Date: Jan 22, 2013 3:58 PM Author: plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com Subject: should Ohm's law be V=iR or V=i +R Chapt15.34 explaining<br> Superconductivity from Maxwell Equations #1169 New Physics #1289 ATOM<br> TOTALITY 5th ed 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

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.

--

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