sci.physics.electromag

plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com wrote:
> 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.
>

Now Oxtoby & Nachtrieb 2nd ed. do a better job of defining "Chemical
Bond" than does Brown & LeMay & Bursten 5th ed. However, Mortimer 4th
ed. did the best job of all.

--- quoting Oxtoby & Nachtrieb, 2nd ed. Principles of Modern Chemistry,
1990 page 529 ---

The noble-gas atoms, with their filled valence shells, are quite
unreactive because of the high cost in energy to remove or add electrons
in order to form a chemical bond. By contrast, atoms with partially
filled valence shells (open-shell atoms) can be quite reactive,
attaining relative stability only by exchanging or sharing electrons
with other atoms to form molecules or large-scale networks of
interacting atoms. Before we consider the types of chemical bonds, let
us examine two of the crucial properties that characterize bonds: length
and energy. These two properties are related in turn to another
property: the bond order.

--- end quoting Oxtoby & Nachtrieb ---

The reason that Mortimer passes in this test of science logic, is
because he set down a definition of "chemical bond" before he proceeded
to classify them into three types of bonds of ionic, covalent and
metallic. The failings of Oxtoby & Nachrieb and then of Brown & LeMay &
Bursten is a failing that is quite obvious to mathematicians in that
they fail to even give a definition or lacking a definition fail to
say it is an axiom.

Mortimer defines chemical bond as a change in electron distribution.

Oxtoby and Nachtrieb never define chemical bond and proceed directly
into properties of chemical bonds. It is interesting how Oxtoby and
Nachrieb involve the noble-gas electron configuration, but they are
also combined in a chemical bond, so this is a big mistake in that
they are basing chemical bonds on the noble gases, yet they have a
chemical bond. So they cannot proceed to discussing length and energy
and bond order when they never defined "chemical bond" in the first place.

--- quoting Brown & LeMay & Bursten, 5th ed. Chemistry The Central
Science, 1991, page 248 ---

... to classify chemical forces into three broad groups: (1) ionic
bonds, (2) covalent bonds, and (3) metallic bonds. Figure 8.2 shows
examples of substances in which we find these types of bonds.

--- end quoting Brown & LeMay & Bursten ---

So what these authors have done is passed off the job of defining
chemical bond. They simply say it is chemical force. So you ask
them well, what is a chemical bond and they say it is a chemical
force.

Now I am not going to spend alot of time fixing this problem of
chemistry and give them a better or best definition of "chemical
bond". I believe Mortimer does a satisfactory job of defining
chemical bond. My focus is on physics definition of current, so
I have to focus and concentrate on that.

Here is Mortimer's definition of chemical bond again:

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

Here is Halliday & Resnick's definition of electric current again:

"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)"

So here now, what should be a correct definition of electric current for
physics?

It should involve circuit and that is missing in the Resnick and
Halliday attempt. Circuit in electric current is what the concept
of "combine" is in chemical bond. There is no current if there is
no circuit and there is no bond if there is no combination. So the
Halliday and Resnick definition fail on that issue. Then the only
other issue for electric current is a motion of electrons.

So roughly and preliminarily I define an electric current as composed
of two things (1) circuit and (2) movement of electrons.

Let me describe these three types of currents: (1) DC (2) AC (3)
Capacitor current.

DC current is described like the Newton's cradle of balls where the
end ball moves and the opposite end ball begins to move and this
is the electric field or photon messenger concept.

AC current also has the photon messenger but the current switches
motion of electrons 180 degrees. DC current is motion in one
direction whereas AC is motion of turning around 180 degrees often
or frequently.

Capacitor Current is a circuit in which the electrons are in a orbital
far removed from the ground-state orbital and are thus crashing back
or hurdling back from nth orbital to ground-state orbital and in the
process no friction or resistance occurs.

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