info
Grupos de Google ya no admite nuevas publicaciones ni suscripciones de Usenet. El contenido anterior sigue siendo visible.
Dismiss
__AP's 278th book of science starts a series on Experiments of Science that need a Logic- OverView of mistakes, grave errors and simple stupidity of reasoning starting with Magnetism. 35m views
Visto 33 veces
Saltar al primer mensaje no leído
Archimedes Plutonium
20 feb 2024, 2:54:0120 feb
a
AP's 278th book of science starts a series on Experiments of Science that need a Logic- OverView of mistakes, grave errors and simple stupidity of reasoning starting with Magnetism.
35m views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 17, 2024, 6:03:00 PM (2 days ago)
AP's 278-289th books of science on correcting and chronicling famous experiments of science. I
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 17, 2024, 6:17:45 PM (2 days ago)
I was fed up with the Old Physics, Old Chemistry community of do-nothing error filled professors who
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 17, 2024, 7:37:58 PM (2 days ago)
The Chronicling list keeps going and hopefully I will not forget any important experiment in the next
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 17, 2024, 8:09:07 PM (2 days ago)
On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 7:37:58 PM UTC-6 Archimedes Plutonium wrote: The Chronicling list
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 17, 2024, 9:21:31 PM (2 days ago)
List keeps growing, but nothing is more important to science than Experiment, experiment and more
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 17, 2024, 10:30:54 PM (2 days ago)
On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 9:21:31 PM UTC-6 Archimedes Plutonium wrote: List keeps growing,
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 17, 2024, 11:00:02 PM (2 days ago)
Chronology Ancient Greek magnetism-- Lodestone. And also considering a new form of magnetism in
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 18, 2024, 3:03:38 AM (2 days ago)
The list keeps growing bigger. I need my new insights into what superconductivity actually is, and it
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 18, 2024, 5:18:31 PM (2 days ago)
Alright, I need to make a Experiment myself, a world class experiment probably far more important
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Feb 18, 2024, 10:11:33 PM (2 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
AP's Model of why Earth has Winters and Summers, due to Earth as sphere and tilt of axis 23 degrees.
So I get out the box of 16 pencils and pretend they are Sun Light Waves each. When they strike land in the tropics they come in packed maximum density 4 by 4 for a surface area of 16. Now when those same 16 Light Waves strike the Polar Region because the surface of Earth is curved, the curvature of Earth, plus the tilt in axis in winter of 23 degrees we have a different situation where the 16 light waves are spread out and hit Earth in a area of 16 by 16 = 256.
Now let us do this Model in Celsius. A typical tropical temperature would be 25 Celcius. So we have a ratio of this.
256 25Celsius
------- ---------------
16 XCelsius
Solving the ratio we have 256X = 400 Celsius
X the polar temperature is thus 400/256 = 1.5 Celsius, just shy of water freezing.
A similar model relates to the Faraday law as we thrust a bar magnet through a coil. But what if the bar magnet is at a slant to the coil perpendicular? Then we have to factor a fractional electric current production.
Now how does this relate to superconductivity? We see in a capacitor or battery as holding static electric current because the plates are perpendicular to the current held. If we short circuit the battery, all the current rushes out with superconduction, and no loss of electricity. If the capacitor or battery are not perfectly perpendicular then the current inside gradually wear away as internal heat. The cold temperatures needed to create superconductivity is to make all the plates perpendicular. For as the electricity is moving around inside the capacitor or battery it needs to keep hitting the walls perpendicular. Back to the Model, by perpendicular hitting of the walls or bouncing off the walls, all 16 of the Light Waves or electric current monopoles hit the walls as a maximum density of 16, none are thinned out into 256. (Sort of reminds me of Snell's law that the bent light means resistance and loss of electric current.)
More later.....
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Feb 19, 2024, 1:33:41 AM (yesterday)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Superconductivity is much like Snell's law of optics, only with angle of incidence equals angle of reflection of a 90 degree angle in, and 90 degree angle out. Like a mirror reflection where none of the electric waves get absorbed while inside the capacitor or battery. Where roundness is turning into straightline geometry of rectangles. As the waves of electric current keep reflecting off the walls at 90 degrees.
In fact the Snell's law of Old Physics is rather a waste of time to study for although we can see the rays moving in and out of a block of glass to air and vice versa, where Snell's law is really important is Sun Light Waves striking Earth and how much of those waves warm Earth, and how magnetic lines of force in bar magnet thrust through coil in Faraday law goes to making electric current, or how much a battery can store electric current by having the electricity strike the parallel plates at 90 degrees where they are reflected back with no resistance.
So superconductivity is the most important phenomenon of Light Waves striking at 90 degrees in Snell's law. Much like the image in a mirror is 90 degree reflections, energy in equals energy out.
My 270th book of science talks of superconductivity and its prevalence in biology. However I never made a mathematical formula in that book, and hope to by discussing this topic now.
--- quoting my 270th book of science ---
2nd Law of Thermodynamics is connected to Superconductivity-- Explained as New Ohm's Law// Physics research
by Archimedes Plutonium
Preface: When I went to college 1968-72 and studied physics and math, I learned thermodynamics as a major branch of physics. It was only recently in 2023-24 that I began to see a different picture of thermodynamics. That every major band width of the Electromagnetic Spectrum, radio, microwave, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, soft x-rays, hard x-rays, gamma rays, did the realization come to me that thermodynamics is merely a detailed study of one of those band widths-- infrared band of the EM Spectrum. Up until now, I had thought thermodynamics was a physics study that stood out from other branches of physics. But no, thermodynamics is a minor part of the EM Spectrum. And as much as thermodynamics enjoys its status as a major branch of physics, we must realize, that radio wave band is another branch just as important as thermodynamics infrared band. And the other bands -- microwave, visible, ultraviolet, soft and hard x-rays, gamma rays all should have a branch of physics study as does thermodynamics infrared band.
Cover picture: Is my iphone photograph of a Google search for "Right-Hand-Rule" which very much defines the New Ohm's Law and 2nd law of thermodynamics and expresses the meaning of vector dot product and vector cross product.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Feb 19, 2024, 4:36:34 PM (9 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
The mathematical law governing superconductivity is a extremely simple law, one of the most simple in all of physics, perhaps the rock-bottom most simple law of physics-- Snell's law, the law of reflection.
angle theta_1 equals angle theta_2 Law of Reflection
index_1* sine angle theta_1 = index_2* sine angle theta_2 Law of Refraction
When I learned Snell's law in High School Physics, my reaction in my mind was that of "what is all the fuss about"?
When I went to University a year or two later and seeing Snell's law again, my reaction was again-- "And this is a law of physics, seems like it has no meat on its bones, unlike gravity or Coulomb law."
And now I understand why Snell's law is impoverished of meaning, impoverished of depth and meaning. For it is not the full law until you recognize it is missing Superconductivity.
Superconductivity is inside of Snell's laws of Optics, where the sine angle is 90 degrees or its inverse 0 degrees for cosine angle and both come to a value of 1. All the electricity inside a battery or capacitor is released and no electricity is lost to resistance when you multiply by 1.
--- quoting excerpts from a recent book I wrote, my 271st book of science ---
Recalibrating physics units to one another, Calculus derivative, velocity, New Ohm's law // physics-math
by Archimedes Plutonium
Preface: A mystery paradox exists between math calculus and physics, in that math has just 3 dimensions for its maximum geometry description-- which is volume, yet physics maximum description of energy as in kinetic energy has just 2 dimensions of mass times meters^2/seconds^2. This is a paradox if left unresolved. This book aims to solve the mystery so that both physics energy and math volume are both 3rd dimension. And what results in this mystery solving is a recalibration of all the units of physics.
Cover Picture: My photograph of several important Physics units of Linear momentum and its derivative with respect to time is Force, while Angular momentum derivative with respect to time is Energy. Notice especially in this photograph of a computer screen at an angle. For I am able to get what looks like a graphing of what a graph paper looks like. So is this natural in physics optics to be able to retrieve a Graphing Grid System?
Here we are asking what is (B*E) to equal kg*meter^2 /sec^2. Since vector dot product is the same as vector cross product, only difference is where we take the angle, whether cosine or sine of a triangle to get area of two equal triangles that forms a parallelogram.
The direction AP is headed for is to make equal the ultimate units of 3D in geometry is volume making the ultimate units of volts in physics also be 3D.
That unification of volume to voltage requires Volts = current*(B*E) as similar to Volume = Length * Width * Depth.
The way I do that in this book is consider volume as a length of area, the area is width* depth and multiplied by length is volume. For physics, B*E is similar to width*depth and when multiplied the B*E is a parallelogram whose area is two triangles that compose the parallelogram. The area of one of these two triangles follows the formula Area = A cross B (sine angle) while the other complimentary triangle follows Area = A dot B (cosine of compliment angle of sine). So if the sine angle is 30 degrees the compliment angle is 60 degrees for cosine.
What I am heading for is the final units formula of Voltage is Volt = A*(magnetic field * electric field) written as A ((1/A)(meters/sec) * (A)(meters/sec). Which leaves me with Voltage = A(meters^2/seconds^2) a final configuration of energy.
In Geometry, volume is 3D and is the final configuration. In physics we need to end at 3D and be energy, and Voltage = A(meters^2/seconds^2 does just that.
But in New Physics, I need to recalibrate Ampere A and Coulomb C so that this final configuration makes sense.
--- end quoting from my 271st book of science ---
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Feb 19, 2024, 7:44:51 PM (6 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright I am able to start writing this book the first of a long series of books on Science Experiments and their failures of Logical interpretation and Logical Correctness. I was momentarily stalled because of the issue of a Math Formula for Superconductivity emerged early on. But now I start writing the first of this series.
I am fortunate to find the Math formula that involves Superconductivity while doing this series. And I am sure many new ideas will also pop up in writing this series which may be ten or more books long.
And in doing Superconductivity I found a way of explaining to the young student the difference between electric current and electric field. I know when I was a young student in late 1960s I kept wrestling with what was electric field and electric current. And I was not the only one for my classmates also had this difficulty. By doing various experiments in this series, I can point out to the young reader what that difference is quite clearly and save him/her the agony and turmoil of not knowing.
This series is about the impact and intersection of the science of Logic with the physical sciences-- mostly physics. And it harps back to a long problem that AP has voiced over the Internet sci.math, sci.physics and his own newsgroup of plutonium-atom-universe and in many of AP's published books of science. The obvious under-education of scientists who never took a single formal course in Logic in University. AP recommends a Introduction to Logic and then a full year of Symbolic Logic; thus 2 full years of training by all scientists in logic-- how to think straight and think clearly.
I truly believe if this had happened in physics education starting from Newton and Gilbert onwards-- that they studied Logic-- how to think straight and think clearly, that AP would not have to write a long series of books on how and why physicists- chemists, biologists failed so badly in their experiments and interpretation of their experiments and observations. For example, the 1908-1913 Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden gold leaf foil experiment with the conclusion of a "Atom has a dense small nucleus" would likely never occurred if the three had taken 2 years of logic in University. For all three Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden would have remembered that when cars hit head on with a truck and the cars fly backwards at twice the speed they struck the truck, would have made Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden declare the opposite--- Atoms have no nucleus, and that the incoming alpha particle rammed into a Muon, or muon cluster moving at nearly the speed of light in a opposite direction of incoming alpha particle. Much like the Newton cradle of balls swinging.
And this raises the question of Logic itself, is logic the subject of Clarity. We can call mathematics the subject of precision, but is Logic the subject of clarity?? Both Logic and Mathematics are languages needed by physics. Is clarity the same as precision? So many questions to tackle and wrestle with. So let me start writing the first of this series. My 278th book of science.
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Feb 19, 2024, 9:37:49 PM (4 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am trying to find out when it was known of like poles --"deny same space occupancy"-- (some will think of it as repel.
I need to know when scientists fabricated their own magnets and no longer used lodestones.
From reading some history, apparently when you make steel and cool it, exposing to Earth magnetic field you manufactor a magnet. So did Maricourt in 1269 make his own magnet that he explored polarity, or was he still using lodestones.
--- quoting this excellent history summary of magnets by magnet-shop.com ---
Magnets throughout the history
magnetitThe history of magnets begins with the first discoveries of magnetic stones or lodestones – starting from 1845 this kind of stone was called magnetite. It is a mostly black mineral of iron and oxygen or iron hydroxide, which develops in a natural way by volcanic activity and has its own magnetic property. About 9600 sites of these magnetic stons are nowadays established.
The Greek philosopher Thales of Miletus had already noticed the special effects of the magnetic stones in the 6th century b.C. He wrote according to Aristotle that these stones have a soul because they can move and tighten iron. Such an invisible force corresponded for the ancient Greeks a feature of the psyche and inner liveliness.
The origin of the name
naturalishistoriaThe name is originally from the ancient Greek word "lithos magnes". The origin of the name comes as Pliny explained in his “Naturalis Historia” (77 a.D.) from the legend of the Greek shepherd Magnes on Mount Ida, his iron stock and the nails in his shoes were attracted by the magnetite stones.
But this word probably comes more from the countryside Magnesia (Magnisia) in Thessaly, a famous locality of the magnetic stones. That was declared by Lucretius in his “De Rerum Natura” didactic poem which has been released by Cicero after Lucretius died.
Other sources say the name was given by the city of Magnesia in Asia Minor a present-day region in Turkey. She was a colony of the Magnet Macedonian tribe.
The first compass pointed to the south
kompassThe special characteristics of the magnetite were not only known by the ancient Greeks, the properties of the magnets were also analyzed in China in the pre-Christian times. In the Warring States period Hanfuzius developed there the first compass ever. The “Si Nan”, which literally means the south pointer.
It consisted in a spoon shaped lodestone placed as a compass needle on a flat square bronze or copper plate in which symbols, lines and writings were engraved. The magnetic field of the spoon was aligned so that it pointed again to the south after each rotation. The south was the preferred direction of the Taoist trigrams. It was the direction of the sky, while the north was considered inauspicious.
Wet and dry compass
In Europe the first description of the use of compasses for navigation was given by Alexander Neckam. In his work “De Utensilibus et De Rerum Naturis” (both written in around 1190 a.D.) he described floating needles that were revolved in the water until they pointed to the north. The use of these needles gave the possibility to navigate in a complete darkness too.
On the contrary, Pierre de Maricourt mentioned for the first time a dry compass in his "Epistola de Magnete" written in 1269. He had free-swinging, dry magnetic needles, which rotated on a pin. They were the most important component of the dry compass. According to the legend the Italian Flavio Gioia from Amalfi was the first who invented this kind of compass. From the beginning of the 14th century this compass appeared in the combination with the compass rose on Western ships.
The two poles of magnets
Maricourt had systematically worked with magnets and their polarity and in his work dated 1269 he explained what he discovered: the same magnetic poles repel each other while different poles attract.
He wrote also that by breaking a magnet you get two small magnets. The explanation for this phenomenon was only found out pretty much later in the years. This is because of the natural rod shaped orientation of the elementary magnets in ferromagnetic materials.
The magnetization of ferromagnetic materials
This is why ferromagnetic materials can also be magnetized. This process was known early on. It happened by brushing some objects with a magnet. In this way, objects such as an iron nail or wire were lined in a parallel way to this magnet.
Such magnetization can be created again by shocks like by high temperatures or by oppositely polarized magnetic fields.
The Earth as magnet
For a long time nobody could find an explanation for the reason why magnetic needles orientate to the north or to the south. At the beginning it was thought that the magnets were attracted by the pole star.
Only William Gilbert came in his major work De magnets, Magnetisque Corporis et de Magno magnets Tellure (about magnets, magnetic bodies and the big magnet Earth), dating back to 1600, to the conclusion that the entire globe must be regarded as a giant magnet with two poles.
His own experiments were helped by a spherical magnet, the "Terrela", and the inclination of the magnetic needles and their different tilt to the poles depending on the latitude discovered by Georg Hartmann.
Magnetism and electricity
william_gilbert Gilbert had already employed magnetism with electricity, but only James Clerk Maxwell was the first one who put the relationships in the form of a system of differential equations together. After that the widespread hypothesis started in the first years of the 19th century of identity between electricity and magnetism was established. The Danish physicist Hans Christian Ørsted demonstrated the electromagnetic effect in 1820.
william_sturgeon In 1826 it was the Englishman William Sturgeon even succeeded as the first to invent an electromagnet. It consisted of a coil forming a magnetic field when current flows through. In the coil, there was an iron core, the magnetic field increased, and led. In this case, the magnetic field lines are concentrated in the interior of the coil, where the strongest magnetic flux density was found. Outside the coil it decreases quickly with bigger distance, we can also say that electromagnets have a big effect used on small distances.
james_clerk_maxwellWith his "Maxwell equations" described James Clark Maxwell, the behaviour of electric and magnetic fields and their interactions. He published in 1864 at London's Royal Society. In addition, Maxwell wrote about waves of oscillating electric and magnetic fields that move through empty space. Your speed he derived from electrical experiments.
--- end quoting from magnet-shop.com of their excellent summary of magnet history ---
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Feb 19, 2024, 10:17:49 PM (4 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So I need to know what magnets Maricourt used? Did he use lodestone. Or did he have iron-smiths craft magnets of iron-nickel exposing them to lodestones and then heating the iron-nickel to a high temperature.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Feb 19, 2024, 10:43:23 PM (3 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 10:17:49 PM UTC-6 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
So I need to know what magnets Maricourt used? Did he use lodestone. Or did he have iron-smiths craft magnets of iron-nickel exposing them to lodestones and then heating the iron-nickel to a high temperature.
To find out what magnets Maricourt used I suspect compass needle development tells me Maricourt made iron rods as magnets.
--- quoting Wikipedia on compass ---
A magnetic rod is required when constructing a compass. This can be created by aligning an iron or steel rod with Earth's magnetic field and then tempering or striking it. However, this method produces only a weak magnet so other methods are preferred. For example, a magnetised rod can be created by repeatedly rubbing an iron rod with a magnetic lodestone. This magnetised rod (or magnetic needle) is then placed on a low friction surface to allow it to freely pivot to align itself with the magnetic field. It is then labeled so the user can distinguish the north-pointing from the south-pointing end; in modern convention the north end is typically marked in some way.
If a needle is rubbed on a lodestone or other magnet, the needle becomes magnetized. When it is inserted in a cork or piece of wood, and placed in a bowl of water it becomes a compass. Such devices were universally used as compass until the invention of the box-like compass with a 'dry' pivoting needle sometime around 1300.
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
12:10 AM (2 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 7:44:51 PM UTC-6 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
And this raises the question of Logic itself, is logic the subject of Clarity. We can call mathematics the subject of precision, but is Logic the subject of clarity?? Both Logic and Mathematics are languages needed by physics. Is clarity the same as precision? So many questions to tackle and wrestle with. So let me start writing the first of this series. My 278th book of science.
The mission of math is precision in quantity and geometry for physics and the other sciences. The mission of Logic is straightline reasoning does B follow from A and is it clear what A, and B are. In a sense, a proof of mathematics is the subject of Logic, not mathematics itself. Mathematics defines quantity and geometry, but it is logic that puts thoughts, ideas, into a sequence or series forming a proof.
All the more reason that mathematicians take 2 years of College Logic before becoming a mathematician.
AP is not going to argue or quibble over whether these science experiments are error filled or mistakes made of mathematics. AP is arguing in this series of books of Science Experiments whether the conclusions are warranted or whether mistakes in going from A to B in ideas is correct and proper. For example in the Millikan oil drop experiment to measure the force of electromagnetism, is compared to the force of gravity as the oil drop descends to achieve the number constant of 1.60*10^-19 Coulomb. So how was Millikan able to Logically know he had 1 unit and not more than 1 unit??
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
1:50 AM (now)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 12:10:00 AM UTC-6 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
AP is not going to argue or quibble over whether these science experiments are error filled or mistakes made of mathematics. AP is arguing in this series of books of Science Experiments whether the conclusions are warranted or whether mistakes in going from A to B in ideas is correct and proper. For example in the Millikan oil drop experiment to measure the force of electromagnetism, is compared to the force of gravity as the oil drop descends to achieve the number constant of 1.60*10^-19 Coulomb. So how was Millikan able to Logically know he had 1 unit and not more than 1 unit??
Actually Millikan does have a flawed argument, not an experiment, but flawed argument in saying 1.60*10^-19 Coulomb is the unit of elementary electricity. His flaw is that he checked with repeated experiments if the same number keeps coming up to make sure he had 1 unit, not 2 or more units.
But then if Bardeen, Cooper, Schrieffer had stepped into the Millikan oil drop experiment with their silly Cooper pairing of the 0.5MeV magnetic monopole, then they would scuttle the Millikan claim of measuring 1 unit. They could say, Millikan found a coupled monopole.
So AP steps in with some logic that finalizes Millikan's claim of 1.60*10^-19 C but AP says the actual true number is 1.61*10^-19 C.
What AP does with Logic is written in his 260th book of science.
Millikan designed a exquisite experiment to find the correct unit of electricity, he just made one small omission of logic-- prove it was a unit and not a duo or more of electric unit. And the proper logic is go to the Avogadro number to find if Millikan had a unit or not.
--- quoting pertinent excerpt that Millikan found the true number for unit Coulomb of electricity ---
A list of discovered and derived constant-relationals of Physics and Mathematics// math-physics
by Archimedes Plutonium
Last revision was November 2023, and this is my 260th published book of science.
Preface: The word "constant" is not enough to describe these numbers, for all numbers are important in science and math. Some numbers though, come up often because of their relationship to other numbers, and so I want to describe them not as "constants" but as constant-relationals as they relate to other numbers. It is abhorrent to think some numbers are more important than other numbers. What is true, though, is that some numbers come up more often than other numbers. That they are used more often than other numbers. This book follows my 257th book of science where I derive the gravitational constant from numbers out of electromagnetism. And whilst doing that 257th book, I had trouble remembering how I derived the elementary Coulomb constant, the force strength of the magnetic monopole of 1.618*10^-19 C. Realizing that I will be often going back to my derived and discovered constants, I decided to list them in this book and so in the future, when I have trouble remembering, I will look for this reference manual. I just go to this reference book if I need refreshing of facts and data. I should include how I discovered them in this reference book. And I often go to the Internet for lists of physics constants and a list of math constants. Some decades back the Internet had web sites of special characteristics of individual numbers, but I no longer see any of those websites. Maybe they were taken down, such a pity and shame.
Cover Picture: Planck constant of doubling of atoms in geological time.
-------------------------------
Table of Contents
-------------------------------
1) My history of this book.
2) The Atom Totality theory and its primal axiom-postulate.
3) Decimal Grid System of Numbers, true numbers of mathematics.
4) 1, one as unit constant.
5) 0, zero, the alien imported quasi number into mathematics.
6) Scale Numbers ...0.0001, 0.001, 0.01, 0.1, 0, 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000,...
7) 94 and 231 constants in Atom Totality.
8) 22/7 and 19/7.
9) The 840 constant for proton, as compared to 105 for muon.
10) Rectangle of Whirling Squares Fibonacci Sequence as calculus in action in 2D.
11) 1.618.... phi or golden mean constant; pi = 3.14159... and e = 2.71828... and 5.859.
12) The number 0.5 or 1/2.
13) Speed of Light.
14) Permeability and Permittivity.
15) Fine Structure constant.
16) Coulomb constant.
17) Gravitational constant.
18) Boltzmann's constant.
19) Planck's constant.
20) Biology time constant.
21) Theory of Nines.
22) 0.256 constant.
23) Infinity borderline and algebraic completeness of borderline.
24) Psi^2 as a constant method.
Now we are going to do the same sort of thing with "Elementary Coulomb" where coulomb means quantity of electricity. So we do not have mass, we have electricity, and we need a Elementary Coulomb, just as the neutron or proton+muon was the elementary mass.
So, how do we get this elementary coulomb? It is going to be similar to the number 1.618*10^-24 grams mass. Only it is coulombs electricity. Remember, electricity is a wave energy, a hoola hoop wave. And the number is 1.618^10^-19 coulomb. So how do we get that number 1.618^10^-19 ?
And the answer is by Experiments. And the best experiments to get 1.618*10^-19 is from Faraday's experiments into finding the Faraday constant and dividing it by Avogadro's number 6.18*10^23.
--- end quoting from my 151st book ---
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 26, 2023, 8:41:45 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So the Faraday constant is 96485 Amperes/mole
The Avogadro constant is 6.*10^23 per mole
If we divide F/N_A
9.6*10^4 / 6*10^23
We end up with 1.6*10^-19 Coulomb.
I do not know how easy or difficult it is to repeat Faraday's experiment. But it is the superior teaching experiment.
--- end quoting excerpts from AP's 260th book of science ---
AP kindly asks Google to let AP run all three, sci.math, sci.physics, PAU as he runs PAU, now--- all pure science, no spam and no govt b.s.
PAU newsgroup is this.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
35m views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 17, 2024, 6:03:00 PM (2 days ago)
AP's 278-289th books of science on correcting and chronicling famous experiments of science. I
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 17, 2024, 6:17:45 PM (2 days ago)
I was fed up with the Old Physics, Old Chemistry community of do-nothing error filled professors who
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 17, 2024, 7:37:58 PM (2 days ago)
The Chronicling list keeps going and hopefully I will not forget any important experiment in the next
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 17, 2024, 8:09:07 PM (2 days ago)
On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 7:37:58 PM UTC-6 Archimedes Plutonium wrote: The Chronicling list
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 17, 2024, 9:21:31 PM (2 days ago)
List keeps growing, but nothing is more important to science than Experiment, experiment and more
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 17, 2024, 10:30:54 PM (2 days ago)
On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 9:21:31 PM UTC-6 Archimedes Plutonium wrote: List keeps growing,
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 17, 2024, 11:00:02 PM (2 days ago)
Chronology Ancient Greek magnetism-- Lodestone. And also considering a new form of magnetism in
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 18, 2024, 3:03:38 AM (2 days ago)
The list keeps growing bigger. I need my new insights into what superconductivity actually is, and it
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 18, 2024, 5:18:31 PM (2 days ago)
Alright, I need to make a Experiment myself, a world class experiment probably far more important
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Feb 18, 2024, 10:11:33 PM (2 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
AP's Model of why Earth has Winters and Summers, due to Earth as sphere and tilt of axis 23 degrees.
So I get out the box of 16 pencils and pretend they are Sun Light Waves each. When they strike land in the tropics they come in packed maximum density 4 by 4 for a surface area of 16. Now when those same 16 Light Waves strike the Polar Region because the surface of Earth is curved, the curvature of Earth, plus the tilt in axis in winter of 23 degrees we have a different situation where the 16 light waves are spread out and hit Earth in a area of 16 by 16 = 256.
Now let us do this Model in Celsius. A typical tropical temperature would be 25 Celcius. So we have a ratio of this.
256 25Celsius
------- ---------------
16 XCelsius
Solving the ratio we have 256X = 400 Celsius
X the polar temperature is thus 400/256 = 1.5 Celsius, just shy of water freezing.
A similar model relates to the Faraday law as we thrust a bar magnet through a coil. But what if the bar magnet is at a slant to the coil perpendicular? Then we have to factor a fractional electric current production.
Now how does this relate to superconductivity? We see in a capacitor or battery as holding static electric current because the plates are perpendicular to the current held. If we short circuit the battery, all the current rushes out with superconduction, and no loss of electricity. If the capacitor or battery are not perfectly perpendicular then the current inside gradually wear away as internal heat. The cold temperatures needed to create superconductivity is to make all the plates perpendicular. For as the electricity is moving around inside the capacitor or battery it needs to keep hitting the walls perpendicular. Back to the Model, by perpendicular hitting of the walls or bouncing off the walls, all 16 of the Light Waves or electric current monopoles hit the walls as a maximum density of 16, none are thinned out into 256. (Sort of reminds me of Snell's law that the bent light means resistance and loss of electric current.)
More later.....
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Feb 19, 2024, 1:33:41 AM (yesterday)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Superconductivity is much like Snell's law of optics, only with angle of incidence equals angle of reflection of a 90 degree angle in, and 90 degree angle out. Like a mirror reflection where none of the electric waves get absorbed while inside the capacitor or battery. Where roundness is turning into straightline geometry of rectangles. As the waves of electric current keep reflecting off the walls at 90 degrees.
In fact the Snell's law of Old Physics is rather a waste of time to study for although we can see the rays moving in and out of a block of glass to air and vice versa, where Snell's law is really important is Sun Light Waves striking Earth and how much of those waves warm Earth, and how magnetic lines of force in bar magnet thrust through coil in Faraday law goes to making electric current, or how much a battery can store electric current by having the electricity strike the parallel plates at 90 degrees where they are reflected back with no resistance.
So superconductivity is the most important phenomenon of Light Waves striking at 90 degrees in Snell's law. Much like the image in a mirror is 90 degree reflections, energy in equals energy out.
My 270th book of science talks of superconductivity and its prevalence in biology. However I never made a mathematical formula in that book, and hope to by discussing this topic now.
--- quoting my 270th book of science ---
2nd Law of Thermodynamics is connected to Superconductivity-- Explained as New Ohm's Law// Physics research
by Archimedes Plutonium
Preface: When I went to college 1968-72 and studied physics and math, I learned thermodynamics as a major branch of physics. It was only recently in 2023-24 that I began to see a different picture of thermodynamics. That every major band width of the Electromagnetic Spectrum, radio, microwave, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, soft x-rays, hard x-rays, gamma rays, did the realization come to me that thermodynamics is merely a detailed study of one of those band widths-- infrared band of the EM Spectrum. Up until now, I had thought thermodynamics was a physics study that stood out from other branches of physics. But no, thermodynamics is a minor part of the EM Spectrum. And as much as thermodynamics enjoys its status as a major branch of physics, we must realize, that radio wave band is another branch just as important as thermodynamics infrared band. And the other bands -- microwave, visible, ultraviolet, soft and hard x-rays, gamma rays all should have a branch of physics study as does thermodynamics infrared band.
Cover picture: Is my iphone photograph of a Google search for "Right-Hand-Rule" which very much defines the New Ohm's Law and 2nd law of thermodynamics and expresses the meaning of vector dot product and vector cross product.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Feb 19, 2024, 4:36:34 PM (9 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
The mathematical law governing superconductivity is a extremely simple law, one of the most simple in all of physics, perhaps the rock-bottom most simple law of physics-- Snell's law, the law of reflection.
angle theta_1 equals angle theta_2 Law of Reflection
index_1* sine angle theta_1 = index_2* sine angle theta_2 Law of Refraction
When I learned Snell's law in High School Physics, my reaction in my mind was that of "what is all the fuss about"?
