sci.physics.electromag

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> So once again, here is the heart and crux of this book, is to show
> that the concept of "current" is much
> larger than the concept portrayed by classical physics. That
> Superconductivity is a different type of current
> than is conduction electrons moving through copper wires.
>

I wish to clarify my last post about the history of AC current
discovery. I do not care so much as to who
discovered it as to whether Faraday and especially Maxwell knew the
difference between DC current
and AC current in the process of formulating the Maxwell Equations. So
did Maxwell know AC current
when he organized the Maxwell Equations? From my impressions, which
are often wrong, that neither
Faraday nor Maxwell knew of AC current in their lifetime.

And back to the topic of the definition of the concept of "current" as
given in modern day physics
such as the Halliday & Resnick "Fundamentals of Physics", 1988.

We know that Ohm's law, V = Ri, is not a law of physics for it breaks
down in a strong electric field. But can we
also say that since it is used in the definition of the classical
physics concept of current, that Resistance
in Superconduction is also a mislaid or misplaced concept? What I am
trying to say is that, if Nature has
different types of currents then some of those currents can have a
valid concept of Resistance but then
other currents would be meaningless to think they have a resistance
concept connected to them.

An example: suppose we are concerned about chemical bonds and we make
the mistake of thinking the
world has only one type of chemical bond, say the covalent bond, and
then we proceed to attach a crucial
concept of "sharing of electrons". And then we proceed to explore pure
metals and find out there is no
"sharing of electrons" in the sense of sulfur or sugar. My point is
that "sharing of electrons" is specific
to covalent bonds, just as Resistance is specific to DC current or AC
current but not Superconduction
current. So that when someone sees a bolt of lightning or a Wimshurst
generator current, is it meaningful
to ask for Resistance of those currents?

Is it meaningful to ask for the Resistance of a Leyden Jar capacitor
when it merely storages charge and
in the discharge develops a current.

When chemistry is shackled with having just one type of bond and not
allowed to have three different types
of bonds with numerous hybrids, but where only one type of bond is
allowed in all of chemistry, then one
can easily envision how messed up chemistry would be where "sharing of
electrons" for ionic bonds is given
a exotic quantum explanation such as a BCS theory for ionic bonds or
where "sharing of electrons" in
the metallic bond is given a different bizarre explanation as a BCS
theory of metallic bond.

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