```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 explainingSuperconductivity from Maxwell Equations #1169 New Physics #1289 ATOMTOTALITY 5th edAlright, some good news and some bad news. The bad news first, in thatthe facts surround superconductivity are not very well known nortaught nor communicated. I have a dozen books on purelysuperconductivity and not able to find facts that I need to have to doa theory on superconduction. For example, almost no scientist knowswhen a DC or AC current applies. Does anyone in physics even know howOnnes discovered current of no resistance. And, does any physicistknow when the measuring instruments of current and conduction are partof the "coldness temperature applied"?So I am delayed in superconductivity progress because of theshoddiness of the physics community of explaining what the factssurrounding the experiments of superconductivity are. The TV is fullof "murder mystery" programs and it seems as though people lovewatching murder mystery shows, and physics is much like a murdermystery since it is logic that assembles the facts in both cases, butif many of the facts are missing or distorted or obfuse, then therecannot be a resolution of superconductivity nor can there be a solvingof the murder mystery.But, let me get on to the good news. We know Faraday's law of theform:E = -N dB/dtwhich says that the induced emf in a circuit is equal to the rate atwhich themagnetic flux is changing with time.Now, look closely at Ohm's law of V = i R and if you look closely andthink of V, the voltage or potential difference or the compression,well, is it really not just the magnetic flux? In other words, voltageis a different word for magnetic fluxand that V = i R is just the Faraday law. Except it has a problem withthe resistance.Now, can we take the -N as the resistance, where the negative sign isdirection 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 notreally a law of physics, but a definition and a definition can alwayschange.In a previous chapter I derived the Dirac Equation by listing the fourMaxwell Equation and then summing all 4 equations into one hugeequation. I did that with the magnetic monopoles included. On January3, 2013, I wrote:Alright, these are the 4 symmetrical Maxwell Equations with magneticmonopoles:div*E = r_E ?div*B = r_B ?- curlxE = dB + J_B ?curlxB = dE + J_ENow to derive the Dirac Equation from the Maxwell Equations we addthe ?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_BNow Wikipedia has a good description of how Dirac derived his famousequation which gives this:(Ad_x + Bd_y + Cd_z + (i/c)Dd_t - mc/h) p = 0So how is the above summation of Maxwell Equations that of ageneralized Dirac Equation?Well, the four terms of div and curl are the A,B,C,D terms. And theright side of the equation can all be ?conglomerated into one term andthe negative sign in the Faraday law ?can turn that right side intothe negative sign.In the Faraday law with magnetic monopoles we have a magnetic currentdensity. We have - curlxE = dB + J_BSo 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 theMaxwell Equations for that variable must be in the Gauss's law ofmagnetism 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 andfair archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as seen here:http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986Archimedes Plutoniumhttp://www.iw.net/~a_plutoniumwhole entire Universe is just one big atomwhere dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
```