DFT-23: Superconductivity as Larson’s Current in a Fully Coherent Projection

MWells · Post by **MWells** » Thu Dec 04, 2025 8:28 pm

1. Context: Larson’s Electron, Current, and Resistance

In Basic Properties of Matter, Larson makes three critical claims about current electricity:

The electron is essentially a rotating unit of space.
It has a one-dimensional rotational displacement built on the material rotational base, so that effectively:
- the electron is a unit of space with a speed displacement,
- the only effective component is the spatial aspect of that rotation.
Because it is a unit of space, an uncharged electron cannot move through extension space, since a relation of space to space is not motion. But it can move through matter, since matter has net time displacement; the relation of space to time is motion.
Electric current is the directional movement of electrons (space) through matter, and this motion is equivalent to a negative movement of matter through space. The magnitude of current is therefore:

units of space per unit time

that is, a speed.

Larson then shows that resistance has space–time dimensions equivalent to mass per unit time, and interprets resistance as the amount of mass involved in the motion of space through matter. Where the atoms are effectively at rest (no effective thermal motion), electron motion can continue indefinitely without energy input; this is his description of superconductivity.

So we have three RS pillars:

current = motion of space through matter (a speed),
electrons are rotating units of space,
resistance = mass per unit time that couples to that motion.

DFT does not change any of this. What it does is supply the projection geometry that explains:

why this motion can be coherent,
why it usually is not,
and why under special conditions it becomes superconductive.

2. DFT Recasting: Electron as a T-Frame Rotational Unit

DFT treats Larson’s “rotating unit of space” as a T-frame rotational object with one effective planar rotation. We can represent the internal T-frame state of an uncharged electron schematically as:

$\Theta^{(e)} = (\theta_1,\theta_2), \qquad |\Theta^{(e)}| = 1$

This is not rotation in three-dimensional space, but rotation in the T-frame phase manifold. That rotation becomes visible in the S-frame only when projected, via a map:

$F_S : \Theta^{(e)} \mapsto \text{effective spatial contribution}.$

When Larson says the electron is “essentially nothing more than a rotating unit of space,” DFT understands this as:

the electron carries a T-frame rotational state,
whose S-frame projection manifests as a unit of spatial displacement per unit time when it moves through matter.

Thus the current is literally:

$I \sim \frac{\text{number of electron T-frame units}}{\text{time}} \sim \frac{\text{effective space}}{\text{time}},$

which matches Larson’s identification of current as a speed.

3. Larson’s Picture of Current in DFT Language

Larson’s diagram where:

matter moves through space (line A), and

space (electrons) moves through matter (line B),

is exactly the S-frame/T-frame reciprocity of DFT.

In RS terms:

motion of matter through extension space = positive motion M through X,
motion of space through matter = negative motion of M relative to X.

In DFT, the second case can be seen as:

the electron’s T-frame rotational state being projected successively through different atomic sites,
so that, in the S-frame, “space moves through matter,”
while the global motion budget stays closed.

The key point is that no literal particle stream is required. The current is a pattern of projected T-frame rotations, serially realized at different atomic positions, exactly as Larson says: motion of space through matter.

4. Resistance as Mass per Unit Time: Projection Interpretation

Larson shows that resistance 𝑅 has space–time dimensions equivalent to mass per unit time. In DFT, this is the rate at which the electron-motion pattern must exchange motion budget with the atomic rotations of the conductor.

If we denote:

𝑅 as the resistance,
𝑡 as time,
and 𝐼 as the current (a speed),

$E = I^2 R t$

is dimensionally equivalent to kinetic energy. In DFT, this is:

the energy reallocated from a coherent T-frame pattern into the random S-frame thermal motion of atoms.

In words:

The higher the resistance, the more frequently the T-frame motion underlying the current must “hand off” motion to the atomic rotational structures, and the more energy appears as S-frame heat.

That is the projection version of what Larson calls the relation between current, resistance, and heating.

5. Superconductivity as the Zero-Resistance Limit of Larson’s Current

Now we can restate Larson’s superconductivity description precisely.

He notes that when the atoms of a material are effectively at rest thermally — that is, when the thermal motion is negligible — then motion of electrons (space) through matter has the same status as motion of matter through space in Newton’s first law: it can continue indefinitely without added energy. He explicitly ties superconductivity to this situation.

DFT refines this as follows:

At very low temperatures, thermal S-frame disorder is minimized.
The atomic rotational motions settle into a configuration where their T-frame phases are relatively stable.
In such an environment, the electron T-frame rotations Θ^(𝑒) can be projected through the lattice with minimal need to reallocate the motion budget into random atomic rotations.

In DFT notation, we can say:

$\mathcal{B}_T^{(\text{current})} \to \text{coherent}, \qquad \mathcal{B}_S^{(\text{thermal})} \to \text{minimal}.$

The resistance then tends to zero because 𝑅 measures how much mass per unit time enters into this reallocation. When the atomic motions are arranged so that the current’s T-frame pattern can pass through with no required budget transfer, the effective mass per unit time engaged in this interaction goes to zero.

Thus:

$R \to 0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad E = I^2 R t \to 0$

The current persists without energy loss, exactly as Larson describes.

Superconductivity, in DFT, is therefore:

Larson’s current in the limiting case where projection geometry and atomic motion align so well that no motion budget is transferred into thermal degrees of freedom.

6. DFT’s Added Insight: Phase Coherence and Shared Projection Axis

Where DFT adds something genuinely new is in explaining the coherence that characterizes superconductivity — the macroscopic phase order that conventional theory encodes in a complex order parameter.

In DFT we can represent the effective T-frame projection of the current-carrying electrons by a shared effective phase:

$\theta_{\text{eff}}^{(1)} = \theta_{\text{eff}}^{(2)} = \cdots = \theta_{\text{eff}}^{(N)}.$

This expresses that all the electrons participating in the current share the same projection axis into the S-frame. When that condition holds:

there are no projection mismatches between electrons,
there are no scattering channels,
and the S-frame sees a current that cannot decay by ordinary resistive processes.

So:

Larson: superconductivity occurs when atoms are effectively at rest and current can continue indefinitely.
DFT: this corresponds to a state where the T-frame phases of many electrons are aligned into a single projection axis, and the atomic motions are arranged so as not to disrupt that alignment.

The zero-resistance state is then not mystical, but the natural consequence of:

electrons as rotating units of space (RS), and
a projection geometry that allows those units to propagate through matter without motion-budget exchange (DFT).

7. How This Completes, Rather than Replaces, Larson

We can now summarize the relationship succinctly:

Larson’s electron → DFT’s single-plane T-frame rotational unit.
Larson’s current (space moving through matter) → DFT’s coherent sequence of T-frame projections across atoms.
Larson’s resistance = mass/time → DFT’s rate of motion-budget transfer from T-frame current pattern into S-frame atomic motion.
Larson’s superconductivity → DFT’s limit where atomic motion and projection geometry allow T-frame current phases to propagate without budget transfer.

DFT does not alter Larson’s ontology; it makes it geometric and explicit. In that sense, superconductivity in DFT is exactly what Larson said it was—but with the missing projection machinery filled in.