When I went to University a year or two later and seeing Snell's law again, my reaction was again-- "And this is a law of physics, seems like it has no meat on its bones, unlike gravity or Coulomb law."
And now I understand why Snell's law is impoverished of meaning, impoverished of depth and meaning. For it is not the full law until you recognize it is missing Superconductivity.
Superconductivity is inside of Snell's laws of Optics, where the sine angle is 90 degrees or its inverse 0 degrees for cosine angle and both come to a value of 1. All the electricity inside a battery or capacitor is released and no electricity is lost to resistance when you multiply by 1.
--- quoting excerpts from a recent book I wrote, my 271st book of science ---
Recalibrating physics units to one another, Calculus derivative, velocity, New Ohm's law // physics-math
by Archimedes Plutonium
Preface: A mystery paradox exists between math calculus and physics, in that math has just 3 dimensions for its maximum geometry description-- which is volume, yet physics maximum description of energy as in kinetic energy has just 2 dimensions of mass times meters^2/seconds^2. This is a paradox if left unresolved. This book aims to solve the mystery so that both physics energy and math volume are both 3rd dimension. And what results in this mystery solving is a recalibration of all the units of physics.
Cover Picture: My photograph of several important Physics units of Linear momentum and its derivative with respect to time is Force, while Angular momentum derivative with respect to time is Energy. Notice especially in this photograph of a computer screen at an angle. For I am able to get what looks like a graphing of what a graph paper looks like. So is this natural in physics optics to be able to retrieve a Graphing Grid System?
Here we are asking what is (B*E) to equal kg*meter^2 /sec^2. Since vector dot product is the same as vector cross product, only difference is where we take the angle, whether cosine or sine of a triangle to get area of two equal triangles that forms a parallelogram.
The direction AP is headed for is to make equal the ultimate units of 3D in geometry is volume making the ultimate units of volts in physics also be 3D.
That unification of volume to voltage requires Volts = current*(B*E) as similar to Volume = Length * Width * Depth.
The way I do that in this book is consider volume as a length of area, the area is width* depth and multiplied by length is volume. For physics, B*E is similar to width*depth and when multiplied the B*E is a parallelogram whose area is two triangles that compose the parallelogram. The area of one of these two triangles follows the formula Area = A cross B (sine angle) while the other complimentary triangle follows Area = A dot B (cosine of compliment angle of sine). So if the sine angle is 30 degrees the compliment angle is 60 degrees for cosine.
What I am heading for is the final units formula of Voltage is Volt = A*(magnetic field * electric field) written as A ((1/A)(meters/sec) * (A)(meters/sec). Which leaves me with Voltage = A(meters^2/seconds^2) a final configuration of energy.
In Geometry, volume is 3D and is the final configuration. In physics we need to end at 3D and be energy, and Voltage = A(meters^2/seconds^2 does just that.
But in New Physics, I need to recalibrate Ampere A and Coulomb C so that this final configuration makes sense.
--- end quoting from my 271st book of science ---
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Feb 19, 2024, 7:44:51 PM (6 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright I am able to start writing this book the first of a long series of books on Science Experiments and their failures of Logical interpretation and Logical Correctness. I was momentarily stalled because of the issue of a Math Formula for Superconductivity emerged early on. But now I start writing the first of this series.
I am fortunate to find the Math formula that involves Superconductivity while doing this series. And I am sure many new ideas will also pop up in writing this series which may be ten or more books long.
And in doing Superconductivity I found a way of explaining to the young student the difference between electric current and electric field. I know when I was a young student in late 1960s I kept wrestling with what was electric field and electric current. And I was not the only one for my classmates also had this difficulty. By doing various experiments in this series, I can point out to the young reader what that difference is quite clearly and save him/her the agony and turmoil of not knowing.
This series is about the impact and intersection of the science of Logic with the physical sciences-- mostly physics. And it harps back to a long problem that AP has voiced over the Internet sci.math, sci.physics and his own newsgroup of plutonium-atom-universe and in many of AP's published books of science. The obvious under-education of scientists who never took a single formal course in Logic in University. AP recommends a Introduction to Logic and then a full year of Symbolic Logic; thus 2 full years of training by all scientists in logic-- how to think straight and think clearly.
I truly believe if this had happened in physics education starting from Newton and Gilbert onwards-- that they studied Logic-- how to think straight and think clearly, that AP would not have to write a long series of books on how and why physicists- chemists, biologists failed so badly in their experiments and interpretation of their experiments and observations. For example, the 1908-1913 Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden gold leaf foil experiment with the conclusion of a "Atom has a dense small nucleus" would likely never occurred if the three had taken 2 years of logic in University. For all three Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden would have remembered that when cars hit head on with a truck and the cars fly backwards at twice the speed they struck the truck, would have made Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden declare the opposite--- Atoms have no nucleus, and that the incoming alpha particle rammed into a Muon, or muon cluster moving at nearly the speed of light in a opposite direction of incoming alpha particle. Much like the Newton cradle of balls swinging.
And this raises the question of Logic itself, is logic the subject of Clarity. We can call mathematics the subject of precision, but is Logic the subject of clarity?? Both Logic and Mathematics are languages needed by physics. Is clarity the same as precision? So many questions to tackle and wrestle with. So let me start writing the first of this series. My 278th book of science.
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Feb 19, 2024, 9:37:49 PM (4 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am trying to find out when it was known of like poles --"deny same space occupancy"-- (some will think of it as repel.
I need to know when scientists fabricated their own magnets and no longer used lodestones.
From reading some history, apparently when you make steel and cool it, exposing to Earth magnetic field you manufactor a magnet. So did Maricourt in 1269 make his own magnet that he explored polarity, or was he still using lodestones.
--- quoting this excellent history summary of magnets by magnet-shop.com ---
Magnets throughout the history
magnetitThe history of magnets begins with the first discoveries of magnetic stones or lodestones – starting from 1845 this kind of stone was called magnetite. It is a mostly black mineral of iron and oxygen or iron hydroxide, which develops in a natural way by volcanic activity and has its own magnetic property. About 9600 sites of these magnetic stons are nowadays established.
The Greek philosopher Thales of Miletus had already noticed the special effects of the magnetic stones in the 6th century b.C. He wrote according to Aristotle that these stones have a soul because they can move and tighten iron. Such an invisible force corresponded for the ancient Greeks a feature of the psyche and inner liveliness.
The origin of the name
naturalishistoriaThe name is originally from the ancient Greek word "lithos magnes". The origin of the name comes as Pliny explained in his “Naturalis Historia” (77 a.D.) from the legend of the Greek shepherd Magnes on Mount Ida, his iron stock and the nails in his shoes were attracted by the magnetite stones.
But this word probably comes more from the countryside Magnesia (Magnisia) in Thessaly, a famous locality of the magnetic stones. That was declared by Lucretius in his “De Rerum Natura” didactic poem which has been released by Cicero after Lucretius died.
Other sources say the name was given by the city of Magnesia in Asia Minor a present-day region in Turkey. She was a colony of the Magnet Macedonian tribe.
The first compass pointed to the south
kompassThe special characteristics of the magnetite were not only known by the ancient Greeks, the properties of the magnets were also analyzed in China in the pre-Christian times. In the Warring States period Hanfuzius developed there the first compass ever. The “Si Nan”, which literally means the south pointer.
It consisted in a spoon shaped lodestone placed as a compass needle on a flat square bronze or copper plate in which symbols, lines and writings were engraved. The magnetic field of the spoon was aligned so that it pointed again to the south after each rotation. The south was the preferred direction of the Taoist trigrams. It was the direction of the sky, while the north was considered inauspicious.
Wet and dry compass
In Europe the first description of the use of compasses for navigation was given by Alexander Neckam. In his work “De Utensilibus et De Rerum Naturis” (both written in around 1190 a.D.) he described floating needles that were revolved in the water until they pointed to the north. The use of these needles gave the possibility to navigate in a complete darkness too.
On the contrary, Pierre de Maricourt mentioned for the first time a dry compass in his "Epistola de Magnete" written in 1269. He had free-swinging, dry magnetic needles, which rotated on a pin. They were the most important component of the dry compass. According to the legend the Italian Flavio Gioia from Amalfi was the first who invented this kind of compass. From the beginning of the 14th century this compass appeared in the combination with the compass rose on Western ships.
The two poles of magnets
Maricourt had systematically worked with magnets and their polarity and in his work dated 1269 he explained what he discovered: the same magnetic poles repel each other while different poles attract.
He wrote also that by breaking a magnet you get two small magnets. The explanation for this phenomenon was only found out pretty much later in the years. This is because of the natural rod shaped orientation of the elementary magnets in ferromagnetic materials.
The magnetization of ferromagnetic materials
This is why ferromagnetic materials can also be magnetized. This process was known early on. It happened by brushing some objects with a magnet. In this way, objects such as an iron nail or wire were lined in a parallel way to this magnet.
Such magnetization can be created again by shocks like by high temperatures or by oppositely polarized magnetic fields.
The Earth as magnet
For a long time nobody could find an explanation for the reason why magnetic needles orientate to the north or to the south. At the beginning it was thought that the magnets were attracted by the pole star.
Only William Gilbert came in his major work De magnets, Magnetisque Corporis et de Magno magnets Tellure (about magnets, magnetic bodies and the big magnet Earth), dating back to 1600, to the conclusion that the entire globe must be regarded as a giant magnet with two poles.
His own experiments were helped by a spherical magnet, the "Terrela", and the inclination of the magnetic needles and their different tilt to the poles depending on the latitude discovered by Georg Hartmann.
Magnetism and electricity
william_gilbert Gilbert had already employed magnetism with electricity, but only James Clerk Maxwell was the first one who put the relationships in the form of a system of differential equations together. After that the widespread hypothesis started in the first years of the 19th century of identity between electricity and magnetism was established. The Danish physicist Hans Christian Ørsted demonstrated the electromagnetic effect in 1820.
william_sturgeon In 1826 it was the Englishman William Sturgeon even succeeded as the first to invent an electromagnet. It consisted of a coil forming a magnetic field when current flows through. In the coil, there was an iron core, the magnetic field increased, and led. In this case, the magnetic field lines are concentrated in the interior of the coil, where the strongest magnetic flux density was found. Outside the coil it decreases quickly with bigger distance, we can also say that electromagnets have a big effect used on small distances.
james_clerk_maxwellWith his "Maxwell equations" described James Clark Maxwell, the behaviour of electric and magnetic fields and their interactions. He published in 1864 at London's Royal Society. In addition, Maxwell wrote about waves of oscillating electric and magnetic fields that move through empty space. Your speed he derived from electrical experiments.
--- end quoting from magnet-shop.com of their excellent summary of magnet history ---
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Feb 19, 2024, 10:17:49 PM (4 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So I need to know what magnets Maricourt used? Did he use lodestone. Or did he have iron-smiths craft magnets of iron-nickel exposing them to lodestones and then heating the iron-nickel to a high temperature.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Feb 19, 2024, 10:43:23 PM (3 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 10:17:49 PM UTC-6 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
So I need to know what magnets Maricourt used? Did he use lodestone. Or did he have iron-smiths craft magnets of iron-nickel exposing them to lodestones and then heating the iron-nickel to a high temperature.
To find out what magnets Maricourt used I suspect compass needle development tells me Maricourt made iron rods as magnets.
--- quoting Wikipedia on compass ---
A magnetic rod is required when constructing a compass. This can be created by aligning an iron or steel rod with Earth's magnetic field and then tempering or striking it. However, this method produces only a weak magnet so other methods are preferred. For example, a magnetised rod can be created by repeatedly rubbing an iron rod with a magnetic lodestone. This magnetised rod (or magnetic needle) is then placed on a low friction surface to allow it to freely pivot to align itself with the magnetic field. It is then labeled so the user can distinguish the north-pointing from the south-pointing end; in modern convention the north end is typically marked in some way.
If a needle is rubbed on a lodestone or other magnet, the needle becomes magnetized. When it is inserted in a cork or piece of wood, and placed in a bowl of water it becomes a compass. Such devices were universally used as compass until the invention of the box-like compass with a 'dry' pivoting needle sometime around 1300.
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
12:10 AM (2 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 7:44:51 PM UTC-6 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
And this raises the question of Logic itself, is logic the subject of Clarity. We can call mathematics the subject of precision, but is Logic the subject of clarity?? Both Logic and Mathematics are languages needed by physics. Is clarity the same as precision? So many questions to tackle and wrestle with. So let me start writing the first of this series. My 278th book of science.
The mission of math is precision in quantity and geometry for physics and the other sciences. The mission of Logic is straightline reasoning does B follow from A and is it clear what A, and B are. In a sense, a proof of mathematics is the subject of Logic, not mathematics itself. Mathematics defines quantity and geometry, but it is logic that puts thoughts, ideas, into a sequence or series forming a proof.
All the more reason that mathematicians take 2 years of College Logic before becoming a mathematician.
AP is not going to argue or quibble over whether these science experiments are error filled or mistakes made of mathematics. AP is arguing in this series of books of Science Experiments whether the conclusions are warranted or whether mistakes in going from A to B in ideas is correct and proper. For example in the Millikan oil drop experiment to measure the force of electromagnetism, is compared to the force of gravity as the oil drop descends to achieve the number constant of 1.60*10^-19 Coulomb. So how was Millikan able to Logically know he had 1 unit and not more than 1 unit??
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
1:50 AM (now)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 12:10:00 AM UTC-6 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
AP is not going to argue or quibble over whether these science experiments are error filled or mistakes made of mathematics. AP is arguing in this series of books of Science Experiments whether the conclusions are warranted or whether mistakes in going from A to B in ideas is correct and proper. For example in the Millikan oil drop experiment to measure the force of electromagnetism, is compared to the force of gravity as the oil drop descends to achieve the number constant of 1.60*10^-19 Coulomb. So how was Millikan able to Logically know he had 1 unit and not more than 1 unit??
Actually Millikan does have a flawed argument, not an experiment, but flawed argument in saying 1.60*10^-19 Coulomb is the unit of elementary electricity. His flaw is that he checked with repeated experiments if the same number keeps coming up to make sure he had 1 unit, not 2 or more units.
But then if Bardeen, Cooper, Schrieffer had stepped into the Millikan oil drop experiment with their silly Cooper pairing of the 0.5MeV magnetic monopole, then they would scuttle the Millikan claim of measuring 1 unit. They could say, Millikan found a coupled monopole.
So AP steps in with some logic that finalizes Millikan's claim of 1.60*10^-19 C but AP says the actual true number is 1.61*10^-19 C.
What AP does with Logic is written in his 260th book of science.
Millikan designed a exquisite experiment to find the correct unit of electricity, he just made one small omission of logic-- prove it was a unit and not a duo or more of electric unit. And the proper logic is go to the Avogadro number to find if Millikan had a unit or not.
--- quoting pertinent excerpt that Millikan found the true number for unit Coulomb of electricity ---
A list of discovered and derived constant-relationals of Physics and Mathematics// math-physics
by Archimedes Plutonium
Last revision was November 2023, and this is my 260th published book of science.
Preface: The word "constant" is not enough to describe these numbers, for all numbers are important in science and math. Some numbers though, come up often because of their relationship to other numbers, and so I want to describe them not as "constants" but as constant-relationals as they relate to other numbers. It is abhorrent to think some numbers are more important than other numbers. What is true, though, is that some numbers come up more often than other numbers. That they are used more often than other numbers. This book follows my 257th book of science where I derive the gravitational constant from numbers out of electromagnetism. And whilst doing that 257th book, I had trouble remembering how I derived the elementary Coulomb constant, the force strength of the magnetic monopole of 1.618*10^-19 C. Realizing that I will be often going back to my derived and discovered constants, I decided to list them in this book and so in the future, when I have trouble remembering, I will look for this reference manual. I just go to this reference book if I need refreshing of facts and data. I should include how I discovered them in this reference book. And I often go to the Internet for lists of physics constants and a list of math constants. Some decades back the Internet had web sites of special characteristics of individual numbers, but I no longer see any of those websites. Maybe they were taken down, such a pity and shame.
Cover Picture: Planck constant of doubling of atoms in geological time.
-------------------------------
Table of Contents
-------------------------------
1) My history of this book.
2) The Atom Totality theory and its primal axiom-postulate.
3) Decimal Grid System of Numbers, true numbers of mathematics.
4) 1, one as unit constant.
5) 0, zero, the alien imported quasi number into mathematics.
6) Scale Numbers ...0.0001, 0.001, 0.01, 0.1, 0, 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000,...
7) 94 and 231 constants in Atom Totality.
8) 22/7 and 19/7.
9) The 840 constant for proton, as compared to 105 for muon.
10) Rectangle of Whirling Squares Fibonacci Sequence as calculus in action in 2D.
11) 1.618.... phi or golden mean constant; pi = 3.14159... and e = 2.71828... and 5.859.
12) The number 0.5 or 1/2.
13) Speed of Light.
14) Permeability and Permittivity.
15) Fine Structure constant.
16) Coulomb constant.
17) Gravitational constant.
18) Boltzmann's constant.
19) Planck's constant.
20) Biology time constant.
21) Theory of Nines.
22) 0.256 constant.
23) Infinity borderline and algebraic completeness of borderline.
24) Psi^2 as a constant method.
Now we are going to do the same sort of thing with "Elementary Coulomb" where coulomb means quantity of electricity. So we do not have mass, we have electricity, and we need a Elementary Coulomb, just as the neutron or proton+muon was the elementary mass.
So, how do we get this elementary coulomb? It is going to be similar to the number 1.618*10^-24 grams mass. Only it is coulombs electricity. Remember, electricity is a wave energy, a hoola hoop wave. And the number is 1.618^10^-19 coulomb. So how do we get that number 1.618^10^-19 ?
And the answer is by Experiments. And the best experiments to get 1.618*10^-19 is from Faraday's experiments into finding the Faraday constant and dividing it by Avogadro's number 6.18*10^23.
--- end quoting from my 151st book ---
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 26, 2023, 8:41:45 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So the Faraday constant is 96485 Amperes/mole
The Avogadro constant is 6.*10^23 per mole
If we divide F/N_A
9.6*10^4 / 6*10^23
We end up with 1.6*10^-19 Coulomb.
I do not know how easy or difficult it is to repeat Faraday's experiment. But it is the superior teaching experiment.
--- end quoting excerpts from AP's 260th book of science ---
AP kindly asks Google to let AP run all three, sci.math, sci.physics, PAU as he runs PAU, now--- all pure science, no spam and no govt b.s.
PAU newsgroup is this.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
20 feb 2024, 17:19:1820 feb
a
So did Faraday discover the elementary electric unit long before Millikan?
--- quoting Wikipedia on Faraday constant experiment ---
The Faraday constant can be thought of as the conversion factor between the mole (used in chemistry) and the coulomb (used in physics and in practical electrical measurements), and is therefore of particular use in electrochemistry. Because 1 mole contains exactly 6.02214076×10^23 entities, and 1 coulomb contains exactly
C
/
e
=
10^19
/
1.602176634
elementary charges, the Faraday constant is given by the quotient of these two quantities:
F =
NA
/
1/e
= 9.64853321233100184×104 C⋅mol^−1.
One common use of the Faraday constant is in electrolysis calculations. One can divide the amount of charge (the current integrated over time) by the Faraday constant in order to find the chemical amount of a substance (in moles) that has been electrolyzed.
The value of F was first determined in the 1800's by weighing the amount of silver deposited in an electrochemical reaction, in which a measured current was passed for a measured time, and using Faraday's law of electrolysis. Until ca. 1970 the most reliable value of the Faraday constant was determined by a related method of electro-dissolving silver metal in perchloric acid. Since then, the product of electron charge and Avogadro constant gives a more accurate value.
--- end quoting Wikipedia on Faraday constant ---
The trouble with Millikan Experiment, is how can he be sure he has the unit or a multiple of the unit? The Faraday experiment of silver deposit is a better determination of units, and not a multiple of units.
AP
--- quoting Wikipedia on Faraday constant experiment ---
The Faraday constant can be thought of as the conversion factor between the mole (used in chemistry) and the coulomb (used in physics and in practical electrical measurements), and is therefore of particular use in electrochemistry. Because 1 mole contains exactly 6.02214076×10^23 entities, and 1 coulomb contains exactly
C
/
e
=
10^19
/
1.602176634
elementary charges, the Faraday constant is given by the quotient of these two quantities:
F =
NA
/
1/e
= 9.64853321233100184×104 C⋅mol^−1.
One common use of the Faraday constant is in electrolysis calculations. One can divide the amount of charge (the current integrated over time) by the Faraday constant in order to find the chemical amount of a substance (in moles) that has been electrolyzed.
The value of F was first determined in the 1800's by weighing the amount of silver deposited in an electrochemical reaction, in which a measured current was passed for a measured time, and using Faraday's law of electrolysis. Until ca. 1970 the most reliable value of the Faraday constant was determined by a related method of electro-dissolving silver metal in perchloric acid. Since then, the product of electron charge and Avogadro constant gives a more accurate value.
--- end quoting Wikipedia on Faraday constant ---
The trouble with Millikan Experiment, is how can he be sure he has the unit or a multiple of the unit? The Faraday experiment of silver deposit is a better determination of units, and not a multiple of units.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
20 feb 2024, 21:14:3020 feb
a
On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 4:16:59 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> So did Faraday discover the elementary electric unit long before Millikan?
>
> --- quoting Wikipedia on Faraday constant experiment ---
>
> The Faraday constant can be thought of as the conversion factor between the mole (used in chemistry) and the coulomb (used in physics and in practical electrical measurements), and is therefore of particular use in electrochemistry. Because 1 mole contains exactly 6.02214076×10^23 entities, and 1 coulomb contains exactly
> C
> /
> e
> =
> 10^19
> /
> 1.602176634
> elementary charges, the Faraday constant is given by the quotient of these two quantities:
> F =
> NA
> /
> 1/e
> = 9.64853321233100184×10^4 C⋅mol^−1.
> So did Faraday discover the elementary electric unit long before Millikan?
>
> --- quoting Wikipedia on Faraday constant experiment ---
>
> The Faraday constant can be thought of as the conversion factor between the mole (used in chemistry) and the coulomb (used in physics and in practical electrical measurements), and is therefore of particular use in electrochemistry. Because 1 mole contains exactly 6.02214076×10^23 entities, and 1 coulomb contains exactly
> C
> /
> e
> =
> 10^19
> /
> 1.602176634
> elementary charges, the Faraday constant is given by the quotient of these two quantities:
> F =
> NA
> /
> 1/e
> One common use of the Faraday constant is in electrolysis calculations. One can divide the amount of charge (the current integrated over time) by the Faraday constant in order to find the chemical amount of a substance (in moles) that has been electrolyzed.
> The value of F was first determined in the 1800's by weighing the amount of silver deposited in an electrochemical reaction, in which a measured current was passed for a measured time, and using Faraday's law of electrolysis. Until ca. 1970 the most reliable value of the Faraday constant was determined by a related method of electro-dissolving silver metal in perchloric acid. Since then, the product of electron charge and Avogadro constant gives a more accurate value.
> --- end quoting Wikipedia on Faraday constant ---
>
> The trouble with Millikan Experiment, is how can he be sure he has the unit or a multiple of the unit? The Faraday experiment of silver deposit is a better determination of units, and not a multiple of units.
>
So now, looking through the history of physics the question of electricity unit as 1.6*10^-19 Coulomb comes not with the Millikan experiment started in 1909, but likely comes in mid 1800s. For all that is needed is Avogadro's number to an accuracy of 6*10^23 and a Faraday constant with silver deposit in electrolysis of an accuracy of 9.6*10^4.
> The value of F was first determined in the 1800's by weighing the amount of silver deposited in an electrochemical reaction, in which a measured current was passed for a measured time, and using Faraday's law of electrolysis. Until ca. 1970 the most reliable value of the Faraday constant was determined by a related method of electro-dissolving silver metal in perchloric acid. Since then, the product of electron charge and Avogadro constant gives a more accurate value.
> --- end quoting Wikipedia on Faraday constant ---
>
> The trouble with Millikan Experiment, is how can he be sure he has the unit or a multiple of the unit? The Faraday experiment of silver deposit is a better determination of units, and not a multiple of units.
>
When does the history of physics have an accuracy of 9.6*10^4 ??? Was it before 1850, or slightly after 1850??
When do we have the history of physics have an accuracy of Avogadro's number as 6*10^23?? Was it before 1830 or somewhere between 1830 to 1850???
So that by the time of Maxwell and his great unification of electricity and magnetism in the 1860s, that Maxwell would know the Elementary Charge by simple division of Faraday constant/ Avogadro's number.
Say 1865 would the world of physics know the elementary electric unit to be 1.6*10^-19 Coulomb.
Then comes along Millikan and his oil drop experiments to re-affirm what Maxwell could have easily done in 1865.
Points of Logic that escaped physicists::
1) When the entire world is nothing but electricity and magnetism, mass itself is a form of electricity and magnetism and so therefore Avogadro's number is unit mass per nucleon= either neutron or the proton+muon inside proton.
2) Makes sense that to measure unit of electricity is tantamount to measuring unit of mass as proton+muon inside
3) Although the proton with muon inside were not measured accurately until after Millikan's oil drop experiment of 1909. The mass of both neutron and proton+muon could have been hypothesised accurately as soon as Avogadro's number was known to be 6*10^23. Imagine that-- Faraday in 1830 could have said-- there exists a neutron and a proton+muon inside that weigh 1.6*10^-27 kg, all in 1830, a hundred years before the neutron or proton+muon were discovered much less weighed.
4) Millikan oil drop experiments has a logical gap of knowing it was units, for it could easily have been the silly error ridden Bardeen,Cooper, Schrieffer coupled particles or something more. Millikan oil drop experiment is a add on to what the Faraday constant electrolysis experiment already proved.
5) It makes logical sense, that if Maxwell can calculate the speed of light from permeability and permittivity by 1860-1865, that Maxwell could calculate the unit of electricity 1.6*10^-19 Coulomb by 1860-1865. In other words, if physics can measure permeability and permittivity to such accuracy, it can measure Faraday's constant and Avogadro's number to accuracy to yield unit of electricity. And to compute what is the rest mass of the neutron and the proton with muon inside by 1865, over 50 years earlier than what actually happened in physics history. Such is the power of Logic. And why physics professors need 2 years of Logic in college to think straight, to think clearly.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
21 feb 2024, 16:38:0221 feb
a
EXPERIMENT of Magnetism proving there is no repel force-- only Attract and "no same space occupancy".
Scientists especially of physics can not understand that you can have a force that looks similar to repel but is not repel at all. It is a "No Same Space Occupancy" and is called the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Attract is a force. Exclusion is a force. But Repel is not a force in physics. That is worth repeating--- Repel is Not a Force in Physics.
Most professors of physics can never understand that repel is not a force and likely would not understand it even if they took 2 years of Logic in college.
EXPERIMENT:: take a box and place inside magnets such that none are moving. And that your placement causes no movement. Shake the box. Then study what the configuration is. The end result conclusion is that never is the case where you find the single magnets repeling and are at a further distance from one another. The case is that Always two magnets are stuck together from opposite poles. Reason for this result:: Magnetism is only Attraction or Pauli Exclusion Principle, but never repulsion.
Why do physicists never understand that magnetism is Attract or Exclusion but never repel???? Why? The simple answer is that no physicist except AP took 2 years of formal College education in Logic to learn that of Logical- Differentiation or Logical- Distinction. Now we are not saying that most physicists cannot tell that Mt. Rushmore is stone carving and not the real George Washington. But we sure can say that the majority of physicists upon reading this would still not understand that Exclusion is far different, differentiated, and distinct from Repel.
The reason physicists could never unify gravity to EM was because--- well of course, there would never be unification by physics professors who believed magnetism had Repel.
This is why AP demands all future professors of physics or the hard sciences have mandatory 2 years of formal Logic so they can think straight, think clearly.
AP, King of Science
Scientists especially of physics can not understand that you can have a force that looks similar to repel but is not repel at all. It is a "No Same Space Occupancy" and is called the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Attract is a force. Exclusion is a force. But Repel is not a force in physics. That is worth repeating--- Repel is Not a Force in Physics.
Most professors of physics can never understand that repel is not a force and likely would not understand it even if they took 2 years of Logic in college.
EXPERIMENT:: take a box and place inside magnets such that none are moving. And that your placement causes no movement. Shake the box. Then study what the configuration is. The end result conclusion is that never is the case where you find the single magnets repeling and are at a further distance from one another. The case is that Always two magnets are stuck together from opposite poles. Reason for this result:: Magnetism is only Attraction or Pauli Exclusion Principle, but never repulsion.
Why do physicists never understand that magnetism is Attract or Exclusion but never repel???? Why? The simple answer is that no physicist except AP took 2 years of formal College education in Logic to learn that of Logical- Differentiation or Logical- Distinction. Now we are not saying that most physicists cannot tell that Mt. Rushmore is stone carving and not the real George Washington. But we sure can say that the majority of physicists upon reading this would still not understand that Exclusion is far different, differentiated, and distinct from Repel.
The reason physicists could never unify gravity to EM was because--- well of course, there would never be unification by physics professors who believed magnetism had Repel.
This is why AP demands all future professors of physics or the hard sciences have mandatory 2 years of formal Logic so they can think straight, think clearly.
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium
22 feb 2024, 0:58:0522 feb
a
I do not think there is anything comparable of a mistake made in mathematics as the mistake in physics of being a close distinction. The close distinction of "repel" versus "exclusion principle-- no occupying the same space". You need ample Logic to see and understand that error. But I see no kind of that same mistake in Mathematics.
We could question the mistake of slant cut of cone is Oval, never an ellipse-- that Oval is like exclusion and ellipse is like repel. But that is not as tight of a mistake as in physics-- repel is far different than exclusion.
We could question the mistake of slant cut of cone is Oval, never an ellipse-- that Oval is like exclusion and ellipse is like repel. But that is not as tight of a mistake as in physics-- repel is far different than exclusion.
0 mensajes nuevos