[poelzi]

With the fractional quantum hall effect, it should be clear at the latest, that neither the common electron nor the BCS superconductivity model can be true.

I follow Stoyan Sargs "Basic Structures of Matter - Supergravitation Unified Theory" model, which has a very different understand of SC and solves most problems in physics.

Due the fact that the electron is also quite different, the FQHE becomes easily explained. The Electron is a open, complexly formed, 3 body object with internal oscillations. In a superconductor environment, the overall structure disintegrates and build a train of electron shells and positrons. Same happens under certain effects that "create positrons". According to BSM, you can't create positrons, only shoot them out of their electron shell.

Superconductivity is only a state of the vacuum in which the energy of the CL node is below a certain energy threshold, that sits between the parma and diamagnetic domains. Chapter 2, 3, 4 and 6 explain this in great detail. They are surely 200 pages together, so explaining the details enough for this to make sense is unfortunately outside the scope what a comment field can provide :)

If you wonder, the reaction of electron + positron creates a compound particle of electron + positron mass but neutral charge as well as photons. It's relative stable and quite hard to detect.

[eigenspace]

> With the fractional quantum hall effect, it should be clear at the latest, that neither the common electron nor the BCS superconductivity model can be true.

I don’t think you’re interpreting the outcome of the FQHE correctly.

> I follow Stoyan Sargs "Basic Structures of Matter - Supergravitation Unified Theory" model, which has a very different understand of SC and solves most problems in physics.

I don’t mean to be rude here, but I went and looked up this book and found that it was full of crackpot nonsense, and nearly all the reviews on the amazon page seemed to be planted fake reviews. So I’m going to be as clear as I can here in case anyone not in the field gets curious about this POV:

This is nonsense.

[poelzi]

I studied philosophy and physics in my youth and I can distinguish between a genius and a "crackpot" very well. Details are what counts, you can get every model to fit roughly if you don't care about the number of constants involved. If the model is correct, it also works for extreme situation. FQHE is the extrem situation that breaks the electron and SC model.

I have not heard any "crackpot" to distinguish between classical logic and mathematical one, because this is something only well studied people with background in logic and philosophy of science do. This was on of the hints that made me realize this guy is good, really good.

Science is always 80 years ahead of current discussion: https://www.pnas.org/content/112/24/7426

We are talking about interdisciplinary physics here, it's the top rank.

It took me a year to really understand Stoyans Model. Now I'm in a paradox free, consistent world view with the fewest possible assumptions you can possible make. For me galaxies and the the universe as a whole, is the logical and deterministic consequence from the lowest number of fundamental particles you can have. The world became a very complex, deterministic machine of utter beauty.

I understand the fine structure constant, 137, relativity (I only can smile on your implementation of it), time, Newtonian mass, magnetic fields, planetary fields (origin), gravity, electron orbit conditions, the periodic table in it's fullest (why), quasars, pulsars, globular clusters, periodicity of the redshift, lyman alpha forest, black holes, super-massive black holes (totally different object), photons, beta-particles, ... the list goes on.

I understand the internal discrepancies inside the standard model, I know for a fact, that most parts of it are in fact falsified.

If you bring up a error in the math equations or a logical error in the theory of his, I would be glad to discuss this in detail. So far, I have not found a problem and in fact, came to the conclusion that this is the first model I can remotely accept as true, because it is complex and not complicated.

Just some weeks ago, another confirmation from a different model with quite close values was presented at a physics conference I attended. His was ~10^27 N/m² and in BSM its 1.3 * 10^26 N/m² of Vacuum pressure, a hidden variable in the standard model.

[acqq]

> I studied philosophy and physics in my youth

> It took me a year to really understand Stoyans Model. Now I'm in a paradox free, consistent world view

...and that Sarg guy published his genial solutions almost 20 years ago, but during all that time nobody but you understood how big genius he is. He even contributed about cold fusion, because yes, that's where he'll finally be understood!

Using the "crackpot index" you and he (on his own page, I won't put a link intentionally) both earn so many points it's not even funny.

Some selections from the "crackpot index" follow:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)

10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)