Date: Jan 22, 2013 3:58 PM
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

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

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

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
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:

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies