|
|
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 top-heavy in hate-spew from search-engine-
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 electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
|
