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: