Author Topic: Electroboom: How Right IS Veritasium?! Don't Electrons Push Each Other??  (Read 35836 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online ledtester

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2507
  • Country: us
This one is pretty good because Mehdi and Derek actually discuss and debate the finer theoretical  points of what current actually is.

« Last Edit: June 18, 2022, 05:03:47 am by ledtester »
 

Offline pcprogrammer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1914
  • Country: nl
Does it really matter how?

I mean, for the most of us and the level we work or play with electronics the basic laws we learned in school suffice to get things working.

Offline m k

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1100
  • Country: fi
And if not,
an electron has a probability to be "inside" a nucleus.

And it continues,
if you look close enough you can't see anymore.
But you can still calculate what you should see.

It's quantum,
where probability is finally always 1.
But reality is always less than 1.

More mundane thing,
we know the energy is carried through the wire since it can do work, but what kind of energy.
We also know that energy is emitted and absorbed, and that emitted one is a leftover.
So when DC current is heating the wire its leftover heat has equal frequency to what AC current's leftover heat has.
Aneng-Appa-AVO-Fluke-General Radio-Heathkit-Herbert Arnold-HP-Kaise-Kyoritsu-Mastech-Simpson-Tektronix-YFE
(plus lesser brands from the work shop of the world)
 

Offline aetherist

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 493
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
The youtube here is mainly a waste of time. However it duzz explain a little about Mehdi's current thinking about surface charge driving internal electrons.
The youtube duznt help to explain why Veritasium reckons that the electrical energy is carried by the Poynting Vector/Field.

Anyhow, i wish to advise that electric energy is carried (primarily)(mainly)(usually) by photons flowing along the surface of the copper wire.
The flow of electrons, on the surface, & inside the copper, is a minor contribution to the total (usually).
This is certainly the case for a  lead acid battery source.
 

Online Nominal Animal

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4122
  • Country: fi
    • My home page and email address
The entire question assumes that electrons are discrete particles, but as leptons, they are not; they're firmly in the quantum realm.  As an example, many interesting and useful phenomena in semiconductors and LEDs depend on surface plasmons, something that arises from the collective QM behaviour of several/many electrons.  (As a practical example, the double-slit experiment shows exactly the same results for electrons as it does for photons.)

One of the most annoying problems in molecular dynamic simulations is in visualization, where the goal is to convey an intuitive picture of the system or what is actually happening.  The atoms are not round marbles with well defined boundaries, and electron bonds are definitely not cylindrical sticks between round marbles... It is surprising how subtly visualization choices can affect ones understanding.  Which is why I much prefer eg. cel/toon shading over photorealism, and semi-transparent isosurfaces denoting a specific electron density.  I want to control the information conveyed, so I can push the intuitive understanding towards something useful; photorealistic marble-and-stick models do not.

Simply put, we're definitely talking about quantum interactions (of both leptons (electrons) and bosons (photons), and lepton-lepton, lepton-boson, and possibly even the rare boson-boson interactions), when we are talking about current flow.  Any human-scale analogs (like "electrons 'pushing' against each other") will not describe the situation quite correctly, and will lead to misunderstandings and un-physical model ideas.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2022, 04:24:27 pm by Nominal Animal »
 
The following users thanked this post: nctnico, bsfeechannel, mindcrime

Online SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10169
  • Country: fr
To sum it up, as we can't know what exactly electrons are, if we are being minimally honest, we can't answer this kind of questions properly. But we can always keep trying. :popcorn:
 

Offline aetherist

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 493
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
To sum it up, as we can't know what exactly electrons are, if we are being minimally honest, we can't answer this kind of questions properly. But we can always keep trying. :popcorn:
Yes we dont know what an electron is. And we dont know what a photon is. We dont know what em radiation is. We dont know what Veritasium's Poynting Vector/Field is. We dont know much at all.
But, we might make progress if we look at electricity along a wire being due to photons propagating along the outside of the surface of the Cu.
There might be a small amount of electrical energy in the Poynting, & in the surface flowing electrons, & in the internal drifting electrons.
But its mainly in the photons (usually).
 

Offline aetherist

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 493
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
This one is pretty good because Mehdi and Derek actually discuss and debate the finer theoretical  points of what current actually is.
I watched it once, plus little bits of twice.
But i dont see much debating/discussing of the finer points.
I suspect that they did not resolve the question of whether the internal electron drift carries the electrical energy or whether it is just a passenger or something tween.
And, likewise for the swiftly flowing surface electrons (flowing in the transient phases)(but i think stationary in the steady phases [says Veritasium i think]).

Hey, i just remembered, Veritasium mentions near field & far field at about 19:10, this might touch on something of value -- i will go & have a re-look (i will return).
Ok i had a re-look, starting at 18:00 to 21:00 they mention close/far & near/far fields.
Shockingly they agree to agree that the drifting electrons & the fields exist together -- which sorta means that they shirk the issue.
And then both agree to agree that when the electrons & the Poynting are on the home straight that both continue to carry energy. But here they are talking of carrying in the sense that the electrons contain the energy & the Poyntings contain the energy. Wrong.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. They dont contain the energy that they carry, they are merely the messengers for a greater energy source (in their silly theory).
So, their silly theories are wrong, plus their own ideas of how their silly theories work is also wrong.

But, my photon theory is not wrong. And, in my photon theory, the photons both carry & contain the electrical energy (which energy they got from the source [say battery])(or praps i should say at the source).

And, re near field & far field, there is much to say about NF/FF re my photon theory, & i was hoping that Veritasium might be starting along that line (re his own theory), but nope, fizzer, he dropped the NF/FF stuff, koz in any case he duznt know much about that angle (in the present context), which is at the crux of my photon theory (& which is a work in progress)(there are problems), but i dont expect to go into it here on this forum.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2022, 10:00:10 pm by aetherist »
 

Offline imo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3292
  • Country: nu
We have electrons in our Universe because of some asymmetry during/after the big bang.. The electrons always interact with other electrons (via fields) such they want to create an equilibrium in their interaction between each other - a zero energy state. When there is a place with less electrons or more electrons in the universe the delta fields occur - trying to recreate the equilibrium across the Universe.
Positive charges do not exist, only places with more or less electron densities. The force electrons interact between each other is huge - thus when you dislocate a single electron a little bit from its steady state it has a big influence on other electrons across entire Universe.
A small dislocation of electrons in the battery (created by chemical reactions which is basically a process where you artificially broke the equilibrium) will spread over the entire Universe, while the electrons in the cooper wire (positioned very close to the battery) will be effected by the force most (because they are "there") and will dislocate a bit as well. Therefore the Poynting will follow the field up to the load (because the majority of electrons closest to the battery are in "that" wire and the interactions happen with most intensity in the space close to where the wire is placed).
The movement (or better to say the ability to interact with the field) of the electrons will be easier in the load with lower resistivity (as the lower resistivity means there is a lot of electrons willing to dislocate/interact), therefore the most field energy will interact with the load with lower resistance. The load with higher resistance has lower amount of electrons able to interact, therefore the field will not interact much with such a load..
So our entire electronics works because people somehow artificially created environments with different amounts/densities of electrons willing/able to dislocate/interact between each other.
Again - even a smallest movement of a single electron in our Universe creates huge forces spread over the entire Universe.. And the places with different densities of "free electrons" (it means electrons able to interact with the fields) will always respond to such an movement. The response means they want back to an equilibrium. And the wires only help to direct the fields - why? - because in "that" wires are the most electrons able to interact (and outside the wires are less or none electrons able to interact).
« Last Edit: June 18, 2022, 11:52:23 pm by imo »
 

Online TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5056
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
"Positive charges do not exist"
Don't tell the protons, they might worry.
 

Online Nominal Animal

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4122
  • Country: fi
    • My home page and email address
To sum it up, as we can't know what exactly electrons are, if we are being minimally honest, we can't answer this kind of questions properly. But we can always keep trying. :popcorn:
I wouldn't say that, because physics is about modeling the reality, not explaining why reality is the way it is.  QM models both electrons and photons quite well; definitely well enough for simulations to produce results that are directly applicable and testable in the real world.

The main thing that makes electrons different to photons is that electrons are fermions, whereas photons are bosons.  Any number of photons can occupy the same quantum state, but only one electron can occupy a specific quantum state at any point in time; this is what Pauli exclusion principle is about.  The exclusion principle is also why non-interacting fermions can often be treated as "Fermi gas" –– the behaviour is close to that of an ideal gas –– via Fermi-Dirac statistics.

It is also why it makes sense to model the charge carriers in conductors (especially metal lattices) and semiconductors as waves (as approximations of quantum wave functions).  Such models predict what happens in the real world rather well: so much so, that this is how new dopants in semiconductors (both surface and bulk) are explored, and things like memristors are explored; with the main practical problem in making the findings reality being production: how to duplicate the desired molecular structures in a commercially viable manner.

The main thing I'd want people to remember, is that electrons are not spherical or even point-like particles: just like photons, electrons exhibit wave–particle duality.  For example, an electron does not really orbit around an atomic nucleus: it is delocalized (in the QM sense, not in the chemical sense) in a specific waveform around the atomic nucleus, and has properties analogous to "real-world" spin/angular momentum.  Because electrons are spin-1/2 particles, they have exactly two pure spin states, which are called "spin up" and "spin down".  This is also why you can have exactly two electrons in otherwise the same quantum state, as long as they have different spins.  This can be shown in practice: Stern–Gerlach experiment.  (The field of spin transport electronics is called spintronics, in case this two-state property raised your interest for implementing binary or Boolean logic.)

If you are a proponent of alternative physics models, do consider looking at e.g. the photoelectric effect, and carefully go through your alternative model and examine what kind of results it yields.  If its results do not match experiments, it isn't useful, is it?  You see, the photoelectric effect (and the ultraviolet catastrophe) was one of the key things that lead to the adoption of quantum mechanics as the currently best model at small scales.  They didn't just "pick" one; it is the one that predicts reality and practical measurements and experiments best, thus far.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2022, 12:06:01 am by Nominal Animal »
 
The following users thanked this post: eugene

Offline Naej

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 161
  • Country: fr
The entire question assumes that electrons are discrete particles, but as leptons, they are not; they're firmly in the quantum realm.  As an example, many interesting and useful phenomena in semiconductors and LEDs depend on surface plasmons, something that arises from the collective QM behaviour of several/many electrons.  (As a practical example, the double-slit experiment shows exactly the same results for electrons as it does for photons.)

One of the most annoying problems in molecular dynamic simulations is in visualization, where the goal is to convey an intuitive picture of the system or what is actually happening.  The atoms are not round marbles with well defined boundaries, and electron bonds are definitely not cylindrical sticks between round marbles... It is surprising how subtly visualization choices can affect ones understanding.  Which is why I much prefer eg. cel/toon shading over photorealism, and semi-transparent isosurfaces denoting a specific electron density.  I want to control the information conveyed, so I can push the intuitive understanding towards something useful; photorealistic marble-and-stick models do not.

Simply put, we're definitely talking about quantum interactions (of both leptons (electrons) and bosons (photons), and lepton-lepton, lepton-boson, and possibly even the rare boson-boson interactions), when we are talking about current flow.  Any human-scale analogs (like "electrons 'pushing' against each other") will not describe the situation quite correctly, and will lead to misunderstandings and un-physical model ideas.
Mehdi's goal is not to explain renormalization, or how electrons acquire mass by interaction with the Higgs boson. Same for Derek, as far as these videos are concerned.
A classical model, where electrons push against each other (and against protons), is good enough.

And yet, they (and more importantly, the authors of the physics book) missed the fact that the bulk of wires is charged, due to the (tiny) Hall effect.
Derek's "The main thing I like to think about the battery doing is maintaining this distribution of surface charges" is a strange and confusing statement, if anything, "the only role of the surface charges is maintaining the electric potential" is a better one.

Also Derek said there's a "qualitative" distinction between electrons bringing electrons, and vacuum, which may be true, but there is no physical distinction.
 

Online Nominal Animal

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4122
  • Country: fi
    • My home page and email address
Mehdi's goal is not to explain renormalization, or how electrons acquire mass by interaction with the Higgs boson. Same for Derek, as far as these videos are concerned.
A classical model, where electrons push against each other (and against protons), is good enough.
It is good enough to model the effects, yes; but the description then must be understood as an analog, not a precise description of what is happening, because we can easily construct other experiments and situations where it does not suffice at all.

You cannot use the approximation as a basis for your description!

As an example, consider the Lennard-Jones potential, which describes electrically neutral atoms, like noble gases (especially neon), using a pairwise interaction model.  If you do not realize that it is just an approximation where the repulsive term (1/r12) is intended to describe Pauli exclusion repulsion at short ranges and the attractive term (1/r6) describe the (London) attraction at longer ranges, and for these kinds of systems these two describe the interactions well enough, you might start discussing numerological meanings of the exponents -12 and -6.  Especially because the pairwise Coulomb potential of point-like charges is ~ 1/r.

The true reason for the exponent -6 is so called London dispersion force, which is described by quantum mechanics (and is basically "electrons symmetrically distributed around separate atomic nuclei will spontaneously be attracted towards each other").  The reason for the exponent -12 is simply that it is in the right ballpark – anything that increases fast enough when r decreases works for Pauli exclusion at short ranges; it just must not contribute (much) at longer ranges –, and that 1/r12 is easy to calculate from squaring 1/r6, i.e. as (1/r6)2.  Heck, you can even use 1/r for the repulsion, if its contribution at longer ranges gets canceled out somehow.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2022, 01:49:37 am by Nominal Animal »
 

Offline electrodacus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1523
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
I was hopping Mehdi had a better understanding so that it can convince Derek that he is wrong.

I still think that understanding the capacitor is the thing people should concentrate on.
Replacing the battery with a charged capacitor will better help visualize what stored energy is and how energy travels from source (charged capacitor) to Load (lamp/resistor).

What is the difference between a charged capacitor and a discharged one ?
The only difference is the ratio of electrons with the discharged capacitor having the same amount of electrons on both plates and the charged capacitor having and imbalance of electrons between the plates.
So while a discharge capacitor has the same amount of electrons as a charged one the fact that there are more on one plate and less on the other means it contains stored energy.

If you allow the electrons from the plate with excess to move to the plate with deficit you create an electric current (defined as a stream of charged particles in this case electrons).
This electrons can only move from one plate to the other through a conductor (assuming capacitor is used within spec not higher voltage and ignoring the small amount of leakage through dielectric).

You do not need to understand quantum mechanics to understand that energy travels through wire and not outside the wire as Derek claims.
Of course energy can flow outside the wire in the form of photons (like the infrared photons do to wire heating) and even electrons can flow outside the wire giving higher enough potential (voltage) and or with combination of heat like on those old vacuum diodes someone mentioned in the other thread.
And in that particular case where electrons travel through air or vacuum energy is transferred outside the wires as there is a real current through air/vacuum due to charged particles (electrons) traveling through that space.
In Derek's low voltage experiment there were no electrons traveling outside the wire meaning all energy arriving at the lamp traveled through wire.

Offline eti

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1231
  • Country: gb
This pointless debate has been ongoing FAR too long. Even if there WAS a definitive "right" answer, who cares!  :palm:
 

Offline pcprogrammer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1914
  • Country: nl
This pointless debate has been ongoing FAR too long. Even if there WAS a definitive "right" answer, who cares!  :palm:

That is why I wrote this right after the first posting :-DD

Does it really matter how?

I mean, for the most of us and the level we work or play with electronics the basic laws we learned in school suffice to get things working.

Offline eti

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1231
  • Country: gb
It’s all a protracted ego flex for YouTubers to show how intelligent they are (The real reason is actually just earning convenient ad revenue for a string of pointless videos)

I un-sub from channels that demonstrate this level of lowest common denominator idiocy.

The ACTUALLY VALUABLE, intelligent channels are the one a handful of people suggest by word of mouth, not the ones spammed at you 24:7 with staged clickbait thumbnails. YouTube has LONG ago turned into a circus. 
« Last Edit: June 19, 2022, 08:04:15 am by eti »
 
The following users thanked this post: pcprogrammer

Offline Sredni

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 544
  • Country: aq
It’s all a protracted ego flex for YouTubers to show how intelligent they are (The real reason is actually just earning convenient ad revenue for a string of pointless videos)

I un-sub from channels that demonstrate this level of lowest common denominator idiocy.

The ACTUALLY VALUABLE, intelligent channels are the one a handful of people suggest by word of mouth, not the ones spammed at you 24:7 with staged clickbait thumbnails. YouTube has LONG ago turned into a circus.

Ok, so let's turn this thread into something useful. Name three (relatively unknown) channels that are worth subscribing to. I'll leave the one most people here already know out: W2AEW.

W2AEW (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiqd3GLTluk2s_IBt7p_LjA , no need to introduce him).

So here are my three channels (also, I would like to add: it would be better if they haven't sold their soul to some PCB manufacturer yet - I have unsubscribed from many channels after they became the little bi***es of said advertisers)

0033mer:
https://www.youtube.com/user/0033mer/videos
Lots of simple but clever circuits (and embedded solutions, as well). Keep you breadboard at hand. He does not waste time: shows the circuit, explains how it works and shows its applications.

Curious Scientist:
https://www.youtube.com/c/CuriousScientist
From Sweden - just found out and I like his tool and instrumentation DIY attitude.

JohnAudioTech:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8SPQG7er2RJhz4E8xvFEtw
It's like hanging out with an old friend, in front of a lab bench. I find John's channel relaxing. He's calm, humble and he knows what he does. Mostly about audio stuff.

Now, name three more that are not already listed.

(I am adding one that is no longer active: Allan Yates' Lab - http://www.vk2zay.net/ - I really loved his Advent Calendar circuits: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFA57ACAC0F0DE0D1 and https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLm7XTXZCXl_O9xLPreHBY0jxmuco8UKBE )
« Last Edit: June 19, 2022, 02:00:40 pm by Sredni »
All instruments lie. Usually on the bench.
 
The following users thanked this post: ledtester, SAGOLSEN

Offline electrodacus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1523
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
This pointless debate has been ongoing FAR too long. Even if there WAS a definitive "right" answer, who cares!  :palm:

I care.
I think it is important to know if electrical energy travels through the wire or outside the wire.
How can anyone make a correct prediction without understanding how it works.

There is sure a definitive "right" answer.
Energy can not both flow in to a capacitor and trough a capacitor when charged. Is either one or the other.
Since we know capacitor is an energy storage device the energy flows in to a capacitor when charged else you could never charge the capacitor if all energy flows through.

Online SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10169
  • Country: fr
It’s all a protracted ego flex for YouTubers to show how intelligent they are (The real reason is actually just earning convenient ad revenue for a string of pointless videos)

The successive back-and-forth videos replying to one another are surely both an ego thing, and most of all, a way for them to protect their image (which you must realize is for them a business), and I can understand that. In other words, that ends up getting annoying, but they unfortunately don't have much choice. If they leave someone else "debunk" their videos without replying to that, they are by default acknowledging they were wrong, and thus their image gets a dent and their YT channel loses credibility.

Doesn't mean that what's being discussed is not interesting. But you must realize that this is a general problem with online discussions, especially when someone cares about their image. You just can't let others "debunk" you if you think you're right or that the other has not fully understood your point. Letting them is akin to approving. Of course, unless you were actually wrong, which can happen, in which case the appropriate reply is just to admit you were. But in many cases, as with this discussion, there is no fundamental "wrong" in any of what Veritasium, Electroboom and others have said. Those are just different points of view, and they are essentially debating models, none of which is fully accurate or fully depainting "reality". Our models are just useful tools. Just my 2 cents.

 

Offline electrodacus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1523
  • Country: ca
    • electrodacus
But in many cases, as with this discussion, there is no fundamental "wrong" in any of what Veritasium, Electroboom and others have said. Those are just different points of view, and they are essentially debating models, none of which is fully accurate or fully depainting "reality". Our models are just useful tools. Just my 2 cents.

The explanation in Derek's videos are fundamentally wrong.
Main claim: "energy doesn't flow in wires"
Reality: electrical energy flows through wires in his example.
Of course there are special cases like the vacuum diode where energy travels through wires but also through vacuum as charged particles (electrons) travel from cathode to anode.

 
There is no electron flow trough that 1m of space between the wires making the transmission line.
The small current he observes through the lamp after the switch is closed is due to line capacitance being charged.
He completely ignored transmission line capacitance in first video and mentioned but ignored it in the second video.

Offline daqq

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2219
  • Country: sk
    • My site
And, re near field & far field, there is much to say about NF/FF re my photon theory, & i was hoping that Veritasium might be starting along that line (re his own theory), but nope, fizzer, he dropped the NF/FF stuff, koz in any case he duznt know much about that angle (in the present context), which is at the crux of my photon theory (& which is a work in progress)(there are problems), but i dont expect to go into it here on this forum.
Huh, interesting. But this fella has an interesting theory as well: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/the-non-linear-plasma-reactor/ , might be worth checking out.
Believe it or not, pointy haired people do exist!
+++Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot +++
 

Online SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10169
  • Country: fr
Good potential for doing it all over again after two large threads already. ;D
 
The following users thanked this post: eti

Offline aetherist

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 493
  • Country: au
  • The aether will return. It never left.
And, re near field & far field, there is much to say about NF/FF re my photon theory, & i was hoping that Veritasium might be starting along that line (re his own theory), but nope, fizzer, he dropped the NF/FF stuff, koz in any case he duznt know much about that angle (in the present context), which is at the crux of my photon theory (& which is a work in progress)(there are problems), but i dont expect to go into it here on this forum.
Huh, interesting. But this fella has an interesting theory as well: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/the-non-linear-plasma-reactor/ , might be worth checking out.
1. My photonic (electon) electricity applies to wires (conductors) only.
2. Old (electron) electricity applies to say plasma etc.
3. So too old (proton) electricity applies to plasma etc.
4. Electron & proton electricity apply of course to ionic electricity too.
5. Then we have Ivor Catt's electricity which is the Heaviside slab of E×H energy current around a wire/circuit, or tween wires.
6. Then we have Veritasium's electricity which is the Poynting Vector/Field around a wire/circuit.
(5) & (6) are similar in that they both surround the wire(s), but they are different.
(2) also applies to electricity on a wire (surface electrons) & inside a wire (drifting electrons)(they say).

Anyhow, my new (electon) electricity (1) duznt apply to say plasma or lightning etc.
My new (electon) electricity contradicts (5) & (6). But (5) & (6) might exist in a weak minor fashion (depending on sematics).

Considerations of near field & far field are necessary to fully explain my (1), but not any of the others i think.
 

Offline eti

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1231
  • Country: gb
Good potential for doing it all over again after two large threads already. ;D

ikr...  :-// :palm:
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf