I recommend that you read 'The Physics Delusion' by Professor Johan Prins. He has a few things to say about errors...
"Shortly before retiring as a world authority on ion implantation into diamond, Johan Prins discovered an unexpected electrical phenomenon while extracting electrons from diamond. Further experimentation led to the remarkable conclusion that this behavior must be superconduction at room temperature. This conclusion follows impeccably from well-established Solid State Physics which successfully models electronic devices. When Johan tried to engage the physics community, the "experts" on superconduction refused point blank to consider this discovery unless it conforms with their dogma."
about errors...
perhaps the BCS Nobel was an error..
from Conduction state transition induced by solitons in a graphene junction at room temperature
"In the books 'The Physics Delusion - the urgent need to reinterpret modern physics -' and 'Superconductions at Room Temperature without Cooper Pairs', the author, Johan F Prins, describes an experiment where a superconducting bond made up exclusively of electrons is created at room temperature between two tiny diamond electrodes separated by a gap of many microns [7–9]. This kind of superconductivity obviously cannot be modeled by the widely accepted BCS theory of Cooper pairs. In the latest book [9], the author writes [pp. 304–305]: 'I was forced to conclude that the stable phase which forms between the two interfaces has to consist entirely of electrons. There is no other experimental explanation, and one must believe experimental evidence'. Surprisingly this bond is stable and does not disappear when there is no potential difference between the electrodes even when the potential is reversed. This behavior has also been observed in our experiment. This scenario rises however a key question: How is it possible that a structure consisting exclusively of electrons can be stable despite Coulomb repulsion?
Prins recognizes the importance of this problem writing [9]: 'why does it remain stable when the power supply is switched off?' 'There must be some other mechanism. This mechanism should also explain why the electrons do not repeal each other and 'fly out of the gap' when switching off the applied potential.' 'I have discovered this mechanism and found that it relates to the formation of a single macro-wave'."
Prins recognizes the importance of this problem writing [9]: 'why does it remain stable when the power supply is switched off?' 'There must be some other mechanism. This mechanism should also explain why the electrons do not repeal each other and 'fly out of the gap' when switching off the applied potential.' 'I have discovered this mechanism and found that it relates to the formation of a single macro-wave'.
Because it's a black EVO?
Because it's a black EVO?
Yes, Prins experiment should be considered as a key for understanding Shoulders "Exotic Vacuum Objects".
Prins recognizes the importance of this problem writing [9]: 'why does it remain stable when the power supply is switched off?' 'There must be some other mechanism. This mechanism should also explain why the electrons do not repeal each other and 'fly out of the gap' when switching off the applied potential.' 'I have discovered this mechanism and found that it relates to the formation of a single macro-wave'."
Thank you for this important note! The fact is that for 5 years since I abandoned such concepts in physics as "electrostatic charges" on the proton and electron, I realized that there is no "electric field" in nature, I realized that there are no "electric forces according to Maxwell" in nature ". And two years ago I found Maxwell's mistakes and my guesses and my understanding of nature were confirmed. For this reason, it is absolutely clear to me that there can be no "electrostatic repulsion" between electrons, and there is no "electrostatic repulsion" between protons. Nature is not arranged in the way we are explained in textbooks. In nature, there is no "Coulomb barrier according to Maxwell"! Electric current is the movement of the ether mass or photon mass by electrons, while the electrons themselves do not fly, but "stand" in clusters ...
Therefore, all the effects of Johan Prince are absolutely clear to me and they correspond to the natural properties of electrons - this is a different physics, this is a new physics.
In fact, in the experiments, the ethereal mass "flies" - it moves in space... It can be in the form of a photon wave... It is the photon mass or ethereal mass that affects the target substance in any accelerator - this mass changes the state of aggregation of the substance... You can observe craters, holes, scratches, and other damage to the surface - this is exactly this process - evaporation or the state of evaporation of molecules, the bound electrons of which have absorbed or attached to themselves the photon mass or ethereal mass..
Undoubtedly, the experiments of the authors of the article are remarkable - Conduction state transition induced by solitons in a graphene junction at room temperature -
But the interpretation and explanation of the effects is absolutely wrong! Why is that ? But because the authors, like millions of physicists, rely on the fake physics of Maxwell, who made his fatal mistakes in the "Electrostatics" section of his treatise "Electricity and Magnetism".
Below I have presented screenshots in which I crossed out with a red line THAT that does not exist in nature -
There is no "Coulomb repulsion" in nature, which Maxwell presented to us.
The repulsion of balls or objects in the experiments of Charles Coulomb is explained by the magnetic properties of electrons that were located on the surface of objects and created magnetic poles on the surface of objects. Repulsion took place if like magnetic poles were formed on the surface of objects, and attraction of objects occurred if opposite magnetic poles were formed on the surface of objects.
Interesting math that you can just "cross out" e from all these equations without somehow correcting all the units and values of constants in these equations.
For example, the fine structure constant.
Are you implying that the value is completely different than that reported?
Alpna_cherepanov = Alpha / (1.6 -19)^2
Do you have a consistent set with units of all fundamental constants and major basic equations, with these e crossed out versions?
"If there is no "electrostatic charge" in nature, then what is the "charge
why couldn't 'charge' or the electric field around the proton and electron be induced by magnetic flux?
ε=−∂ΦB∂t. according to Faraday..(.via Maxwell)?
why couldn't 'charge' or the electric field around the proton and electron be induced by magnetic flux?
ε=−∂ΦB∂t. according to Faraday..(.via Maxwell)?
According to Maxwell, the electric field does not exist in nature. Why is that ? I explained this in my article - Answer Cherepanov A.I. physicist Frederick David Tombe January 21, 2023. About the "charge" I wrote above - this is the ethereal mass or photon mass that the electron "stores". This is the physical meaning of the charge. The more mass an electron absorbs and, as they say, an electron "gets heavier", the higher its magnetic properties and its magnetic potential - the more voltage it creates in the network, or rather, not one electron, but their combination. Thus, the electrons create a mass density gradient in the conductor. The more mass the electrons are pumping in the conductor, the higher the reading on your ammeter.
Are you afraid to part with the "electrostatic charge according to Maxwell"? You will have to gradually get used to the new reality. I emphasize that this is a reality, not an invention of Maxwell ... If I were you, I would ask myself this question - “Why did Maxwell distort the teachings of Charles Coulomb? Why didn’t Maxwell follow William Thomson? What was his motive for this? wanted to lead the physical community into the wilds?" Understand the following - you cannot develop physics without relying on the works of the past generation of physicists ... If you carefully read the section "Electrostatics" in Maxwell's treatise "Electricity and Magnetism", then to your surprise you will not see citations of the treatises of Charles Coulomb and Thomson ... And I cited excerpts from these treatises for you ... Why did Maxwell act so casually? What was his true purpose? What did he want to confuse us with you? If so, then he succeeded admirably... For 150 years, physics relied on Maxwell's mistakes... And another strange story... Why did physicists "close their eyes" to Maxwell's revelations made by Karl Schreber in 1899?
Did they do it on purpose? What for ?
Dimensions of Electrical Quantities, Karl Schreber, 1899 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/rZpb/fzFv6ttNv
Dimensions of Electrical Quantities, Karl Schreber, 1899 - https://docs.google.com/docume…ueQn-mTE/edit?usp=sharing
"electrostatic charge according to Maxwell"?
you, Cherepanov.. wrote "electrostatic charge according to Maxwell"
I didn;t
I wrote
"why couldn't 'charge' or the electric field around the proton and electron be induced by magnetic flux?"
Notice the apostrophes around charge...they have meaning
I could have just as well written 'socalled charge'
answer the question ...don;t change it
Dimensions of Electrical Quantities, Karl Schreber, 1899
Wunderbar 
Display Moreyou, Cherepanov.. wrote "electrostatic charge according to Maxwell"
I didn;t
I wrote
"why couldn't 'charge' or the electric field around the proton and electron be induced by magnetic flux?"
Notice the apostrophes around charge...they have meaning
I could have just as well written 'socalled charge'
answer the question ...don;t change it
There is no such concept in modern physics that you introduced - "why couldn't 'charge' ....... around the proton and electron".
«…the negative electric charge carried by a single electron…» - this is clear ? Is the concept of "carried" clear to you?
Wunderbar
There is a very interesting and suspicious story with this article by Karl Schreber ... Back in the summer of 2020, I could easily find this article on the Internet through a search engine and download it to my computer ... But today I could not do this ... Someone carefully destroyed all traces of this article ... What do you think - "Who did this?"
All these discussions arise from the fact that in mainstream physics there is no clear relation between the concepts of mass, momentum, charge, magnetic momentum, magnetic flux and spin. These are considered primitive properties of an abstract pointshaped entity.
This confusion arises mainly from the serious mistake of not having recognized the fundamental role of the vector potential, relegating it to a mere calculation tool. Both the electron and the photon have a relativistic mass equal to their energy-frequency. Using natural units, the elementary electric charge is nothing more than a dimensionless constant (equal to the square root of the fine structure constant) which allows the electric potentials to be converted into momentum-energy vectors.
There is a very interesting and suspicious story with this article by Karl Schreber ... Back in the summer of 2020, I could easily find this article on the Internet through a search engine and download it to my computer ... But today I could not do this ... Someone carefully destroyed all traces of this article ... What do you think - "Who did this?"
With great difficulty I found this site - Die Maasse der Elektrischen Grössen -
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/andp.18993040714
