The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: can photons behave like electrons in AC current Chapt15.34 explaining
Superconductivity from Maxwell Equations #1179 New Physics #1299 ATOM

Replies: 3   Last Post: Jan 27, 2013 6:09 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 838
From: nyc
Registered: 6/6/10
Re: can photons behave like electrons in AC current Chapt15.34 explaining Superconductivity from Maxwell Equations #1179 New Physics #1299 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Posted: Jan 27, 2013 6:06 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

> Of the top ten toughest challenges of science that I
> have had to
> wrestle with, superconductivity is certainly among
> those top ten.

How about getting a moron like you to learn anything asshole? Isn't that a challenge?

Morover: what makes you think anyone cares to know what a nobody like you has had to wrestle with?
> The last few days, I have hunted down some facts.

I'll give you one, asshole: you're not welcome in here.

> I wanted to see how close the displacement current
> magnitude was to
> the resistivity of silver and mercury. I was playing
> the idea that
> zero resistance for mercury at 4 K is due to applied
> current + self
> induced current from the temperature gradient.
> A typical displacement current is about 130mA as seen
> from a problem
> set in Halliday & Resnick, page
> 837, of Fundamentals of Physics, 1988.
> I looked up what Onnes in 1911 used as a current for
> his
> superconductivity of mercury and he used a 0.6 A
> magnetic induced
> current.
> I did some checking around and that superconductivity
> for zero
> resistance must be DC current and cannot be AC
> current. Again, my
> complaint is that I cannot solve superconductivity,
> unless I know the
> proper truthful facts. So much of the literature is
> obfuscation of the
> true properties of superconductivity.
> So I am dismissing the idea that I need an extra
> current, a self
> induced current involving dB/dK.
> What I end up with is where I started with the Ohm's
> law and a Malus
> law replacement of the R term in Ohm's law.
> In other words, I now am more confident than before
> that this formula
> solves superconductivity:
> V = i*R (Ohm's law
> I' = I" cos^2(A) (Malus law)
> Replacing R with Malus law and we have:
> V = i * (I" cos^2(A))
> Now, let me play some more around the concept of
> voltage.
> If we look up AC current and find out the difference
> between it and DC
> current, we find it simply means the charge carriers
> move back and
> forth in AC, and move in only forward direction in
> DC. Now that
> understanding gives us a major clue as to what the
> role of photons are
> in electricity. The photons are what signals all the
> charge carriers
> in the wire circuit to move forward and then to move
> backward. It must
> be photons because the speed of AC and DC are the
> same speed of
> electricity-- the speed of light.
> So the photons are responsible for the AC current as
> the messengers.
> And thus Malus law applies. And thus, since the Malus
> law applies, the
> Malus law causes some photons to be lost and thus
> resistivity occurs.
> If the wire circuit is polarized with a cosine of 0
> degrees, then all
> the photons get through to tell the electrons to move
> and thus 0
> resistance.
> So a superconductor is a polarizer of 0 degrees.
> Now let me also remark about Voltage in physics.
> Because if the
> photons are the messengers that tell electrons to
> move forward or move
> backwards at the speed of light, then AC current is
> pretty much what
> voltage is. For if a electron at the junction of the
> AC circuit, the
> end of the circuit, then the electron is at one
> moment in time moving
> forward and then the next moment moving backwards is
> the same as emf,
> or electromotive force or voltage.
> And that idea agrees with Ohm's law:
> V= i*R
> for we have this:
> speed of light = electron speed * resistance
> or we have this:
> speed of light/ speed of electron = resistance
> And we all know that electrons can travel up to 90%
> or even 99% of the
> speed of light (never at 100% but very close to it).
> So what I am discovering is that voltage is really a
> term that means
> photons moving at the speed of light that creates a
> potential
> difference in the electric circuit.
> In summary, I am back with the idea that
> superconductivity is merely
> the Malus law in the Ohm's law and that
> superconductivity is really a
> very simple
> and not complex phenomenon.
> --
> 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:
> Archimedes Plutonium
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.