sci.physics.electromag

Vince Morgan wrote:
> "Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
> news:47C99D81.7080508@hotmail.com...
> >
> > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> > Now think of Superconductivity. How do we have a phenomenon of
> > Superconduction with no resistance, no friction involved? Well, since
> > a electron never has resistance or friction in its orbits of atoms
> > we have a case where electrons in flow motion simply have a current
> > instead of jumping from quantum levels in atoms. The explanation of
> > the Micro physics of superconductivity is simply that electrons never
> > have resistance or friction.
> >
> > In a normal conduction such as AC current or DC current, those currents
> > are not electrons in motion of quantum levels as friction or resistance
> > free. AC and DC currents in conductors is a transfer of energy which
> > has much room for resistance and friction. But a Capacitor Current that
> > originates from electrons to atoms is a current that is the Quantum
> > Mechanics free of resistance and free of friction.
>
> When you think about it, what can cause "friction" in a current in say a
> pure metal? Electrons bumping into other electrons? I would think that is
> highly unlikely as the coulomb repulsion would be too high would it not? I
> can't say I've ever read a truly satisfying answer to this personally.
> Perhaps it is the thermal photon exchange that is involved? Close to a zero
> temp there would be very few thermal photons flying about.
> Curious.
> Regards,
> Vince

Good question that you raise here. What I said above was that the "no
resistance"
in superconduction was simply electrons going into a higher quantum
orbital,
and since electrons never have resistance as they go from one orbital
to another
orbital, that is the full micro explanation of superconductivity.

But now Vince raises the question of what about resistance in general?
What about
resistance in normal conduction?

I believe the answer is that of asking how can you have electron
motion that never has
friction or resistance? Electrons orbiting atoms are forever in motion
with never any
resistance or friction. Now if someone wants more than this, well,
there is no more detail
or elaboration. There is no common example in life of a perpetual
motion machine that is the
electron in orbiting around an atom forever without friction or
resistance.

So when they say "there is no perpetual motion machine" they forgot to
qualify that statement
for there really are perpetual motion machines -- electrons in orbit
around atoms. Only they
call these perpetual motion machines by a different name-- Quantum
Mechanics. That is the
essence of Quantum physics-- electrons orbit forever without friction
or resistance.

So there is no deeper explanation for how an electron can forever be
in motion without resistance.
So what is the deeper explanation of a normal conductor that does
experience a resistance? And
the answer I suspect is that resistance in electricity is the
inability of electrons to flow through
the material. So that when we attach a battery to a circuit composed
of wood, the electrons simply
do not flow in the wood.

So I think the essence of resistance is whether the substance allows
electrons to flow or not to flow
and is measured by the Ohm law of i x R = V.

I think to ask for a micro explanation of electrons on the tip of the
battery before the contact of wood
as to why the electron does not flow in the wood, is not a question of
physics, just as it is not a question
of physics to ask for how come the electron orbiting an atom has this
ability to never slow down and never
experience resistance or friction. So the questioning stops at simply
knowing this is the characteristic of the
electron itself to never have resistance in orbit, and likewise the
questioning stops with what is resistance
or friction in normal conduction. We simply define it as R = V/i. We
test various wires for their resistance
using that formula and ask no further questions. For if we can get a
deeper meaning and understanding of why
silver is a tad better of a conductor over copper would be tantamount
to saying that we can go deeper on
the explanation of why an electron in orbit never has resistance or
friction. So if we can go deeper as to
providing why silver has less friction to electrons flowing than does
copper, then we can go deeper as
to why electrons in orbit never have resistance or friction.

So what I am trying to convey is the idea that somewhere the micro
explanation ceases both for the electron
in orbit never having resistance and the electron in motion in silver
versus copper. So I believe the best we can
do for silver versus copper is Ohm's law, and measure a parameter of V/
i.

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