General > General Technical Chat
Electroboom: How Right IS Veritasium?! Don't Electrons Push Each Other??
hamster_nz:
--- Quote from: aetherist on June 29, 2022, 09:34:42 pm ---Electonists are the opposite – we have one at present (me) – but praps in the end everyone will be an electonist.
--- End quote ---
Does your theory predict any testable difference from 'conventional' theory? Are you sure you are not just looking at a different perspective of the same underlying process (e.g. Matrix mechanics vs Wave function vs Path Integral Formulation in Quantum Theory)?
I'm not really seeking any real answers to such questions, but it is along the same line of thoughts as "electrons pushing each other" vs "electrons interacting via a field". The different between "each elementary charge reaching out across all of space space to give each other nudges" vs "charges moving based on the local gradient of the field". Does one of does models represent the underlying physical reality, or is the reality completely different?
For me, magnetism is key decider that makes me think the field view is the more real of the two - static charges pushing/pulling on each other is fine and for the most part equivalent to fields, but making charges experience a force at right angles to their direction of travel requires something more.
Being dyslexic and having no real concept of "left handedness" vs "right handedness" makes this doubly hard for me - how come the universe obeys "Flemings Left Hand Rule"? In physics is seems to be just the nature of things because matrix multiplication is not commutative, but it also echos on through things like "charge conjugation parity symmetry" and CP violations. :-//
electrodacus:
--- Quote from: rfeecs on June 29, 2022, 10:14:26 pm ---This is just plain wrong.
Look up near field and far field:
--- End quote ---
Do you agree that a rechargeable battery or charged capacitor are electrical energy storage devices.
I will prefer the use of a capacitor instead of a battery to keep things simpler as a capacitor is much simpler device than a battery.
So in Derek's experiment you have a charged capacitor a switch and a lamp (resistor) plus a long transmission line.
The lamp/resistor and transmission line wires are the same thing.
The switch when open is just a capacitor and while you have an electric field between the switch contacts no energy is transferred from the source (charged capacitor) to the load/lamp/resistor.
Imagine there is just a piece of plastic or some other insulator preventing the switch contacts from touching and I just increase the switch contacts more.
Due to the electric field I need mechanical energy in order to increase the distance between the contacts as that electric field force needs to be overcome.
Now this mechanical energy that I introduced into the system will charge the capacitor a bit and end up as heat due to electrons moving through the wires (that includes the lamp and capacitor plates).
If I let go of the switch (we ignore gravity) the switch will get back to original position and as much energy as it entered the battery will flow back out resulting in some heat again.
Now the system is in the same state it was initially same amount of energy is found in the charged capacitor and all the energy in the form of heat that was dissipated in the wires was provided as mechanical energy by the person that moved the switch.
Let me know if you disagree with any of the above.
During the experiment you had both electric and magnetic fields yet no electrical energy was used from the charged capacitor.
All the input mechanical energy ended up as heat.
The only way to transfer electrical energy from the charged capacitor to the lamp is to close the switch contacts and by close I mean get them close enough so that an electron can jump from one contact to the other one thus an electron from the charged capacitor plate leaves while another electron enters the plate with deficit of electrons.
Electrical energy can only travel through a conductor. And yes air can become a conductor but not at 20Vdc and 1m distance.
Naej:
--- Quote from: aetherist on June 27, 2022, 11:09:05 pm ---Sredni Naej electrodacus & Everybody & Co.
What is a wire that has zero resistance?
What is a wire that is a perfect conductor?
What is a wire that is a superconductor?
What are the differences?
--- End quote ---
I'm not sure what you'll do with the answer but since you asked:
- a conductor is usually (not always) modeled with Ohm's law, J=sigma*E
- a wire that has zero resistance/a perfect conductor is a conductor in the limit of sigma -> 0.
- a superconductor is something which obeys London's equations, i.e. Jsc proportional to -A and div A=0. For more precision (macroscopic quantum effects for example), you have to take other models like Ginzburg-Landau ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginzburg%E2%80%93Landau_theory ).
Nominal Animal:
--- Quote from: aetherist on June 29, 2022, 03:41:38 am ---Electons are only found on a surface (& on a nucleus). Probly only on metals. Or possibly on any conductor.
--- End quote ---
Nah. Electons are the magic particles that cause electronic voting machines to occasionally flip a vote to a candidate the voting machine provides prefers.
Or possibly they are the name of the species that have infiltrated our political systems, replacing our politicians. All hail electons!
All kidding aside, unless your model can describe and predict how an STM microscope works and can image individuals atoms – really, their outermost electrons – (as they have been used for extensively since 1981), it is not a realistic model at all.
STM results are basically in perfect agreement with current models on the structure of matter; so much so that simulators using current models of electrons (especially DFT and Hartree–Fock method, in software packages like VASP and Dalton) yield results that are basically in perfect agreement with STM images.
The only reason I have any trust in current electron models is exactly that even with quite crude approximations (especially the Born–Oppenheimer one, which is heavily used in simulations), simulations produce extremely useful predictions of the structure and behaviour of physical matter, from noble gases to insulators to semiconductors to metals. (I know, because I write such code myself, although I tend to the more classical side with large numbers of particles and models that only approximate the interactions, instead of the Ab Initio QM models.)
Since the very integrated circuits you use right now, reading this text, were developed only with the aid of these or very similar simulator software, it would be hilariously self-contradictory to completely reject current models of the structure of matter (including electrons) that have brought us these very devices we rely on. Those models and theories brought us the devices we use right now.
(Side note: No, I'm not irritated at someone having a new theory. I'm just a bit irritated of people choosing to ignore the vast amount of hard work involved in getting us this far. It wasn't just these certain people having good ideas and others agreeing and going with that; it was countless hours of work, countless ideas and models tested and rejected, with the current ones being the ones among those that ended up best predicting the results of real world experiments, physical behaviour. Saying that they don't believe in that work is, well, irritating. Like someone reading a newspaper and saying they don't believe in reading. It is also important to realize that e.g. special relativity did not "replace" Newtonian mechanics. The two are the same at "human scale"; it is when velocities become a significant fraction of speed of light (in vacuum), or we have extremely heavy or dense objects, that special relativity starts differing from Newtonian mechanics. So, you don't just switch to something completely different that gives completely different answers! Just like special relativity can be used anywhere Newtonian mechanics can (producing basically the same answers), that new thing must also correctly predict the results of past experiments, with errors within the bounds of experimental errors. Otherwise, the theory or model is just not suitable, as in useful or valid, at all.)
m k:
How is flat and solid copper electrical heater reheating its cooled circle?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version