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 what

needed to change. The definition of Ohm's law becomes a physics law

once we remove the idea that R is resistance. It is not resistance in

terms of heat or friction or anything else. What R is, is the number

of turns N, the number of windings in the wire in the Faraday law. So

that if we write Ohm's law as V= iN we end up with almost the same as

Faraday'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_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.

>

Now in the above I realized that N in Faraday's law was R in Ohm's law

and that it has nothing to do with resistance but rather how much

current can flow by the number of windings.

And also, I separated the lines of the 4 Maxwell Equations so as to

make easy to see how adding them together yields the Dirac Equation.

In fact, the 4 Maxwell Equations is a far larger generalization than

the Dirac Equation, and what I mean by that is that there are extra

predictions accruing from the Maxwell Equations of true physics that

the 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 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