Ohms law

Hi Mitchell,

You need to understand the issues involved.

Charge flow occurs when you establish a potential (EMF measured as voltage) through a conductor.

Every conductor has some level of resistance due to impurities in the material.

As the charge flows through the conductor, the mass/energy is passed from atom to atom.  The conductor atoms are arranged in a crystal structure and can easily pass each photon from atom to atom.  When the photons reach an atom of different type (impurity), that atom may emit a photon of a different type (usually IR), which reduces the amount of charge through the conductor.  That is why wires get warm when you pass a lot of current through them.  Their residual resistance caused by the impurities causes some of the current to be released as IR photons.

In a superconductor, the atoms are all at their minimum energy state, which allows them to pass the photons between atom without emitting any IR photons, but the impure atoms will release photons of higher frequencies.  So there is still some loss, but in general, even the impure atoms will mostly pass the charge with less loss.

DAB

Not photons, electrons. And while impurities do cause resistance I'm fairly certain that electrons bouncing off the atoms of the conductor,

and imparting energy on those atoms in the form of heat is the main source of resistance in "pure" conductors.

P.S. It was Ben Franklin that first postulated that electric current was the flow of "particles" in conductors. It was over a hundred

years later that the electron was finally discovered as that particle in experiments with early cathode ray tubes.

Hi Gary,

No, I really meant photons.  I have done extensive research into subatomic physics over the last nine years and I have found that there is NO experimental evidence to support the idea that electrons are either a part of atoms or flow between atoms in electronic devices.

The mathematical proofs we present in my book "Reverse Engineering The Universe" show that the atom is more likely to have a shell of captured photons instead of the accepted orbiting electrons.  The photon model shows that you get a better understanding of how mass/charge flows between atoms to support all of the macro-level attributes associated with electron flow.

My photon flow model works very well to explain how and why V = I*R works at all levels from sub-atomic to Universe level events.

I know this idea runs contrary to everything everyone has been told or taught, but so far my models do a much better job of explaining actual electronic measurements at the atom and subatomic level.

DAB

Based on the overall success of modern electronics from over a hundred years of research by some of the greatest minds in science

and engineering I'll stick with everybody else is right and you are wrong. Thanks anyway.

Hi Gary,

While I tend to agree with you, if one really has a scientific thought process we have to leave open the possibilities. The scientific community went 200 years believing that they had things all figured out until Einstein showed them that at high speeds and high gravities the universe is not quite as simple as Newton portrayed it. I have looked briefly at DAB  's theories and I even bought his first book. If there is merit to his new ideas, at least, at the level that I do physics it is not worth changing from my familiar view. I believe that he might have better luck explaining things if the terminology did not overlap so much between his theory and the standard model. In the end I have chosen to stay with the standard theory of physics and not try to make the transition to something new. However, at this point, I would hesitate to tell DAB that he was wrong. We have even seen instances where two seemingly competing theories turned out to simply be the same but viewed from different mathematical perspectives. The test will be when DAB can propose an experiment whose result is correctly predicted by his approach and isn't correctly predicted by the current approach. I will keep my mind open but in the meantime, for me, electricity will remain the drifting of electrons through a conductor.

John

That is fine.

I am challenging everything everyone thinks they know about subatomic physics.

I fully understand that nearly everyone will reject my ideas and findings.

That said, the math proofs and data analysis of my theory versus conventional thought has clearly shown that I just might be right.

My wife added a warning to the book for all students to not read the book until they are out of school and ready for independent thought.

All I ask is for everyone to have an open mind and ask themselves honestly, just how well do you really understand what goes on when charge flows.  So far, I find many people really just accept the conventions, even when they defy logical conclusions.

Case in point, Werner Heisenberg claimed that you cannot measure the positon of an electron around an atom because you cannot know its position at the time of measurement.

Yet, if you take his data, he confirms the location of small mass/charge objects at roughly 10-34 meters, which is approximately the size of captured photons in my model.

My model also validated he measurements by Niels Bohr when he found that all atoms appeared to have a diameter of about .5 * 10-10 meters, which is exactly where we found the balance point of the photon shell around the atomic nucleus for all atoms.

So my work continues, but stacked up against accepted theory, I am beating the pants off all of the basic atomic assumptions.

I use element14 as a sounding board to see if I can entice knowledgeable people to interact with.

DAB

That is fine.

I am challenging everything everyone thinks they know about subatomic physics.

I fully understand that nearly everyone will reject my ideas and findings.

That said, the math proofs and data analysis of my theory versus conventional thought has clearly shown that I just might be right.

My wife added a warning to the book for all students to not read the book until they are out of school and ready for independent thought.

All I ask is for everyone to have an open mind and ask themselves honestly, just how well do you really understand what goes on when charge flows.  So far, I find many people really just accept the conventions, even when they defy logical conclusions.

Case in point, Werner Heisenberg claimed that you cannot measure the positon of an electron around an atom because you cannot know its position at the time of measurement.

Yet, if you take his data, he confirms the location of small mass/charge objects at roughly 10-34 meters, which is approximately the size of captured photons in my model.

My model also validated he measurements by Niels Bohr when he found that all atoms appeared to have a diameter of about .5 * 10-10 meters, which is exactly where we found the balance point of the photon shell around the atomic nucleus for all atoms.

So my work continues, but stacked up against accepted theory, I am beating the pants off all of the basic atomic assumptions.

I use element14 as a sounding board to see if I can entice knowledgeable people to interact with.

DAB