Johan Frans Prins

DSc (materials Science)
Director
Sage Wise 66 (Pty) Ltd · Directorate

Publications

  • Source
    Johan Frans Prins
    [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 diamond-substrate with a very high density of oxygen atoms by means of plasma-ion implantation [1]. The density of the oxygen must be high enough so that the when the anode is pressed onto the doped-surface, an ohmic contact is formed. The experimental results indicated that the extracted electrons between the anode and the diamond surface might be forming a superconducting-phase. A model based on energy band-bending was proposed [2]. It has since been found that the latter model must be revisited since such band-bending does not occur: Here a revised model is derived from the well-established laws of physics that govern the formation of dipole-layers (space-charge layers) across electronic-interfaces. It is found that this derivation demands that all charge-carriers, 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 space-charge layer that constitutes the ohmic-interface. Since the charge-carriers are not being accelerated and not being scattered, it must mean that such a space-charge layer is a superconductor.
  • Source
    Johan F Prins
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the pusuit of physics-knowledge 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 physics-models 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 impossible-physics obscures the understanding of real physics. Here, Einstein’s scenario, which he invoked to derive and interpret the equations of the Lorentz coordinate-transformation, is analysed and it is concluded that, just like epicycles, his “derivation” of the Lorentz-transformation in terms of his proposed scenario, is based on the impossible. It is found that the Lorentz-transformation of time is not caused by “time-dilation”, which is impossible physics, but by the Doppler-effect which, owing the the non-existence of the aether, demands that the untransformed and transformed position-coordinates cannot be coincident in space, and the untransformed and transformed times cannot be simultaneous times. This interpretation of the Doppler-effect indicates that dark matter is not required to understand the motion of luminous matter within galaxies.
  • Source
    Johan F Prins
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: As proposed by Einstein, and used in text books, the conventional way to derive the equations of the Lorentz-transformation is done by linearly equating two mathematical expressions which are both individually equal to zero. For such a derivation the Lorentz-transformation should not be a mathematically-isomorphic transformation that maps a single coordinate-point within one reference-frame into single coordinate-point of another reference-frame. Since it is known that the Lorentz-transformation actually does the latter, an alternative derivation for these equations must be valid. Here such a derivation is proposed: Although the Lorentz-equations, 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 Lorentz-transformation only applies when transforming the three-dimensional position-coordinates and the time of (what will be called) a "primary-event" at these position-coordinates of a point, within (what will be called) a "proper" inertial reference-frame (IRF), into "non-primary" position-coordinates within a "non-proper" IRF. These non-primary transformed-coordinates cannot, in turn, be transformed back into the primary coordinates, at which the primary-event has occurred without destroying physics-reality.
  • Source
    Johan F Prins
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: According to Einstein, a reference-frame which is performing circular motion, so that entities within this reference-frame experience free-fall within the inertial reference-frame relative to which the circular motion is occurring, is also an inertial reference-frame [1]. If this deduction by Einstein is correct, it demands that the speed of light within such a free-falling reference-frame must have the same constant magnitude c that the speed of light has relative to any unidirectional-moving, inertial reference-frame. Here equations are derived for relativistic-transformations of a laser wave-front that is emitted within such a free-falling, circularly-moving reference-frame; along the radius of the circular path that this free-falling reference-frame is following. It is found that, if the speed of light is the same within both reference-frames, neither the position-coordinates nor the time-coordinates of this wave-front are coincident within the circularly-moving reference-frame and the stationary inertial reference-frame, relative to which the circular-motion is occurring. When extrapolating this result to large values for the radius of motion, so that the circularly-moving reference-frame 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 reference-frames at the same instant in time.
  • Source
    Johan F Prins
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It has been mooted in the literature that there must be a relationship between a metal-insulator transition and the formation of a superconducting condensate. In this study the possibility is investigated that a superconducting-condensate must be preceded by the formation of a Mott-type insulator having a high-density of distinguishable, localised-orbitals. This leads to a “stationary charge-carrier” (SCC) model, according to which superconduction occurs when such localised-orbitals can hop by means of quantum-fluctuations: 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 “pseudo-gap”.
  • Source
    Johan F Prins
    [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 photo-electric effect based on the postulate that each electron, which is ejected from a metal, when irradiating the metal with a light-wave having a frequency f, absorbs only a quantum of light-energy equal to hf. The existence of such light-quanta had been postulated by Max Planck (1858 to 1947) in 1900 when he modelled black-body 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 light-energy. Einstein was and still is correct. 2 A justification for the validity of the Lorentz-equations, which had been jointly discovered by Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1853 to 1928) and Henri Poincaré (1854 to 1912) during the time-interval 1898 to 1904. Einstein claimed that these equations demand that light must move with the same speed c relative to any matter-entity in the universe (including the light source), no matter with what speed the latter entities are moving relative to any other matter-entity: Subsequent experimental measurements consistently confirmed that Einstein was and still is correct; also in this case. These manuscripts became cornerstones of modern physics. Light-quanta eventually led to matter-waves 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, post-modern interpretation of physics which is in vogue at present. Einstein deduced from his correct equation for the photo-electric effect that this model can only be valid if a single light-wave, with a single frequency f, cannot exist of continuously distributed electromagnetic energy, as is required when modelling such a wave by Maxwell’s successful wave-equations for light (James Clarke Maxwell: 1831 to 1879), but that such a wave must consist of a discontinuous distribution of separate light-quanta. Since Maxwell’s equations have modelled, and still model, the properties of a single light-wave (and thus also any single electromagnetic-wave) correctly in terms of a continuous distribution of electromagnetic wave-energy (or else we would not have had radio-wave transmissions), Einstein’s interpretation of his model for the photo-electric effect had to inevitably lead to the concept of “wave-particle duality”: i.e. the assumption that a single light-wave must sometimes consist of a collection of separate quantum-“particles”, and at other times be a single wave with a continuously-distributed intensity. After about 20 years, Einstein realized that his model for the photo-electric 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 photo-electric 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 light-wave 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 “wave-particle duality” must be a physics-reality; which can only be interpreted in terms of unreal probability-waves. This decision was carried by majority-vote: 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 Lorentz-equations, 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 re-affirmed as his first postulate on which he based his special theory of relativity, the laws of physics, within the two reference-frames (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 physics-theory 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 photo-electric effect and the Lorentz-equations 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 present-day 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.
  • Source
    Johan F Prins
  • Johan F Prins
    [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 reference-fames. This demands that when a coherent light-source emits a wavefront, this wavefront must move away from the instantaneous position of the source, within all possible inertial reference-frames, 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 reference-frames: These lengths relate covariantly to one another. Here the length within the inertial reference-frame, in which the light-source is stationary (which will be called the primary length) is Lorentz-transformed into a passing inertial reference-frame. It is found that this transformation can only be self-consistent if Einstein’s concept of time-dilation on a moving clock is rejected: This is so since Einstein interpreted the transformation of time in a non-covariant manner by not using the full Lorentz-transformation.
  • Source
    Johan Prins
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In textbooks the equation which models the Doppler-shift for a light-wave, is derived by claiming that this equation is a result of Einstein’s concept of time-dilation. 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 previously-synchronised perfect-clocks, 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 Doppler-shift can be obtained by invoking Einstein’s concept of time-dilation, is found to be a fortuitous accident based on two wrong assumptions which cancel one another.
  • Johan F Prins
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Directional emissions of light-pulses from a point-source (which is stationary at the origin of a moving inertial reference-frame) towards detectors which are all stationary at a constant radial-distance from the light-source (within the latter’s inertial reference-frame) are transformed into another time-synchronized inertial reference-frame relative to which the source is moving with a speed v. Both the Galilean-transformation and the Lorentz-transformation are used. Light-pulses along different directions are compared to the equivalent situation when a spherical wavefront is emitted from the same source. The Galilean-transformation 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 reference-frame. In contrast, the Lorentz-transformation 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 reference-frames, respectively. Here it is found that the Lorentz-transformation of simultaneous-instantaneous position-coordinates, of points on the wavefront within the moving inertial reference-frame, does not result in points which are simultaneously situated on its twin wavefront within the stationary inertial reference-frame. This is a compelling proof that an event which occurs at nonzero position-coordinates and at a nonzero time within the moving inertial reference-frame is not observed coincidently from the origin of another time-synchronized inertial reference-frame relative to which the reference-frame 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 simultanées-instantanées 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; 27:38-54. DOI:10.4006/0836-1398-27.1.38 · 0.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Johan F Prins
  • Source
    Johan Prins
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An interface between two conducting solid-state materials can act as a diode or an ohmic-contact. In textbooks on Solid State Physics and Electronics, both types of contacts are modelled by postulating that, just after the contact-interface is initiated, charge-transfer occurs through this interface from one material to the other by means of diffusion of charge-carriers; so that a space-charge (dipole) layer forms across the interface: It is argued that such charge-transfer ends when the Fermi-levels, within the two interfaced materials, reach the same electronic-energy. When interfacing an extrinsic n-type conductor to an extrinsic p-type conductor, the conduction-band edge and valence-band edge within these extrinsic conductors, do not have the same energy within the two materials after the Fermi-levels have reached the same energy. It has therefore been assumed that these band-edges must “bend” in energy when they pass through the space-charge layer. Here it is argued that these energy-levels cannot pass through the space-charge layer, and therefore cannot bend in energy. An alternative approach to model elecronic contact-formation between solid-state materials is proposed.
  • Source
    Johan F Prins
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It is well-known that, when ignoring temperature effects, the solution of Schrödinger's equation for an isolated block of a so-called ideal-metal, which is chemically-bonded by N valence electrons, gives N delocalised, stationary, electronic wave-states with different energies. Each one of these Schrödinger-waves fills the whole volume Ω of the ideal-metal, no matter how large this volume is. In contrast, when applying an electric-field between two contacts to such a metal, a distribution of N localised charge-carriers are experimentally measured, each having, on average, the same kinetic-energy. 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 Fermi-level at the instantaneous position of each charge-carrier. At the same time these charge-carriers are dissipating kinetic energy owing to scattering. Here it is proposed that, barring temperature effects, these charge-carriers might only be present within the metal when an electric-field is present within the metal: This implies that at low temperatures (T≈0) there might not be any free charge-carriers within a solitary conductor. The consequences of this possibility are analysed and discussed. 2
  • Johan Prins
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Einstein used the Lorentz-equations to transform the instantaneous position-coordinates at the moving-tail and moving-nose of a rod (within an inertial reference-frame (IRF) relative to which the rod is moving with a speed v) into the inertial reference-frame 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 matter-entity, when it experiences no forces, is to remain stationary within its own inertial reference-frame. Motion of such an entity with mass is caused by a relativistic coordinate transformation of its position-coordinates from the inertial reference-frame within which this entity is permanently stationary into the inertial reference-frame 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 physics-meaning. Here, the change in length of a rod (passing at speed v) is derived by Lorentz-transforming the permanently stationary position-coordinates at the beginning and end of the rod, from the inertial reference-frame within which the rod is permanently stationary into the inertial reference-frame 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 length-increase bestows on any matter-entity 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: Lorentz-Transformation; Special Theory of Relativity; Length-Contraction; Coherent WaveMotion; Electron-Wave; de Broglie’sWavelength; Lorentz–Fitzgerald Contraction. Received: February 5, 2013; Accepted: October 13, 2013; Published Online: December 30, 2013 a)johanprins@cathodixx.com
    Physics Essays 12/2013; 26:599-603. DOI:10.4006/0836-1398-26.4.599 · 0.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Johan Prins
  • Source
    Johan Prins
  • Johan F Prins
    07/2011; Sage Wise 66 (pty) Ltd., ISBN: 1466377437 and 9781466377431
  • J. F. Prins, H. G. F. Wilsdorf
    Canadian Journal of Physics 02/2011; 45(2):1177-1187. DOI:10.1139/p67-086 · 0.93 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Johan F Prins
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aharanov and Bohm used thought-experiments to predict that electromagnetic potentials have quantum-mechanical effects on charged particles even in regions of space where the actual electromagnetic fields are supposedly identically-zero. Here, it is argued that these thought-experiments are flawed since they do not take the actual physical boundary-conditions correctly into account: It is concluded that Aharanov’s and Bohm’s prediction violates well-established, fundamental aspects of both classical and quantum physics; and most probably also mathematics: As a counter-mechanism it is proposed here that the interaction of a diffracting electron (with a magnetic-field generated by a long solenoid situated directly behind, and between two diffraction-slits) can be modelled in terms of a local force acting on the “centre-of-charge” of the diffracting electron during the time that this charge moves through the magnetic-field generated by the solenoid. Owing to Ehrenfest’s theorem, this force-interaction is in essence “classical”. If this reasoning is correct, it has serious implications for the use of the Aharanov-Bohm effect to model flux quantization through superconducting rings; as well as for the Copenhagen-interpretation of quantum physics. Within the context of the conclusion that has been reached here about the Aharanov-Bohm mechanism, some of the latter aspects are analysed, discussed and to a certain extent speculated on.
  • Source
    Johan F. Prins
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Superconduction manifests when a steady-state current flows through a material without an electric field being present. It is argued here that the absence of scattering of the charge-carriers, 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 charge-carriers form part of an array of dielectric charge centres, and (ii) the charge-carriers 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 highly-doped p-type diamond. In each case a satisfactory description of the experimental results is demonstrated.

90 Following View all

83 Followers View all