Alright, I have enough chapters and categories of chapters to fit together these ideas in a future 6th edition of this book. The 5th edition looks like it will reach about 1500 pages for the Atom Totality theory and will reach about 1300 pages for New Physics. I am going to keep the two-books-in-one book in all future editions. I had never anticipated that in writing this 5th edition that I would focus in on having an axiom set over all of physics -- Maxwell Equations, and thus be able to revise all of physics. This book, to physics is comparable to what Newton did for physics with Principia Mathematica, by synthesizing physics, only I did not have to work as hard because Maxwell did the majority of the work in synthesizing electricity with magnetism, and what I did was simply recognize that all of physics is just electricity and magnetism. If you look at my earlier editions of the text Atom Totality, editions 1 through 4, that in those editions, I had to argue why the Atom Totality was superior to the Big Bang theory. In this 5th edition, where all of physics comes from the facts of chemistry added the axioms of the Maxwell Equations, I no longer need to even or ever mention the Big Bang theory. Sort of like when doing biology and doing the cell theory of biology, why bother to mention fakeries of biology science such as the 4 Humors of Ancient Greek and Roman science.
But let me get back to the issues at hand with superconductivity and thermodynamics. And let me bounce around freely on these topics here near the end of New Physics text. For I accomplished nearly all that I set out for myself of the past 6 months.
Let me remark more about the bad state of condition of the physics literature on Superconductivity. I remarked on this before by saying that most of the important facts about superconductivity are not reported. The situation with superconductivity reporting of this science is that it is hyper reporting on temperature, but miserable failure to report items such as how much current, what type of current that superconductors can take. As I said before, the logic involved in solving superconductivity is much like the logic involved in solving a murder mystery crime. If you have DNA and fingerprints and video of the crime scene and murder weapons and body you pretty much have a solid stack of evidence in support of a solution to the crime. But in superconductivity, about all you have to go on in solving the mechanism, is reports of a temperature and nothing much else.
Even the fact that Onnes in 1911 used a 0.6 amp magnetic induction current took me some hours to track down.
So the pitiful state of science reporting in Superconductivity is a major reason that this science is in the weeds of obfuscation. What is needed and the most important facts surrounding superconductivity is not the temperature of transition but rather, the very most important facts of superconductivity is how much current, what type of current and how much of that current can the superconductor maintain. The transition temperature is secondary in importance to the type of current and how much of that current. Like in a murder mystery, if you had no body, no film coverage, no DNA, no fingerprints, and only a missing person, well, you have little to mold a theory around.
So now, if the reporters of science and the scientists in the field of superconductivity did a better job, what they would report is the type and amount of current that superconductors hold at a specific temperature. As of 2013, it is rare, extremely rare that anyone can find out in a research report how much current and type of current a superconductor maintains.
Why is type and amount of current so very important? Well, if the Malus law theory of superconductivity is true and the BCS theory is a fake theory, then in the Malus law theory of superconductivity, we can have room temperature superconductors and higher temperature, but the amount of current maintained is a milliampere current for a few seconds or minutes.
And this is where our researches into superconductivity is now heading for, in that the reports of vortices, in the reports of no AC superconduction, and in the reports that only a few amps are allowed in superconductivity. All of these true reports lean in the direction that it is not temperature that is important in superconductivity, but rather the most important fact is how much amperage and what type of current is allowed.
In the Malus law theory, the photons are responsible and photons thrive in both hot and cold. But photons are affected by polarization, and so temperature and heat in the Maxwell Equations turns out to be photons with polarization. And when you link or pair a photon with a electron in conduction or superconduction, the main and important issue is not the temperature, but how much of a amperage current and what type of current is maintained.
I am confident that since superconductivity from 1990s onward is faced mainly with "vortices problems" that these vortices are like the spectral lines in quantum mechanics the windows into the realm of the atom, that vortices are windows into telling us how correct is the Malus law theory and how dismally fake is the BCS theory.
The reason that reporters of science never tell us the amperage sustainability and whether AC or DC, is because of how dismally little progress has been achieved with superconductivity other than the sensationalism of a higher Tc temperature.
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: