
Ohm's law is really V = iN Chapt15.34 explaining Superconductivity from Maxwell Equations #1170 New Physics #1290 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Posted:
Jan 22, 2013 4:36 PM


On Jan 22, 2:58 pm, Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote: > Should Ohm's law be V = iR or V = i + R Chapt15.34 explaining > Superconductivity from Maxwell Equations #1169 New Physics #1289 ATOM > TOTALITY 5th ed >
Almost as fast as I turned the computer off, that I realized what needed to change. The definition of Ohm's law becomes a physics law once we remove the idea that R is resistance. It is not resistance in terms of heat or friction or anything else. What R is, is the number of turns N, the number of windings in the wire in the Faraday law. So that if we write Ohm's law as V= iN we end up with almost the same as Faraday's law except the direction of current flow.
> Alright, some good news and some bad news. The bad news first, in that > the facts surround superconductivity are not very well known nor > taught nor communicated. I have a dozen books on purely > superconductivity and not able to find facts that I need to have to do > a theory on superconduction. For example, almost no scientist knows > when a DC or AC current applies. Does anyone in physics even know how > Onnes discovered current of no resistance. And, does any physicist > know when the measuring instruments of current and conduction are part > of the "coldness temperature applied"? > > So I am delayed in superconductivity progress because of the > shoddiness of the physics community of explaining what the facts > surrounding the experiments of superconductivity are. The TV is full > of "murder mystery" programs and it seems as though people love > watching murder mystery shows, and physics is much like a murder > mystery since it is logic that assembles the facts in both cases, but > if many of the facts are missing or distorted or obfuse, then there > cannot be a resolution of superconductivity nor can there be a solving > of the murder mystery. > > But, let me get on to the good news. We know Faraday's law of the > form: > > E = N dB/dt > > which says that the induced emf in a circuit is equal to the rate at > which the > magnetic flux is changing with time. > > Now, look closely at Ohm's law of V = i R and if you look closely and > think of V, the voltage or potential difference or the compression, > well, is it really not just the magnetic flux? In other words, voltage > is a different word for magnetic flux > and that V = i R is just the Faraday law. Except it has a problem with > the resistance. > > Now, can we take the N as the resistance, where the negative sign is > direction and the N the number of N turns in the coil? Not really. > > So what needs to change? And the answer is that Ohm's law is not > really a law of physics, but a definition and a definition can always > change. > > In a previous chapter I derived the Dirac Equation by listing the four > Maxwell Equation and then summing all 4 equations into one huge > equation. I did that with the magnetic monopoles included. On January > > 3, 2013, I wrote: > > Alright, these are the 4 symmetrical Maxwell Equations with magnetic > monopoles:
div*E = r_E
div*B = r_B
 curlxE = dB + J_B
curlxB = dE + J_E
> Now to derive the Dirac Equation from the Maxwell Equations we add > the ?lot together:
div*E = r_E
div*B = r_B
 curlxE = dB + J_B
curlxB = dE + J_E ________________
div*E + div*B + (1)curlxE + curlxB = r_E + r_B + dB + dE + J_E + J_B
> Now Wikipedia has a good description of how Dirac derived his famous > equation which gives this:
(Ad_x + Bd_y + Cd_z + (i/c)Dd_t  mc/h) p = 0
> So how is the above summation of Maxwell Equations that of a > generalized Dirac Equation? > Well, the four terms of div and curl are the A,B,C,D terms. And the > right side of the equation can all be ?conglomerated into one term and > the negative sign in the Faraday law ?can turn that right side into > the negative sign. > > In the Faraday law with magnetic monopoles we have a magnetic current > density. We have  curlxE = dB + J_B > > So is the resistance in Ohm's law locked up inside the term J_B ? > > Well, I think so, because we need a temperature variable in the > Maxwell Equations for that variable must be in the Gauss's law of > magnetism and must be in the extra term of Faraday's law. >
Now in the above I realized that N in Faraday's law was R in Ohm's law and that it has nothing to do with resistance but rather how much current can flow by the number of windings.
And also, I separated the lines of the 4 Maxwell Equations so as to make easy to see how adding them together yields the Dirac Equation. In fact, the 4 Maxwell Equations is a far larger generalization than the Dirac Equation, and what I mean by that is that there are extra predictions accruing from the Maxwell Equations of true physics that the Dirac Equation could never predict. 
Google's archives are topheavy in hatespew from searchengine bombing. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple and fair archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as seen here:
http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986
Archimedes Plutonium http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electrondotcloud are galaxies

