Electroboom: How Right IS Veritasium?! Don't Electrons Push Each Other??

[iMo]

And the kinetic energy of that amount of electrons would be something like 3*E-14 Joules..

That is wrong but please provide the details of how you came up with that number.
The electrical potential is 2V the current is 1A and over one second you get 2Ws that is the same with 2 Joules. So no matter how you make the calculation if you do things correctly you will get 2 Joules.

The kinetic energy of that N electrons per second (the amount N=6.25E18 you calculated) is

E = 1/2 * (N * me) * v^2, where me is the mass of an electron, and the v is the drift speed of the electrons in the copper, let say 1cm/s to be extremely optimistic..

E = 3E-16 Joules (each second) = 3E-16 Watts

No the speed of electrons is ~ 1600 km/s so you must multiply by 2e16 if you want to know the kinetic energy of electrons.

That 1570km/sec is the Fermi speed of electrons in the "electron gas" (random vectors inside the conductor) without any field imposed (no current). The average is zero. With a current the electron gas starts to drift with the speed "v".

Anyhow, to make the long story short - the energy in the circuits is not transferred via the conductors, but outside the conductors - along the conductors - via the Fields (the Electromagnetic Fields), where the strongest field is in a close vicinity of the conductor, and the intensity of the field decreases with distance off the conductor (but it spreads over entire Universe theoretically).
The fields propagate with the speed of light (in vacuum).

The Poynting vector shows the direction where the energy flows. The energy of the field is transferred to the "heat" when the field starts to enter the conductor with a higher "resistance" (it means the density of free electrons in such a "resistive" conductor is lower compared to a good conductor) and while the field enters the resistive conductor (and the Poynting vector bends towards the conductor) it comes to an energy transfer from the field to phonons (phonons are the "heat particles") also known as Joule's losses/heating (there is a change of the speed of the field propagation when it enters the conductor - speed slows down significantly - and transfers the energy into the phonons).

Therefore the lamp starts to lit, or a resistor starts to heat up, while the good conductors wired to them stay almost cold..

[eugene]

[...] here's why I think the energy flows in the two circuits are different, even though the voltages and currents are the same.

Should I conclude from that statement that you believe there's a way for electrical energy to flow other than via current?

[electrodacus]

Sure, that is exactly what I am trying to show you since my first replay to your post.. 

Have you read and understood the analogy of free electrons with gas molecules?

In that example the speed of sound is the limit not the speed of light.
Also only 100 gas molecules were exchanged between the two volumes (capacitor plates) but none of the 100 molecules that left the higher pressure volume ever got on the other side.
The drift velocity in that example is not the speed of sound or anywhere close to that and using that will give you a wrong result.
The drift velocity is the mean speed of all molecules in that pipe (wire equivalent) so not 100 molecules but 10000 in that example moved at that average speed. Each molecule traveled at much higher speed but due to collisions and direction change drifted very little.
So kinetic energy is transferred from one molecule to another while they collide.

So you can not just multiply the very slow average drift speed velocity with the mass of just 100 molecules as all 10000 molecules in the pipe moved at that average drift speed.

Same with the electrons. 

   

[iMo]

Sure, that is exactly what I am trying to show you since my first replay to your post.. 

Have you read and understood the analogy of free electrons with gas molecules?
..

No..

..
No the speed of electrons is ~ 1600 km/s so you must multiply by 2e16 if you want to know the kinetic energy of electrons.

That 1570km/sec is the Fermi speed of electrons in the "electron gas" (random vectors inside the conductor) without any field imposed (no current). The average is zero. With a current the electron gas starts to drift with the speed "v".

Anyhow, to make the long story short - the energy in the circuits is not transferred via the conductors, but outside the conductors - along the conductors - via the Fields (the Electromagnetic Fields), where the strongest field is in a close vicinity of the conductor, and the intensity of the field decreases with distance off the conductor (but it spreads over entire Universe theoretically).
The fields propagate with the speed of light (in vacuum).

The Poynting vector shows the direction where the energy flows. The energy of the field is transferred to the "heat" when the field starts to enter the conductor with a higher "resistance" (it means the density of free electrons in such a "resistive" conductor is lower compared to a good conductor) and while the field enters the resistive conductor (and the Poynting vector bends towards the conductor) it comes to an energy transfer from the field to phonons (phonons are the "heat particles") also known as Joule's losses/heating (there is a change of the speed of the field propagation when it enters the conductor - speed slows down significantly - and transfers the energy into the phonons).

Therefore the lamp starts to lit, or a resistor starts to heat up, while the good conductors wired to them stay almost cold..

[gnuarm]

Isn't the circuit on the left essentially two separate circuits, each burning 1W? The circuit on the right is a single circuit burning 2W overall. But the currents and voltages across the resistors are the same in each.

The circuit on the left is one circuit. The fact that there is zero voltage between the two ends of the center wire (between the two junction dots) means there is zero current flowing in that wire. It has no effect on any calculations of current, power, energy, or any other relevant property.

That's true only because of the symmetry. If you make one battery droop a little, or separate the circuit into two, or change anything in any way, then you have something different.

You can also look at it as the circuit has two currents flowing in the center wire, equal and opposite. 

[Naej]

And the kinetic energy of that amount of electrons would be something like 3*E-14 Joules..

That is wrong but please provide the details of how you came up with that number.
The electrical potential is 2V the current is 1A and over one second you get 2Ws that is the same with 2 Joules. So no matter how you make the calculation if you do things correctly you will get 2 Joules.

The kinetic energy of that N electrons per second (the amount N=6.25E18 you calculated) is

E = 1/2 * (N * me) * v^2, where me is the mass of an electron, and the v is the drift speed of the electrons in the copper, let say 1cm/s to be extremely optimistic..

E = 3E-16 Joules (each second) = 3E-16 Watts

No the speed of electrons is ~ 1600 km/s so you must multiply by 2e16 if you want to know the kinetic energy of electrons.

That 1570km/sec is the Fermi speed of electrons in the "electron gas" (random vectors inside the conductor) without any field imposed (no current). The average is zero. With a current the electron gas starts to drift with the speed "v".

You asked the kinetic energy of electrons. Their speed is ~ 1600 km/s.
The average of v^2 is not (the average of vector v)^2.

Anyhow, to make the long story short - the energy in the circuits is not transferred via the conductors, but outside the conductors - along the conductors - via the Fields (the Electromagnetic Fields), where the strongest field is in a close vicinity of the conductor, and the intensity of the field decreases with distance off the conductor (but it spreads over entire Universe theoretically).
The fields propagate with the speed of light (in vacuum).

The Poynting vector shows the direction where the energy flows. The energy of the field is transferred to the "heat" when the field starts to enter the conductor with a higher "resistance" (it means the density of free electrons in such a "resistive" conductor is lower compared to a good conductor) and while the field enters the resistive conductor (and the Poynting vector bends towards the conductor) it comes to an energy transfer from the field to phonons (phonons are the "heat particles") also known as Joule's losses/heating (there is a change of the speed of the field propagation when it enters the conductor - speed slows down significantly - and transfers the energy into the phonons).

Therefore the lamp starts to lit, or a resistor starts to heat up, while the good conductors wired to them stay almost cold..

Yes. Also, the energy is transferred in the conductors and only light is outside of them. Electrons with high potential carry a lot of energy.

[hamster_nz]

[...] here's why I think the energy flows in the two circuits are different, even though the voltages and currents are the same.

Should I conclude from that statement that you believe there's a way for electrical energy to flow other than via current?

I think that current is not energy. How much energy is there in 1A? 1 J or maybe 100 1 J ? I can make it either by changing the voltage but keeping the current the same!

And capacitors seem quite capable of transferring electrical energy between plates even though no charges are transferred between them.

Transformers seem quite capable of transferring large amounts of electrical energy between their primary and secondary windings even though no charges are transferred between them.

Inductive chargers also seem to work well enough for phones and electric toothbrushes.

DC-DC convertors can move electrical energy around, even though their inputs and outputs are electrically isolated.

So yes, of course I believe there's a way for electrical energy to flow other than via current!

Current is just mobile charges moving in response to the local electric (and magnetic) field.

[hamster_nz]

Yes. Also, the energy is transferred in the conductors and only light is outside of them. Electrons with high potential carry a lot of energy.

An electron at high potential has as much energy as any other electron moving at the same speed speed.

In the schematic attached, when the ground connection is moved the electrons in the upper loop are not 'unburdened' of the energy they were carrying. They don't speed up. They don't slow down for them nothing changes.

Does the location of the ground connection make any difference to the heat in the resistor? It should, if the potential energy of each electron changes by 1000x.

[electrodacus]

I think that current is not energy. How much energy is there in 1A? 1 J or maybe 100 1 J ? I can make it either by changing the voltage but keeping the current the same!

And capacitors seem quite capable of transferring electrical energy between plates even though no charges are transferred between them.

Transformers seem quite capable of transferring large amounts of electrical energy between their primary and secondary windings even though no charges are transferred between them.

Inductive chargers also seem to work well enough for phones and electric toothbrushes.

DC-DC convertors can move electrical energy around, even though their inputs and outputs are electrically isolated.

So yes, of course I believe there's a way for electrical energy to flow other than via current!

Current is just mobile charges moving in response to the local electric (and magnetic) field.

Obviously current is not energy.

There are two ways to store electrical energy.

1) In a capacitor. A discharged capacitor is one that has the same number of free electrons on both plates. A charged capacitor will have extra electrons on one plate and deficit of electrons on the other plate.
2) In an inductor. Closed loop of wire that has a current flowing through it.  Normal conductors make for a terrible energy storage device as stored energy will be lost very fast but a superconductor is perfect as there is no resistance to electron flow so current flows forever (as far as we can measure).

Energy stored in a capacitor is 1/2 * Q * V and nothing more.
Q = I * t   Say I =1A and t = 1s that will be Q = 1C
You need about this much more free electrons on one plate compared to the other 6,250,000,000,000,000,000 in order to have 1 Coulomb of charge.
V = Q/C
The voltage depends on Capacitance that depends on the plates area and distance between the plates plus the type of material used between plates but it can be just vacuum or air.

The only way to use that stored energy is to create the conditions for the electrons to move from one plate to another so basically short circuit the two plates with some materials that allows electrons to travel trough like say a copper wire.
The smaller the resistance to current flow the faster those electrons can move to the other side making both plates neutral with equal number of electrons thus a discharged capacitor.

The 1/2 in the energy equation is because the voltage will drop as the capacitor is discharged.

So energy does not flow through a capacitor as that will mean electrons being able to jump through the gap between capacitor plates and if that was to be the case you will not call that a capacitor or at best a damaged capacitor meaning no longer works as a capacitor.

The energy either flows out of the capacitor if you are discharging it by connecting a wire between the two plates or energy flows in if you are charging the capacitor but energy will not flow through the capacitor (leakage current in real capacitors is small and we can ignore for this discussion).

[electrodacus]

An electron at high potential has as much energy as any other electron moving at the same speed speed.

In the schematic attached, when the ground connection is moved the electrons in the upper loop are not 'unburdened' of the energy they were carrying. They don't speed up. They don't slow down for them nothing changes.

Does the location of the ground connection make any difference to the heat in the resistor? It should, if the potential energy of each electron changes by 1000x.

Again there is no difference between those two schematics.
You can connect that ground symbol anywhere you want and it will make no functional difference.
That 1000V battery is also completely useless and plays no role in any of the two schematics.

[hamster_nz]

Yes  that is exactly the point.

An electron at 1001V is the same as one at 1V.

The electron's potential is chosen based on the points you calculate (or measure) between, not the electron.

[AnalogueLove1867]

Ok. This whole debate is completely pointless and easily settled once and for all with just a few simple observations.

1. There is no charge with zero mass. No massless particles have ever been observed with charge.
2. There can never be a potential difference without a movement of charged particles.
3. A current cannot flow without a potential difference ( with the exception of superconductors within certain limits ).
3. There can never be a magnetic field without a movement of charged particles.
4. There can be no electromagnetic radiation without a movement of charged or uncharged particles as generators.

So. The movement of mass is the fundamental source of all electrical phenomenon and everything else is secondary effects of said movement.

Veritasium is  arguing that a Meteorite shoots through the Earths atmosphere being propelled by the heat, light and shockwaves!
When in reality the meteorite has a high velocity and a gravitational field that is interacting with the Earths Velocity and gravitational field.
The heat, light and shockwaves are all secondary effects produced by the motion of the meteorite.

[hamster_nz]

Ok. This whole debate is completely pointless and easily settled once and for all with just a few simple observations.

1. There is no charge with zero mass. No massless particles have ever been observed with charge.
2. There can never be a potential difference without a movement of charged particles.
3. A current cannot flow without a potential difference ( with the exception of superconductors within certain limits ).
3. There can never be a magnetic field without a movement of charged particles.
4. There can be no electromagnetic radiation without a movement of charged or uncharged particles as generators.

So. The movement of mass is the fundamental source of all electrical phenomenon and everything else is secondary effects of said movement.

Veritasium is  arguing that a Meteorite shoots through the Earths atmosphere being propelled by the heat, light and shockwaves!
When in reality the meteorite has a high velocity and a gravitational field that is interacting with the Earths Velocity and gravitational field.
The heat, light and shockwaves are all secondary effects produced by the motion of the meteorite.

Is it worth pointing out that the direction of flow of charges (or mass) is not always the direction of flow of the energy. eg. in a wire from the positive terminal of a battery to a lamp the electrons are flowing from the lamp to the battery, but the energy is flowing in the other direction (from the battery to the lamp?

[electrodacus]

Is it worth pointing out that the direction of flow of charges (or mass) is not always the direction of flow of the energy. eg. in a wire from the positive terminal of a battery to a lamp the electrons are flowing to the battery, but the energy is flowing in the other direction (from the battery to the lamp?

You are confused by the conventional (wrong) vs real current flow.

[hamster_nz]

Is it worth pointing out that the direction of flow of charges (or mass) is not always the direction of flow of the energy. eg. in a wire from the positive terminal of a battery to a lamp the electrons are flowing to the battery, but the energy is flowing in the other direction (from the battery to the lamp?

You are confused by the conventional (wrong) vs real current flow.

No I am not. Draw the circuit out, and put arrows showing the flow of electrons in the wires. In one wire they flow from the battery to the lamp, in the other they flow from the lamp to the battery.

Energy only flows from the battery to the lamp.

[electrodacus]

No I am not. Draw the circuit out, and put arrows showing the flow of electrons in the wires. In one wire they flow from the battery to the lamp, in the other they flow from the lamp to the battery.

Energy only flows from the battery to the lamp.

Electrons flow out of the negative terminal and at the same time electrons from the wire flow in to the positive terminal so there is only one direction that electrons flow and that is from negative terminal in to the positive terminal.

Here is the animation I posted earlier
The negative terminal of that 9V battery is where the red wire is connected.

[hamster_nz]

No I am not. Draw the circuit out, and put arrows showing the flow of electrons in the wires. In one wire they flow from the battery to the lamp, in the other they flow from the lamp to the battery.

Energy only flows from the battery to the lamp.

Electrons flow out of the negative terminal and at the same time electrons from the wire flow in to the positive terminal so there is only one direction that electrons flow and that is from negative terminal in to the positive terminal.

Here is the animation I posted earlier
The negative terminal of that 9V battery is where the red wire is connected.

Black arrows are flow of electrons (from battery to load (bottom wire), and then from load to battery (top wire).

Red arrow is the net flow of energy (from battery to load).

In the top wire the electrons are flowing against the direction of energy flow.

[electrodacus]

Black arrows are flow of electrons (from battery to load (bottom wire), and then from load to battery (top wire).

Red arrow is the net flow of energy (from battery to load).

In the top wire the electrons are flowing against the direction of energy flow.

In that diagram just add a 2 Ohm resistor just after the negative terminal of the battery and say a 3Ohm resistor immediately at the positive terminal of the battery then show me how that read arrow is pointing.
That red arrow is just something you came out with it means nothing.
If the battery has say a 10Ohm internal DC resistance then how will that arrow point as 90% of the energy will be delivered inside the battery.

[hamster_nz]

Black arrows are flow of electrons (from battery to load (bottom wire), and then from load to battery (top wire).

Red arrow is the net flow of energy (from battery to load).

In the top wire the electrons are flowing against the direction of energy flow.

