sci.physics.electromag

plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote:
> The essence, very essence of the Capacitor theory for
> superconductivity is that the old physics thought the world
> had only one type of current where they thought DC and AC currents
> were one and the same and the one and
> only one type of current throughout the Cosmos.
>
> Halliday and Resnick in their excellent book "Fundamentals of
> Physics", 3rd edition, 1988, defines Current
> on page 641 as:
> --- quoting Fundamentals of Physics ---
> The amount of charge dq that passes through a hypothetical plane, such
> as xx, is proportional to the length
> of time dt required for all the charge dq to pass through that plane.
> The proportionality constant is the current
> i; therefore,
>
> dq = i dt (definition of current)
>
> --- end quoting H & R Fundamentals of Physics ---
>
> Now that definition of current probably satisfies the DC and AC
> currents in physics, but however, the
> concept of a Capacitor Current is altogether different from DC and AC
> currents and what Halliday
> and Resnick define in their 1988 textbook.
>
> So the essence of Superconductivity is that it is a different current
> from the old physics of DC and AC.
>
> And to give a good analogy I refer the reader to Newton's cradle or
> called Newton's balls:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_balls
>
> If you pull one ball at one end the ball at the other end moves. This
> is an analogy to DC current. If you
> pull a ball at one end and then a ball at the other end, would be an
> analogy to AC current. Or another
> analogy is if you had a line of humans and added one more at one end
> would force the person at the
> other end to move forward by one. For AC, if you add one at one end,
> the person at the other would
> have to move forward, but alternating with the line turning 180
> degrees and the addition of a new person
> at the other end would force the other end to move forward.
>
> But this new current of Capacitor Current does not follow any of those
> analogies. What we have here is
> a current that exists where the atoms in an experiment have their
> electrons raised to a higher orbital
> and then discharged, that is electron motion, back to ground state
> orbitals. So in a Capacitor Current
> the electrons move at almost the speed of light and where they
> experience NO Resistance because they
> are simply in an extended higher orbital from ground state.
>
> So Superconductivity is merely the recognition that physics has at
> least a third type of current called
> a Capacitor Current. This Capacitor Current can be seen in Lightning
> bolt strikes or on Wimshurst and
> Van de Graaff generators and in superconductors. Superconductors are
> merely very fancy capacitors.
> And the flow of electrons in these capacitors is the flow of electrons
> in a higher energy orbital back down
> to a lower energy orbital or ground state orbital.
>
> If you examine the entire literature of experiments on
> superconductors, you will easily notice that
> superconductors are capacitors, with their 3rd dimensional layering
> and their doping and parallel planes.
> And the reason that cold temperatures are vital is because the
> geometry depends on temperature
> to form capacitance.
>
> And the reason these superconductors have No Resistance is that all
> the atoms are positive nuclei
> that have their electrons in a higher energy orbital and once
> discharged -- the current flows -- and because
> the electrons are in orbit means no friction and no resistance.
>
> Now whether these means the Maxwell Equations have to be revised to
> take into account that physics
> has at least three different types of currents, is probably true. When
> the Maxwell Equations were written
> in 1860s, the world of physics at that time thought one current exists
> in the Cosmos. But now here in
> 2008, recognizing that Superconductivity equals Capacitor Current,
> that the Maxwell Equations have to
> be modified to accommodate this new type of current. I am not going to
> focus my mind at that
> revision for I already have too much on my plate at the moment.
>

I recant; for the Maxwell Equation Revision is more important.

Only a naive chemist and naive physicist would believe that a
classroom
in the year 3008 would open up textbooks of physics where the Maxwell
Equations of 2008 is the same as the Maxwell Equations of 3008.
And only a very naive chemist would think that the metallic, ionic and
covalent bond of 2008 would be the same as that of 3008.

What I anticipate the chemistry text and physics text of the year 3008
would have a Revised Maxwell Equations that has at least two more
equations and probably 4 or 6 more equations to cover the Capacitor
Current.

And the Maxwell Equations of 3008 should have incorporated the
Metallic Bond and Ionic Bond and Covalent Bond as part of Maxwell
Equation Theory.

So, in other words, by the year 3008, I expect that 90 percent of
chemistry will be embodied in the Maxwell Equations, so that one
opening a Chemistry textbook would have to master the Maxwell
Equations to master chemistry because 90% of chemistry is the
chemical bonds.

So what would the 5th Equation of Maxwell Equations be? Quite simply
it is to incorporate the Capacitor Current and that means No
Resistance
as electrons in a nth orbital fall back down to a ground state
electron
with no friction involved. That means the Bohr Atom of Quantum
Mechanics
is the 5th equation of Maxwell Equations. In other words, Maxwell
Equations
have now gone Quantum Mechanical.

Now what would be the 6th and 7th and 8th Equations of the Maxwell
Equations?
Well, I have already led up to that likelihood of Equations in that
the Metallic Bond
is the conduction bond for DC and AC currents. So the Metallic Bond is
associated
with DC and AC currents and the way *resistance* comes into the
picture is that
the bonds of ionic and covalent increase electrical nonconductivity
and increase
resistance.

So Faraday's Law and Ampere-Maxwell Law are about Metallic Bond, but
not about
Ionic and Covalent bonds.

In other words, Physics and Chemistry by the year 3008 will no longer
be discussing
metallic, ionic, covalent bonds nor the paramagnetic, diamagnetic,
ferromagnetic
forms of magnetism. All of these subclasses of description will all be
incorporated
into the 8 or 10 or 12 laws of the newly revised Maxwell Equations.

So we have a Maxwell Equation that speaks clearly of the Capacitor
Current, and another
Maxwell Equation that speaks clearly of whether a chemical compound is
a percent
metallic bond versus a percent of covalent bond. Where we actually
have math equations
telling us what the chemical bond is.

At present, Chemical bonding is more descriptive rather than
quantitative. Once the bonds
of chemistry become a feature of the Revised Maxwell Equations, then
chemical bonding
will be more quantitative than descriptive.

In other words, the progress of physics and chemistry of the future,
can be easily evaluated
by how much of physics and chemistry becomes a subset of the Revised
Maxwell Equations.

Way into the future, the subject of chemistry should be a very small
book that merely
announces the how ever many Revised Maxwell Equations there are. They
would be the
axioms of Chemistry and all the rest of chemistry would be details of
these Revised Maxwell
Equations.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies