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

[SiliconWizard]

(...) But, according to my theory, if there is zero resistance then there will be zero or very little hugging effect.
Hence a perfect conductor would have zero conductance. Zero conductance is in effect infinite resistance. Hence zero resistance gives infinite resistance.
And thencely comes the madness.

Uh huh. Indeed.

[electrodacus]

My problem is that my new (electon) electricity needs the photons (electons) propagating along the outside surface of a wire to hug the wire, due to a slowing on the near sides.
These electons also heat the wire due to resistance.
If a perfect conductor has zero resistance then there will be no heating. But, according to my theory, if there is zero resistance then there will be zero or very little hugging effect.
Hence a perfect conductor would have zero conductance. Zero conductance is in effect infinite resistance. Hence zero resistance gives infinite resistance.
And thencely comes the madness.

What are you talking about ? Your new electron ?
Conductivity is the inverse of resistance so it will be infinite for a superconductor.

Also there is a limit of how much current you can pass through a super conductor and if you exceed that it becomes a normal conductor same as if the critical temperature is exceeded.

[Alex Eisenhut]

My problem is that my new (electon) electricity needs the photons (electons) propagating along the outside surface of a wire to hug the wire, due to a slowing on the near sides.
These electons also heat the wire due to resistance.
If a perfect conductor has zero resistance then there will be no heating. But, according to my theory, if there is zero resistance then there will be zero or very little hugging effect.
Hence a perfect conductor would have zero conductance. Zero conductance is in effect infinite resistance. Hence zero resistance gives infinite resistance.
And thencely comes the madness.

What are you talking about ? Your new electron ?
Conductivity is the inverse of resistance so it will be infinite for a superconductor.

Also there is a limit of how much current you can pass through a super conductor and if you exceed that it becomes a normal conductor same as if the critical temperature is exceeded.

Yes, that's called quenching, or a quench.

[rfeecs]

What happens if we put the electron inside a small copper box - does it still feel the same forces? (I think no) Does the copper box feel any force? (I think yes). So if the copper box was able to move it would move while the electron inside the box stays still, as it has no forces acting on it.

The electron would repel the electrons of the copper box.  So the inside of the box would have a positive surface charge and the outside would have a negative surface charge.  This results in a force on the electron, attracting it to the box.

In general, charged objects are attracted to neutral objects.

[electrodacus]

The electron would repel the electrons of the copper box.  So the inside of the box would have a positive surface charge and the outside would have a negative surface charge.  This results in a force on the electron, attracting it to the box.

In general, charged objects are attracted to neutral objects.

He used the electron just as an indication of an electric field inside the box induced by the two charged external plates. It is a theoretical example where electron is exactly in the middle of the box.
In his example there will be higher density of electrons on the top side of the box than on the bottom side but there will be no electric field inside the box if we ignore/remove that electron from the middle of the box.


Sorry I do not remember if  you express your opinion. Is the electrical energy flowing through wire or outside the wire?

[Alex Eisenhut]

The electron would repel the electrons of the copper box.  So the inside of the box would have a positive surface charge and the outside would have a negative surface charge.  This results in a force on the electron, attracting it to the box.

In general, charged objects are attracted to neutral objects.

He used the electron just as an indication of an electric field inside the box induced by the two charged external plates. It is a theoretical example where electron is exactly in the middle of the box.
In his example there will be higher density of electrons on the top side of the box than on the bottom side but there will be no electric field inside the box if we ignore/remove that electron from the middle of the box.


Sorry I do not remember if  you express your opinion. Is the electrical energy flowing through wire or outside the wire?

How does an antenna get energy to couple to the receiver?

[SiliconWizard]

*Invokes Tesla*

Nikola, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.

[electrodacus]

How does an antenna get energy to couple to the receiver?

Transmitter antenna is one plate of the capacitor and the receiver is the the other plate of the same capacitor.
A simple AM transmission will be a capacitor between ground (earth) and the anthena (a wire above the ground that is charged and discharged relative to earth).
You can have as many receiving antennas as you want around the transmit antenna and they will form small capacitors with the current loop closing trough earth/ground.
You charge and discharge capacitors.
Try and supply DC to the transmit antenna and you will not get anything on the receiver.

[Naej]

Derek circuit is not at DC (it's a mind trick), the effect he talks about is at ~1m wavelength (and you can see it on the oscilloscope).
The reason why I used 300 Mhz in a 0.1 mm wire is to get a similar ratio between current depth and wire radius in a copper and superconductor wire.

Derek set out to show that energy is in the fields for a DC circuit. He uses the initial transient to drive his point home because the energy that reaches the load before the time length/c cannot come from the cables.
Are you suggesting that even when the transient has subsided the only current in the cable is that on the surface? My take is that Derek uses the term superconductor to mean "let's not consider the resistance in the wires" and not "let's use an exotic material cooled with liquid helium all the way to the Moon".

What if the cables had a total resistance for their entire lenght of 1 microohm? Would you still consider the current as only surface current, after say 10 seconds since the switch is closed?

Derek only asked a question on the transient, hence my comment.
If you have 300000 km of wire with a DC resistance of 1 µohm, let's say you have a wire radius of 1 cm so the resistivity is 10^-18 Ohm m (1 billionth copper's).
The skin depth at 0.1 Hz is 1.6 µm, which definitely looks like surface current no?
After a few years (~ nHz) the current will penetrate the core of the wire.

Definitely not in Lewin's. He says E=B=0 inside the superconductor, one of the most well-known fact (or "fact") about them.
If Lewin wanted, he could have taken a wire with a 50 cm thick copper wire, or 5 cm steel wire with a more reasonable size so that it works at 1Hz.
It is, after all, a thought experiment.

As far as the coil or the magnet is moving, I don't see a difference between the behavior of a perfect conductor and a superconductor. The difference come with the static field, but a static B field won't be able to induce a current. So, if the induced electric field had no way to penetrate the perfect conductor (because of the surface current killing it in the cradle), Lewin's experiment should lead to the same result both for perfect conductors and superconductors.
I still think Lewin is using the term superconductor to mean "no resistance whatsoever in the material" and not as something his JEE students should elaborate on.

Yes. But you wouldn't say E=B=0 in an extremely good conductor?

[electrodacus]

Derek only asked a question on the transient, hence my comment.
If you have 300000 km of wire with a DC resistance of 1 µohm, let's say you have a wire radius of 1 cm so the resistivity is 10^-18 Ohm m (1 billionth copper's).
The skin depth at 0.1 Hz is 1.6 µm, which definitely looks like surface current no?
After a few years (~ nHz) the current will penetrate the core of the wire.

There is only proximity effect due to initial transient but even with 300000km of wire you have just DC after a few seconds so current flows uniformly through the entire section of the wire with very small proximity effect due to small voltage drop on the transmission line.

For example Derek used a pipe in his experiment and he could have calculated the wire resistance by just measuring the voltage and current (current that will have been constant after just a fraction of a second in his experimental setup).
If he will have used a solid bar or copper and measured the voltage drop he will have seen a direct correlation with increase in cross section area meaning current flows uniformly inside the conductor not on the surface.

And no matter if you have DC or AC in Derek's circuit the energy will always flow through the conductor. While with high frequency AC the resistive loss of the transmission line will increase the current still flows inside the conductor thus energy is still delivered through the conductor.

[aetherist]

My problem is that my new (electon) electricity needs the photons (electons) propagating along the outside surface of a wire to hug the wire, due to a slowing on the near sides.
These electons also heat the wire due to resistance.
If a perfect conductor has zero resistance then there will be no heating. But, according to my theory, if there is zero resistance then there will be zero or very little hugging effect.
Hence a perfect conductor would have zero conductance. Zero conductance is in effect infinite resistance. Hence zero resistance gives infinite resistance.
And thencely comes the madness.

This is a reductio ad absurdum, by which you have disproved your own thesis.

That’s why the difference tween zero resistance & perfect conductor & superconductor might be critical to my electons.

Firstly, Lewin's silly gedanken highlites that internal drift of electrons is at best a minor player in electricity.
1. It supports Veritasium's apostles who reckon that electricity is (mainly) in the Poynting Field.
2. It supports Heaviside's idea that electricity is a slab of E×H energy current that flows along the outside of a wire.
3. It supports Catt's idea that the Heaviside energy current propagates tween a pair of wires.
4. It also supports my new (electon) electricity.

To fathom the apparent contradiction re zero resistance & infinite resistance for my electons i need to fathom the real nature of resistance.
Me myself i am the guy for the job.  It might take time.

[aetherist]

My problem is that my new (electon) electricity needs the photons (electons) propagating along the outside surface of a wire to hug the wire, due to a slowing on the near sides.
These electons also heat the wire due to resistance.
If a perfect conductor has zero resistance then there will be no heating. But, according to my theory, if there is zero resistance then there will be zero or very little hugging effect.
Hence a perfect conductor would have zero conductance. Zero conductance is in effect infinite resistance. Hence zero resistance gives infinite resistance.
And thencely comes the madness.

What are you talking about ? Your new electron ?
Conductivity is the inverse of resistance so it will be infinite for a superconductor.

Also there is a limit of how much current you can pass through a super conductor and if you exceed that it becomes a normal conductor same as if the critical temperature is exceeded.

Re my new (electon) electricity u should search electon (on this forum) & find my descriptions (at least 200 posts).

I have never looked very closely at superconductor theory.
But the frailty of superconduction might help my thinking re the role played by my electons.
A supposed disproof of my electons will turn out to be a proof, once again. Its fun being a genius. Waking up in bed is the best part, that first second or two when it dawns that u are so smart (& sometimes hungover).

[electrodacus]

Re my new (electon) electricity u should search electon (on this forum) & find my descriptions (at least 200 posts).

I have never looked very closely at superconductor theory.
But the frailty of superconduction might help my thinking re the role played by my electons.
A supposed disproof of my electons will turn out to be a proof, once again. Its fun being a genius. Waking up in bed is the best part, that first second or two when it dawns that u are so smart (& sometimes hungover).

Give me a short definition of what an (electon) is.
Something like the definition for an electron which is a negatively charged subatomic particle.
Searching on the forum for electon will result in a lot of typos that people made when they wanted to say electron.

[aetherist]

Re my new (electon) electricity u should search electon (on this forum) & find my descriptions (at least 200 posts).

I have never looked very closely at superconductor theory.
But the frailty of superconduction might help my thinking re the role played by my electons.
A supposed disproof of my electons will turn out to be a proof, once again. Its fun being a genius. Waking up in bed is the best part, that first second or two when it dawns that u are so smart (& sometimes hungover).

Give me a short definition of what an (electon) is.
Something like the definition for an electron which is a negatively charged subatomic particle.
Searching on the forum for electon will result in a lot of typos that people made when they wanted to say electron.

An electon is a photon that is propagating along a surface (wire).
Photons have 5 existences --
free photons --
semi-confined (electons) --
confined (electrons O)(photons orbiting a nucleus) --
free electrons (electrons L)(photons that have formed a loop, biting their tail) --
neutrinos (photons that have formed pairs)(sharing the same helical central axis)(180 deg out of phase).

[Alex Eisenhut]

neutrinos (photons that have formed pairs)(sharing the same helical central axis)(180 deg out of phase).

If you listen closely, you can hear Richard Feynman yelling hoarsely.

[electrodacus]

An electon is a photon that is propagating along a surface (wire).
Photons have 5 existences --
free photons --
semi-confined (electons) --
confined (electrons O)(photons orbiting a nucleus) --
free electrons (electrons L)(photons that have formed a loop, biting their tail) --
neutrinos (photons that have formed pairs)(sharing the same helical central axis)(180 deg out of phase).

So you say the (electon) is a boson but is not one of the 5 we know about else you will not rename it.  Is that so ?
Do this (electons) exists at all times and are they found only along the wire surface? Are they present only in or on the surface of metals ?

What is the role of this (electons) ?
Since an imbalance of electrons gets you electrical potential that we measure in (Volts) and a stream of electrons is electrical current that we measure in (Ampers).

[aetherist]

An electon is a photon that is propagating along a surface (wire).
Photons have 5 existences --
free photons --
semi-confined (electons) --
confined (electrons O)(photons orbiting a nucleus) --
free electrons (electrons L)(photons that have formed a loop, biting their tail) --
neutrinos (photons that have formed pairs)(sharing the same helical central axis)(180 deg out of phase).

So you say the (electon) is a boson but is not one of the 5 we know about else you will not rename it.  Is that so ?
Do this (electons) exists at all times and are they found only along the wire surface? Are they present only in or on the surface of metals ?

What is the role of this (electons) ?
Since an imbalance of electrons gets you electrical potential that we measure in (Volts) and a stream of electrons is electrical current that we measure in (Ampers).

I don’t study standard particle physics.  The fundamental particle is the photon. This makes everything we feel & see (except for gravity).

Electons are only found on a surface (& on a nucleus). Probly only on metals. Or possibly on any conductor.
If an electon jumps off a surface it becomes a free photon.

If an electon jumps off a surface onto a nucleus then it becomes an orbiting electon. I wrongly called it an orbiting photon before, which it is (ie electons are photons).
There is no such thing as an orbiting electron.

Volts & Amperes are due to my electons.
However, i am ok with 3 kinds of electricity on/in a wire.
My electons.
Free electrons moving along outside a surface (wire).
Free electrons moving along inside a wire.
They might all contribute to Voltage & Amperage.

U should read the papers by Forrest Bishop, re V & I.
And read the stuff by Ivor Catt.
However, neither Forrest nor Ivor mention my electons.

[electrodacus]

I don’t study standard particle physics.  The fundamental particle is the photon. This makes everything we feel & see (except for gravity).

Electons are only found on a surface (& on a nucleus). Probly only on metals. Or possibly on any conductor.
If an electon jumps off a surface it becomes a free photon.

If an electon jumps off a surface onto a nucleus then it becomes an orbiting electon. I wrongly called it an orbiting photon before, which it is (ie electons are photons).
There is no such thing as an orbiting electron.

Volts & Amperes are due to my electons.
However, i am ok with 3 kinds of electricity on/in a wire.
My electons.
Free electrons moving along outside a surface (wire).
Free electrons moving along inside a wire.
They might all contribute to Voltage & Amperage.

U should read the papers by Forrest Bishop, re V & I.
And read the stuff by Ivor Catt.
However, neither Forrest nor Ivor mention my electons.

I see you are the version of flat earthers.  I had the correct idea about you initially but just wanted to make sure.

[aetherist]

I don’t study standard particle physics.  The fundamental particle is the photon. This makes everything we feel & see (except for gravity).

Electons are only found on a surface (& on a nucleus). Probly only on metals. Or possibly on any conductor.
If an electon jumps off a surface it becomes a free photon.

If an electon jumps off a surface onto a nucleus then it becomes an orbiting electon. I wrongly called it an orbiting photon before, which it is (ie electons are photons).
There is no such thing as an orbiting electron.

Volts & Amperes are due to my electons.
However, i am ok with 3 kinds of electricity on/in a wire.
My electons.
Free electrons moving along outside a surface (wire).
Free electrons moving along inside a wire.
They might all contribute to Voltage & Amperage.

U should read the papers by Forrest Bishop, re V & I.
And read the stuff by Ivor Catt.
However, neither Forrest nor Ivor mention my electons.

I see you are the version of flat earthers.  I had the correct idea about you initially but just wanted to make sure.

Flat Earthers would like my new (electon) electricity i think.
But i don’t know what makes a Flat Earther tick.
Probly a mental disorder.
In the beginning everyone was a Flat Earther -- now dwindling -- & near the end there will be just one.
Electonists are the opposite – we have one at present (me) – but praps near the end everyone will be an electonist.

[rfeecs]

How does an antenna get energy to couple to the receiver?

Transmitter antenna is one plate of the capacitor and the receiver is the the other plate of the same capacitor.

This is just plain wrong.

Look up near field and far field:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field

Far-field E (electric) and B (magnetic) field strength decreases as the distance from the source increases, resulting in an inverse-square law for the radiated power intensity of electromagnetic radiation. By contrast, near-field E and B strength decrease more rapidly with distance: the radiative field decreases by the inverse-distance squared, the reactive field by an inverse-cube law, resulting in a diminished power in the parts of the electric field by an inverse fourth-power and sixth-power, respectively. The rapid drop in power contained in the near-field ensures that effects due to the near-field essentially vanish a few wavelengths away from the radiating part of the antenna.

The field in and around a capacitor is near field.  That's not how energy is coupled from transmitter to receiver.

Based on your previous posts, you don't seem to believe that radio waves are electromagnetic radiation.

[hamster_nz]

Electonists are the opposite – we have one at present (me) – but praps in the end everyone will be an electonist.

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]

This is just plain wrong.

Look up near field and far field:

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]

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?

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. J_sc 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]

Electons are only found on a surface (& on a nucleus). Probly only on metals. Or possibly on any conductor.

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?