First images of heavy electrons in action (w/ Video)

Jun 02, 2010
In this schematic diagram, individual electrons (white spheres) interact with uranium atoms (shown as yellow and blue f-electron orbitals of the uranium atoms) as they move through the URu2Si2 crystal. These interactions drastically inhibit the progress of the electrons, making them appear to take on extraordinary mass - an effect imaged for the first time in this study.

Using a microscope designed to image the arrangement and interactions of electrons in crystals, scientists have captured the first images of electrons that appear to take on extraordinary mass under certain extreme conditions. The technique reveals the origin of an unusual electronic phase transition in one particular material, and opens the door to further explorations of the properties and functions of so-called heavy fermions. Scientists from the Brookhaven National Laboratory, McMaster University, and Los Alamos National Laboratory describe the results in the June 3, 2010, issue of Nature.

"Physicists have been interested in the 'problem' of heavy fermions — why these act as if they are hundreds or thousands of times more massive under certain conditions — for thirty or forty years," said study leader Séamus Davis, a physicist at Brookhaven and the J.D. White Distinguished Professor of Physical Sciences at Cornell University. Understanding heavy fermion behavior could lead to the design of new materials for high-temperature superconductors. Superconductivity allows materials to carry current with no energy loss.

In the current study, the scientists were imaging electronic properties in a material composed of uranium, ruthenium, and silicon that itself has been the subject of a 25-year scientific mystery. In this material — synthesized by Graeme Luke's group at McMaster — the effects of heavy fermions begin to appear as the material is cooled below 55 kelvin (-218 °C). Then, an even more unusual electronic phase transition occurs below 17.5K.

Scientists had attributed this lower-temperature phase transition to some form of "hidden order." They could not distinguish whether it was related to the collective behavior of electrons acting as a wave, or interactions of individual electrons with the uranium . Alexander Balatsky, a Los Alamos theoretical physicist at the Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies, provided guidance on how to examine this problem.

With that guidance, Davis' group used a technique they'd designed to visualize the behavior of electrons to "see" what the electrons were doing as they passed through the mysterious phase transition. The technique, spectroscopic imaging scanning tunneling microscopy (SI-STM), measures the wavelength of electrons on the surface of the material in relation to their energy.

"Imagine flying over a body of water where standing waves are moving up and down, but not propagating toward the shore," said Davis. "When you pass over high points, you can touch the water; over low points, you can't. This is similar to what our microscope does. It images how many electrons can jump to the tip of our probe at every point on the surface."

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
A video showing waves as they bounce off thorium atoms and change in size.

From the wavelength and energy measurements, the scientists can calculate the effective electron mass.

"This technique reveals that we are dealing with very heavy electrons — or electrons that act as if they are extremely heavy because they are somehow being slowed down," Davis said.

The detection of "heavy electron" characteristics below the second transition temperature provides direct experimental evidence that the electrons are interacting with the uranium atoms rather than acting as a wave.

To visualize this, imagine a team of football players running up the field after a kickoff. If each player were free to run unimpeded, the whole team would appear to operate as a wave of relatively independent "electrons." But imagine instead that the field is strewn with an array of chairs, and each player has to sit for an instant every time he encounters a chair before continuing up the field. In this case the chairs are analogous to the uranium atoms. Those interactions between players and chairs (or electrons and uranium atoms) clearly slow the progress.

In the case of the uranium material, the electron slowdown lasts only a tiny fraction of a second at each uranium atom. But because kinetic energy and mass are mathematically related, the slowdown makes it appear as if the electrons are more massive than a free electron.

Besides revealing these interactions as the source of "hidden order" in the compound, Davis' study shows that the SI-STM technique can be used to visualize heavy electrons. That in turn opens the door to more ways to investigate and visualize this phenomenon.

The research team is continuing to probe a variety of related compounds with this new approach to further their understanding of heavy fermion systems.

"Heavy remain mysterious in many ways, and it's our job as scientists to solve the problem," Davis said.

Explore further: Awakening the potential of plasma acceleration

Related Stories

Physicists discover surprising variation in superconductors

Jan 28, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- MIT physicists have discovered that several high-temperature superconductors display patchwork quilt-like variations at the atomic scale, a surprising finding that could help scientists understand a new class ...

Experiments Prove Existence of Atomic Chain Anchors

Feb 03, 2005

Atoms at the ends of self-assembled atomic chains act like anchors with lower energy levels than the “links” in the chain, according to new measurements by physicists at the National Institute of Standards ...

Recommended for you

Awakening the potential of plasma acceleration

1 hour ago

Civil engineering has begun for the new Proton Driven Plasma Wakefield Acceleration Experiment (AWAKE) at CERN. This proof-of-principle experiment will harness the power of wakefields generated by proton ...

Magnetic memories on the right track

1 hour ago

Computer hard drives store data by writing magnetic information onto their surfaces. In the future, magnetic effects may also be used to improve active memory in computers, potentially eliminating the need ...

When an exciton acts like a hole

3 hours ago

(Phys.org) —When is an electron hole like a quasiparticle (QP)? More specifically, what happens when a single electron hole is doped into a two-dimensional quantum antiferromagnet? Quasiparticle phenomena ...

Calculating conditions at the birth of the universe

Aug 26, 2014

(Phys.org) —Using a calculation originally proposed seven years ago to be performed on a petaflop computer, Lawrence Livermore researchers computed conditions that simulate the birth of the universe.

User comments : 91

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gunslingor1
not rated yet Jun 02, 2010
Seems to me like the "appearance" of a heavy electron only means it is accelorating spatially slower than expected, i.e. electrical resistance has increase. Doesn't seem so mysterious to me, am I missing something physics folks? I'm engineering.
sender
1 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2010
sortof reminds me of the kinetic displacement potential of water at the bottom and the top of a tsunami tidal wave
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2010
What one observes moving in solid materials, are not electrons but pseudo-particles formed by the superposition of electron waves. The latter only happens when you apply an electric-field to a solid. Ignoring temperature excitations, there are no "free electron" within any solid. Moving charges only appear as pseudo-particles when there is a suitable electric (or thermal) field to generate them.

Any "actual electron" with its mass larger than its rest mass (relative to the same inertial reference frame of the sold material) will be ejected from the material. This is what happens when electrons are ejected during the photo-electric process. Light entangles with an electron wave, increases its mass to be higher than the rest mass of an electron, and an electron is ejected. It is thus purely a wave-interaction: No "wave-particle" duality or "complementarity" involved!

Pseudoparticles with a high effective mass are NOT electrons, or else they would not stay trapped in the material.
gunslingor1
1 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2010
Interesting. Still a bit fuzzy, but I think the main thing I want to take away from this is that a heavy electron does not really have extra mass, it just appears to. Right? Mass of an electron is pritty much fixed throughout the universe, right?
Gene_H
1 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2010
Yep, you got it correctly.

It's basically mass of electron in motion (incl. relativistic effects) + effective mass of aditional electrons, which are somehow dragged by the motion of this electron - effective mass of electrons, which are moving together with this electron. Formation of magnetons (transversal waves of dragged electrons) increases effective mass of charge carriers, formation of plasmons (longitudinal charge density waves) decreases the effective mass.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2010
Still a bit fuzzy, but I think the main thing I want to take away from this is that a heavy electron does not really have extra mass, it just appears to.

A free solitary electron has a definite rest mass no matter where it is. It is a standing wave within an inertial reference frame and the boundary conditions defined by space-time give the electron-wave its intensity which is its rest-mass energy. When observed from another reference frame moving relative to the electron the mass of the electron is observed to increase with its speed and the electron wave forms wave-fronts which allows it to diffract: This is a relativistic effect: When the electron wave becomes trapped around an atom its mass-intensity decreases since its actual mass now becomes less than its rest mass. This is why it is able to "glue" atoms together. Similarly this is the reason why protons and neutrons can form nuclei. STOP THINKING "PARTICLES": THEY DO NOT EXIST!!
Gene_H
1 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2010
..when the electron wave becomes trapped around an atom its mass-intensity decreases since its actual mass now becomes less than its rest mass. This is why it is able to "glue" atoms together.
Yep, this is a feasible explanation.

Anyway, the notion of particle is just connected with standing wave, whose actual mass becomes lower then its rest mass. It's the name of certain cathegory of standing waves.

The thinking in particles simplifies the understanding/modelling many phenomena,where many such waves are involved. And we cannot avoid the particle concept on background anyway: every wave requires some particle environment for its spreading.

The same duality exists with space and time, mass and energy and many other concepts, which can be explained in dual way. The usage of biased perspective is indeed possible, but such perspective is too distant from our everyday reality, which is symmetric with respect to particle-wave concepts and I'm affraid, it's reductionistic too
Gene_H
1 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2010
We can compare various models, explanations and theories to membranes of foam in causual space-time, whose membranes streamline intuitive understanding of various phenomena. Usually between close concepts only one membrane exists, but when these concepts are more distant, there always exists more ways, in which we can interpret som particular phenomena.

"Pure wave" model of reality has a problem with so called emergent phenomena, which are arising like less or more random density fluctuations between many particles. The projection of interference of many waves in space-time in sufficiently high number of dimensions into our 3D space would produce the same result, but as everybody can feel, this formalism is maybe good for mathematicians, but for intuitive understanding of reality isn't very usefull. Our mind can handle the notion of colliding particles better in this case.

And vice-versa, for explanation of many interference phenomena the particle concept is apparently uselless.
frajo
3 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2010
membranes of foam in causual space-time

but for intuitive understanding of reality isn't very usefull

Wow - only three days from "NisaJ" to "Gene_H", Alizee. :)
gunslingor1
1 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2010
Very interesting. I do not view matter as a particle, i.e. a round sphere in space. I prefer to view a particle as a infinitely (for all intense and purposes) small point in space that is nothing more than a bend in certain properties of space. For example, an electron is nothing more than a bend in the EM aspect/property of space, a proton may be an inverse bend in the same property. Of course, these "particles" would bend other aspect/properties of space to account for the other observed forces and perhaps even bend OTHER aspects of space to account for forces that normal matter cannot interact with, i.e. parallel space-time universes perhaps.

This is just my impression of how things are. I think things like wave packets may be an abstraction of reality, waves aren't really containable by empty space, they extend indefinitely though diminish in magnitude quickly via 1/r^2.

Do I sound like a competent engineer studying physics, or do I sound like a lunatic to you? lol.
Gene_H
1 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2010
things like wave packets may be an abstraction of reality.
It's the same abstraction of reality, like "pure harmonic wave" or "pin-point" particle. But wave packet is something inbetween, so it could describe certain range of examples more exactly. Actually, the more complex model you would use, the better it can describe reality, but in more narrow scope or interval of conditions.

..or do I sound like a lunatic to you..
Not at all, these concepts are surprisingly poorly defined in physics. For example, we should realize, pure harmonic wave is abstract concept, derived under assumption, potential energy is linear function of amplitude. Real wave never behaves in such way, so it always contains a traits of particle behavior. And vice-versa, pure pin-point particle is singular concept, which cannot exist in nature - it will always appear like less or more widespread blob with both positive, both negative curvature (which leads into both attractive, both repulsive forces).
gunslingor1
1 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2010
Interesting and understood. Boy I have a lot to learn, I think all of humanity does. We have a long way to go, but these are definitely exciting times. I suspect, very soon, we are going to learn new laws of the universe that will allow a new age of human technology, like the industrial revolution, like the computer revolution, like the current nanotech revolution, this may be a sort of matter revolution.

I speculate we will find real world uses for this knowledge. For example, a thought I've had for awhile: Space flight is hindered because it takes so much energy to go places, there is no matter for a propulsion system to push against.

But there is dark matter everywhere, presumably, and perhaps other matter that weakly interacts with normal matter in other ways.

So what if we can find a normal matter subatomic particle that decays into something that can strongly interact with dark/other matter. Perhaps this transition would be a solution to our propulsion problem.
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2010
For example, we should realize, pure harmonic wave is abstract concept, derived under assumption, potential energy is linear function of amplitude.

Not at all abstract. It is easy to generate a pure harmonic and coherent wave spreading out from a point by dropping a very small pebble into a lake with placid water. What is abstract about this wave?? What IS abstract is the the concept of a "point-particle"; since a point can only exist within Plato's mathematical universe.
Wave-particle duality is absolute nonsense, since a particle can NEVER diffract but a wave with mass-energy can move like a particle since it has a centre of mass. So let's become real and stop following Heisenberg's hallucinations which he dreamt up because he felt threatened by Schroedinger's correct approach to quantum mechanics. The Copenhagen group misled physics to enter Alice's wonderland. It is a nice story but has NOTHING in common with physics-reality.
gunslingor1
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2010
"It is a nice story but has NOTHING in common with physics-reality."

Okay Mr. Zombie Cat-both dead and alive, or undead...lol. Just kidding.

Schroedinger & Heisenberg don't deserve those harsh words.
johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2010
Schroedinger & Heisenberg don't deserve those harsh words.

when looking at what happened from 1925 to 1930, Heisenberg, Bohr and Born deserve the harshest words. It is difficult to believe that they did not act in political self-interest.

Schroedinger and Einstein deserve admiration. Just a pity that they allowed the Copenhagen-group to succeed with their comical arguments. Maybe the politics in Germany with the rise of Hitler distracted them for using the impeccable logic which was on their side. As Carver Mead predicted: "..the last seven decades of the 20th century will become known as the Dark Ages of theoretical physics".

Fortunately Einstein has since been proved to have been correct by the EPR experiments: Quantum Mechanics as interpreted by Bohr, Heisenberg and Born is not complete; until you can explain instantaneous communication over a large distance! To do the latter one MUST accept that both light and matter consist only as wave-fields: NO PARTICLES!
johanfprins
2 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2010
NisaJ? Alexa, Seneca!! How many names do you have under which you keep on spreading the same illogical nonsense?
The universe doesn't care, if you like more particles or waves - it alternates both of them freely.

Prove this statement by experiment. How will you measure how "caring" the universe is. With your "foamy universe" you cannot reconcile gravity with your non-existent "quarks". When postulating that both light and matter ONLY consist of waves which (like all waves ever known) change their shapes and sizes when the boundary conditions change, all the forces in nature can be explained very simply without using "sticks and gluons".
Gene_H
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2010
Prove this statement by experiment.
I explained above, what should happen in dense particle gas. Its density fluctuations will obtain character of foam or sponge, where most of energy spreads in transverse waves, like the light in vacuum.

http://www.chem.l...co24.jpg

When these fluctuations condense, they form a sort of meta-fluid, a fluid composed of density fluctuations of another fluid.

http://tinyurl.com/33cvqv6

This could serve as a demonstration of computer simulation and the model, I explained above. I've no problem with "all is wave" approach, I'm just illustrating, how this model is switching to "all is particle" model with increasing number of dimensions of space-time, where waves exist and back again with increasing particle density.

My model of reality isn't based on single paradigm - rather on understanding, how every paradigm can be explained by using of another one(s), because we don't know, from the Universe is made of.
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2010
I explained above, what....they form a sort of meta-fluid.... This could serve as a demonstration of computer simulation.... isn't based on single paradigm

Can you not see that you are just spreading semantics which cannot be proved one way or another by experiment. Your attitude is: "If you do not like my paradigm I still have many others". This does not constitute physics.
At least you admit that you:
don't know, from the Universe is made of
.
I do know what it is NOT made of: It is NOT made of particles!! By its very definition a particle cannot diffract. This is incontrvertible evidence that an electron IS NOT a particle.

Gene_H
1 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2010
..if you do not like my paradigm I still have many others..
Dense particle system alternates them. It just depends on the position of observer in it, which perspective would be more relevant description of reality.
..particle cannot diffract. This is incontrovertible evidence that an electron IS NOT a particle..
Electron doesn't diffract during double slit experiment - the resulting picture is still composed of pin-point dots.

http://www.hitach...lit.html

I explained You many times already, it's the deBroglie wave of vacuum surrounding the electron, which is undergoing the diffraction. Electron itself is too tiny particle for being able to interfere with slit of measurable size.
johanfprins
2 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2010
Electron doesn't diffract during double slit experiment - the resulting picture is still composed of pin-point dots.

Wrong conclusion! The electron wave does diffract because it encounters new boundary conditions which forces it to change shape and size and to thus move through both slits: When the resultant interfered electron-wave reaches the observation screen, new boundary conditions forces it to resonate with one of the pixels on the screen and to collapse at that pixel. Where the intensity of the wave is the highest, a resonance is more probable: Therefore after having sent through many electron waves one can see the intensity of the wave in pixel format. What is measured has always been determined by the characteristics of the measuring apparatus not by a spooky "de Broglie wave of vacuum".
It is for this reason that Afshar could observe interference behind the slits followed collapses as if photons only moved through one slit at a time.
johanfprins
2 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2010
Do you see the problem here? Actually, your reasoning is orthogonal to both models, it's not logically connected to them.

There is no problem: Only for a person like you who likes to hallucinate. This is exactly like waves interact: They change shape and size and even fragment when encountering changes in boundary conditions. At a double slit the boundary conditions are different than at a diffraction screen, which in turn is different from using two detectors trained on the slits. Why are you unable or umwilling to accept that what you measure is what an apparatus is able to measure? Physics is causal!!
johanfprins
2 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2010
I'm just saying, common particles are composed of many kind of waves,...

So you agree that particles do not exist: Only waves! If your "common particles" are composed of waves, they cannot be particles, but must be waves! Please! At least try and argue cogently: But I suppose that the latter is impossible for a person who suffers from a multi-personality syndrome. I have read that such people are very dangerous and should be treated in an insane asylum. It seems to me that you are livng proof that this prognosis might be correct!

KBK
1.7 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2010
~IF~..all matter is made up of infinitely sized 2-d stress fields oscillating in their given possible ways..and then interacting at a given 'point',thus creating a 'wave-particle dual-vortex' (3D)..and if our reality is based on a harmonic of that, which creates our vantage point (time, quanta)..then you have the exact effects with respect to 'heavy particle' interactives that you see here. Ie, electron based angular interactives create the appearance of 'more mass' and a greater or different 'time period'/signature.

The fundamentals of Einstein's Unified field Theory (1928, introduced in Russia-who still use it to this day), the works of Gabriel Kron, and the Nobel winner Walter Gerlach (Head of 'The Nazi bell' project in WWII) all together show a mechanical basis of matter that does not require Quantum theory to be workable and engineerable.

This interactive that they came across that they do not understand here, is 1000% explained when you look into the matter as outlined above.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2010
Please!! All the nuts are now descending on this blogg like a bunch of flies. It sees to me that you are deliberately throwing about crank-arguments just to dilute physics-logic. What are you trying to achieve? Hoping that I will be classified along with you as being a crank?
KBK
1 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2010
well, nut is a relative term and vantage point.

+99.99% of all reality (as we like to call it) remains unexplained.

The rest - that we like to think we 'know', is all based on theory. The only fact we can contemplate, is that there are no facts. The rest is theory filled with fudge factors and all theories eventually fail the test of time.

Science cannot fly like an arrow, it must reinvent, re-calibrate, and re-aim itself as it moves along.

Anything else is quite notably classifiable as fear and dogmatism.

Speculation literally is the name of the game.

Literalism is the sin of religion and has no place in science.

So how would one serve speculation up to you in order to have it fulfill your particular fantasies of life as orderly dominoes?

I suggest to you that your position does not exist.

One cannot advance science and associated contemplation --without first standing outside of it.
KBK
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2010
As an example, one of 'your' hardset 'rules'..just got completely shitcanned. Just the other day in fact..it happens all the time. Deal with it.

http://www.physor...078.html

And in these incidences, the advance of science occurs. Basically, when the strength of the conviction of the new and it's adherents become strong enough to bury the stalwarts who refuse to change, or the old finally die, as max Planck said, science finally advances.

What max said was, "Science advances, Funeral by Funeral". Thus an intelligent person looks for the anomalous and moves things ahead -through those doors. With a sledgehammer, if need be. Otherwise science ends up like a blind crawling man, eventually stuck in a corner where it can't get out.

The case is that the unimaginative 'middle managers' of science are the ones who take textbooks as some form of reality. The ultimate in ego-animalism as tied to science. A nightmare for the thinking people, they be.
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2010
As an example, one of 'your' hardset 'rules'..just got completely shitcanned. Just the other day in fact..it happens all the time. Deal with it.


How did you get to this false conclusion? it is fine to be deluded as you are: You are free to do so, but sometimes it helps to use some logic; which you and NisaJ, Alizee or whatever are totally averse to do.
What surprises me is that PhysOrg allows the same person to bombard this forum with the same illogical nonsense using different names. Or is it PhysOrg itself that is using this technique to sweep new facts which contrdict"wave-particle" duality from this forum?

but a well established crackpot as well, who is fighting against particle-wave duality, uncertainty principle, etc..


So Einstein was a crackpot? I do not think so. When it comes to crackpots Heisenberg, Born and Bohr are winning hands down!!

Gene_H
1 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2010
..to sweep new facts which contradict "wave-particle" duality from this forum?

Actually, it's just you who is flooding forum with crackpot ideas by now. Frankly, I don't like very much, when physicist, who is known (& widely ignored) in mainstream community as a designated crackpot is so aggressive against other people providing well founded reasoning. It just illustrates, the fact that some men is censored & standing against mainstream doesn't automatically mean, he will not behave like censor in the same way, when allowed to do so...

Wave-particle duality is experimentally extremely well proven fact. For example photons are interacting with electron with Compton scattering. Iconic experiment with double slit is well known too and it has even its macroscopic analogy:

http://www.physor...511.html

It can be clearly seen there, oil droplets are spreading like particles and what is interfering there are actually waves of environment - not the particle itself.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2010
Wave-particle duality is experimentally extremely well proven fact. For example photons are interacting with electron with Compton scattering.

Trying again under a new name I see!: So you have a photograph of two "paticles" colliding? Please supply it so that I can convince myself that there are particles.
Very funny "photon particle" in Compton scattering: According to Planck a photon cannot have energy less tha h(nu) but during Compton scattering it slices into a photon with less energy than the original one. So, according to you, Planck must have been wrong?
Gene_H
1 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2010
So you have a photograph of two "particles" colliding?

Actually, gamma ray photons are spreading pretty well like particles. Do you see some wave there?

http://www.cosmic...enna.png

In Compton scattering the Planck constant is used just for explanation of particle character of photon, so I don't understand your question?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2010
Actually, gamma ray photons are spreading pretty well like particles. Do you see some wave there?

Yes I do: I see a localised matter wave HAVING AN INTENSITY EQUAL TO ITS MASS and thus hving a centre-of-mass, which is moving.
In Compton scattering the Planck constant is used just for explanation of particle character of photon, so I don't understand your question?

Of course you do not want to understand it. The fact is that Planck could remove the ultra-violet ctastrophe by postulating that a light wave with a certain frequency cannot have less energy than
h(nu). Whether such a wave stays a wave (which is what it really is) or becomes a particle (what you want to believe it is) it should thus not be able to decrease its energy, as you claim it is doing during a Compton "collision". Thus your interpretation of Compton scattering as the collison between two particles must violate Planck's hypothesis. QED
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2010
Interesting conversation so far, except for all the Alizee, GeneH, NisaJ garbage.

Get one posting personality, it will serve to prevent people from automatically dismissing your arguments.
Gene_H
1 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2010
it will serve to prevent people from automatically dismissing your arguments
In which mechanism? I'd say, it will help to people dismiss or support my arguments on per account basis instead - which is religious trait of every subjective discussion. In good discussion people are referencing actual arguments - the name calling is irrelevant there.
Gene_H
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2010
Gene_H
1 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2010
..whether such a wave stays a wave, it should thus not be able to decrease its energy, as you claim it is doing during a Compton "collision".
You cannot argument wave model of particles by constraint, which is relevant only for wave model of particles. This is what a tautological (circular) reasoning is called. You should use some argument, which is relevant for both models.

The wavelength actually plays no role in particle model. In particle model of Compton collisions the energy of photon dispersed can achieve arbitrary value just by exchange of momentum - which is exactly, what we are observing during experiments.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2010
Apology: I answered the gamma-ray question as electron-waves. There is, however, no reason why a quantum light wave cannot be a localised wave which will keep its shape after being emitted: It only has a single value for its frequency nu and its wave-vector k. No reason for spreading until it reaches new boundary conditions which require it to change shape and size.

All we know about Compton scattering is that a light-entity (wave) goes in with a certain energy and momentum and then interacts with an electron wave, so that a light wave emerges with a lower energy. A light wave with a quantum of energy can ONLY disappear when it is absorbed, or else Planck's model of black-body radiation will be wrong: Pure logic tells you that during CS the quantum-wave is absorbed to form an excited electron-wave which is then able to re-emit a lower energy light wave. So no collision: Just absorption and emission of light; as normally observed for any bound electron around a nucleus.
Gene_H
1 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2010
..There is,.. no reason why a quantum light wave cannot be a localized wave which will keep its shape after being emitted..
Uhm, no - the term "localized wave" is in fact oxymoron. Wave is represented with harmonic function of amplitude with time and it cannot be limited by scope. You're actually talking about soliton. After then we can call such artifact a particle, why not.

Actually, our discussion becomes boring waste of time even for me, not saying about other readers. I don't prohibit you in belief, everything can be explained with waves in sufficient number of extra-dimensions, but not in our 3D space.

The discussion about particle wave character of reality is analogous to discussion about AdS/CFT duality of quantum mechanics and relativity. It leads nowhere, because every proponent of particular stance occupies his own perspective, which is quite relevant from his reference frame. These reference frames just cannot be reconciled in completely causal way.
johanfprins
2 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2010
Uhm, no - the term "localized wave" is in fact oxymoron. Wave is represented with harmonic function of amplitude with time and it cannot be limited by scope.

You see, you just do not understand your physics. What do you interpret a chopped laser pulse to be? A massive particle? Come on stop displaying your ignorance on this forum. A chopped laser pulse IS a localised light wave which you claim cannot exist!! You can even limit its scope at will by chopping the laser beam at different lengths. Ho hum?? Go and look at a laser beam show and see how the "massive particles" move!! Ha ha ha!!
Gene_H
1 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2010
What do you interpret a chopped laser pulse to be? A massive particle?.. Ha ha ha!!
Actually, you cannot chop the coherent laser ray to pieces, smaller then the individual photons - which demonstrates particle nature of light quite apparently. And these wave pieces cannot be formed by standing wave with free ends...

http://www.astarm...7258.gif

So, you really cannot chop free wave into arbitrary slices like salami.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2010
Actually, you cannot chop the coherent laser ray to pieces, smaller then the individual photons -

I did not say that "smaller then individual photons": Any moron knows that a laser is a macro-entangled wave which do not consist of single photons and can thus not be a single photon.
So, you really cannot chop free wave into arbitrary slices like salami.

You can chop a laser beam into arbitrary slices like a salami; and each piece will be a localised wave (which you called an "oxymoron"). Since you can chop it in different size pieces so that it can become shorter, then there is no reason why a single photon cannot be a localised wave. In principle it should even be possible to chop single photons by building a suitable "disentangler"
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2010
Sorry NOT chop single photons but chopp OFF single photons. In fact this is what happens when a laser beam is used to generate photo-electrons: When it enters the material, single photon-waves are chopped off the laser beam to be absorbed by the electrons. When the energy of the electron increases through this absorption to be more than the rest mass energy, the electron is ejected. No particle-particle collision involved whatsoever. Only absorption-emission of two waves.
Gene_H
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2010
I presume, photons and other bosons doesn't exist too in your "all is a wave" theory...
Auxon
2 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2010
It's easy to critisize other people, but where are your experiments and evidence for your thoughts? Calm down and open your mind a bit and you'll get a lot further. I don't know if he's crazy or brilliant but your attitude is a bad one.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2010
I presume, photons and other bosons doesn't exist too in your "all is a wave" theory...

Bosons is based on a concept that needs re-examination. Einstein derived a statistical law for "particles" with mass, after Bose showed that Black-Body radiation can be modelled by assuming a different statistical distribution law. However, this distribution law did not, and still does not, give the frequency distribution in a black-body cavity. The latter is solely determined by the boundary conditions for standing waves: period!! Can this be "felt" by light-particles?. I doubt it. Thus, does cavity radiation consist of "boson-particles" or standing waves. It must be the latter: There is no reason why a collection of particles (whether bosons or not) cannot all be in a lowest energy state as modelled by Boltzmann statistics. Thus, yes, I am skeptic about the concept of "boson-particles". We need to approach this concept anew with open minds.
gunslingor1
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2010
You missed 2 things (1) 20 arps of ramstat polivash for shell lubrication and, (2) Flux capacitors = a dead cat.

Hows that for a unifield theory!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2010
bosons: wrong
particles: wrong
particle/wave duality: wrong
uncertainty principle: wrong


You are SLOWLY starting to become enlightened! Congratulations!
johanfprins
2 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2010
I'm actually interested not about whether things are particles or waves, relativity or quantum mechanics, strings or LQG - but about how these concepts are related mutually.

So am I! But the language to use is physics-logic. And if you cannot even define what you mean by a "particle" or a "wave", then it is impossible to conduct a logical conversation with you. All I know is that the guy who asked J J Thomson: "How can you discover "a particle" which nobody has ever seen?" was very perceptive; since any larger body having mass will have a centre-of-mass and will move as if it is a point-particle: While it is not one at all! Thus a wave with an intensity equal to mass-energy, like ALL matter waves must have, can under suitable circumstances be mistaken for "a particle" moving past an observer. Similarly a light wave can be localised, but this does not mean that it is a particle. Thus there is no need to postulate the existence of particles "which nobody has ever seen".
Gene_H
1 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2010
if you cannot even define what you mean by a "particle" or a "wave"
Wave is the solution of wave equation.

http://en.wikiped...equation

Particle concept was defined by Einstein as the object with "center of mass".
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2010
Wave is the solution of wave equation.
No, no it's not. You're homeschooled aren't you?

Particle concept was defined by Einstein as the object with "center of mass".

Why would you use a definition that directly asserts, under our current knowledge, that johan is correct when you're trying to refute him directly?

For reference:
Wave - a disturbance or variation that transfers energy progressively from point to point in a medium and that may take the form of an elastic deformation or of a variation of pressure, electric or magnetic intensity, electric potential, or temperature.


There's the layman's definition for you. Start there and work your way up to the big boy physics.

Also, using yet another known Alizee screen name (Auxon) to reinforce your own statements as though you were an external observer is delusional and intellectually dishonest.
Gene_H
1 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2010
Hi Johan, I'm always an intrinsic observer - Auxon is not my identity. There are a few guys, who don't like aether model, but they're enjoying various social games with another users - so you've been warned. You can use the report feature, when you're unsure about true identity of other users here.

What is the definition of wave and particle concepts of yours?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2010
Particle concept was defined by Einstein as the object with "center of mass".

It is difficult to believe that Einstein would have defined a "particle" as such. This would mean that Jupiter and the Sun are also particles. In QED it is inherently assumed that an electron is a particle since it only manifests at a single point. This is what is meant by "a particle" in qunatum mechanics and therefore its "position" is modelled by a Dirac delta function. I maintain that such particles cannot exist. When a body is larger than a point it defines a field and can thus not be a particle. An electron is defined by a field which can be derived from a harmonic wave equation with a complex amplitude. Therefore unless the boundary conditions change, this field's intensity is independent of time and equal to the energy of the electron which is its mass and curvature of space around it. Thus the electron is not a particle as interpreted by the Copenhagists.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 08, 2010
Hi Johan, I'm always an intrinsic observer -
Shorthand for unstudied and uneducated
Auxon is not my identity.
Blatant lie. You've admitted to the persona in the past, Zephyr
There are a few guys, who don't like aether model,
Physicists
but they're enjoying various social games with another users
"I don't like it when I get downranked"
johanfprins
2 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2010
@ Skeptic Heretic,
Your definition is only valid for a classical "running" wave. A more general definition must also include standing waves, and after Schroedinger's equation, waves with complex amplitudes. Where-as for classical waves energy is transferred by wave-fronts moving through a medium, this does not happen for the wave amplitudes obtained from Schroedinger's equation. The wave-fronts do not form within three-dimensional space. Wave fronts only "leaks" into 3D space when an electron wave resonates with new boundary conditions. If not, the wave intensity does not change at all: HOWEVER, when such a wave is viewed from a passing inertial reference frame it sprouts time coordinates along the direction it is moving in (Lorentz transformation): Wave fronts thus appear which can bend around objects allowing the electron to diffract: Only when the wave's mass is larger than its rest mass does de Broglie's hypothesis applies: Only then does the wave have momentum.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2010
Johan, I'm aware of this. Alizee, your correspondent, is completely untrained and unable to speak in even layman's terms without a long list of copy and paste terms (s)he's picked up from ARXIV, which you and I both know to be about as good as it gets for an "Open" science document repository. Without fundamental understanding of what you and I can converse on, it'd just be gobledy gook, as are 90% of his posts.
Example A: http://www.physor...065.html

Look at the poster NisaJ.
Gene_H
1 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2010
..Auxon is not my identity... Blatant lie..
Stop trolling. Auxon is member from 2008 year here, he doesn't post about physics and his English is perfect. Only true asocial couldn't recognize it.

http://www.physor...er/auxon

..This would mean that Jupiter and the Sun are also particles...
Why not - in wider context of galaxy or solar system. Whereas wave is massless concept and it has no apparent center of mass.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 08, 2010
..This would mean that Jupiter and the Sun are also particles...
Why not - in wider context of galaxy or solar system. Whereas wave is massless concept and it has no apparent center of mass.

See what I'm talking about Johan?
Gene_H
1 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2010
Regarding the particle-wave duality I really cannot understand your problem from solely semantic point of view.

If you're saying, "everything is a wave", you should admit, even common particles (photons, water droplets, Jupiter planet) are waves too - and after then the acceptation of particle duality shouldn't be a problem for you. You should be able to explain, how such "particles" are formed by waves - or not?

Most of (if not all) categorical claims about nature of reality are self-referencing tautologies by their very nature and as such they can be falsified in their own (absence of) logics.
Gene_H
1 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2010
Dense aether model is based on extremely well proven real life analogies. Actually, it's universality is based just on the fact, it's based on best confirmed and informal concepts, which are forming the center of our dimensional scale and whole existence, so to say. The more abstract concepts we will use in postulates, the less sure we can be about their properties, the more guessed and ad-hoced our theory will be.

It's quite common fact in Nature, particles (solitons) are composite products of many waves, whereas every wave is a composite product of many particles. An emergent 1:N symmetry exists here.

It's trivial and completely plausible physical model, which every kid can imagine it - and therefore it's just a rough trollism of mainstream physicists or various other individuals to assume, such mechanism could be broken somehow at the case of light wave or elementary particles without very good reason.
Gene_H
1 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2010
We can presume, particle-wave duality is completely symmetric stuff - just because we are living at the surface of giant particle and we are slightly more larger, then the wavelength of cosmic radiation it seems for us, particles are more fundamental artifacts.

This asymmetry has far-reaching consequences in CP-symmetry violation, matter-antimatter asymmetry, in chirality of life, etc. Formal math is based on countable numbers aka colliding particles and the gradient driven differential calculus. I presume, just the above asymmetry is the reason, why we are using transverse waves for navigation in space (and not the longitudinal waves for navigation in time intervals like bats) - and why we learned the Peano algebra before differential calculus.

We just cannot see the areas of Universe, where this symmetry is more balanced, because such places would appear like void space, i.e. singular points for us.
johanfprins
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2010
Oh my God! If I ever see "Dense aether model" again I will be in Hell!! Thanks Skeptic Heretic, I am getting your point. What can we do to help Alexa, Alizee, Nisa J, Gene H, and who else; to talk some logical sense? It is a person like this who causes the physics community to think that any idea questioning main stream ideas MUST come from a crank. Or is this person planted by the main stream physicists to deflect any new ideas which might be relevant? A kind of "sleeper" who has been activated? I am lost for words!!

Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 08, 2010
There's nothing wrong with questioning the mainstream. That's how we advance.

Perhaps we should start an educational fund and send this person through an actual physics and math course.

I'll only go for it if they're willing to admit they are actually a creationist troll with no scientific or mathematical background. Step one is admitting the problem.
johanfprins
2 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2010
It's just a matter of observational perspective, if we would see everything composed of particles, waves or mixture of both, because we cannot have any particle without many waves and any wave without environment composed of many particles.

Exactly here you are wrong: There is a BIG PHYSICS difference between: All is waves, All is particles, and all is wave-particle duality. What you can predict in the three cases are completely different. Wave-particle duality leads to useless physics. Physics models are useless when they cannot lead to causal predictions: That is why the Copenhagen interpretation is useless, and why BCS based on this interpretation is useless. The BCS model has NEVER been able to predict which materials are able to superconduct: Therefore as Bernd Matthias has pointed out many times before his untimely death, it is a useless model.
Gene_H
1 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2010
..there is a BIG PHYSICS difference between: All is waves, All is particles, and all is wave-particle duality. What you can predict in the three cases are completely different...
It cannot be, until you consider, behavior of all particles can be completely described by assumption "all is a wave". If it cannot, then your assumption is simply wrong and we should keep the duality of mutually inconsistent theories about particles and waves separately like at the case of duality of relativity theory and quantum mechanics or the duality of string theory and loop quantum gravity theory.
Wave-particle duality leads to useless physics
I can agree with the fact, it's not possible to derive homogeneous model both from particle and wave models together. But it's the problem of formal math, not the observable reality. We cannot describe many phenomena, for example the turbulence in fluid with deterministic math model - but these phenomena are still real. It just happens in physics.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2010
I'm just trying to bring the common sense into physics.
Not if you're promoting aether anything. Aether theory has been utterly proved false. Aether cannot exist, it is directly contrary to experimental evidence.
You're saying, everything is made of waves, including particles. I'm saying, I've no problem with this view, but such view doesn't impeach particle-wave duality, or the dual view, everything is made of particles.
Actually it absolutely does. Only someone with NO knowledge of physics would make such a statement.
Gene_H
1 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2010
Wave-particle duality (and duality of quantum mechanics and relativity or duality of string & loop theories in smaller extent) are important from pedagogical reasons. In addition, it demonstrates the way, in which these models can still be reconciled at formal level - at least partially.

From dense aether model follows, we can model whatever wave by sufficiently extensive system of particle collisions or vice-versa: we can model whatever particle by interference of waves in sufficient number of extra-dimensions. From practical reasons the first way could be particularly interesting (we are simulating turbulent fluids with particle models already). From theoretical reasons the second model can be more important - I presume, there exists a way, how to extrapolate formal models (i.e. derive the limit) with respect to infinite number of dimensions, or this method will be derived later, because formal math can handle the transcendental numbers (like pi-numbers) and p-adic arithmetics well.
Gene_H
1 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2010
..aether theory has been utterly proved false...
Hi, SkepticH - this controversy can be reconciled quite easily. My dense aether model is based on ancient theory of Oliver Lodge. You can read about it for example here:

http://www.scribd...of-Space

To prove your stance, you should find a publication, which deals with this theory seriously and proves it wrong. It's actually quite simple - I'm expecting, you'll find nothing.

If you find any such an article (peer-reviewed the less), then the dense aether model was only ignored - but never disproved. I know about various later theories of thin sparse aether, but these models could never actually work from apparent reason: such sparse aether cannot serve for spreading of electromagnetic waves with higher energy density, then the energy density of microwaves. Because mass/energy density of particle environment can be never lower, then the energy density of waves, which are spreading through it.
Gene_H
1 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2010
..actually it absolutely does...
Actually, there are many phenomena, which cannot be expressed with waves well. For example the quantum noise, whose inteterminism was proven experimentally with violation of Bell inequalities. When you're saying, everything is made of deterministic waves, you should prove experimentally, the previous experiments were wrong.

http://en.wikiped...eriments

Actually you're implying an existence of some hidden variables, which could describe these waves. Again, the hidden variables theory was proven wrong repeatedly.

http://en.wikiped...e_theory

With respect to falsifiability of dense aether theory it may be important, whether some phenomena or experiment could violate Bohr's complementary principle or wave-particle dualism - but no such example was confirmed yet.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2010
The model was disproved the moment we traveled into space and determined there was NO resistance akin to what aether proponents stated must be there in order for aether electrodynamics, as posited by Lorentz, to work.

Aether is not real, it never was.

Einstein's speech in 1909 on the concept rather succintly sums it up.
Today, however, we regard the ether hypothesis as obsolete. A large body of facts shows undeniably that light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory.

http://en.wikisou...adiation
Gene_H
1 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2010
Recently, Afshar et al claimed to have obtained violation of BCP in their double-slit type welcher weg experiment. But Reitzner has later performed quantum mechanical numerical simulations of the experimental arrangement and confirmed that Afshars's experimental results are in accordance with the predictions of standard quantum mechanics.

http://arxiv.org/.../0701152

It implies that, if we accept the formulation of particle-wave duality or complementary principle recounted in state-interference complementarity - there cannot be any contradiction.
Gene_H
1 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2010
Einstein's speech in 1909 on the concept rather succintly sums it up.

Einstein's speech in 1921 sums it up again.

http://www.youtub...vAIdMqng

Even later (1933) Einstein diverged from Aether concept again, but he never considered / dealt with Oliver Lodge theory seriously (..if he knew about it at all).

that light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory.
These theories have nothing to do with dense aether theory of Oliver Lodge. Albeit I presume, Mr. Prins will be not so quite happy from your latest remark, as it supports particle model over his "all is a wave" model. It's rather consistent with my stance, the particles are still just a bit more fundamental concept, then the waves.

You didn't realize it - I'm I right?
Gene_H
1 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2010
As you can see, it's not so easy to find arguments against my stance... Anyway, this debate can still be useful for readers, who are looking for most universal description of observable reality.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2010
As you can see, it's not so easy to find arguments against my stance...
Because you don't have a discernable stance. If I conduct the rest of this debate in Aramaeic you'll have difficulty finding arguments against my stance as well.

Do you even understand what you're saying at this point in time?

Einstein NEVER supported the aether concept, and his statements in 1909 and again in 1912 state directly that Lodge's explanation for the propagation of light were incorrect.

Would you care to provide sources for your supposition?

Aside from that Johan and I disagree on a great many things, however we can discuss them as rational adults using source and cited work, some of which is our own on the subject.

We're working scientists, you're a homeschooled creationist stuck on the concept of a deep water universe.

As an aside, neither of us require multiple posts nor multiple accounts to get our point across with an illusion of consensus.
johanfprins
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2010
Aside from that Johan and I disagree on a great many things, however we can discuss them as rational adults using source and cited work, some of which is our own on the subject.

Thanks Skeptic-Heretic: This is what science is all about since such a discussion can lead to the formulation of new experiments which can be used to determine what Nature says. This is my problem with Alizee, Gene H or who have you: His/her statements cannot be used in such a manner: As Pauli would say "It is not even wrong!".

As an aside, Afshar's experiment and the Aharanov-Bohm misconception are both discussed in my forthcoming book. In both cases "particles" cause inconsistencies which can only occur in Alice's Wonderland.
Gene_H
1 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2010
Einstein NEVER supported the aether concept
Actually, he interested about it from his youth...

http://www.worlds...hap1.pdf

We shouldn't forget, at the Einstein's time Aether was a mainstream theories, supported by authorities like Maxwell, Kelvin, Thompson and many others.
..state directly that Lodge's explanation for the propagation of light were incorrect...
This is simply not true.

http://www.iop.or...095.html
Gene_H
1 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2010
Lodge's conception of physics cannot be understood without consideration of the ether. This is a greatly misunderstood concept, and our persistent misunderstanding of the concept has damaged our understanding of both the historical process and the nature of physics.

In November 1921 he (i.e. Lodge) reported: 'Eddington told me he had asked Einstein in Berlin recently, who said, 'No, I have no objection to the ether; my system is independent of the ether'.'

In fact, Einstein used the idea explicitly from about 1915, and even the word.
Gene_H
Jun 09, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2010
Lodge's conception of physics cannot be understood without consideration of the ether.
Which is why it is incorrect and as such has been abandoned.
Why do you think? Aether model brings many testable predictions regarding radiowaves blue shift, gravitation waves noise and cosmologic observations (between others).


This is why you're not a scientist.

I can come up with a theory that predicts EVERYTHING in all of known reality, however, as soon as the theory is contradicted by even a single observation, it is no longer a valid theory.

You support the aether concept because you think it predicts so many things, problem is I have more than jsut one observation that is contrary. So the theory dies, right there, never to return.

Let it die Alizee. It's time to put the pet to rest.

This is simply not true.

Yes, it is, sorry.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2010
problem is I have more than just one observation that is contrary
Frankly, you have nothing - but you're still allowed to present some.
Your refusal to accept evidence doesn't show there to be a lack of evidence.
johanfprins
2 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2010
Regarding Afshar's experiment and the "Aharanov-Bohm misconception", I linked already, this misconception doesn't really exist - quantum mechanics remains insintrically indeterministic theory. It's proven mathematically.

Computer simulation is mathematics? Which boundary conditions were used for the simulation. The fact is that in the Aharanov-Bohm experiment the centre of charge of the electron wave moves smack bang through the magnetic field within the solenoid and therefore the diffraction pattern is deflected That this is so is proved by the fact that the single-slit envelope does NOT shift since in this case an electron-wave only passes through a single slit and therefore its centre-of-charge DOES NOT move through the solenoid. Similarly, in the Afshar experiment each diffracted an interfered wave cannot collide with the wires on the lens but can afterwards collapse with a 50/50 probability in either one of the detectors. Thus what is observed is totally deterministic!
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2010
Thus what is observed is totally deterministic!
And that is the same problem I have with the Aharanov-Bohm model.

You can't have an observed unobservable and claim a lack of wave form collapse.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2010
Johan, let's take it to PMs. The troll is strong with this article.
johanfprins
2 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2010
Johan, let's take it to PMs. The troll is strong with this article.

I agree.
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2010
Johan, let's take it to PMs. The troll is strong with this article.

I agree.

Regrettable.
While I don't have the competence to participate and therefore - as opposed to Alizee etc - refrain from participating, I'm very much interested in your comments which give me a unique opportunity to learn about physical aspects which are off-mainstream and at the same time definitely no-nonsense. (As opposed to that split-personality garbage we all have to endure.)
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jun 10, 2010
I'm still working on a system to make these off page conversations more inclusive. I'll let you know when it's done.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Jun 12, 2010
I'm still working on a system to make these off page conversations more inclusive. I'll let you know when it's done.

Just an offer: There's a forum at rolofs.net/phorum5 which I easily could configure to include a "physorg corner". The only disadvantage would be the need to register. No fees, no ads.
Teemu
not rated yet Jun 23, 2010
Johan F Prins, about your original experiments found this from New Scientist:
http://www.newsci...ely.html
"so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the resistivity of the electron gas is no greater than around 1011 times that of copper. This cannot be regarded as evidence of superconductivity."

How do you counter that? And isn't the cooling machinery pretty much only equipment needed for lower temperature superconductors for levitation experiment, room temperature superconductor shouldn't need that, so why can't you show that?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2010
How do you counter that?

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have not seen it before: This is another example of a person who do not understand undergraduate physics.
As you will see on my website the argument is as follows: The electrons between the diamond and anode form part of a dipole layer over the surface of the diamond: The other part is the depletion layer below the diamond's surface.

From the well established physics of dipole layers, it is easy to prove (unless you are stupid) that this dipole layer MUST cancel an electric-field within it. THIS IS A FACT. If in this case it does not do so, no microchip would EVER have functioned. Thus for the first time in history it can be proved that there is NO electric-field within the phase; even though a current is flowing around the circuit. The proof for SC is better than for any other superconsductor EVER: In the latter cases it has NOT been proved that the electric-field is exactly zero.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2010
How do you counter that? And isn't the cooling machinery pretty much only equipment needed for lower temperature superconductors for levitation experiment, room temperature superconductor shouldn't need that, so why can't you show that?

I wanted to show that but it would have required a change in my equipment. I could not get the money for it since there are closed-minded people like Archie Campbell around who cannot think past their eyeflaps.
The experiment has been repeated using a magnetic anode. The interpretation of wnat was found is as follows. The SC phase retracted from thye anode: Electrons jumped the gap and sputtered powder from the anode. Photgraphs within the gap are commensurtae with this powder floating around the phase. I need, however, better equipment with a higher resoluition, which I do not have.
Auxon
1 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2010
Hi Johan, I'm always an intrinsic observer -
Shorthand for unstudied and uneducated
Auxon is not my identity.
Blatant lie. You've admitted to the persona in the past, Zephyr


Auxon is me, and I am not Zephyr. I am also not a physicist. I am just a lover of physics and interested in different ideas. I have never used another screen name on Physorg.
Auxon
1 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2010
Also, using yet another known Alizee screen name (Auxon) to reinforce your own statements as though you were an external observer is delusional and intellectually dishonest.

I am not Alizee.
frajo
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
Also, using yet another known Alizee screen name (Auxon) to reinforce your own statements as though you were an external observer is delusional and intellectually dishonest.

I am not Alizee.

I'd like to confirm that Auxon is not one of alizee's nicks. I'm watching the alizee complex closely and in Auxon's comments there's none of the patterns which are sufficient to identify alizee.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2010
@ Auxon,
I am willing accept frajo. Looking forward to further comments from you!