Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #597693

Re: Faraday law looks like (V*R^-1)' = A*R + B + constant; Ampere law looks like (A*R)' = B + V*A^-1 + constant

Show all headers | View raw

On 9/19/2016 9:41 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 7:51:53 PM UTC-5, Serigo wrote:
>> On 9/19/2016 4:29 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>> On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 4:15:57 PM UTC-5, Serigo wrote:
>>>
>>> Serigo, now, let us say you never learned Ohm's law, but you did
>>> learn Maxwell Equations. Would you be able to get Ohm's law or
>>> some equivalent out of the Maxwell Equations?
>>>
>>> AP
>>>
>>
>> you can't derive Ohm's Law from Maxwell Equations because of one
>> important thing - you need to know how to treat a bunch of charges
>>  moving at random, which isn't contained in Maxwell equation.
>
> Well, then try explaining that of course whenever you have a electric
> current, you must have a voltage and whenever you have voltage, you
> must have resistance.

      but those are not the same type of electric fields.

 From our analysis it appears that the electric field in Ohm’s law (7) 
must be something else than the electric field defined by Maxwell’s 
equations (1 – 6). In particular, it should not be confused with the 
static electric field as defined by (1) and (5) which is very obvious from 
our result in Sec. 2.

The microscopic picture of current flow suggests that electric currents 
should be conceived as moving electrons which are accelerated by an 
average field and stopped again by collisions. Each electron produces a 
magnetic field according to (2) and (6) which varies in time. As a result 
fluctuating electric fields are induced according to (3). On
average these fields seem to add up to a quasistatic macroscopic field 
which ultimately enters into Ohm’s law and may be expressed as the 
gradient of a potential. This is, however, not the electrostatic 
potential which is produced by a charge density according to (1) and 
(5). The divergence of the average macroscopic field in Ohm’s law
should, of course, vanish – in agreement with (10) – as it is a 
rotational field created microscopically by induction

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282672796_Ohm%27s_Law_and_Maxwell%27s_Equations

>
> So, are you saying that Maxwell Equations cannot handle either
> voltage nor resistance nor both.

are you talking fields or circuits ?  the resistance or impeadance of 
free space is 377 ohms, Zo = sqroot(muo/eo)  Maxwell uses muo and eo, in 
his equations, but that does not apply to electrons jamming into 
particals and restarting up again like in a resistor

>
> Seems a far cry from Feynman's assessment that all of EM to date is
> explained by the Maxwell Equations, yet here it cannot even explain
> voltage and resistance.

you are applying EM to resistors, no can do.
if Feynman said that he is wrong.


>
> In my program, what I am doing is saying that all the Forces of
> Physics are a EM force, no other forces except EM exist, and that
> means, further, that Resistance in Ohm's law is the same as Lenz law
> opposing magnetic field.

gravity is not EM

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

How to gather the missing terms in Faraday Law, and yes, Maxwell goofed here Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 15:07 -0700
  How to gather the missing terms in Faraday Law, and yes, Maxwell goofed here Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 17:25 -0700
  Re: How to gather the missing terms in Faraday Law, and yes, Maxwell goofed here Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-18 20:32 -0500
    Magnetic Field in most-everything Re: How to gather the missing terms in Faraday Law, and yes, Maxwell goofed here Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 19:38 -0700
      Re: Magnetic Field in most-everything Re: How to gather the missing terms in Faraday Law, and yes, Maxwell goofed here moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 15:51 +0000
        people that do not understand that if you have a Magnetic Field which is always a vector, that multiples thereof are also vectors Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 13:07 -0700
          Re: people that do not understand that if you have a Magnetic Field which is always a vector, that multiples thereof are also vectors Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-19 16:15 -0500
            Re: people that do not understand that if you have a Magnetic Field which is always a vector, that multiples thereof are also vectors Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 14:29 -0700
              Re: people that do not understand that if you have a Magnetic Field which is always a vector, that multiples thereof are also vectors Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-19 19:51 -0500
                Faraday law looks like (V*R^-1)' = A*R + B + constant; Ampere law looks like (A*R)' = B + V*A^-1 + constant Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 19:41 -0700
                Re: Faraday law looks like (V*R^-1)' = A*R + B + constant; Ampere law looks like (A*R)' = B + V*A^-1 + constant Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-20 09:55 -0500
                Re: Faraday law looks like (V*R^-1)' = A*R + B + constant; Ampere law looks like (A*R)' = B + V*A^-1 + constant "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-09-20 09:03 -0700
          Re: people that do not understand that if you have a Magnetic Field which is always a vector, that multiples thereof are also vectors moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 22:26 +0000
            This moron thought a magnetic field is only a vector dependent on how it was derived Re: people that do not understand Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 19:23 -0700
              Re: This moron thought a magnetic field is only a vector dependent on how it was derived Re: people that do not understand Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-19 21:41 -0500
                (A*R)' = A'*R  +  R'*A and derivative (V*R^-1)' = V'*R^-1  +  V*(R^-1)' Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 22:12 -0700
                derivative of magnetic field Re: (A*R)' = A'*R  +  R'*A and derivative (V*R^-1)' = V'*R^-1  +  V*(R^-1)' Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 23:45 -0700
                Re: (A*R)' = A'*R + R'*A and derivative (V*R^-1)' = V'*R^-1 + V*(R^-1)' Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-20 10:09 -0500
              Re: This moron thought a magnetic field is only a vector dependent on how it was derived Re: people that do not understand moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-20 04:08 +0000
                Re: This moron thought a magnetic field is only a vector dependent on how it was derived Re: people that do not understand Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-20 10:28 -0500
                Re: This moron thought a magnetic field is only a vector dependent on how it was derived Re: people that do not understand moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-20 16:40 +0000
    Someone in Old Physics trying to flesh out Faraday's law Re: How to gather the missing terms in Faraday Law, and yes, Maxwell goofed here Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 20:03 -0700
      Re: Someone in Old Physics trying to flesh out Faraday's law Re: How to gather the missing terms in Faraday Law, and yes, Maxwell goofed here Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-18 22:31 -0500
        Old Physics Faraday law math does not match the experiment Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 20:51 -0700
          math that matches is the Product Rule in Differentiation that gives a Lenz law inside of Faraday law Re: Old Physics Faraday law math does not match the experiment Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 02:47 -0700
    trying to teach a brainwashed that velocity on Magnetic Field is just another Magnetic Field Re: How to gather the missing terms in Faraday Law, and yes, Maxwell goofed here Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 20:20 -0700

csiph-web