisions of another particles, and so on. You cannot explain reality only by waves and fields in the same way, like you cannot explain it only by colliding particles. When the number of particles increases, they will form the waves and wave packets. When the density of wave packets increase, they would appear & behave rather like colliding spherical particles. These two interpretations of reality are mutually emergent and they alternate in nested fractal way.

After all, we can observe it by naked eye during nested condensation of supercritical fluid. The Brownian noise in it has a character of waves, but when its density increases, these waves will condense into droplets and the whole process can even repeat multiple-times.

http://tinyurl.com/y2wor9w
seneca
1 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2010
"our universe" can be causally modeled in terms of fields, some time-independent and some time dependent, and their interactions.
But who will explain & causally model just these fields? The fact, light is spreading in transversal waves is quite nontrivial one. The waves of what? Why is it so? Why photons are formed during this? Why electric component is separated from magnetic field just by half-period? We should realize, Maxwell's equations were based on the model of elastic fluid - Maxwell was an convinced aetherist, too. Without such model these equations are completely ad-hoced & guessed. Whereas just the model of elastic undulating matter illustrates it quite clearly and virtually everyone could imagine it.

http://tinyurl.com/y2eywdw
http://tinyurl.com/y7xnvcl

Why to prohibit the people access to such understanding, if this explanation exist here and it's quite trivial? It would be a sort of religious scholastic of Holy Church era.
seneca
1 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2010
If it is not symmetrically you must have shift in the double slit pattern!
But this asymmetry would be quite small, because the deBroglie wave surrounding moving electron is very large, too. But I've problem to consider whole this wave as a part of particle. If electron would be composed of large deBroglie wave, he couldn't pass the small slit at all - it would always tunnel through it even at centimeter scale and we would observe it as a slowing of electron during passing the slit.

In addition, the charge of single electron could affect many meters of space. But his deBroglie wave is nearly the same, like the wave of neutral neutron (if we consider the 1500x higher mass of neutron) - it's evident, the scope of deBroglie wave has nothing to do with charge scope of electron, only with its mass.

So I do believe, the deBroglie wave is in fact formed by undulating vacuum, surrounding massive particle, rather then by particle itself.
johanfprins
3 / 5 (2) Apr 19, 2010
@seneca,
This is all speculation without any experimental or related logic. The incontrovertible fact is that the intensity-distribution of ALL HARMONIC waves is the wave's energy: So why would it be a probability distribution for an electron? Furthermore, all chemistry is modelled by assuming that the electron's charge is distributed within the wave's intensity: AND THESE CALCULATIONS WORK. Thus pure logic leads to the most probable and simplest interpreation: Namely that an electron IS a wave within which its charge is distributed and which has an intensity-distribution equal to its mass and gravitational energy. Thus the electron wave does move through both slits by forming two lobes (just as a p-orbital can form two lobes). The centre of charge (and centre-of mass) is situated between the two lobes. This is why the wave can be deflected by a magnetic field within a solenoid (Aharanov-Bohm) because its centre of charge actually moves smack bang through the magnetic-field.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 19, 2010
But now it's just you, who is rather playing a role of positivist here

Stop tagging people. It is clear that Schroedinger solved QM totally, even though his wave equation is an approximation. The only thing that was missed is that the wave-intensity can morph "instantaneously" when the boundary conditions change. This fully explains quantum jumps without having to invoke nonsense like wave-particle duality. *0 yeras has been wasted in generating physics which is based on virtual reality.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 19, 2010
I don't deny, all particles are formed by standing waves of something. But these standing waves are just formed by collisions of another particles, and so on. You cannot explain reality only by waves and fields in the same way,

You can and I am doing this in my forthcoming book!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 19, 2010
But who will explain & causally model just these fields? The fact, light is spreading in transversal waves is quite nontrivial one. The waves of what? Why is it so? Why photons are formed during this?

As I have already said, I can moderl every aspect from black-body radiation to the photo-electric effect purely in terms of wave interactions. Photons are not prticles: The quantum is just the minimum energy that a light wave can have. A monochromatic laser beam does NOT consist of "photon"-particles: It is a single holistic entangled electro-magnetic wave: It can however disentangle when the boundary conditions change: e.g. when it impinges into a metal.
Waves morph, superpose and entangle when the boundary conditions require them to do so. These are causal interavtions. If this were not the case, you would not have had radio's etc. I am not ashamed of the fact that I believe that nature is not inherently probabilitic: There is no reason why it has to be!
seneca
1 / 5 (2) Apr 19, 2010
the incontrovertible fact is that the intensity-distribution of ALL HARMONIC waves is the wave's energy: So why would it be a probability distribution..
Do you have some formal or computer tool, how to separate all these harmonic waves by their amplitude, frequency and phase shift from wave packet? If not, you should consider their running average in both space, both time intervals only, i.e. their probability distribution. And because you never attempted for it, you even cannot claim, the electron wave energy consists from harmonic waves only. You simply cannot have any experimental evidence for it.

The fact, electron does a harmonic deBroglie wave in vacuum during its motion through double slit shouldn't fool you at all: the duck swimming at the surface of river makes regular waves too, while it still remains quite complex object internally. You cannot analyze duck's intestines just by observing its surface waves at distance.
seneca
Apr 19, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 20, 2010
The idea of a wave-packet is superposition of mathematical running waves to form the packet. Each running wave must be an electron. Such superposition only occurs withi a conductor where all valence electrons superpose after one switched on an electric-field. It is not possible for a SINGLE electron within vacuum to form from non-exitent electron-waves. Thus to analyse a wave packet formed by a single elertron in "free space" is senseless vodoo physics.
So please I am not interested to argue about absurd ducks with or without intestines.
broglia
1 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2010
It is not possible for a SINGLE electron within vacuum to form from non-exitent electron-waves.
Such electron can be formed from photon pair.

http://en.wikiped...oduction
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 20, 2010
Such electron can be formed from photon pair.

You know very well that I was not referring to pair creation at all but to the stupid idea that a wave-packet can be generated within a vacuum by summing over an infinite number of Scroedinger waves, of which only can represent the electron. If a Schr wave cannot model an electron on its own it cannot superpose with other electron waves to form a wave-packet!

Slotin
1 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2010
..it cannot superpose with other electron waves to form a wave-packet..
But this is basically an idea, which the whole concept of quantum teleportation is based on. So far we still cannot produce new electron just from microstates of environment because it's too heavyweight - but we can replicate new photon at different place already.

And we can observe a quantum mirage phenomena, which is basically a formation of new particle (wave packet) from superposition of many others (wave packets) just by your definition - or not?

http://en.wikiped...m_mirage
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 21, 2010
@Slotin,
I have prblems to post. Will respond asap.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 21, 2010
As soon as i type more than one sentence I am closed down
Alizee
Apr 21, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2010
I will have it fixed on Saturday
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2010
But this is basically an idea, which the whole concept of quantum teleportation is based on.

Electron waves only form a superposed wave when each wave is an electron. The superposition of POSSIBLE solutions of which only one can be an electron is not possible: For example, after solving Schroedinger's single-electron equation IN "FREE" SPACE by setting V=0: One does NOT obtain a sea of electron-waves which can superpose to form a wave packet.

Teleportation of an electron occurs through the superconducting phase that I have discovered; which form by the entanglement of millions of electrons in vacuum. It is a single holistic macro-wave in which the original electron-waves totally lose their separate identities. When injecting an electron at one contact it "disappears" and increases the energy of the macro-wave. This gives this wave a time-interval (del)t to eject an electron at the other contact. No particle moves from contact to contact. Charge-transport is non local.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2010
And we can observe a quantum mirage phenomena, ....etc.

Mirage needs a coral of atoms. There are thus more than one actual electron wave which can combine with one another.

It has been missed since 1927 that electron-waves can combine in two ways to form larger waves: (i) By normal superposition (ii) By entanglement during which they totally lose their individual existences. The macro-wave is then a single holistic entity.

When solving Schr. eq. for a single entity, the wave has a time-independent intensity distribution which only changes when the boundary conditions change. The wave is thus in immediate contact with itself over its whole volume.

When the boundary conditions change the wave can thus morph "instantly" in shape and size. This is what REALLY happens during a quantum jump.

EPR: When making a measurement on a two-component entangled wave, the boundary conditions are changed, and the wave "instantly" morphs into two correlated separate waves.