#31 Archimedes Plutonium's Fusion Energy EXPERIMENT Challenge; Faraday Law 1/3 larger energy content than Coulomb Law; new book: Fusion Barrier Principle
plutonium....@gmail.com
physics textbook that I appreciate so much.
--- quoting Fundamentals of Physics, Halliday & Resnick, 3rd ed, 1988,
pages 740 & 741 ---
Galvanometer G deflects when the magnet is moving with respect to
coil.
An induced electromotive force appears only when something is
changing. In a static situation, in
which no physical objects are moving and the currents are steady,
there is no induced
electromotive force. The key word is change.
--- end quoting Halliday and Resnick of their physics textbook ---
Astounding to think every High School and Freshman College student can
perform this experiment that shows why all tokamaks will fail to
surpass 2/3
breakeven.
The reason being is that every machine can be idealized to one
controlling
force of physics of the Faraday Law of Maxwell Equations. In a Tokamak
the objective is to overcome the Coulomb Law of repulsion. So the
question
of whether the future will ever have a Nuclear Fusion Power Station
all
rests on the question of whether the energy content of Faraday's Law
can
be at a minimum far less than the minimum Coulomb Law energy content.
What the above experiment shows us, is that the energy content of
Faraday's
Law is at a minimum, always 1/3 larger of an energy content than the
Coulomb
Law. This means that every tokamak will never surpass 2/3 breakeven.
This is the physics experiment of the millenium, for it is simple,
accessible by all and the implications are more profound than all of
Chemistry.
That there will never be a nuclear fusion power station.
In prior years my proof of the Fusion Barrier Principle I simply
turned the
mathematical form of Coulomb's law and Faraday's Law into geometry.
One is a sphere and the other is the cylinder stretched to become
a torus. I then enclose the sphere inside a cylinder and seek the
lower bound of volume which is 2/3 the cylinder. That was more of
a math-geometry proof but now I use the above Halliday and Resnick
Experiment of the actual Faraday Law and I pose the question of
how much energy content is in the Faraday Law compared to
Coulomb Law.
Today I dwell on the old tried and true Experiment that to show
Faraday's Law is to have a closed loop and then plunging a changing
magnetic field of a magnet into the closed loop produces an
electric current.
That is akin to point charges.
How many point charges are there in Coulomb's Law? At minimum there is
only 1. To have Coulomb's Law you need one point charge.
How many point charges are required to have Faraday's Law? At minimum
there are 3. There is the magnet as a point charge. There is the
"movement"
which is point charge number two. Finally, there is
the induced current which requires the third point charge.
So the Universal-Space to have Faraday's Law and Coulomb's Law
requires 3 point charges. Faraday's Law is 3 point charges and
Coulomb's Law is 1 point charge.
That means that Coulomb's Law is the Faraday Law *in motion*.
That means that Coulomb's Law is the magnet of Faraday's law and is 1
out of the 3 point charges.
That means the energy content of Faraday's Law is 1/3 greater at a
minimum than Coulomb's Law because Faraday's Law requires the
energy of **changing motion**. The changing motion is 1 out of
the 3 point charges.
The induced Faraday current is the last remaining point charge and
produced because of the 1/3 larger energy content of the
changing-motion of the magnet.
So in this Experiment where a student demonstrates the Faraday Law by
thrusting a magnet through a closed loop attached to a Galvanometer.
We
see that Faraday's Law is Coulomb's Law set in motion
and that Faraday's Law has at least 1/3 greater energy content than
ever does the Coulomb's Law since it is the magnet held motionless.
Now every High School student can perform the above experiment, for it
is that simple.
The Sun and Stars are fusion machines, no doubt about that. But how
much of the outgoing pressure of the Sun and Stars is fusion energy
pressure? It is merely 20%, and nowhere near 67% to surpass 2/3
breakeven.
A Hydrogen bomb does surpass 2/3 breakeven, but a bomb is
not a machine. JET and ITER are machines and machines require
repeatability. Once a bomb explodes of a Hydrogen bomb it is gone and
no machine stands afterward. Once you try to
build a machine around a H-bomb, you begin to see and visualize the
Fusion Barrier Principle in that a machine to house a H-bomb requires
more
energy than the H-bomb explosion.
So what is the smallest Fusion Machine that can repeat and can house
and contain fusion energy?
It is not a machine the size of ITER or JET or any other tokamak. It
is a machine that uses gravity
as the "holding container" and it does not exceed 2/3 breakeven of
fusion. It is in fact the smallest
shining star.
We are wasting time in building tokamaks to harness fusion energy
simply because the Faraday
Law and the Ampere Law of Maxwell Equations is 1/3 larger in energy
content than ever is the
Coulomb Law of Maxwell Equations.
The smallest practical fusion machine is the smallest star that uses
gravity force as the containment vessel.
In fact, JET, surpassed all stars in the Universe when it reached 64%
breakeven. JET surpassed even supernova which, although they came
close to 64% fusion energy of outgoing pressure, they
nonetheless never matched 64%.
I hope they build ITER, just to prove that Archimedes Plutonium and
every High Schooler and
College Freshman in science had already done the appropriate
experiment that proved ITER
scientists would not even reach 67% breakeven. All because the
"controlling aspect" of every
tokamak is the Faraday Law and is 1/3 larger in energy content than
the Coulomb Law.
Funny, how High Schoolers and Freshman physics students are going to
be "smarter" than all the scientists of ITER put together.
Question: I have searched the literature and no physicist has ever
given analysis as to the
energy content of Faraday Law versus Coulomb Law. Apparently,
Archimedes Plutonium
is the first scientist to wonder how much energy content there is
between Faraday Law
and Coulomb Law. Why me? Probably because noone had a pragmatic need
to know
the difference in energy content. Which is quite amazing considering
that the Maxwell
Equations are nearly 150 years old and that we have been seeking
fusion energy for almost
50 years of that time. So why did not any scientist ask themselves
these questions?
(i) how is the Coulomb law a subset of the Faraday law?
(ii) how much energy content at minimum is the Faraday Law compared to
Coulomb Law?
Truly amazing that this comparison of the Maxwell Equations never took
place until
Archimedes Plutonium saw a need for a comparison.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
plutonium....@gmail.com
plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote:
(snipped)
>
> Question: I have searched the literature and no physicist has ever
> given analysis as to the
> energy content of Faraday Law versus Coulomb Law. Apparently,
> Archimedes Plutonium
> is the first scientist to wonder how much energy content there is
> between Faraday Law
> and Coulomb Law. Why me? Probably because noone had a pragmatic need
> to know
> the difference in energy content. Which is quite amazing considering
> that the Maxwell
> Equations are nearly 150 years old and that we have been seeking
> fusion energy for almost
> 50 years of that time. So why did not any scientist ask themselves
> these questions?
>
> (i) how is the Coulomb law a subset of the Faraday law?
> (ii) how much energy content at minimum is the Faraday Law compared to
> Coulomb Law?
>
> Truly amazing that this comparison of the Maxwell Equations never took
> place until
> Archimedes Plutonium saw a need for a comparison.
>
Truly amazing is it not. That although the concepts of "energy
density" have been around
for a very long time.
Energy density of electric field 1/2eE^2
Energy density of magnetic field 1/2(1/u)B^2
and where U = 1/2eE^2 + 1/2(1/u)B^2
So it is not as if energy density and energy content was an unknown.
But the
amazing part of this story is that noone ever thought about how much
energy
density is in the Coulomb Law versus the Faraday Law. And as I showed
previously, the Faraday Law is always at a minimum 1/3 larger of an
energy
content.
Now another aspect of this energy density (energy content) is the
question of
whether the Faraday Law has an equal energy content compared to the
Ampere-Maxwell Law? If they are symmetrical then they should have the
identical energy content. If they do not have the same identical
energy content
would imply that the Faraday Law is missing an added term.
In other words, my push to add a Displacement Magnetism to the Faraday
Law
would have even more of a impelling reason, should we find that the
energy
content of the Ampere-Maxwell Law with its Displacement Current is
larger
of an energy content than the Faraday Law.
So my amazement does not stop with why noone prior to me ever
questioned
the energy content of the Faraday Law versus Coulomb Law, but also,
why
noone ever questioned the comparison of energy content of Faraday Law
versus Ampere-Maxwell Law.
Now according to my construction of the energy content of Faraday Law
as point
charges where Faraday Law has at minimum 3 point charges:
(1) magnet as a point charge
(2) movement of magnet as second point charge
(3) flow of current in loop as third point charge
For Ampere-Maxwell Law we have 4 point charges at minimum:
(1) electric current as one point charge
(2) movement of electric current as second point charge
(3) magnetic field as third point charge
(4) displacement current as fourth point charge
So the symmetry demands there to be a 4th point charge in the Faraday
Law.
Not that it is going to upset the 1/3 larger energy content of Faraday
Law versus
Coulomb Law. But that it is going to upset Nature in that the energy
content
of a changing electric field should not be larger than the energy
content of
a changing magnetic field.
plutonium....@gmail.com
have the Superconductivity Experiment Challenge
and this Fusion Experiment Challenge. But let me talk for a few
minutes about the difference in quality between these
two experiments. The fusion experiment is without a doubt what it is,
for it is simply the Faraday Law, as given
by the Halliday and Resnick textbook of 1988 of thrusting a bar magnet
through a loop connected to a Galvanometer.
So noone is arguing "that is Faraday's Law" and is merely a repeat of
Faraday's law. So noone is going to argue
or get bent out of shape. However, the bulk of the Challenge is to
interpret the Faraday Law. So in the Fusion Energy
Challenge is not so much the Experiment itself, but to intrepret that
experiment of Faraday's Law. To interpret
the "energy content" of Faraday's Law compared to the energy content
of Coulomb's Law.
I find this intriguing because we can have a conference or symposium
of the world's most reputed physicists,
a conference of a thousand of the world's respected physicists and all
would agree to the Faraday Law
and the experiment ascribed by Halliday and Resnick:
--- quoting Fundamentals of Physics, Halliday & Resnick, 3rd ed, 1988,
pages 740 & 741 ---
Galvanometer G deflects when the magnet is moving with respect to
coil.
--- end quote ---
The intriguing part would be how many of those one thousand physicist
can make a proper and correct
interpretation of the energy content of Faraday's Law compared to
energy content of Coulomb's Law.
Would all one thousand agree that Faraday's Law has to have 1/3 larger
energy content than Coulomb's
Law? Well, knowing human nature there would be some differing.
Now, contrasting the Superconductivity Experiment Challenge, well,
there is some interpretation, but it is mostly
an experiment that requires finding a "Meissner Effect".
I wanted to bring this topic up because of the perspective of
experiment versus intrepration. We often lose sight
of the fact that most experiments require a mix of data reporting and
of interpretation. There is no question that
the Galvanometer will read a current. The data is plain and obvious,
but the interpretation of how much energy
content of Faraday versus Coulomb Law, that is different.
In the Superconductivity Experiment Challenge, I am not asking for
interpretation, but instead I am asking for the
mere data of a Meissner Effect. Take a Wimshurst or VandeGraaff and
with a magnetized iron coil of low density
see if you can achieve a Meissner Effect.
plutonium....@gmail.com
plutonium.archime...@gmail.com:
Look at the Maxwell Equations. They are already Lorentz transformation
invariant. But what if
we added temperature into the Maxwell Equations. Would they be
invariant? I believe the answer
is no. No, because the Faraday Law is asymmetrical with the Ampere-
Maxwell Law. The Faraday
Law is missing a term of a Displacement-Magnetism. If we include a
added term of Displacement-Magnetism
we can then add a temperature term.
Where am I going with this? I am tying together fusion with
superconductivity. And the direction I am going
is that superconductivity is a capacitor-current. The resistance in
capacitors would then be the resistance
in superconductivity. The energy in equals energy out is the
Conservation of Energy, but can a capacitor
ever have 100% of the energy in equal to the energy out? If it can
would mean 0 resistance.
Capacitor theory is all in the Maxwell Equations. In the Faraday and
Ampere-Maxwell Laws.
Fusion is either the Faraday Law or the Ampere-Maxwell Law, or both.
So both Capacitance and Fusion involve the Maxwell Equations.
Since both involve the Maxwell Equations and if we put a temperature
term in the Maxwell Equations,
means that Faraday's Law has to have a Displacement-Magnetism to
support a temperature term so that
the special-relativity term is not violated of its 1/sqrt[1 - (v^2/
c^2)], so that there is not a mass moving at the
speed of light with a zero denominator.
plutonium....@gmail.com
Damon Hill
e5fe45...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
> Just curious, does Russian Google translate my english text?
>
Google's translations of Russian technical writing makes for
frequently preplexing reading.
Don't get your hopes up.
--Damon
Archimedes Plutonium
into the Maxwell Equations, I am going to have to spend some time
on the Upper and Lower Bounds of the concepts of time and temperature.
In statistical physics we know that time t and temperature T seem to
be related as inverses of one another so that t is proportional to
1/T.
We know that there is a lower-bound for temperature as 0 Kelvin.
We can say that time has a lower-bound as Planck-time.
So lower-bounds are easy enough to tackle, but the question of
upper-bounds is a bit more problematic. The Atom Totality theory
would say there are upper-bounds for both time and temperature.
Now if the speed of light is an upper-bound for velocity, it would
make commonsense that time has an upper-bound and if time has
an upper bound would make commonsense that temperature as inverse
has an upper bound. Otherwise a situation would arise where the
average kinetic energy of particles contradict the speed of light
as faster than the speed of light.
So I have to take a respite here to sort out bounds
plutonium....@gmail.com
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Before I do any math on the Maxwell Equations by injecting temperature
> into the Maxwell Equations, I am going to have to spend some time
> on the Upper and Lower Bounds of the concepts of time and temperature.
>
> In statistical physics we know that time t and temperature T seem to
> be related as inverses of one another so that t is proportional to
> 1/T.
>
> We know that there is a lower-bound for temperature as 0 Kelvin.
>
> We can say that time has a lower-bound as Planck-time.
>
> So lower-bounds are easy enough to tackle, but the question of
> upper-bounds is a bit more problematic. The Atom Totality theory
> would say there are upper-bounds for both time and temperature.
>
> Now if the speed of light is an upper-bound for velocity, it would
> make commonsense that time has an upper-bound and if time has
> an upper bound would make commonsense that temperature as inverse
> has an upper bound. Otherwise a situation would arise where the
> average kinetic energy of particles contradict the speed of light
> as faster than the speed of light.
>
> So I have to take a respite here to sort out bounds
>
An obvious question that may help solve the above queries is to ask
how high
of a temperature do you have to go before you cannot have the Maxwell
Equations
of the Faraday or Ampere Laws?
Obviously we can have the Coulomb (or Gauss's Law) law in the stars
and Sun
and in tokamaks. But is there a temperature in the stars for which the
Faraday and
Ampere Laws can no longer hold?
How high of a temperature can you go before you can never have a
"loop" that is needed
in the Faraday Law? Or that you no longer have magnetization in either
the Faraday or
Ampere law. Temperature and heat do not effect the ability to have a
"current" so long as
you have the Coulomb law. But at some high temperature, it seems to
me, that you have
a breakdown in the ability to ever have the Faraday or Ampere Law.
Whether this breakdown
is going to be the upper-bound of temperature is questionable. But the
fact that if there is a
high temperature impossibility of having a Faraday or Ampere Law, is
vital for injecting a
temperature parameter into the Maxwell Equations. So in other words,
where the Faraday
and Ampere Laws breakdown due to a high temperature, is the
temperature term for the
Maxwell Equations, and then I would only have to worry about the math
of the numbers
smaller than this highest bearable temperature.
plutonium....@gmail.com
I should have simply asked, at what temperature is it such that the
Coulomb force
is zero? Is it the Planck Temperature of 10^32 Kelvin? I suspect it is
much smaller
than 10^32 Kelvin.
I was looking for information on highest temperatures in universe and
found this
website:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/zero/hot.html
Peter Tyson, an editor of NOVA talks with several scientists
over the issue of a World's Highest Temperature or as the
title of the article asks "Is there an opposite to absolute zero?"
I think Peter interviewed too many on the fringes of physics such
as the string theorists. But the article overall is good for it is a
panavision of thoughts. And the article even addressed the Large
Hadron Collider LHC in Cern Switzerland that is running experiments
this week. Even a report on the BBC tonight about LHC.
And the LHC is reputed to reach 10^17 Kelvin.
Peter discusses the Planck-temperature as about 10^32 Kelvin.
Planck-temperature = sqrt[ (hbar x c^5)/ (G x k^2)]
Now the Planck-length is 10^-35 meters
Planck-length = sqrt[ (hbar x G)/c^3]
The Planck-time is 10^-44 seconds.
Planck-time = sqrt[ (hbar x G)/c^5]
Planck-time is the time it takes a photon to cross the distance of a
Planck-length
Notice in the above that the Planck-temperature and Planck-time have
that inverse
relationship where the G is in the numerator in one and the
denominator in the other
and ditto for speed of light. Notice also that c is to the fifth power
in both.
But what I am contemplating is something more practical. Far more
practical than Peter's
questioning physicists who come at this problem of a highest-
temperature from a Cosmology
frame of mind. Instead of cosmology, let us try something far more
practical. At what temperature
do the Maxwell Equations cease to work? At what temperature can the
Coulomb force law
not work?
In the above Planck measures we see G, the gravitational constant and
we know the EM is
a force that is 10^40 stronger than gravity.
So, let me ask a question. At 10^32 Kelvin, can you even have a
Coulomb law of attraction?
Would not that temperature nullify the attraction so that there is no
attraction. In other words,
there would not be any Maxwell Equations at a certain high
temperature. And if there are no
Maxwell Equations, well, there is no physics.
Now I think the maximum temperature can come down many orders of
magnitude to stop and
halt the Coulomb law. I think the temperature in LHC of 10^17 Kelvin
is sufficient to halt the
Coulomb Law. In fact I think the threshold temperature is far lower
than 10^17 Kelvin.
Now I had a odd thought today. That the fusion barrier principle as
stated all along is the fact
that that the Faraday Law requires 1/3 more energy content then ever
the Coulomb law of
attraction to fuse. So no tokamak will surpass 2/3 breakeven. The odd
thought I had today
was that the Fusion Barrier Principle can also be stated purely on a
thermodynamic analysis
that if the universe has a maximum temperature for which no
temperature can exceed, means
that there is a corresponding upper limit to the fusion in a tokamak--
again, 2/3 breakeven.
So that the fact the world has a limit to high temperatures,
translates into a limit
to fusion breakeven.
plutonium....@gmail.com
temperature, especially looking for a date.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/zero/hot.html
Absolute Hot by Peter Tyson
Is there an opposite to absolute zero?
It says in the lower right corner December 2007. I was looking for the
date because Peter
mentions LHC, Large Hadron Collider in CERN that is activated this
very week and perhaps
news tonight about its physics. I heard the BBC was fully covering the
news.
Anyway, let me give an overview of what I think is wrong with Peter's
interviewing of many
scientists that compose his website on the topic. The trouble is that
Peter interviewed
everyone who has the opinion that gravity is the main force to worry
about and that
the Cosmos is a result of a Big Bang theory. String theory resides in
those two
bad assumptions. Now if either one of those assumptions is
false, then the answer would be totally off the mark as for a highest
temperature possible.
What Peter should have done is ask someone with the two assumptions
that the Unification
of forces of physics is a Coulomb Unification, so that we get away
from this disease of the
20th century that gravity is the "central force of the world". And the
second assumption that
the Cosmos is a Atom Totality. These two assumptions places the
Maxwell Equations as the
heart of all of physics and places the Cosmos as a quantum body, not
an infinite open ended
blob that the Big Bang assumes.
So if you make the Maxwell Equations, the heart of all of physics,
with the forces as a Coulomb
Unification, then the questioning and answering of a Absolute Highest
Temperature where the
temperature is impossible to go any higher, well, we have a good
chance of answering that question
with clarity.
So at what high temperature can you no longer have the Maxwell
Equations?
We all know from Freshman physics class a demonstration that magnets
lose their ability to attract
when heat is applied. So at what temperature do you no longer have a
Maxwell Equations?
What temperature does the Coulomb force no longer exists since the
temperature heat is so high that
the Coulomb force would not be there?
The Sun and stars are not hot enough of a temperature to annul the
Coulomb force for there is still
fusion going on. But the temperature and heat of say a Supernova or
one of those huge energetic
gamma ray bursts. I think in those events the Maxwell Equations can no
longer exist.
So the Planck-temperature of 10^32 Kelvin is far to high where the
Maxwell Equations could no longer
exist. I think the temperature of a supernova is about the temperature
at which the Maxwell Equations
cease to exist.
plutonium....@gmail.com
thread regards to
an upper-bound of temperature. I believe now, that there are several
upper bounds
for temperature, one for the Cosmos as an upper bound which may well
be the
Planck-temperature of 10^32 Kelvin. But I believe the Maxwell
Equations which although
a major part of physics is not the whole of physics. And the Maxwell
Equations can have
their own upper-bound of high temperature. It probably is the Kelvins
in a supernova
or around that temperature, and far lower of a temperature than 10^32.
Let me call it
a Maxwell-temperature instead of a Planck-temperature. It is the
temperature at which
the Maxwell Equations would not exist. You could not have a loop for
the Faraday or
Ampere laws. You could not have magnetism for the Maxwell equations. I
believe this
temperature of supernova is near to the temperature of the ongoing LHC
experiment
at CERN of 10^17 Kelvin. I believe the Maxwell Equations themselves
can compute this
temperature where they cease to exist.
Now one may say the Large Hadron Collider, LHC, is a Maxwell Equations
setup itself.
That is true in that LHC is a macro experiment of the Maxwell
Equations, but the moment
of collision of the streams of particles is like a mini bomb explosion
where the Maxwell
Equations no longer exist.
If you cannot have the Maxwell Equations, you cannot have
superconductivity nor can you
have nuclear fusion that is controlled. You can have fusion but not
controlled fusion. In a sense
the LHC is a bomb. The LHC is really another tokamak, only instead of
trying to end up with a
power station, the LHC is wanting information.
---
I do not know why I thought the number of coupling force strength
between Coulomb
and gravity involved experimental data that made it less accurate than
the Planck-time
or Planck-length or Planck-temperature.
Here is a good website that tells it all:
--- quoting except for a snip ---
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Forces/couple.html#c5
Since the masses and charges of basic particles like the electron and
proton are independent of each other, the strength of the gravity
force relative to the electromagnetic force depends upon which
particles you choose for comparison. If two protons are chosen for the
comparison, then
F_gravity/F_electric = ...(snip)... = 8.1 x 10^-37
Using the electromagnetic coupling constant of 1/137 then leads to a
gravitational coupling constant
alpha_g = 5.9 x 10^-39
If the force between an electron and a proton is used, the comparison
between gravitational and electric force is
F_gravity/F_electric = 4.4 x 10^-40
--- end quoting ---
Planck-length 1.6 x 10^-35 m
Planck-time 5.3 x 10^-44 s
Planck-temperature 1.4 x 10^32 K
c = 3.0 x 10^8 m/s
Now I have something really astounding to go by. I am going to use the
Atom Totality theory,
for which the Big Bang cannot do these calculations.
I am going to show that the numbers of physics proves that Temperature
T = 1/t where t is time.
I can do this because of the Universal-Atom, in order to have a speed
of light as maximum
speed with value of 3.0 x 10^8 m/s also has these measures of the
smallest length and smallest
time of the Planck measures.
So I have for time: 1.6 x 10^-35 m x 5.3 x 10^-44 s x 3.0 x 10^8 m/s
for a value of 25.4 x 10^-71
And I have for temperature: 1.4 x 10^32 K x 4.4 x 10^40 = 61.6 x 10^71
and also I have 1.4 x 10^32 K x 5.9 x 10^39 = 8.26 x
10^71
when I subtract those two I end up with 53.34 x 10^71
Now I know that other physicists are immediately going to complain and
pounce on my units.
That the units do not agree.
My retort is going to be this: You have a Atom Totality Universe. It
has the smallest numbers of
measure as the Plancks-measures. Those smallest numbers of length and
time are connected
to the largest number of length and time incorporated within the speed
of light signal. So it is a
proportionality more than an equality.
Have I got the relationship of T = 1/t or vice versa of t = 1/T where
t is time and T is temperature?
Well I have them close enough, for I have the same exponent.
plutonium....@gmail.com
--- quoting LCH, CERN ---
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/ALICE-en.html
Collisions in the LHC will generate temperatures more than
100 000 times hotter than the heart of the Sun. Physicists
hope that under these conditions, the protons and neutrons
will 'melt', freeing the quarks from their bonds with the gluons.
This should create a state of matter called quark-gluon plasma...
--- end quoting ---
Looking around for a temperature of supernova and the high temperature
is around 10^12 Kelvin.
I am not sure of the figure 10^17 Kelvin for LHC since the above quote
is far below
10^17.
So somewhere between 10^12 Kelvin and 10^17 Kelvin would we cease to
have
the Maxwell Equations for the temperature would annul them. And if we
have
a plasma state of matter, you obviously do not have the Maxwell
Equations operable.
This also raises an interesting question as to why the Sun has a less
powerful
magnetic field compared to Jupiter. Is it because of the high
temperatures of the
Sun.
Unless I can get a better number data, I am going to use the LHC
number
of 10^17 Kelvin as the temperature upper-bound where the Maxwell
Equations
no longer exist due to the plasma state of matter.
So the Maxwell Equations and fusion and superconductivity function
within the
temperature range of 0 to 10^17 Kelvin.
I was reading some of the experiments LHC is designed to grapple.
Seems to
me that they could tackle one more which is to find what temperature
that the
Maxwell Equations are nullified. Give us a more precise number.
plutonium....@gmail.com
separate new book titled
something like: Temperature Termed Maxwell Equations. It started here
in sci.physics and other
newsgroups by August-September 2008. It started because
superconductivity is linked with
fusion and that temperature has an upper limit in both superconduction
and fusion as well
as a lower limit-- 0 Kelvin
And it started because of a added new term to the Faraday Law which
looks similar to
the Displacement-Current added to Ampere Law. I call it Magnetic-
Displacement or
Displacement-Magnetism added to Faraday Law.
Something I did not dwell upon is the fact that in the Atom Totality
that gravity becomes
the smallest form of the Coulomb force possible. And that gravity is
the interplay between
Space and the Atom Totality which is embedded in that Space. More
simply stated, gravity
is the force of attraction of positron-ocean that Dirac found. So that
Space is positron-ocean
that attracts all matter since all matter that we observe is the
matter of the electrons of the
Atom Totality Universe.
So if a temperature term goes into the Maxwell Equations, then a
termperature term is
involved in gravity. Before these writings, no physicist had any lead
into a temperature
involved with gravity. And the phenomenon that may just be a result of
temperature involved
with gravity are things such as the near-permanent red spot on Jupiter
and the near-permanent
Sun spots. So that the layers below the spots are temperature layers
as a result of
a gravity-temperature-gradient. We can see this in simply the boiling
of a dense liquid that
the boiling bubbles are vortices in shape. So that the Sunspots and
the spots on Jupiter
can be conceived as temperature bubbles boiling from the layers below
due to gravity-temperature.
Now as for the actual temperature term to be added to the Maxwell
Equations. I believe they can
be added to the Ampere Law in the Displacement-Current itself. Until
now, the displacement-current
was merely mathematical windowdressing so to speak. It had no
"engineering concern". It was not
like a "real current". It was more like a direction. But when I add a
temperature variable to the
Displacement-current, it takes on a whole new importance.
And since I add the temperature variable to the Displacement-current,
I also add the temperature
variable to the Magnetic-Displacement in the Faraday Law.
Well, what about the other two Maxwell Equations of Gauss's laws of
electricity and magnetism?
Good question. We all know that magnetism strength is a variable to
temperature. We have all
seen the demonstration of a flame held near a magnet and the magnet
falling off. So the Gauss
Law of Electricity (Coulomb's Law) will need the Displacement-Current
with temperature included.
With the Gauss Law of Magnetism, well, sorry, but I still have not
fixed that law since I showed
there was a Magnetic-Monopole. The Universe itself is a magnetic
monopole since all the matter
we see is "negative electron matter" and the Space that this matter
resides is the positron-Space.
So the Universe itself is a magnetic monopole. Thus the Gauss Law of
Magnetism no longer holds
true and needs repair. Whatever the final math form of the Gauss Law
of Magnetism comes out,
well, it also needs a temperature term included and I suspect it to be
the Magnetic-Displacement
of Faraday's Law.
Alot of work here, both theory and to correlate with experiment data.
plutonium....@gmail.com
plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote:
(cut)
>
> Alot of work here, both theory and to correlate with experiment data.
>
Someone may say, AP you are overworking this, simply put a 1/T where T
is
temperature wherever you have a dt for change of rate of time t.
And I would reply back that it is far more complex than all of that.
All the definitions
of physics on electricity and magnetism need a vast overhaul of its
current, resistance
and voltage. The dt in current needs overhaul, as if the current had
never been relativized
to the speed of light. The definition of current in i =V/R cannot
account for a capacitor-current
with its photon-signalling.
In weather where we have a thunderstorm and a frontal boundary of cold
air with hot
air we can have lightning bolts. So do we have change of rate of
Temperature of magnetic flux.
It is tempting to say that all I need to do to overhaul the Maxwell
Equations is to place
a 1/T where T is temperature at various places in the Equations where
there is a dt where
t is time. And the trouble is that nearly all of the definitions
leading up to the Maxwell
Equations need revision.
And when we look at physical reality-- that the Space is a positron
ocean of antimatter
in which the Maxwell Equations are embedded. That a simple change of t
for time with
1/T for temperature, will not fix.
The way I see it, the new Maxwell Equations will have four laws where
the two static laws
are symmetrical and the two dynamic laws are symmetrical. The dynamic
laws will
have both a time and temperature terms. The static laws will have a
term in which Space
is a positron attractive force to all the matter we see (which is the
force of gravity). Space
is distance and so it is time also, and since it is time, means the
static laws must have
a temperature term included.
So the revision that Maxwell made where he added a Displacement-
Current was a simple
revision. The revision I am starting is a massive overhaul which it
should be, since it is
a quantum mechanics overhaul of the Maxwell Equations. It is where
physics finally
unifies gravity with Coulomb force.
In the two static laws, one is Gauss's law of electricity or the
Coulomb Law, and that law
needs another term which embodies Space as a positron ocean that
attracts matter, which
is gravity itself. We can see this missing term in that the Maxwell
Displacement-Current
in Ampere Law is really gravity. Gravity is 10^40 weaker of a force
than Coulomb and the
Displacement Current is 10^40 weaker as a "real current" in the
Maxwell Equations.