Publications

[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: It has been reported that electrons can be extracted at room temperature from a diamond surface by an anode, after doping the subsurface region of the diamondsubstrate with a very high density of oxygen atoms by means of plasmaion implantation [1]. The density of the oxygen must be high enough so that the when the anode is pressed onto the dopedsurface, an ohmic contact is formed. The experimental results indicated that the extracted electrons between the anode and the diamond surface might be forming a superconductingphase. A model based on energy bandbending was proposed [2]. It has since been found that the latter model must be revisited since such bandbending does not occur: Here a revised model is derived from the wellestablished laws of physics that govern the formation of dipolelayers (spacecharge layers) across electronicinterfaces. It is found that this derivation demands that all chargecarriers, which move through any ohmic interface from one material to another, can only do this by not being accelerated and not being scattered within the spacecharge layer that constitutes the ohmicinterface. Since the chargecarriers are not being accelerated and not being scattered, it must mean that such a spacecharge layer is a superconductor. 
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In the pusuit of physicsknowledge it is possible to obtain a model that fits the experimental data but which is based on the impossible. The classic example is the epicycles which had been used to model the motion of planets. It is probable that there could still exist other physicsmodels that fit experimental data but which are similarly based on the impossible. It is imperative that such models must be found and the impossibilities (on which they are based) rejected, since such impossiblephysics obscures the understanding of real physics. Here, Einstein’s scenario, which he invoked to derive and interpret the equations of the Lorentz coordinatetransformation, is analysed and it is concluded that, just like epicycles, his “derivation” of the Lorentztransformation in terms of his proposed scenario, is based on the impossible. It is found that the Lorentztransformation of time is not caused by “timedilation”, which is impossible physics, but by the Dopplereffect which, owing the the nonexistence of the aether, demands that the untransformed and transformed positioncoordinates cannot be coincident in space, and the untransformed and transformed times cannot be simultaneous times. This interpretation of the Dopplereffect indicates that dark matter is not required to understand the motion of luminous matter within galaxies. 
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: As proposed by Einstein, and used in text books, the conventional way to derive the equations of the Lorentztransformation is done by linearly equating two mathematical expressions which are both individually equal to zero. For such a derivation the Lorentztransformation should not be a mathematicallyisomorphic transformation that maps a single coordinatepoint within one referenceframe into single coordinatepoint of another referenceframe. Since it is known that the Lorentztransformation actually does the latter, an alternative derivation for these equations must be valid. Here such a derivation is proposed: Although the Lorentzequations, derived in this manner are in this case mathematically isomorphic, it is found that the physics involved restricts this isomorphism to be unidirectional: i.e. the Lorentztransformation only applies when transforming the threedimensional positioncoordinates and the time of (what will be called) a "primaryevent" at these positioncoordinates of a point, within (what will be called) a "proper" inertial referenceframe (IRF), into "nonprimary" positioncoordinates within a "nonproper" IRF. These nonprimary transformedcoordinates cannot, in turn, be transformed back into the primary coordinates, at which the primaryevent has occurred without destroying physicsreality. 
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: According to Einstein, a referenceframe which is performing circular motion, so that entities within this referenceframe experience freefall within the inertial referenceframe relative to which the circular motion is occurring, is also an inertial referenceframe [1]. If this deduction by Einstein is correct, it demands that the speed of light within such a freefalling referenceframe must have the same constant magnitude c that the speed of light has relative to any unidirectionalmoving, inertial referenceframe. Here equations are derived for relativistictransformations of a laser wavefront that is emitted within such a freefalling, circularlymoving referenceframe; along the radius of the circular path that this freefalling referenceframe is following. It is found that, if the speed of light is the same within both referenceframes, neither the positioncoordinates nor the timecoordinates of this wavefront are coincident within the circularlymoving referenceframe and the stationary inertial referenceframe, relative to which the circularmotion is occurring. When extrapolating this result to large values for the radius of motion, so that the circularlymoving referenceframe approaches linear motion, the same result is found to be valid. This leads to the conclusion that time is not relative, but is exactly the same within all inertial referenceframes at the same instant in time. 
Article: Superconductivity and Mottphases
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: It has been mooted in the literature that there must be a relationship between a metalinsulator transition and the formation of a superconducting condensate. In this study the possibility is investigated that a superconductingcondensate must be preceded by the formation of a Motttype insulator having a highdensity of distinguishable, localisedorbitals. This leads to a “stationary chargecarrier” (SCC) model, according to which superconduction occurs when such localisedorbitals can hop by means of quantumfluctuations: As required for superconduction to occur, the proposed mechanism allows such localised orbitals to move coherently. The mechanism seems to model all superconducting materials discovered to date. It also quantitatively predicts what the properties of a material must be in order to superconduct at a temperature T. This model seems to give plausible explanations for the mysteries which are still associated with superconduction, like, for example, the “pseudogap”. 
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: "Scientists today think deeply rather than clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane. Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no basis in reality." – Nikola Tesla, 1932. 1905 is remembered as a miracle year for physics. Albert Einstein (1879 to 1955) published a series of papers which pointed physics into a new era. The two most important publications are: 1. A model for the photoelectric effect based on the postulate that each electron, which is ejected from a metal, when irradiating the metal with a lightwave having a frequency f, absorbs only a quantum of lightenergy equal to hf. The existence of such lightquanta had been postulated by Max Planck (1858 to 1947) in 1900 when he modelled blackbody radiation; and therefore h is known as Planck’s constant. Subsequent experimental measurements have consistently proved that each ejected electron does absorb only such a quantum of lightenergy. Einstein was and still is correct. 2 A justification for the validity of the Lorentzequations, which had been jointly discovered by Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1853 to 1928) and Henri Poincaré (1854 to 1912) during the timeinterval 1898 to 1904. Einstein claimed that these equations demand that light must move with the same speed c relative to any matterentity in the universe (including the light source), no matter with what speed the latter entities are moving relative to any other matterentity: Subsequent experimental measurements consistently confirmed that Einstein was and still is correct; also in this case. These manuscripts became cornerstones of modern physics. Lightquanta eventually led to matterwaves having a de Broglie wavelength and thus to quantum mechanics (Louis de Broglie 1892 to 1987), while the constancy of the speed of light led to the special theory of relativity, which has been used to modify the dynamical equations of Isaac Newton (1642 to 1727) and to prove that mass is energy: i.e. to discover Einstein’s famous formula which can be summarized as: . It is ironic that, to date, these two modern disciplines in physics, which developed from two impeccably correct postulates, could not yet lead to a unified description of Nature. After years of intense frustration with the latter failure of physics, I came to the conclusion that Einstein did not just heroically lay the foundations on which modern physics has been built, but, in addition, formulated interpretations of his postulates that, unfortunately, placed modern physics on a track which inevitably led to the unreal, postmodern interpretation of physics which is in vogue at present. Einstein deduced from his correct equation for the photoelectric effect that this model can only be valid if a single lightwave, with a single frequency f, cannot exist of continuously distributed electromagnetic energy, as is required when modelling such a wave by Maxwell’s successful waveequations for light (James Clarke Maxwell: 1831 to 1879), but that such a wave must consist of a discontinuous distribution of separate lightquanta. Since Maxwell’s equations have modelled, and still model, the properties of a single lightwave (and thus also any single electromagneticwave) correctly in terms of a continuous distribution of electromagnetic waveenergy (or else we would not have had radiowave transmissions), Einstein’s interpretation of his model for the photoelectric effect had to inevitably lead to the concept of “waveparticle duality”: i.e. the assumption that a single lightwave must sometimes consist of a collection of separate quantum“particles”, and at other times be a single wave with a continuouslydistributed intensity. After about 20 years, Einstein realized that his model for the photoelectric effect is going to cause a derailment of physics, but he just could not find the logic required to stop this from happening: He was unwilling to even consider the possibility that his interpretation of his correct equation for the photoelectric effect might be wrong. Once a physicist has published, it is painful to consider the possibility that anything could be wrong in such a manuscript. Nonetheless, Einstein valiantly tried to keep physics on a realistic track, but failed to do so: His own interpretation (that a single lightwave must consist of separate quanta) blocked him from winning this battle. This derailment, which Einstein so desperately attempted to stop, climaxed spectacularly in 1927 at the Solvay conference in Brussels. Instead of listening to the protestations of Einstein, de Broglie and Erwin Schrödinger (1887 to 1961), this conference accepted that “waveparticle duality” must be a physicsreality; which can only be interpreted in terms of unreal probabilitywaves. This decision was carried by majorityvote: Always a bad idea when doing physics! Einstein became an ignored, lonely old man before he died in 