```Date: Jan 22, 2013 4:36 PM
Author: plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
Subject: Ohm's law is really V = iN Chapt15.34 explaining Superconductivity<br> from Maxwell Equations #1170 New Physics #1290 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

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 whatneeded to change. The definition of Ohm's law becomes a physics lawonce we remove the idea that R is resistance. It is not resistance interms of heat or friction or anything else. What R is, is the numberof turns N, the number of windings in the wire in the Faraday law. Sothat if we write Ohm's law as V= iN we end up with almost the same asFaraday'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_Ediv*B = r_B- curlxE = dB + J_BcurlxB = dE + J_E> Now to derive the Dirac Equation from the Maxwell Equations we add> the ?lot together:div*E = r_Ediv*B = r_B- curlxE = dB + J_BcurlxB = 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 lawand that it has nothing to do with resistance but rather how muchcurrent can flow by the number of windings.And also, I separated the lines of the 4 Maxwell Equations so as tomake easy to see how adding them together yields the Dirac Equation.In fact, the 4 Maxwell Equations is a far larger generalization thanthe Dirac Equation, and what I mean by that is that there are extrapredictions accruing from the Maxwell Equations of true physics thatthe 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 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
```