General > General Technical Chat

"Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?

<< < (384/396) > >>

bsfeechannel:

--- Quote from: EEVblog on May 02, 2022, 06:32:58 am ---Hontas Farmer is back


--- End quote ---

Derek addresses her misconception about how electrons behave inside a wire from 2:36 to 15:01 in his second video. She forgot to account for the nuclei of the atoms, with which they also interact and have opposite charge. Something that I pointed out myself when commenting about the first video.

Derek even showed that statistically (which is something she likes to invoke) the net effect of the interactions between the electrons themselves and the nuclei is zero.

The rest of her video is pseudo-scientific tactic 101: a quote from Feynman out of context here and there and the showing of books no one will read because they will not understand anyway.

Her dismissal of classical electrodynamics is also misleading: at the macroscopic level QED and CED converge as shown by Feynman in his description of the Aharonov-Bohm effect, about which I also commented pages ago along this thread. This means that for this experiment CED is good enough.

What I find amusing is that she says that Derek is "probably" wrong, as if he were a subatomic particle.

bsfeechannel:

--- Quote from: Naej on May 02, 2022, 09:26:57 am ---I'm not sure what claim it is supposed to save, but these devices illustrate that electrons can push on electrons outside their conductor. To absolutely no one's surprise.

--- End quote ---

Yeah. How do they do that? Do they have little arms to shove their fellow creatures one meter away?


--- Quote ---They do not, in any way, prove that energy resides in the vacuum; and indeed anyone can check that neither you nor Derek gave any proof of this (it does not exist, it cannot exist).
--- End quote ---

How is the energy for the push transferred from one electron to another through the "vacuum" 1 meter away? Do they throw stones at each other?


--- Quote ---It's a win for Maxwell's equations, but if you want to attribute it to Poynting, Plato or Derek, well I'm a bit puzzled but why not.

--- End quote ---

It's a win for nature, that dismantled the wires-are-pipes stupidity.

TimFox:
A quantitative discussion of the effect of normal insulation layers on velocity factor in antenna construction:
https://lowpowerlab.com/guide/rf-best-practices/velocity-factor/
Summary:
0.95 for bare copper wires
additional factor of 0.95 to 0.98 when adding normal insulating materials (PVC, polyethylene, PTFE)
These factors are important when calculating antenna length.

To get down to 0.66, you need a coaxial construction such as RG-58/U with solid polyethylene dielectric
With RG-62A/U, which has an internal construction which is roughly half air and half polyethylene (annular geometry), the characteristic impedance rises to 93 ohms, and the velocity factor is 0.83.
Foamy dielectrics have similar velocity factors.

Uttamattamakin:

--- Quote from: EEVblog on May 02, 2022, 06:32:58 am ---Hontas Farmer is back


--- End quote ---

I have replied to your interesting and intriguing comment, love it, and it is pinned.  The key to answering your question was knowing exactly what to look for.  The theoretical work of deriving this result has actually been done already.

https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.45.54  "Quantum electrodynamics with nonrelativistic sources. IV. Poynting vector, energy densities, and other quadratic operators of the electromagnetic field" by E. A. Power (Love that name in this context).

"For initial conditions given at t=0 it is shown that the fields are causal, i.e., for t<r/c the source-dependent fields are zero and the quadratic operators have only their zero-point contributions. For t>r/c they have both time-independent and time-dependent terms. The time-dependent terms, though transient, are shown to obey Poynting’s theorem. The steady-state part of the Poynting vector is related to the Einstein coefficients. The corresponding electric-energy density is related to the Casimir-Polder potential for a polarizable test body in the field of the source molecules."

Basically Veritasium and Alpha Phoenix in particualr demonstrated this quite nicely.   That QED can give us Pyonting's theory has been long known.  I doubt that Richard Feynman et al would've gotten a Nobel for it if it wasn't. 

As for an experiment.  I'm going to do some digging into literature about particle accelerator operations.  Since I am certain they have to take account of every TINY effect to even carry out their experiments.   In Veritasium's thought experiment causality enters the picture due to the sheer size of the thing, while in particle physics relativity enters due to the energies involved.  The basic work on this has certainly been done.

The problem it is in documents like this that are so ...big. https://www.jpier.org/PIER/pier28/07.9908012.Carron.pdf  "Progress In Electromagnetics Research, PIER 28, 147–183, 2000" 

Then there is this.  Analysis of shielding charged particle beams by thin conductors
Robert Gluckstern and Bruno Zotter
Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 4, 024402 – Published 14 February 2001 

You know basically what we would need to look for are the types of things people who design particle accelerators worry about.


 

Uttamattamakin:

--- Quote from: bsfeechannel on May 02, 2022, 12:13:33 pm ---
--- Quote from: EEVblog on May 02, 2022, 06:32:58 am ---Hontas Farmer is back


--- End quote ---

Derek addresses her misconception about how electrons behave inside a wire from 2:36 to 15:01 in his second video. She forgot to account for the nuclei of the atoms, with which they also interact and have opposite charge. Something that I pointed out myself when commenting about the first video.

Derek even showed that statistically (which is something she likes to invoke) the net effect of the interactions between the electrons themselves and the nuclei is zero.

The rest of her video is pseudo-scientific tactic 101: a quote from Feynman out of context here and there and the showing of books no one will read because they will not understand anyway.

Her dismissal of classical electrodynamics is also misleading: at the macroscopic level QED and CED converge as shown by Feynman in his description of the Aharonov-Bohm effect, about which I also commented pages ago along this thread. This means that for this experiment CED is good enough.

What I find amusing is that she says that Derek is "probably" wrong, as if he were a subatomic particle.

--- End quote ---

Probably wrong is a Pun.  As for what you say... the theoretical work on this has already been done and published.

As for misconceptions... every model is a simplification and in a way a misconception.  Modeling electrons as little spheres bouncing off other spheres is also a misconception.  Then so would having them be clouds of electron probability interacting with clouds of proton probability.  They are all just tools we use to calculate, and QED is just the most detailed most fundamental such tool we have right now. In which everything is a field...all of it...just fields. It's mind bending isn't it!?  So of course someone who famously dropped LSD helped come up with it.

https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.45.54  "Quantum electrodynamics with nonrelativistic sources. IV. Poynting vector, energy densities, and other quadratic operators of the electromagnetic field" by E. A. Power (Love that name in this context).

"For initial conditions given at t=0 it is shown that the fields are causal, i.e., for t<r/c the source-dependent fields are zero and the quadratic operators have only their zero-point contributions. For t>r/c they have both time-independent and time-dependent terms. The time-dependent terms, though transient, are shown to obey Poynting’s theorem. The steady-state part of the Poynting vector is related to the Einstein coefficients. The corresponding electric-energy density is related to the Casimir-Polder potential for a polarizable test body in the field of the source molecules."

Basically Veritasium and Alpha Phoenix in particular demonstrated this quite nicely.   That QED can give us Pyonting's theory has been long known.  I doubt that Richard Feynman et al would've gotten a Nobel for it if it wasn't. 

As for experimental work on this see the results of every particle accelerator ever.  They have to consider these things in PAINFUL detail that applying them to this problem is just a fun thought experiment.  What do you expect me to do?  Stop working on LISA for a year (he has a LIGO person to name drop so FWIW I am nearly their equal) to do this?

Here are a few more links to experiments and theoretical papers that apply QED inside conductors of one kind or the other.  I'm glad I was asked.

https://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacreports/reports05/slac-r-529.pdf  "A Study of High Field Quantum Electrodynamics in the Collision of Higher Energy Electrons with a Terawatt Laser." Glenn A Horton-Smith  (Not exactly within a conductor but I found this and it's cool.)

https://rsl.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/RSL_Theses/jzb_thesis_finaldigital_Aug24.pdf  "Multiquibit experiments in 3D circuit quantum electrodynamcis"  Jacob Blumoff  (A PHD thesis)   

https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys1730  Circuit quantum electrodynamics in the ultrastrong-coupling regime
T. Niemczyk


In fact... looking deeper it seems "Circuit Quantum Electrodynamics" is a whole like ... subfield of QED expanded on over the years.  That is apart from accounting for QED interactions as part of larger experiments in things like particle physics, and particle accelerators. 



Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod