Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: No physicist from 1862 to 2013 fully explained Capacitors #1429 New
Physics #1779 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List  
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com

Posts: 10,053
Registered: 3/31/08
No physicist from 1862 to 2013 fully explained Capacitors #1429 New
Physics #1779 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Posted: Sep 1, 2013 2:21 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply


Now the full title of this post should have been "No physicist from 1862 to 2013 fully explained Capacitors as per the Maxwell Equations".

Now the reason I say that is because by 1913 and onwards, a foolish idea crept into the minds of every physicist of the 20th century, that the Maxwell Equations could not model the atom due to (1) Plum Pudding model failure (2) electron would spiral into the nucleus due to Coulomb law.

You see, when you do not understand the Maxwell Equations, and are scared of them because they are so difficult of Equations, especially when you have to explain something with 2 or more of the equations simultaneously, that you end up inventing a brand new physics theory of Quantum Mechanics which is a collection of crackpot principles strung together.

When the Maxwell Equations are too difficult for Bohr and Dirac, then they invent Quantum Mechanics.

So this morning I looked in all the textbooks of physics that I have to see if anyone approaches the explanation of a Capacitor using the Maxwell Equations.

Berkeley Physics Course-- volume 2, Electricity And Magnetism, Purcell, 1965, from pages 95 to 97 discuss how capacitors are what appears to be purely the Coulomb law.

Fundamentals of Physics, Halliday & Resnick, 3rd ed., 1988, on pages 619-621 appear to be saying that only the Coulomb law explains capacitance.

Wikipedia authors never even try to explain capacitors as a Maxwell Equations explanation, but only gives a rehash of the phenomenon.

So here we have the physics community of all the physicists from 1913 to 2013 and examining how little they understood the Maxwell Equations.

So that if a physicist says the electron of the Bohr atom would spiral into the nucleus due to the Coulomb law, then how is that physicist so sure of the spiraling if the Coulomb law is responsible for
Capacitance. Would not the electric field impose a Capacitance on the proton and electron that they remain in static position of the Bohr radius of hydrogen atom?

And is not the entire electron structure of atoms that of one of Capacitance, because if we put cesium into water, is not the chemical reaction so fast that it has to be a Capacitance discharge in order for a reaction to take place so fast?

So that violent chemical reactions are due to the fact that electron structure is a capacitance structure.

So what equations of Maxwell Equations are involved in Capacitance of physics? Is it only the Coulomb law? Or does it involve the Faraday and Ampere/Maxwell laws?


Minutes ago in sci.physics I wrote:
Nucleus as a capacitor #1428 New Physics #1778 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

- hide quoted text -
On Sunday, September 1, 2013 5:30:15 AM UTC-5, Y.Porat wrote:
> On Sunday, September 1, 2013 9:38:08 AM UTC+3, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>

> > Now the only difference so far between the valence electron and the nuclear electron is that the valence electron resides in a space of 10^-10 meters or larger whereas the nuclear-electron resides in a space of
>
> >
>
> > 10^-16 meters.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > So the question is, can electrons flowing in a copper wire as electricity, can they trade off and become nuclear-electrons and the nuclear-electrons become valence electrons.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I think an answer for this would involve the explanation of parallel plate capacitors. When we storage electrons in electricity, are we turning valence-electrons into nuclear-electrons?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 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
>
>
>
> ====================
>
> the answer to your above question is
>
> Yes
>
>
>
> see the Betta emission
>
> and   oppositely
>
> electron   capture  
>
>
>
> ATB
>
> Y.Porat
>
> ===========================


Good on you, for you are actually thinking about physics and not thinking about stealing the physics work of others; stealing my physics work.

Now I am finding it extremely difficult for any author of physics textbooks to state emphatically what Maxwell Equation/s are involved in capacitors? Is it the Coulomb law by itself that is the basis of a capacitor? Or, does it involve the two dynamic laws of Faraday and Ampere/Maxwell.

You see, this is one of the reasons that it is obvious that the most difficult mathematics that Physics ever encountered in its long history was the 4 Maxwell Equations and that the physicists of the 20th century were far far too stupid to understand and embrace the Maxwell Equations and ended up with silly dead-end physics of Quantum Mechanics and the stupid Standard Model. Not a single one of the physicists of the 20th century had enough wit to even analyze the Capacitor as to what Equations of Maxwell give rise to the phenomenon. Is it purely a Coulomb effect?

So how would you picture the nuclear-electron holding together 2 protons. Would the electrons orbit the protons, or would the nuclear structure of protons with nuclear electrons be some vast sheet of Capacitance with the nuclear electrons on one side of a parallel plate and all the protons on the other side.

Now that would explain why we have Halo neutrons, as a nucleus is a Capacitor.

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




Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.