In that diagram just add a 2 Ohm resistor just after the negative terminal of the battery and say a 3Ohm resistor immediately at the positive terminal of the battery then show me how that read arrow is pointing.
That red arrow is just something you came out with it means nothing.
If the battery has say a 10Ohm internal DC resistance then how will that arrow point as 90% of the energy will be delivered inside the battery.

The battery is discharging  the resistor is getting hot. Energy is flowing from the battery to the resistor.

No additional components are needed. The red arrow is valid. Or if you want, you can redraw it with two smaller red arrows on the wires, showing the energy flow in each wire.

[electrodacus]

Black arrows are flow of electrons (from battery to load (bottom wire), and then from load to battery (top wire).

Red arrow is the net flow of energy (from battery to load).

In the top wire the electrons are flowing against the direction of energy flow.

In that diagram just add a 2 Ohm resistor just after the negative terminal of the battery and say a 3Ohm resistor immediately at the positive terminal of the battery then show me how that read arrow is pointing.
That red arrow is just something you came out with it means nothing.
If the battery has say a 10Ohm internal DC resistance then how will that arrow point as 90% of the energy will be delivered inside the battery.

The battery is discharging  the resistor is getting hot. Energy is flowing from the battery to the resistor.

No additional components are needed. The red arrow is valid. Or if you want, you can redraw it with two smaller red arrows on the wires, showing the energy flow in each wire.

If in your diagram the battery had a 9Ohm internal DC resistance the wire will be close to zero so we ignore and the resistor 1Ohm then only 10% of the energy provided by the battery will end up where your red arrow is pointing with 90% delivered inside the battery so the opposite of where your red arrow is pointing.
The energy is delivered all around the closed loop as the black arrows show.
So say the DC resistance of the negative electrode was 4Ohms big part of the energy will be conducted and then radiated from there then at the same time on the positive electrode say 5Ohms even more energy is delivered there ending up heating the battery and a small part will be radiated by the 1Ohm resistor.

[AnalogueLove1867]

Mr hamster_nz
The poynting Vector isn't a magical field that exists in reality.
It is nothing more than a derivative imaginary third field for visualizing the positions of  sources and loads  in electrical  and other systems.
It doesn't say anything about the nature of electricity itself. It also doesn't tell you anything about how/why/where or when electrical energy occurs.
Electricity actually flows from a source to a drain or a place of different potential. The poynting vector doesn't actually show the direction of energy flow or the amount of energy.
It points from an area of lower field power density to an area of higher field power density. The key word is density. NOT total energy.
So a direct derivative of the positions of electrostatic and magnetic field lines. It is a tool for analysis. Nothing more, nothing less.

A poynting vector drawn in a circuit a nanosecond after it has been turned on will show the distance electricity has travelled in a nanosecond and ignore the rest of the loop because electrons haven't started moving yet in the rest of the wire loop.
The poynting vector also doesn't take into account radio waves emitted by the circuit in all directions.

No movement of charged particles = no magnetic or electric fields = no poynting vector.

[hamster_nz]

Mr hamster_nz
The poynting Vector isn't a magical field that exists in reality.

Agreed! It is the cross product of E (the electric field vector) and H (the magnetizing field).

E really does exist. H is sort-of real (as it depends on the nature of material the B field is in, so is in some way derived), but it is close enough to real that I would call it such.

It is nothing more than a derivative imaginary third field for visualizing the positions of  sources and loads  in electrical  and other systems.
It doesn't say anything about the nature of electricity itself. It also doesn't tell you anything about how/why/where or when electrical energy occurs.

But it does represent "the directional energy flux (the energy transfer per unit area per unit time)" to quote Wikipedia. So things like surface integrals can have a real physical interoperation.

Electricity actually flows from a source to a drain or a place of different potential. The poynting vector doesn't actually show the direction of energy flow or the amount of energy.
It points from an area of lower field power density to an area of higher field power density. The key word is density. NOT total energy.
So a direct derivative of the positions of electrostatic and magnetic field lines. It is a tool for analysis. Nothing more, nothing less.

I could just as easily say that the electrostatic and magnetic field lines do not exist, just as isobars on the weather map don't exist either.

A poynting vector drawn in a circuit a nanosecond after it has been turned on will show the distance electricity has travelled in a nanosecond and ignore the rest of the loop because electrons haven't started moving yet in the rest of the wire loop.
The poynting vector also doesn't take into account radio waves emitted by the circuit in all directions.

No movement of charged particles = no magnetic or electric fields = no poynting vector.

Electric fields still exist when there is no movement of charged particles (electrostatic). But as you say, without magnetic fields the Poynting vector is zero.

My rejecting of power flowing in wires has very tittle to do with the Poynting Vector. Here is some of my various thoughts:

1A flowing in a wire looks the same regardless if 1kW or 100mW of power is being transferred into the load. The only way to tell is to cut the wire, and measure the potential between the two end.

If there was a significant electric field gradient within a wire, then any mobile charges in the wire would be accelerated. That would be doing work in the wire. The wire would tip over to having significant resistance, have a significant potential difference along it, and generate heat.

When current is flowing the charges are drifting along very slowly, and when no current is flowing the charges aren't moving at all - even if the wire is considered to be at a high potential!  So whatever the conditions are that enabling an electron to do work are not present in a wire, (which I guess is what makes it a good wire).

If you have a difference in potential between two plates and add a test charge between them it will experience a force. Whatever is providing the energy is present outside of the wires - the force has to be transferred some how. This is unlike the water pressure is voltage in the "electricity is water" analogy, where you have to be in contact with the water make use of the energy. You can measure the pressure difference between two hoses, but if you put a glass of water between two hoses won't feel a force towards the hose with the lowest pressure.

I think the underlying truth is "the conductors provide the charges, the fields supply the energy", and there are most likely deeper truths under that. But for day-to-day electronics where stupidly high potentials and energies are not involved it makes no difference - the Lumped Element model works fine, until your PCB designer forgets to put two inductors at right angles, or you get unexpected parasitic capacitance between traces, or some other reason that reality ruins your day.

[iMo]

..
So. The movement of mass is the fundamental source of all electrical phenomenon and everything else is secondary effects of said movement.
..

Prove the theory true and the Nobel Prize is yours..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_unified_field_theories

[AnalogueLove1867]

But it does represent "the directional energy flux (the energy transfer per unit area per unit time)" to quote Wikipedia. So things like surface integrals can have a real physical interoperation.

And your quote proves that you don't even understand what that means.
It doesn't in any way show that electrical energy flows in one direction in a straight line instead of a loop. Or that Electricity flows outside of wires, or that waves and fields outside the wire are the primary source of energy rather than a secondary emission.

I could just as easily say that the electrostatic and magnetic field lines do not exist, just as isobars on the weather map don't exist either.

You couldn't say that about electrostatic and magnetic fields because they actually exist. There is no Poynting field. It's direction of pointing doesn't demonstrate that electricity flows outside of a wire in a straight line.
Differences in atmospheric pressure certainly exist and areas of equal pressure are directly represented by isobars.
If the local vector direction of the wind was combined with an isobar to create a third imaginary "aether" that moved in a different direction based on arbitrary rules then we would end up
with another imaginary concept that also doesn't exist.

Electric fields still exist when there is no movement of charged particles (electrostatic). But as you say, without magnetic fields the Poynting vector is zero.

But an electric field can't exist without an initial movement of charged particles in order to establish a potential difference. A surplus of electrons or a deficiency of electrons in electrical circuits.

My rejecting of power flowing in wires has very tittle to do with the Poynting Vector. Here is some of my various thoughts:

And that is why you decided to use the poynting vector to somehow prove that electricity flows outside of wires and travels in one direction in a monoline from source to load insinuating that you don't need a circuit loop lol.

1A flowing in a wire looks the same regardless if 1kW or 100mW of power is being transferred into the load. The only way to tell is to cut the wire, and measure the potential between the two end.

No it doesn't look exactly the same. One amp at a lower or higher voltage in the same circuit is going to inevitably show changes in potential difference at the load. You Don't need to cut the wire. You can measure the potential difference between two points in a continuous loop.
A raised negative potential indicates that there is a closer packing of flowing electrons for a given volume due to resistance limiting current flow. This creates an equal and opposite raised positive potential elsewhere due to a lower packing of flowing
 electrons in a given volume.

If there was a significant electric field gradient within a wire, then any mobile charges in the wire would be accelerated. That would be doing work in the wire. The wire would tip over to having significant resistance, have a significant potential difference along it, and generate heat.

Electrons are electrostatically pushing each other in one direction through a conductor. They don't accelerate in DC ( but they do accelerate initially when the circuit is turned on ).
They are limited in movement by the electron in front, the electron behind and the positive charges of the atom nuclei. No acceleration in a wire if there is no alternating electromotive force.

 In AC, electrons are constantly accelerating. If they didn't accelerate,  antennas would never emit electromagnetic waves.
And Yes if the potential difference is great enough in DC, electrons can overcome the limiting forces of ordinary electron travel in a conductor/semiconductor or insulator and actually accelerate continuously in one direction only.
Other types of conducting mediums do not require special conditions for electrons to accelerate in DC.
In a cathode ray tube electrons are always accelerated. In a low pressure discharge lamp the electrons are always accelerated. In an electrical discharge (such as lightning), the electrons are always being accelerated.
Yes , all wires have resistance and a potential difference along them no matter how slight. The only exception being superconductors but even superconductors have a limit on the amount of current they can carry whilst remaining in a superconducting mode.

When current is flowing the charges are drifting along very slowly, and when no current is flowing the charges aren't moving at all - even if the wire is considered to be at a high potential!  So whatever the conditions are that enabling an electron to do work are not present in a wire, (which I guess is what makes it a good wire).

If you switch on a circuit the first electron out the negative terminal pushes against the next electron via their negative electric fields. Because electrons have mass and thus momentum, it takes time for this electron to absorb the energy of the first electron and
then move forwards to push the next electron that will also take time to change direction due to momentum and attraction to the positive nuclei. Within a microscopic fraction of a second ( but well below the speed of light ) This cascading push of electrons will reach the opposite terminal and then all the electrons will be moving at a constant speed. The initial pulse of acceleration is gone because all the electrons are now moving in the same direction relative to the wire.

Yes, a high potential with a depletion or over abundance of electrons doesn't need any moving charge to MAINTAIN itself if it is free of leakage. (An electrical circuit is a continuous leakage of electrons from the cathode to the anode)
BUT, the only way to initially CREATE a high potential is by expending energy to forcefully move charged particles. In this case removing electrons from one side of a capacitor and placing them on the other side.

If you have a difference in potential between two plates and add a test charge between them it will experience a force. Whatever is providing the energy is present outside of the wires - the force has to be transferred some how.
This is unlike the water pressure is voltage in the "electricity is water" analogy, where you have to be in contact with the water make use of the energy. You can measure the pressure difference between two hoses, but if you put a glass of water between two hoses won't feel a force towards the hose with the lowest pressure.

No, you absolute @@@,  The extra elections inside one plate of the capacitor are literally pulling on the electron depleted protons in the other plate... And you had to move electrons from one plate to the other in order to create a potential difference in the first place.  The test charge also had to be created by expending energy to forcefully move electrons.

I think the underlying truth is "the conductors provide the charges, the fields supply the energy", and there are most likely deeper truths under that.
But for day-to-day electronics where stupidly high potentials and energies are not involved it makes no difference - the Lumped Element model works fine,
until your PCB designer forgets to put two inductors at right angles, or you get unexpected parasitic capacitance between traces, or some other reason that reality ruins your day.

Literally nothing you have ever said has demonstrated in any way that electricity actually flows outside a wire as waves or  that fields outside a wire are the primary source of energy.
They aren't. The are a secondary effect of moving charged particles with mass inside a conductor.
In my opinion. The underlying truth is actually that low IQ adults and children love watching pop science crap on youtube produced by smoothbrains like Veritasium who's only talent is in
Getting millions of views and maximizing his own paycheck. He is a joke and you are also a joke if you think he cares or even thinks deeply about any of the concepts he talks about.

[AnalogueLove1867]

..
So. The movement of mass is the fundamental source of all electrical phenomenon and everything else is secondary effects of said movement.
..

Prove the theory true and the Nobel Prize is yours..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_unified_field_theories

What I am saying isn't a theory ( it is well established fact ).
And it isn't a unifying field theory of everything.
Likewise, nobody has ever produced a unifying field theory and I doubt that it is even possible.
It could be just as futile as trying to create a perpetual energy machine.