1955. Also de Broglie and Schrödinger became ridiculed. Einstein also made deductions from his, now famous, special theory of relativity: For example, he interpreted the transformation of time, which is required by the Lorentzequations, as follows: He claimed that a perfect clock, moving with a speed v relative to another identical, perfect stationary clock, must keep time at a slower rate than the stationary clock is keeping. But, according to Einstein’s own special theory of relativity, one cannot choose one clock to be uniquely stationary and the other clock to be uniquely moving. Both clocks are simultaneously moving as if the other clock is stationary. So, the obvious question is: Which clock is keeping slower time? In addition, according to the principle of relativity, formulated by Galileo (Galileo Galilei: 1564 To 1642), which Einstein reaffirmed as his first postulate on which he based his special theory of relativity, the laws of physics, within the two referenceframes (within which each clock is respectively stationary), must be the same laws, and must thus give the same experimental results when doing a measurement. The two identical clocks must thus be measuring time using the same physics: Thus, if Einstein’s interpretation is correct, the principle of relativity demands that each clock must simultaneously be keeping slower time than the other clock: Such a possibility is obviously absurd. In order to keep time in terms of the same laws of physics, the two clocks must keep the same time. No matter how well a physicstheory seems to model what is experimentally observed and measured in nature, if absurdities arise from its interpretation, such an interpretation must be wrong! It is a cornerstone of rationality that nature, and therefore physics, cannot be absurd: This book is based on the latter principle. Therefore the background is analysed that has led Einstein to interpretations of his correct postulates, which ended up being absurd. Although Einstein’s postulates, which explain the photoelectric effect and the Lorentzequations are correct, these absurdities, incorrectly derived from them, became imbedded in modern physics, where they have been causing havoc for more than 100 years! This book is intended for people with common sense who believe that absurdities cannot be physics: These people can thus not be presentday mainstream theoretical physicists who, during the 20th century, embraced absurdity as being reality! I have attempted to keep the mathematics simple, since, as just mentioned, this book does not specifically target the latter mainstream physicists. Although these mainstream physicists might benefit from reading this book, I despair: How can one redirect people who have, for more than 100 years, dogmatically embraced, and propagated the absurd as being real? The few physicists who still have objective, open minds are invited to comment.updated 08/2014; Johan Prins Family Trust. 
Dataset: LightWaveLength

Article: Length of a coherent lightwave
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: According to Einstein’s second postulate, on which the Special Theory of Relativity is based, the relative speed of light has the same value c relative to all moving entities, and thus within all inertial referencefames. This demands that when a coherent lightsource emits a wavefront, this wavefront must move away from the instantaneous position of the source, within all possible inertial referenceframes, with this speed of light. After the source has emitted n wavefronts, the length of the emitted wave must thus be different within different inertial referenceframes: These lengths relate covariantly to one another. Here the length within the inertial referenceframe, in which the lightsource is stationary (which will be called the primary length) is Lorentztransformed into a passing inertial referenceframe. It is found that this transformation can only be selfconsistent if Einstein’s concept of timedilation on a moving clock is rejected: This is so since Einstein interpreted the transformation of time in a noncovariant manner by not using the full Lorentztransformation. 
Article: Dopplershift and timedilation
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In textbooks the equation which models the Dopplershift for a lightwave, is derived by claiming that this equation is a result of Einstein’s concept of timedilation. It is shown here that when deriving this equation by invoking Einstein’s second postulate for the Special Theory of Relativity, this same equation actually demands that two previouslysynchronised perfectclocks, which are moving relative to one another with a speed v, must keep the exact same time ad infinitum. The fact that the correct formula for the Dopplershift can be obtained by invoking Einstein’s concept of timedilation, is found to be a fortuitous accident based on two wrong assumptions which cancel one another. 
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Directional emissions of lightpulses from a pointsource (which is stationary at the origin of a moving inertial referenceframe) towards detectors which are all stationary at a constant radialdistance from the lightsource (within the latter’s inertial referenceframe) are transformed into another timesynchronized inertial referenceframe relative to which the source is moving with a speed v. Both the Galileantransformation and the Lorentztransformation are used. Lightpulses along different directions are compared to the equivalent situation when a spherical wavefront is emitted from the same source. The Galileantransformation gives transformed coordinates of points on this wavefront that remain coincident on this wavefront; which, in turn, remains centered at the origin of the moving inertial referenceframe. In contrast, the Lorentztransformation mandates that the same spherical wavefront must be observed as twin wavefronts, each of which remains centered at one of the origins of the moving and the stationary referenceframes, respectively. Here it is found that the Lorentztransformation of simultaneousinstantaneous positioncoordinates, of points on the wavefront within the moving inertial referenceframe, does not result in points which are simultaneously situated on its twin wavefront within the stationary inertial referenceframe. This is a compelling proof that an event which occurs at nonzero positioncoordinates and at a nonzero time within the moving inertial referenceframe is not observed coincidently from the origin of another timesynchronized inertial referenceframe relative to which the referenceframe of the source is moving. Les émissions directionnelles d'impulsions lumineuses par une source ponctuelle (qui est stationnaire à l'origine d'un référentiel d'inertie en mouvement) vers des détecteurs qui sont tous stationnaires à une distance radiale constante de la source de lumière (dans le référentiel d'inertie de cette dernière) sont transformées vers un autre référentiel d'inertie synchronisé en temps, par rapport auquel la source se déplace à une vitesse v. La transformation de Galilée et la transformation de Lorentz sont toutes deux utilisées. Des impulsions lumineuses suivant différentes directions sont comparées à la situation équivalente dans laquelle un front d'onde sphérique est émis depuis la même source. La transformation de Galilée fournit des cordonnées transformées de points sur ce front d'onde qui restent coïncidents sur ce front d'onde ; ce dernier reste centré sur l'origine du référentiel d'inertie mobile. Au contraire, la transformation de Lorentz exige que le même front d'onde sphérique soit observé sous forme de fronts d'onde jumeaux, dont l'un reste centré sur l'origine du référentiel d'inertie en mouvement et l'autre sur celle du référentiel d'inertie stationnaire. Nous montrons que la transformation de Lorentz de coordonnées de position simultanéesinstantanées de points sur le front d'onde dans le référentiel d'inertie mobile ne crée pas de points situés simultanément sur le front d'onde jumeau dans le référentiel d'inertie stationnaire. Ceci constitue une preuve convaincante du fait qu'un événement se produisant à des coordonnées de position non nulles et à un temps non nul dans le référentiel d'inertie en mouvement n'est pas observé en coïncidence depuis l'origine d'un autre référentiel d'inertie synchronisé en temps, par rapport auquel le référentiel de la source se déplace.Physics Essays 03/2014; 27:3854. DOI:10.4006/0836139827.1.38 · 0.25 Impact Factor 
Dataset: FirstpagesAMAZONB

Article: Diodic and ohmic interfaces
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: An interface between two conducting solidstate materials can act as a diode or an ohmiccontact. In textbooks on Solid State Physics and Electronics, both types of contacts are modelled by postulating that, just after the contactinterface is initiated, chargetransfer occurs through this interface from one material to the other by means of diffusion of chargecarriers; so that a spacecharge (dipole) layer forms across the interface: It is argued that such chargetransfer ends when the Fermilevels, within the two interfaced materials, reach the same electronicenergy. When interfacing an extrinsic ntype conductor to an extrinsic ptype conductor, the conductionband edge and valenceband edge within these extrinsic conductors, do not have the same energy within the two materials after the Fermilevels have reached the same energy. It has therefore been assumed that these bandedges must “bend” in energy when they pass through the spacecharge layer. Here it is argued that these energylevels cannot pass through the spacecharge layer, and therefore cannot bend in energy. An alternative approach to model elecronic contactformation between solidstate materials is proposed. 
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: It is wellknown that, when ignoring temperature effects, the solution of Schrödinger's equation for an isolated block of a socalled idealmetal, which is chemicallybonded by N valence electrons, gives N delocalised, stationary, electronic wavestates with different energies. Each one of these Schrödingerwaves fills the whole volume Ω of the idealmetal, no matter how large this volume is. In contrast, when applying an electricfield between two contacts to such a metal, a distribution of N localised chargecarriers are experimentally measured, each having, on average, the same kineticenergy. They are acting like free, "classical particles" with mass and charge, which are moving from one contact to the other in order to reduce their potential energy, which is given by the Fermilevel at the instantaneous position of each chargecarrier. At the same time these chargecarriers are dissipating kinetic energy owing to scattering. Here it is proposed that, barring temperature effects, these chargecarriers might only be present within the metal when an electricfield is present within the metal: This implies that at low temperatures (T≈0) there might not be any free chargecarriers within a solitary conductor. The consequences of this possibility are analysed and discussed. 2 
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Einstein used the Lorentzequations to transform the instantaneous positioncoordinates at the movingtail and movingnose of a rod (within an inertial referenceframe (IRF) relative to which the rod is moving with a speed v) into the inertial referenceframe within which the rod is permanently stationary. He concluded from this transformation that such a rod contracts when it is moving past at a speed v. But, according to Galileo’s principle of inertia, the natural state of a matterentity, when it experiences no forces, is to remain stationary within its own inertial referenceframe. Motion of such an entity with mass is caused by a relativistic coordinate transformation of its positioncoordinates from the inertial referenceframe within which this entity is permanently stationary into the inertial referenceframe within which the entity is observed to be moving with the speed v. When judged in terms of Galileo’s concept of inertia, Einstein’s transformation of moving coordinates into permanently stationary coordinates has no physicsmeaning. Here, the change in length of a rod (passing at speed v) is derived by Lorentztransforming the permanently stationary positioncoordinates at the beginning and end of the rod, from the inertial referenceframe within which the rod is permanently stationary into the inertial referenceframe relative to which the rod is moving with speed v. In contrast to Einstein’s derivation, an increase in the length of the moving rod is obtained: It is found that this lengthincrease bestows on any matterentity a de Broglie wavelength.. Einstein a utilisé les équations de Lorentz pour transformer les coordonnées de position instantanées à la fin et au début d’une règle en mouvement dans un référentiel inertiel ou la règle se déplace avec vitesse v, dans un autre référentiel inertiel, au sein de lequel la règle est stationnaire de façon permanente. Il a conclu de cette transformation qu’une telle règle est contractée quand elle se déplace à la vitesse v. Mais, selon le principe de Galilée de l'inertie, l'état naturel de la matière, quand elle n’est pas assujettie à aucune force, est de rester stationnaire dans son propre référentiel inertiel. Le mouvement d’une telle matière est causé par une transformation relativiste de ses coordonnées de position du référentiel dans lequel la matière est stationnaire de façon permanente en un référentiel dans lequel la matière est observée d’être en mouvement avec vitesse v. Lorsqu’évalué en termes du concept d’inertie de Galileo, la transformation d’Einstein des coordonnées en mouvement en coordonnées stationnaires de façon permanente n’a aucun sens physique. Ici, le changement de longueur d’une règle en mouvement avec vitesse v est dérivé par une transformation de Lorentz des coordonnées de position stationnaire de façon permanente du début et de la fin de la règle du référentiel dans lequel la règle est stationnaire de façon permanente en un autre référentiel ou la règle est en mouvement avec vitesse v. Contrairement al la dérivation d’Einstein, on obtiens une augmentation de la longueur de la règle. L’on trouve que cette augmentation de longueur confère une longueur d’onde de de Broglie à toute matière.. Key words: LorentzTransformation; Special Theory of Relativity; LengthContraction; Coherent WaveMotion; ElectronWave; de Broglie’sWavelength; Lorentz–Fitzgerald Contraction. Received: February 5, 2013; Accepted: October 13, 2013; Published Online: December 30, 2013 a)johanprins@cathodixx.comPhysics Essays 12/2013; 26:599603. DOI:10.4006/0836139826.4.599 · 0.25 Impact Factor 


Book: The Physics Delusion
07/2011; Sage Wise 66 (pty) Ltd., ISBN: 1466377437 and 9781466377431 
Canadian Journal of Physics 02/2011; 45(2):11771187. DOI:10.1139/p67086 · 0.93 Impact Factor

[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Aharanov and Bohm used thoughtexperiments to predict that electromagnetic potentials have quantummechanical effects on charged particles even in regions of space where the actual electromagnetic fields are supposedly identicallyzero. Here, it is argued that these thoughtexperiments are flawed since they do not take the actual physical boundaryconditions correctly into account: It is concluded that Aharanov’s and Bohm’s prediction violates wellestablished, fundamental aspects of both classical and quantum physics; and most probably also mathematics: As a countermechanism it is proposed here that the interaction of a diffracting electron (with a magneticfield generated by a long solenoid situated directly behind, and between two diffractionslits) can be modelled in terms of a local force acting on the “centreofcharge” of the diffracting electron during the time that this charge moves through the magneticfield generated by the solenoid. Owing to Ehrenfest’s theorem, this forceinteraction is in essence “classical”. If this reasoning is correct, it has serious implications for the use of the AharanovBohm effect to model flux quantization through superconducting rings; as well as for the Copenhageninterpretation of quantum physics. Within the context of the conclusion that has been reached here about the AharanovBohm mechanism, some of the latter aspects are analysed, discussed and to a certain extent speculated on. 
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Superconduction manifests when a steadystate current flows through a material without an electric field being present. It is argued here that the absence of scattering of the chargecarriers, although absolutely necessary, is not sufficient to explain why an electric field is zero when a current flows between two contacts to a superconducting material. It is concluded that an electric field, and thus a resistance, must manifest unless (i) the chargecarriers form part of an array of dielectric charge centres, and (ii) the chargecarriers can increase their velocities without increasing their kinetic energies. A model is propoased which allows these requirements to manifest. The model is fitted to selected experimental results which have been published for low temperature metals, YBCO, and highlydoped ptype diamond. In each case a satisfactory description of the experimental results is demonstrated.

Questions & Answers · 131031% of RG SCORE

Research Feedback