sci.physics.electromag

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> This is April 2008 and the last month I will spend on this first
> edition. When I
> pick up this book in the future to write the 2nd edition, I should
> start of with
> this Halliday and Resnick definition of electric current. It is the
> very essence
> of superconductivity, in that the old physics had a very vague and
> muddled
> definition of current.
>
> In the above I said that Halliday and Resnick's definition probably
> satisfies
> both DC and AC current, but I suspect that was incorrect. I suspect
> that:
>
> 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 ---
>
> Such a definition does not include both AC current with that of DC
> current
> because the drift speed of electrons versus the "field speed" what I
> called
> photon messengers is in conflict with that Halliday and Resnick
> definition
> of current.
>
> It is obvious to all scientists that there is a difference between AC
> and DC
> currents. So it should be obvious by logic, that the above definition
> fails to reconcile those differences and thus the definition is
> flawed.
>
> My intuition is telling me that Halliday and Resnick's definition of
> electric
> current is an "idealized definition" but it has no use or application
> to real
> physics. Ohm's law is not a law of physics for it is merely a rule,
> just as
> a slide ruler answer to a mathematical problem is often a estimate not
> a
> final answer. So I suspect that Halliday Resnick definition above is
> only a idealization and not a real physics and not a true physics.
>
> This sort of thing happens alot in mathematics where definitions are
> pulled
> out of the air and then when lines in a proof clash, is because the
> definitions
> are "self contradictory". Gauss warned us some centuries back that
> the
> usual flaw in a mathematics are these half baked and self
> contradictory definitions.
>
> The DC current compared to AC current compared to Capacitor current
> are all three
> very different currents and the Halliday and Resnick definition of
> current is too
> flawed and fake physics.
>

Most chemistry freshman college textbooks have a poor quality when it
comes to explaining the
Chemical Bond. What I mean is that they do not well-define that a
chemical bond is. They presume
and assume they know and the student knows what "bond" means, and then
they jump immediately
into classifying ionic from covalent to metallic.

What they should do is first, well-define what is meant by Chemical
bond, and then classify
the three different types of bonds.

I have three chemistry textbooks-- Oxtoby & Nachtrieb 2nd ed., and
Brown & LeMay & Bursten 5th ed. and
finally Mortimer 4th edition. Only the Mortimer does a good enough job
of defining "What is a chemical
bond?"

--- quoting Mortimer, "Chemistry, A Conceptual Approach" 4th edition,
1979, page 64 ---

Chemical bonds, which form when atoms combine, are the result of
changes in electron distribution.
There are three fundamental types of bonding.

1. Ionic bonding results when electrons are transferred from one type
of atom to another.
The atoms of one of the reacting elements lose electrons and become
positively charged ions.
The atoms of the other reactant gain electrons and become negatively
charged ions.
The electrostatic (plus-minus) attraction between the oppositely
charged ions hold them in a crystal.

2. In covalent bonding, electrons are shared, not transferred. A
single covalent bond consists of a pair
of electrons shared by two atoms. Molecules are made up of atoms
covalently bonded to each other.

3. Metallic bonding is found in metals and alloys. The metal atoms are
arranged in a three-dimensional
structure. The outer electrons of these atoms are free to move
throughout the structure and are
responsible for binding it together.

--- end quoting Mortimer ---

Now I do have to admit that Mortimer was my college chemistry textbook
of an earlier edition and so
I have a biased preference for Mortimer.

But I must say, out of logic, the covalent bond above should be
clarified in future editions because
of the mistake that Mortimer makes when he says "Molecules are made up
of atoms covalently bonded
to each other." This is a mistake for it implies that all Molecules
are covalently bonded, which implies
that no molecule has a ionic bond or a metallic bond. If Mortimer had
said "Most molecules..." then
he would have been error free.

But the point of this post is this:

We have three different types of currents in physics of DC current and
AC current and Capacitor Current.

The Halliday & Resnick definition of current is old fogey physics. We
need a definition of current that
imitates the definition of bond in chemistry which thus allows us to
classify the three different types of
chemical bonds.

Likewise, I could have listed Magnetism and then the three different
types of magnetism of
paramagnetic, diamagnetic, ferromagnetic.

So, the reason that physics could never muster a true theory of
Superconductivity is that it was
working under a 19th century idea of "What is a current". Once physics
realizes that currents come
in at least three different types and where the Capacitor Current is
the same as Superconductivity, then,
physics will have its house in order on superconductivity.

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