Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
what Resistance is in Maxwell Equations (a phase change) Chapt15.34 explaining Superconductivity from Maxwell Equations #1115 New Physics #1235 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Dec 27, 2012 6:24 PM
On Dec 27, 12:20 am, Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote: > So what is friction or resistance for Maxwell Equations? Funny how no > physicist of the 20th century made any attempt to answer that in a > serious manner. > > Of course we have Ohm's rule (law) that > > i = V/R or R = V/i > > So that resistance is potential difference (pressure) divided by > current. > > One of the things that bothered me about physics > when I first went to college and studied physics 1969, was Ohm's law > in particular. What bothered me was that it was unclear to me that > resistance was independent of potential difference (V). And how one > could define R if V and R were dependent of one another. For example > in math the area of a rectangle is A = L*W, much like V = i*R, but > that L length and W width are independent of one another and readily > accessible to measure. But is the R readily accessible without using V > or i to obtain it? And I firmly believe that a scholar of a subject, > should look for answers to all his studied topics in his lifetime that > puzzled him earlier, otherwise, we are not scholars of the subject. > This is now 2012 and when I did Ohm's law in 1969 that is 43 years > later and just now beginning to reconcile that problem. So it is no > excuse for the physics community of the past century that they did not > care or see a flaw in Ohm's law. > > The insight I have over the past several days is that the Maxwell > Equations do not address "resistance" in electromagnetism. In > Classical Physics, we called resistance that of friction and friction > was explained as tiny electromagnetic forces slowing down the object. > But now we need a actual picture of resistance for electromagnetism > itself. And use electromagnetism to say that friction is those charges > pulling on an object. > > The insight I have is from the Goodstein demonstration shown in The > Mechanical Universe, episode 50 of Particles and Waves of light > polarization with the oblique filter letting light get through. > > There is a Malus law and a Ohm's law. If you examine them carefully, > you can see that they are interchangeable. > > So what I propose is that the concept of Resistance for the Maxwell > Equations is this idea of a Phase change of the pilot wave of photons. > If a light beam does not encounter a filter with a phase change, it > has 0 resistance. If the light beam encounters a vertical filter then > a oblique filter at 45 degrees then according to Malus law with its > cosine, the luminosity of the beam is cut in 1/2. So in a sense, the
Sorry I should have said the Intensity, not luminosity for Malus law is the intensity of a light beam.
> resistance or friction is 1/2. So that in this picture, a moving > object experiencing friction can account for the friction as the > accumulation of phase changes of the pilot wave of the photons and > electrons and particles making up that material object. > > This is important for superconductivity, in that unless we start with > a clear idea of what resistance is, we have no hope of understanding > or resolving what superconductivity is. > > So what I am saying is that Resistance in electricity and magnetism of > the Maxwell Equations is the same as a phase change of the pilot wave > of photon/s or electron/s. > > Now I am not sure if Malus's law is derivable from the Maxwell > Equations or whether it is independent of the Symmetrical Maxwell > Equations (the set that has magnetic monopoles.) I have to check that > out. I would guess they are not independent, just as Lenz's law is > derived from the Faraday law with its negative sign. >
Now I quickly typed into a search to see if anyone uses the Maxwell Equations to derive Malus's law of polarization and found this one:
"Optical models for quantum mechanics" by Arnold Neumaier, a lecture delivered at University Giessen, Feb2010.
I have not read that lecture, but I would think that you do not need quantum mechanics at all, provided if you apply the Symmetrical Maxwell Equations with its magnetic monopoles. The key, in my opinion, is that EM waves have a pilot wave and it is the pilot wave that causes phase changes and thus creates Malus law.
The whole idea of having the Symmetrical Maxwell Equations as the axioms over all of physics, is that they thence get rid of Quantum Mechanics. In other words, the Maxwell Equations are more powerful than Quantum Mechanics, and that Quantum Mechanics is the Maxwell Equations with holes in them.
The Symmetrical Maxwell Equations derives all of Quantum Mechanics, but not the reverse.
Google's New-Newsgroups censors AP posts, especially the mobile?phones such as iphone deleted all of AP's post, and halted a proper archiving of AP, but Drexel's Math Forum does not censor and my posts in sequential archive form is seen here: