Not Electron flow again. ::)
Not Electron flow again. ::)
YouTuber Veritasium has proven to be a pretty sturdy guy. At least I think so.
Among the alternatives presented initially in the video, my guess was alternative "C" ("2 seconds") or alternative "E" ("None of the above").
Now I am eager to watch the rest of the video before I conclude if this video is a Fluke
Not Electron flow again. ::)
It's almost as if they're out of ideas, and have to make up videos to bring in revenue, "just because". That's the feeling I get.
Not Electron flow again. ::)
It's almost as if they're out of ideas, and have to make up videos to bring in revenue, "just because". That's the feeling I get.
That's what happens with youtube channels as they grow beyond a certain point. They reach a point of momentum and income that they struggle to maintain.
my instincts tell me he is incorrectUsing instincts for verifying science is lame since science is counterintuitive.
That's what happens with youtube channels as they grow beyond a certain point. They reach a point of momentum and income that they struggle to maintain.
That's what happens with youtube channels as they grow beyond a certain point. They reach a point of momentum and income that they struggle to maintain.
I suspect that what happens is that they realize that half-baked 'controversial' videos generate more revenue that well thought out technically correct ones.
Why is that when I replace the light bulb with an oscilloscope. And put a high frequency signal through 2 different coax cables (short/long) on different channels and then see voltages out of fase?
Would this simple "experiment" not already disprove his answer?
Looks like gibberish mixed with horseshit to me. I'm not even sure where to start and I'm not going to watch the whole video to try and deconstruct it.
I don't think it will matter wether a coax cable or normal wires would be used. It's just that I've already seen that there's a difference using coax cables.Why is that when I replace the light bulb with an oscilloscope. And put a high frequency signal through 2 different coax cables (short/long) on different channels and then see voltages out of fase?
Would this simple "experiment" not already disprove his answer?
No, because his premise was about the transfer of energy from source to sink, not about the propagation characteristics of electrical signals.
Bear in mind that his thought experiment did not have coaxial cables, it had two long parallel wires. Two long parallel wires make a capacitor. So as soon as you close the switch and change the potential on one side ("plate") of the capacitor, the other side will follow instantly. There will, of course, be a lag before the bulb reaches full brightness, but he said that in the video.
No, because his premise was about the transfer of energy from source to sink, not about the propagation characteristics of electrical signals.
Two long parallel wires make a capacitor. So as soon as you close the switch and change the potential on one side ("plate") of the capacitor, the other side will follow instantly.
Haven't watched the video yet, is the point basically: energy flows in the fields around/between wires? Because that's pretty accurate.
Can you explain the difference between the two???
They also make inductors. Modeling this system is more like a transmitting and receiving dipole antenna tuned to something like 0.3Hz, or whatever. Will there be some sort of signal theoretically present (and perhaps even observable with some technique) in the receiver as you switch the battery on? Sure. Is that how power distribution works? Not really.
I struggle to reconcile the suggested explanation with cutting the wire about half-way along either loop. Would the bulb still light up? If so, would it light up for the time required for the "information" about the wire break to be 'observed' by the rest of the system? If not, does it not violate the speed of light if instead it never lights up, allowing the passing of information at faster than c? How do you reconcile the explanation with the knowledge that 'electricity' travels at about 2/3 to 1/2 the speed of light in copper?
If Ve is truly suggesting that the energy is coupled purely by the electromagnetic field I would have thought the coupling efficiency would be too poor to see any significant light from the bulb. I appreciate the energy must be coupled through the cable somehow, but in any case, it must follow the length of the cable to avoid violating c, unless I am missing something pretty obvious.
Haven't watched the video yet, is the point basically: energy flows in the fields around/between wires? Because that's pretty accurate.
Yes, this is the point of the video.
The premise is that if you place a bulb 1 m away from a battery, but make the wires take a very, very long path between the battery and bulb terminals, the bulb will still start to light up with a propagation delay of 1 meter/speed of light, since whatever path the wires take, the electromagnetic fields will ultimately couple the bulb to the battery over the shortest distance.
I struggle to reconcile the suggested explanation with cutting the wire about half-way along either loop. Would the bulb still light up? If so, would it light up for the time required for the "information" about the wire break to be 'observed' by the rest of the system?
How do you reconcile the explanation with the knowledge that 'electricity' travels at about 2/3 to 1/2 the speed of light in copper?
I struggle to reconcile the suggested explanation with cutting the wire about half-way along either loop. Would the bulb still light up? If so, would it light up for the time required for the "information" about the wire break to be 'observed' by the rest of the system? If not, does it not violate the speed of light if instead it never lights up, allowing the passing of information at faster than c? How do you reconcile the explanation with the knowledge that 'electricity' travels at about 2/3 to 1/2 the speed of light in copper?
If Ve is truly suggesting that the energy is coupled purely by the electromagnetic field I would have thought the coupling efficiency would be too poor to see any significant light from the bulb. I appreciate the energy must be coupled through the cable somehow, but in any case, it must follow the length of the cable to avoid violating c, unless I am missing something pretty obvious.
Yes, the problems abound. I didn't bother with the velocity factor issue because it isn't the main problem. In a conductor the fields are concentrated along the wire, not through space--that's the whole point of having wires. The coupling and initial response would be much weaker, likely not observable for some time quite a bit longer than the "1/c" value and certainly not enough to light up the bulb, not even a little bit.
Buildings have walls and halls.
People travel in the halls, no the walls.
Circuits have traces and spaces.
Energy travels in the spaces, not the traces.
- Ralph Morrison
That indicates that you don't understand electric fields as well as you think you do.
Buildings have walls and halls.
People travel in the halls, no the walls.
Circuits have traces and spaces.
Energy travels in the spaces, not the traces.
- Ralph Morrison
The problem is that the distance between the voltage scource and the bulb was never stated in the video. (as far as I have noticed).
The problem is that the distance between the voltage scource and the bulb was never stated in the video. (as far as I have noticed).
See attachment.
The problem is that the distance between the voltage scource and the bulb was never stated in the video. (as far as I have noticed).
See attachment.
Ouch, I missed that part of the illustration. But if we drill into the illustration; At what exact point is an energy source, like a battery, located? And at what exact point is "the load" located? And how come the bulb is the only load shown in the illustration?
Finally, in order to really convince you that this theory is obviously nuts, we will take one more example—an example in which an electric charge and a magnet are at rest near each other—both sitting quite still...
...How absurd it gets!
Two long parallel wires form a transmission line.
Two long parallel wires form a transmission line.
Two wires a meter apart in space will have a very low capacitance per unit length, no dielectric conductance and "normal" resistance and inductance, so the characteristic impedance is going to be very high. I'm not sure how that affects this example because I don't see how it really is a transmission line even though it physically fits the description, since we aren't applying the voltage across the line at any one point.
Ladder line may also be manufactured or DIY-constructed as "open wire line" consisting of two parallel wires featuring widely spaced plastic or ceramic insulating bars and having a characteristic impedance of 600 ohms or more.
Veritasium's video is exactly right. Much better than Science Asylum who gets some things wrong.
The two wires act as a transmission line, so flick the switch and the current (equal and opposite in each conductor) equals (voltage / impedance). So you get near instantaneous current through the lamp. The step in voltage travels down the line and is reflected back and forth and eventually stabilizes.
And at what exact moment does a bulb start glowing...
Look up "ladder line"
I also didn't take the 1/c to mean 1meter/c. But if 1/c is a measure of time you do need to deal with the units somehow. So I took it to be the length of the wires rather than the separation of the bulb from the battery.
IIRC he stated the bulb is an ideal bulb that glows instantly. I also didn't take the 1/c to mean 1meter/c. But if 1/c is a measure of time you do need to deal with the units somehow. So I took it to be the length of the wires rather than the separation of the bulb from the battery.
Do mind it's worth bringing some skepticism to Derek's videos these days -- three reasons:
1. Just because, of course; try not to take things at face value, but understand what relationships or motivations might underlie a claim.
2. YouTube revenue. He's quite open about this, tuning everything from content to thumbnail to optimize viewership. This isn't necessarily a bad thing -- greater viewership and a good explanation introduce more people to a technical subject. But it does affect how the subject is presented, more sensationalized perhaps, creating drama from academic disagreement, etc. (And also not that this has specifically happened -- just that it's something to beware of.) And of course, the major downside of popular science presentation, the explanations can be oversimplified, and the content very shallow, so it may not even be all that useful if you want to get into the subject. (But that's an audience problem -- it's an introductory video, you're simply looking in the wrong place if you want depth. Can't have everything, unfortunately.)
3. Corporate sponsorship, when applicable. The criticism of his recent driverless car video is particularly apt. Look for similar patterns in, well, anything you consume, of course: we can especially place blame in this case when the channel's byline is "an element of truth", but in general, anywhere you see noncritical presentation or acceptance of facts, especially when the presenter may have a vested interest in the subject (sponsorship is a fine example!), keep your guard up. Let alone possible omitted facts -- these can be hard to spot without broad knowledge in a subject, and so are an common strategy.
Tim
If this would be a troll video. I'm gonna unsubscribe.Do mind it's worth bringing some skepticism to Derek's videos these days -- three reasons:
1. Just because, of course; try not to take things at face value, but understand what relationships or motivations might underlie a claim.
2. YouTube revenue. He's quite open about this, tuning everything from content to thumbnail to optimize viewership. This isn't necessarily a bad thing -- greater viewership and a good explanation introduce more people to a technical subject. But it does affect how the subject is presented, more sensationalized perhaps, creating drama from academic disagreement, etc. (And also not that this has specifically happened -- just that it's something to beware of.) And of course, the major downside of popular science presentation, the explanations can be oversimplified, and the content very shallow, so it may not even be all that useful if you want to get into the subject. (But that's an audience problem -- it's an introductory video, you're simply looking in the wrong place if you want depth. Can't have everything, unfortunately.)
3. Corporate sponsorship, when applicable. The criticism of his recent driverless car video is particularly apt. Look for similar patterns in, well, anything you consume, of course: we can especially place blame in this case when the channel's byline is "an element of truth", but in general, anywhere you see noncritical presentation or acceptance of facts, especially when the presenter may have a vested interest in the subject (sponsorship is a fine example!), keep your guard up. Let alone possible omitted facts -- these can be hard to spot without broad knowledge in a subject, and so are an common strategy.
Tim
Spot on!
The twin-lead configuration will have a characteristic impedance on the order of 600 ohms,
I agree that there is at least theoretically an initial response, the question is the magnitude and whether that can justify the assertions in the video. I think the previous poster who suggested considering the initial response as if the ends were not terminated has the best idea for analyzing the initial conditions. And I'm not sure that the initial currents will be equal and opposite, could you explain that one?
This current creates a magnetic field rotating around the switch and wires attached to it in the vicinity of the switch.
This changing magnetic field will create an electric field rotating around the magnetic field.
This electromagnetic field will propagate across the distance to the other wire at approximately the speed of light.
When the electric field hits the wire, charges on the surface of the wire are going to move to try to maintain no field tangential to the wire, and no changing magnetic field inside the wire, producing a current.
So that is where the 1m/c time delay comes from.
Are the wires initially exactly equal and opposite? Maybe not. I was thinking based on ideal transmission line theory.
I watched the video and read through the thread, but isn't the answer to this fairly simple?
Since he talks about EM fields, he implies the existence of inductance. So his 1/2 light second long cables inherently have an incredible amount of inductance to them. You can simulate the circuit, but we know intuitively that anytime you have a great big inductor, it will take some amount of time for the circuit to reach steady-state due to the energy required to build or collapse the EM fields.
So in practice, the bulb would not turn on instantly but light up extremely slowly as the fields built up, and if you dared to flick the switch off, you would get a great big arc across the contacts as the fields collapsed.
At what frequency (and any other conditions if relevant) do we measure this approximation?The (ideal) switch turning on will be a Heaviside step function, taking the Fourier transform of that is a Dirac delta at 0 Hz (0 rad/s) plus an imaginary rectangular hyperbola.
I did a little experiment with a square wave signal from a AWG.
One short wire and gnd (about 50 cm) to channel 1. One longer one trough a roll of double wire more than 30m to channel 3. That path should have accounted for at least a 100 ns delay, if length mattered.
The scope doesn't show much of a difference between the 2.
(Using a shorter vs longer coax cable does show a difference)
I wouldn't have expected that!
Really nice and somewhat mind blowing.
Are you sure it is not capacitive coupling what you are measuring? Is there any load attached? Can you draw by hand the circuit layout, or attach a photo of the layout, please?
One short wire and gnd (about 50 cm) to channel 1. One longer one trough a roll of double wire of more than 30m to channel 3. That path should have accounted for at least a 100 ns delay, if length mattered.
No, it wasn't really an attempt to recreate the thought experiment. I had to verify whether using normal wires would result in similar delay as coax cables, but it seems they don`t.One short wire and gnd (about 50 cm) to channel 1. One longer one trough a roll of double wire of more than 30m to channel 3. That path should have accounted for at least a 100 ns delay, if length mattered.
Were your wires a meter apart?
Step barefoot on the wet ground and touch a live electric wire through a 1MOhm resistor to find out.Not Electron flow again. ::)
Yes. That just reminded me of the tongue-in-cheek question I asked a little while ago, which was like "does current actually flow through anything". :-DD
I'll expect the final distance between the source and the load to be irrelevant for the delay. :-//
No, it wasn't really an attempt to recreate the thought experiment. I had to verify whether using normal wires would result in similar delay as coax cables, but it seems they don`t.
But my setup might be flawed in getting a definite answer. I think the video should have included one :-DMM
Any RF specialists able to comment?
Z0 = (276 \$\Omega\$) x log10(2 D/d).
So the energy is in the fields. The conductors just set the boundary conditions (zero tangential E-field at the surfaces, etc.)
An example is a waveguide. The conductor walls just serve to contain the fields. The energy is in the fields that propagate through the space in between.
A two conductor line will have a TEM mode (Transverse Electro Magnetic) that propagates down to DC.
When the switch is first closed, the two wire transmission line looks just like a resistor equal to the characteristic impedance of the line, maybe about 600 ohms in this case. So the initial current will flow through the switch, through the resistor and through the light.
QuoteA two conductor line will have a TEM mode (Transverse Electro Magnetic) that propagates down to DC.
And unless I'm mistaken, as you approach DC the characteristic impedance approaches infinity, or the leakage conductance of the dielectric if any.
You have to make some simplifying assumptions
about this circuit,
like the wires have to have no resistance,
otherwise this wouldn't work
and the light bulb has to turn on immediately
when current passes through it.
But here we are talking about the first few nanoseconds after the switch is thrown. We are dealing with high frequencies.
Veritasium states that "the wires have no resistance, otherwise this wouldn't work."
energy flowing
Can energy 'flow'?
Can energy 'flow'?
In the sense that engineers routinely do energy balances around parts of a system, by considering flows of energy in and out of a control envelope, then yes, energy can 'flow'.
One has to remember that in thermodynamics, energy is simply a concept of 'something' that is, by observation and experiment, conserved.
OK, I'm willing to accept any definition for arguments sake. So can you draw a diagram of how the energy in this case 'flows' from the battery to the light in the steady-state DC case (with superconductors, apparently) ?
We do not need to know how the energy got from the battery to the lamp, what mechanism was employed, or what path it took, in order to conclude that the transfer took place.
So can you draw a diagram of how the energy in this case 'flows' from the battery to the light in the steady-state DC case (with superconductors, apparently) ?
Edit2: Analysis slides using transmission line models linked by Derek: https://ve42.co/bigcircuit (https://ve42.co/bigcircuit) [Would light up at 1/c but would take ~2 sec (for the 1 light second total width case) to reach peak]
That's not the same schematic. The switch must be near battery, not near bulb, like this:
Dave?
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1329239;image)
That's not the same schematic. The switch must be near battery, not near bulb, like this:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1327505;image)
If you place the switch near the battery, like Veritasium did, you'll get a much funnier response.
Either way, LTSpice or any other SPICE based simulators are not physics simulators, they are not aware of the speed of light. They can only simulate lumped circuits where everything propagates instantaneously.
Correct. But your video kind of implies that the diameter of the copper cable therefore does not matter, if it is "just the field on the outside". So that's not the whole story, Mr Ohm wants a word with you.
Not to mention wave propagation time, the RF engineers would like a word with you as well.
Every engineer knows about electron drift velocity and how slow it is, nothing mysterious there at all. But practical engineering design usually ignores such physics detail for practical reasons.
Does current through a capacitor? In practical electronics design, yep, it does.
Here is a simulation for 10 seconds (and the corresponding LTSpice files). It is possible to see how the energy propagates through the long wires [lossless transmission lines] back and forth, and how the system converges gradually to the steady state, and how the load will then receive full power. I increased the load to 200 ohms, so that we would see some reflections.Nice, looks pretty much exactly like the plots in the slides Derek/Veritasium shared. https://ve42.co/bigcircuit
Note: I had to add .txt file extension to the plot settings file due to forum filename restrictions. Just rename the plot settings file as Veritasium_long_cable_c.plt.
Here is a simulation for 10 seconds (and the corresponding LTSpice files). It is possible to see how the energy propagates through the long wires [lossless transmission lines] back and forth, and how the system converges gradually to the steady state, and how the load will then receive full power. I increased the load to 200 ohms, so that we would see some reflections.Nice, looks pretty much exactly like the plots in the slides Derek/Veritasium shared. https://ve42.co/bigcircuit
Note: I had to add .txt file extension to the plot settings file due to forum filename restrictions. Just rename the plot settings file as Veritasium_long_cable_c.plt.
LTSpice is able to simulate transmission lines pretty well
Consider the loop equivalent here:
never mind that the wire loops at each end at the 1/2 light second distance. Even if the ends were open, the lamp would still receive power in the time it takes light to travel 1 meter from switch & battery to lamp
The difficulty in understanding whats going on is that "Veritasium" has a clever setup of having the loop a parallel ultra long wires, spaced apart by 1 meter all along the way. With a degree of BS assumptions, like the cable and switch having 0 resistance, the battery having millions of amps of current with 0 ohm impedance, and the lamp being infinitely high in impedance. What you end up with is the equivalent of 1 gigantic dipole antenna on the battery and switch side making a massive VLF transmitter at switch on, while on the lamp side, you have the parallel receiving dipole antenna.LTSpice is able to simulate transmission lines pretty well
True that. The speed of light is already taken into account (indirectly) by setting the delay in the TL.Consider the loop equivalent here:never mind that the wire loops at each end at the 1/2 light second distance. Even if the ends were open, the lamp would still receive power in the time it takes light to travel 1 meter from switch & battery to lamp
Indeed.
:palm:
I was wrong all the time this thread, thank you all. ;D
One can even calculate how much current would flow initially: the long cables are transmission lines with a characteristic impedance. With 1 m distance (and huge diameter to kepp the resistance low) likely with a charcteristic impedance somewhere in the 100 ohms range (no more than 370 Ohms for the free space).
For the initial time the transmission line act just like resistors of the characteristic impedance, only with some delay (1 second for the link at the end) the end and wire resistance is seen.
One can even calculate how much current would flow initially: the long cables are transmission lines with a characteristic impedance. With 1 m distance (and huge diameter to kepp the resistance low) likely with a charcteristic impedance somewhere in the 100 ohms range (no more than 370 Ohms for the free space).
For the initial time the transmission line act just like resistors of the characteristic impedance, only with some delay (1 second for the link at the end) the end and wire resistance is seen.
What about the (huge) line capacitance?
One can even calculate how much current would flow initially: the long cables are transmission lines with a characteristic impedance. With 1 m distance (and huge diameter to kepp the resistance low) likely with a charcteristic impedance somewhere in the 100 ohms range (no more than 370 Ohms for the free space).
For the initial time the transmission line act just like resistors of the characteristic impedance, only with some delay (1 second for the link at the end) the end and wire resistance is seen.
What about the (huge) line capacitance?
Here is a simulation for 10 seconds (and the corresponding LTSpice files). It is possible to see how the energy propagates through the long wires [lossless transmission lines] back and forth, and how the system converges gradually to the steady state
One can even calculate how much current would flow initially: the long cables are transmission lines with a characteristic impedance. With 1 m distance (and huge diameter to kepp the resistance low) likely with a charcteristic impedance somewhere in the 100 ohms range (no more than 370 Ohms for the free space).
For the initial time the transmission line act just like resistors of the characteristic impedance, only with some delay (1 second for the link at the end) the end and wire resistance is seen.
What about the (huge) line capacitance?
The inductance and capacitance is distributed across the long parallel wires -> transmission line.
Who is this video even for anyway? It's not a "gotcha" for practical engineers that's for sure.The undersea cable and some into to transmission line theory seems like a nice video idea.
If it's for phsyics students and the lay person then it's an ok top level primer about fields and poynting vectors. But there is nothing of practical worth beyond that.
And the undersea transmission thing was just asserted without any real discussion.
Who is this video even for anyway? It's not a "gotcha" for practical engineers that's for sure.
If it's for phsyics students and the lay person then it's an ok top level primer about fields and poynting vectors. But there is nothing of practical worth beyond that.
And the undersea transmission thing was just asserted without any real discussion.
Who is this video even for anyway? It's not a "gotcha" for practical engineers that's for sure.The undersea cable and some into to transmission line theory seems like a nice video idea.
If it's for phsyics students and the lay person then it's an ok top level primer about fields and poynting vectors. But there is nothing of practical worth beyond that.
And the undersea transmission thing was just asserted without any real discussion.
And the undersea transmission thing was just asserted without any real discussion.
Still thinking about how I'll approach this video.Sound's like a reactionary rant video :-DD Maybe a bit more focus to helping add new information.
I reacted to it in my live show the other day, and I justed edit that bit from it. Thought about just uploading that on the 2nd channel, but I think it might make a good introduction to a discussion video response on the main channel.
At the moment I'm thinking to take the approach as above and point out that this video has little practical utility to engineers, how none of this is new, what about DC setady state, and maybe a few basic calcs and discussion on how the circuit configuration matters.
Yes, stay away from a reactionary rant style video. Offering useful new information, (advanced route) like how the effect itself can cause harm to someones intended project and how to work around or work with would be far better, or (more practical route) what typically happens in real life when you switch power on long wires.Still thinking about how I'll approach this video.Sound's like a reactionary rant video :-DD Maybe a bit more focus to helping add new information.
I reacted to it in my live show the other day, and I justed edit that bit from it. Thought about just uploading that on the 2nd channel, but I think it might make a good introduction to a discussion video response on the main channel.
At the moment I'm thinking to take the approach as above and point out that this video has little practical utility to engineers, how none of this is new, what about DC setady state, and maybe a few basic calcs and discussion on how the circuit configuration matters.
Still thinking about how I'll approach this video.Sound's like a reactionary rant video :-DD Maybe a bit more focus to helping add new information.
I reacted to it in my live show the other day, and I justed edit that bit from it. Thought about just uploading that on the 2nd channel, but I think it might make a good introduction to a discussion video response on the main channel.
At the moment I'm thinking to take the approach as above and point out that this video has little practical utility to engineers, how none of this is new, what about DC setady state, and maybe a few basic calcs and discussion on how the circuit configuration matters.
The relevance of the undersea cable is that although detection of an event could happen after time 1/c, there is no guarantee that the signal shape will be preserved. It could be horribly distorted when it arrives.
How exactly does this relate to (essentially) "we didn't take into account that the energy flows in the field"?
This is a transmission line theory question, not a fundamental physics one.
On the undersea cable example, if it would be correct physics to say that the transmission of a signal through the cable happens purely by electrical impulses inside the metal of the conductor, then distortion would not be expected. It is only when you bring in the physical understanding that the signal propagation depends on the surrounding environment outside the cable that you can explain the distortion.
You can see my initial engineering reaction with my mind instantly going to skin effect and that energy is in the magnetic field, and that "he's probably not wrong", but it's not a practical way of looking at it. Enter transmission lines etc.
I suspect that would be most engineers reaction as well?
Sound like they didn't know how to make proper control impedance transmission lines...
But I can't help but wonder if this video is diseducational on balance.
Sound like they didn't know how to make proper control impedance transmission lines...
Did you know how to do that in 1858?
I would argue that transmission lines are not part of fundamental physics, they are a higher level abstraction introduced in electrical engineering to make design tasks easier. A transmission line is an artifact, a thing created by electrical engineers by applying fundamental physics in a certain, controlled way to a particular arrangement of circuit elements.
Yet he doesn't mention transmission lines at all does he? (I still haven't watch the entire thing from end to end)
On the undersea cable example, if it would be correct physics to say that the transmission of a signal through the cable happens purely by electrical impulses inside the metal of the conductor, then distortion would not be expected. It is only when you bring in the physical understanding that the signal propagation depends on the surrounding environment outside the cable that you can explain the distortion.
Sound like they didn't know how to make proper control impedance transmission lines...
But once you hit steady state DC, is the ENERGY transported in the electromagnetic field?
Given that we are talking about ENERGY here, that means time.
And with the example of a DC battery and the switch right next to it, yes you'll get a brief initial almost instant surge of power to the light bulb due the nearby line capacitance (effectively just a 1m loop at t=0), and then transmission line propagation effects after that, half way to the moon each side. But once you hit steady state DC, is the ENERGY transported in the electromagnetic field?
No, it's not.
If you think it is, please explain how with the mm/s slow electron drift at DC.
Given that we are talking about ENERGY here, that means time.You seem to be asking for someone to play devil's avocado here so...
And with the example of a DC battery and the switch right next to it, yes you'll get a brief initial almost instant surge of power to the light bulb due the nearby line capacitance (effectively just a 1m loop at t=0), and then transmission line propagation effects after that, half way to the moon each side. But once you hit steady state DC, is the ENERGY transported in the electromagnetic field?
No, it's not.
If you think it is, please explain how with the mm/s slow electron drift at DC.
Engineering has transmission line theory, transient anlysis, and steady state theory seperate for a reason.
Dave?
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1329239;image)
A lone image floating in space with no context... we aren't psychic.
But once you hit steady state DC, is the ENERGY transported in the electromagnetic field?
I'd say that's more of a philosophical question than a strictly scientific one.
If you choose to use Poynting vectors to answer that question, you'd find that yes, even in DC, the interior of the (superconducting) wire is devoid of an E gradient so it is not carrying power, yet the space around the wire has both E and H (even in steady state), and therefore Poynting vectors. So from the perspective of maxwell's equations, even in DC, the EM field around the wires is carrying the power in some sense.
Oh, and I'm ignoring your distinction between power and energy. One is just the other integrated over time, that doesn't make any meaningful difference if we're talking about a system that's in steady state anyway.
The difficulty in understanding whats going on is that "Veritasium" has a clever setup of having the loop a parallel ultra long wires, spaced apart by 1 meter all along the way. With a degree of BS assumptions, like the cable and switch having 0 resistance, the battery having millions of amps of current with 0 ohm impedance, and the lamp being infinitely high in impedance. What you end up with is the equivalent of 1 gigantic dipole antenna on the battery and switch side making a massive VLF transmitter at switch on, while on the lamp side, you have the parallel receiving dipole antenna.This is precisely the way that I thought about the problem, once I had understood what claim was actually being made in the rather clickbaity video. I'm guessing that there's no disagreement here that there can in principle be energy transfer in 1/c s via dipole-to-dipole transmission?
Given that we are talking about ENERGY here, that means time.In the DC ON steady-state, the electric field exists outside the wires. Specifically the electric field exists "outside" the wire in the free space directly between the battery and the bulb. The "energy" comes from a charge flux through this electric field i.e. not electrons/charge carriers "flowing through the length of the wire". Indeed as you note, the electron drift velocity in a typical electrical wire is in the mm/s. No electrons are flowing all the way down the wire and back a light-second in distance.
And with the example of a DC battery and the switch right next to it, yes you'll get a brief initial almost instant surge of power to the light bulb due the nearby line capacitance (effectively just a 1m loop at t=0), and then transmission line propagation effects after that, half way to the moon each side. But once you hit steady state DC, is the ENERGY transported in the electromagnetic field?
No, it's not.
If you think it is, please explain how with the mm/s slow electron drift at DC.
Engineering has transmission line theory, transient anlysis, and steady state theory seperate for a reason.
The "energy" is conveyed via this "external" electric field. If we were to impose something to block this field, then the flow of energy would stop.
The difficulty in understanding whats going on is that "Veritasium" has a clever setup of having the loop a parallel ultra long wires, spaced apart by 1 meter all along the way. With a degree of BS assumptions, like the cable and switch having 0 resistance, the battery having millions of amps of current with 0 ohm impedance, and the lamp being infinitely high in impedance. What you end up with is the equivalent of 1 gigantic dipole antenna on the battery and switch side making a massive VLF transmitter at switch on, while on the lamp side, you have the parallel receiving dipole antenna.This is precisely the way that I thought about the problem, once I had understood what claim was actually being made in the rather clickbaity video. I'm guessing that there's no disagreement here that there can in principle be energy transfer in 1/c s via dipole-to-dipole transmission?
However, the in-my-opinion more interesting case of steady state operation looks like a mess.
For another point of view, here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/623858/surface-charge-on-a-current-carrying-conductor-is-impossible?rq=1 (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/623858/surface-charge-on-a-current-carrying-conductor-is-impossible?rq=1), we have a reply to a question which seems to demonstrate that there is, in fact, a *radial* E field inside a current carrying wire, which arises as the electrons drift to the surface of the wire as the experience a radial v x B Lorentz force, due to their own B field. (This seems intriguing, since if true, we have both non-zero E and B fields *inside* the wire, and S = E x B points along the interior of the wire in the direction of v, unless my 3D geometry is way off)
It may be possible to explain the current flow in DC steady state as the following simplified explanation: There is a longitudinal electrical potential gradient in the conductor, and the electrons are passing charge from one electron to another, like passing buckets of water from a person to another when putting out a fire: Although the people do not move, the water gets passed through. Only full buckets will be passed through the chain (as a charge is quantized). In a wire, the charge is passed from one electron to another at the speed determined by the wire's electrical properties. Electromagnetic field-theory will provide more accurate explanation and model for the current flow in conductor(s) in DC steady state as well.
In the DC ON steady-state, the electric field exists outside the wires. Specifically the electric field exists "outside" the wire in the free space directly between the battery and the bulb. The "energy" comes from a charge flux through this electric field i.e. not electrons/charge carriers "flowing through the length of the wire". Indeed as you note, the electron drift velocity in a typical electrical wire is in the mm/s. No electrons are flowing all the way down the wire and back a light-second in distance.
The "energy" is conveyed via this "external" electric field. If we were to impose something to block this field, then the flow of energy would stop.
Yes, there is a magnetic field around the wire, but it's not moving. The electrons however are moving, albeit slowly.
So how is the energy being transfered in the non-moving magnetic field?
Is the magnetic field just a byproduct of the current beign conducted in the wire in the DC case?
We all know that magnetic fields can store and transfer energy, it's the basis for transformers and motors and inductors, all very basic theory. But it is how power (and hence energy) is transferred at DC? If so, how?
Yes, I'm postulating that the power/energy transfer via electromagnetic field theory is not valid at DC. :popcorn:
Now we ask "how is the energy being conveyed?" There is no electric field in the (ideal) wires, any flow of charge through the wires has no generation/loss of electrical energy by definition of the wires being ideal wires in a DC system. In fact, in our theoretical system, the perfectly matched source and load dipoles effectively (but not completely apart from within the wire) cancel each other out with only substantial fields in a parallel region between the dipoles. Again, where is the energy "coming and going"? the creation and loss of electrical energy (from and into other forms) happens only "inside" the source and load.
*snip*
Thus we see the "true" purpose of the wire is just charge conduit to maintain an certain equilibrium where there is a flow of electrons through both the source and the load but no net change in the total charge of the system, charge is cycled in a circular manner between the source and load, a "circuit" if you will ;)
The actual "energy" is coupled via the electric field.
If so then that implies skin effect at DC.I'm far from convinced by the argument in the StackExchange post - to feel the Lorentz force, an electron would have to feel the B field generated by the other electrons in the wire - but the other electrons are stationary in the rest frame of any given electron, so should feel no B field due to them, as far as I can see.
Not Electron flow again. ::)
I'll say it explicity in case it's not clear what I'm getting at. The Veritasium video is all about the power/energy flowing outside the wire.By magnetic field "not moving", I guess you mean that it's time-independent? If so, this seems to be irrelevant to Poynting vector based energy transfer arguments - take a look at the final example in section 27.5 of the Feynman Lectures, where he talks about energy circulation in a system comprising a stationary bar magnet and stationary charge:
At DC that doesn't happen, it's inside the wire. Whatever physics mechanism you want to use the describe that doesn't matter, because whilst there is an external magnetic field around the wire at DC, it's not moving. And therefore by definition the mechanism of power transfer must hence be inside the wire.
I'll say it explicity in case it's not clear what I'm getting at. The Veritasium video is all about the power/energy flowing outside the wire.By magnetic field "not moving", I guess you mean that it's time-independent? If so, this seems to be irrelevant to Poynting vector based energy transfer arguments - take a look at the final example in section 27.5 of the Feynman Lectures, where he talks about energy circulation in a system comprising a stationary bar magnet and stationary charge:
At DC that doesn't happen, it's inside the wire. Whatever physics mechanism you want to use the describe that doesn't matter, because whilst there is an external magnetic field around the wire at DC, it's not moving. And therefore by definition the mechanism of power transfer must hence be inside the wire.
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html)
But energy is flowing, how does it flow? What's doing the moving at DC?
But power is being continuously delivered from the source to the load under steady state conditions. How if the magnetic field is not moving?
I'm far from convinced by the argument in the StackExchange post - to feel the Lorentz force, an electron would have to feel the B field generated by the other electrons in the wire - but the other electrons are stationary in the rest frame of any given electron, so should feel no B field due to them, as far as I can see.
This is why I think (and probably others) that this is getting a bit philosophical, akin to the Lewin vs Electroboom. How you you define where energy is "flowing"?Now we ask "how is the energy being conveyed?" There is no electric field in the (ideal) wires, any flow of charge through the wires has no generation/loss of electrical energy by definition of the wires being ideal wires in a DC system. In fact, in our theoretical system, the perfectly matched source and load dipoles effectively (but not completely apart from within the wire) cancel each other out with only substantial fields in a parallel region between the dipoles. Again, where is the energy "coming and going"? the creation and loss of electrical energy (from and into other forms) happens only "inside" the source and load.
*snip*
Thus we see the "true" purpose of the wire is just charge conduit to maintain an certain equilibrium where there is a flow of electrons through both the source and the load but no net change in the total charge of the system, charge is cycled in a circular manner between the source and load, a "circuit" if you will ;)
The actual "energy" is coupled via the electric field.
Yup, inside the wire.
I'll say it explicity in case it's not clear what I'm getting at. The Veritasium video is all about the power/energy flowing outside the wire.
At DC that doesn't happen, it's inside the wire. Whatever physics mechanism you want to use the describe that doesn't matter, because whilst there is an external magnetic field around the wire at DC, it's not moving. And therefore by definition the mechanism of power transfer must hence be inside the wire.
There is no electric field in the (ideal) wires, any flow of charge through the wires has no generation/loss of electrical energy by definition of the wires being ideal wires in a DC system.
It may be possible to explain the current flow in DC steady state as the following simplified explanation: There is a longitudinal electrical potential gradient in the conductor, and the electrons are passing charge from one electron to another, like passing buckets of water from a person to another when putting out a fire: Although the people do not move, the water gets passed through. Only full buckets will be passed through the chain (as a charge is quantized). In a wire, the charge is passed from one electron to another at the speed determined by the wire's electrical properties. Electromagnetic field-theory will provide more accurate explanation and model for the current flow in conductor(s) in DC steady state as well.
Yep, that's called charge conduction, and it happens inside the wire.
Having skimmed the whole of this thread, I'm wondering if Mr Veritasium has achieved the impossible: has he found a worthy successor to the perennial "is a BJT voltage controlled or current controlled" question that has powered the Interwebs for the past 20 years or so? I've got a feeling this energy thing is gonna run and run.
[Voltage controlled. *gavel*]
That's not the same schematic. The switch must be near battery, not near bulb, like this:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1327505;image)
If you place the switch near the battery, like Veritasium did, you'll get a much funnier response.
Either way, LTSpice or any other SPICE based simulators are not physics simulators, they are not aware of the speed of light. They can only simulate lumped circuits where everything propagates instantaneously.
For any doubters out there, never mind that the wire loops at each end at the 1/2 light second distance. Even if the ends were open, the lamp would still receive power in the time it takes light to travel 1 meter from switch & battery to lamp the moment the switch is turned on. You are looking at a huge transformer or antenna with on side transmit and the other receive. Without the wires connected at each end, it's just that with a DC power source, the lamp would turn on, then run out of power after a second whereas having the loop shorted on the left and right side means the light would stay on with DC power. Feeding AC tuned to the wire length means the light would stay on without the ends connected.
Having skimmed the whole of this thread, I'm wondering if Mr Veritasium has achieved the impossible: has he found a worthy successor to the perennial "is a BJT voltage controlled or current controlled" question that has powered the Interwebs for the past 20 years or so? I've got a feeling this energy thing is gonna run and run.Power controlled!
[Voltage controlled. *gavel*]
The fact that the drawing looks like a transmission line is a red herring!
Unfortunately for the explanation in the video, real power systems are transmission lines.
Okay, can we verify this by practical hobby level means? Obviously not with one light seconds of wire, but, say, a 1km sized loop should add a delay, add a LED on each side, measure light level with high speed light sensor, you should get the difference. Could be a great video for Dave ;)
But once you hit steady state DC, is the ENERGY transported in the electromagnetic field?
I'd say that's more of a philosophical question than a strictly scientific one.
If you choose to use Poynting vectors to answer that question, you'd find that yes, even in DC, the interior of the (superconducting) wire is devoid of an E gradient so it is not carrying power, yet the space around the wire has both E and H (even in steady state), and therefore Poynting vectors. So from the perspective of maxwell's equations, even in DC, the EM field around the wires is carrying the power in some sense.
But energy is flowing, how does it flow? What's doing the moving at DC?QuoteOh, and I'm ignoring your distinction between power and energy. One is just the other integrated over time, that doesn't make any meaningful difference if we're talking about a system that's in steady state anyway.
But power is being continuously delivered from the source to the load under steady state conditions. How if the magnetic field is not moving?
I'll say it explicity in case it's not clear what I'm getting at. The Veritasium video is all about the power/energy flowing outside the wire.
At DC that doesn't happen, it's inside the wire. Whatever physics mechanism you want to use the describe that doesn't matter, because whilst there is an external magnetic field around the wire at DC, it's not moving. And therefore by definition the mechanism of power transfer must hence be inside the wire.
Similarly, with the DC circuit arrangement, all the fields and potentials, electrical and magnetic, are unchanging. The transfer of power does not require observable movement.
Energy is not transferred in the space between the conductors. Because it is a steady state DC system. Yes theoretically there is no such thing as a DC system.
So can you draw a diagram of how the energy in this case 'flows' from the battery to the light in the steady-state DC case (with superconductors, apparently) ?
It's not so easy for my feeble brain to visualize. The flow is out from the battery and in to the light bulb.
You would have to draw the E-field and the B-field and then the energy flow direction is E cross B.
As you go away from the battery, the E field will drop off so most of the flow is in the region close to the battery and the light.
Since your specialty is the flow of fluids, how about a clear pipe with unaerated perfectly clear water in it--or flowing through it, since we 'can't tell the difference'. There surely you would certainly accept that any energy being transferred is the result of the fluid actually flowing and doing work (or having work done) against a pressure differential somewhere and not due to some mysterious flow of energy due to a static pressure in the fluid?
Fluid mechanics is not my field, but I believe that the pressure against the pipe walls is different when there is fluid flow, compared to that with no fluid flow.
Certainly, if the pipe is noticeably elastic (thin rubber), one expects the walls to expand somewhat when there is fluid flow.
I'll admit upfront that I have only skimmed the thread.
I'll start with a simplification, which makes the experiment easier to conduct: Just remove one of the "legs". Now we have a pretty simple setup: A twin-lead transmission line, shorted at the end, between a pulse generator and its load.
How does that behave? If load impedance ~ transmission line impedance, then we'd expect half the output voltage near-instantly across the load, as the impedance across the transmission line is..well the impedance of the transmission line right up until the wavefront bounces off the short at the end and has returned (2x delay time). Then the impedance looking into the transmission line will jump to ~zero and full output voltage appears across the load.
With a coax this is really nice to demonstrate:
(https://i.imgur.com/Ri0oYIV.png)
No delay:
(https://i.imgur.com/9NlVklr.png)
Some ripples and other reflections going on, because Zsource=Zload=50 Ohm, but ze cable = 75 Ohm.
With a transmission line things get more wild.
A twin-lead transmission line with 1 meter spacing and a reasonable conductor thickness has an impedance of around 1 kOhm. So clearly you're not going to light up a 12 V car lamp with that.
I constructed a simple ~10 meter long ladder line with ~50 mm spacing (~600 Ohms impedance) and used the same 50 Ohm source and load as before:
(https://i.imgur.com/uAPeePM.png)
Reflections galore. Some voltage across the load instantly as before, but I wouldn't count that as "lighting up".
(https://i.imgur.com/kXK2IpJ.png)
With a 600 Ohm load, we're only seeing about ~35 % of the output voltage across the load. I'm somewhat sure that this is because my setup is grounded and a ladder line suspended ~70 cm above ground has a fairly significant impedance to ground. With a high-impedance load I'm getting close to 50 % output, suggesting to me that the common-mode / ground impedance is around 500-600 Ohm.
So clearly you need to do this in space.
@Per Hansson: Sorry if I misunderstood you, but I'm not sure you completely got the point made in the video.Oh I most certainly misunderstood it, the question asked by the video is just a silly game with no actual real world use.
I'm also not sure I get this part: "power is already flowing in the wires up to the point of the switch"
If the circuit is open, then no power is flowing. Or is there?
That's how I find the "water flow" analogy misleading when applied to electricity. Unlike water behind a closed faucet, electric power is not pushing against the open switch. There is no power flowing until the switch is closed. But, sorry again if I misunderstood what you said.
For the pipe system, the power transfer is calculated at the boundaries. We can calculate the work done by the surroundings to push 1 kg of water into one end of the pipe, and we can calculate the work done on the surroundings when 1 kg of water leaves the other end of the pipe. So magically, energy has been transferred from one boundary to the other. But it might be a different kg of water that came out compared to the one that went in. So the energy was not carried along the pipe by that kg of water. Perhaps we can have a model that says the energy transfer was by a combination of pressure gradients and mass fluxes, and that satisfies us.
But philosophically, if the water is entirely uniform, the state of the pipe before and after is identical. If nothing has changed in the pipe, what part did the pipe play in the exercise? Apparently the pipe is not material to the result of the calculations. Only the boundary conditions matter.
Why not say that the magnetic field actually is the current, since this is the observable, detectable manifestation?
This is why I think (and probably others) that this is getting a bit philosophical, akin to the Lewin vs Electroboom. How you you define where energy is "flowing"?Now we ask "how is the energy being conveyed?" There is no electric field in the (ideal) wires, any flow of charge through the wires has no generation/loss of electrical energy by definition of the wires being ideal wires in a DC system. In fact, in our theoretical system, the perfectly matched source and load dipoles effectively (but not completely apart from within the wire) cancel each other out with only substantial fields in a parallel region between the dipoles. Again, where is the energy "coming and going"? the creation and loss of electrical energy (from and into other forms) happens only "inside" the source and load.
*snip*
Thus we see the "true" purpose of the wire is just charge conduit to maintain an certain equilibrium where there is a flow of electrons through both the source and the load but no net change in the total charge of the system, charge is cycled in a circular manner between the source and load, a "circuit" if you will ;)
The actual "energy" is coupled via the electric field.
Yup, inside the wire.
I'll say it explicity in case it's not clear what I'm getting at. The Veritasium video is all about the power/energy flowing outside the wire.
At DC that doesn't happen, it's inside the wire. Whatever physics mechanism you want to use the describe that doesn't matter, because whilst there is an external magnetic field around the wire at DC, it's not moving. And therefore by definition the mechanism of power transfer must hence be inside the wire.
So what's more important, the wire or the electric field?
One question for you Dave (because I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that your next objection is me conflating "power flowing in a particular place" with "magnitude of Poynting vector", i.e., just accepting Veritasium's video at face value):
Veritasium (and many physicists) propose the Poynting vector, S = E x H as the best way to answer the question "how much electromagnetic power is flowing in this particular point in space". If you don't like this, what do *you* propose as an alternative? IMHO P = IV isn't really up to the task of answering "how much power is flowing in this particular point in space", because I and V aren't fields in space (or at least, V isn't well defined until you choose a ground point).
Or, do you agree that the Poynting vector is the right formula to use, but disagreeing with Veritasium about what that field actually looks like in the case of a simple steady state battery+lamp circuit?
Have to say. These are some fantastic explanations and explorations being posted by people :clap: Much better than my own attempts.
Edit: Dave, you could always try the explorational/learn along type video if this is more than you'd want to present authoritatively.
I'll say it explicity in case it's not clear what I'm getting at. The Veritasium video is all about the power/energy flowing outside the wire.
At DC that doesn't happen, it's inside the wire. Whatever physics mechanism you want to use the describe that doesn't matter, because whilst there is an external magnetic field around the wire at DC, it's not moving. And therefore by definition the mechanism of power transfer must hence be inside the wire.
About the moving/not moving question relating to the DC magnetic field.
There is a simple analogy for this. Consider a motor/generator arrangement, with a cylindrical shaft connecting them. Apparently, the rotating shaft is conveying power from the motor to the generator.
But now, suppose the shaft is entirely uniform in its internal structure and external appearance. The surface is absolutely smooth and free of blemishes. In this state, any rotational position of the shaft is identical to any other position. If you close your eyes and someone rotates the shaft, you cannot tell afterwards if, or by how much the shaft has rotated, because it is completely and 100% uniform in every way.
This leads to an interesting situation. Nothing is changing in any measurable way, and yet, somehow, power is being transferred from the motor to the generator without any observable movement in the system. If the only thing you are allowed to observe is the shaft, you cannot tell if, or how much, power is being transferred at any instant. The flow of energy cannot be seen or measured while it is in transit. It can only be detected at the origin and destination, by its effects.
Similarly, with the DC circuit arrangement, all the fields and potentials, electrical and magnetic, are unchanging. The transfer of power does not require observable movement.
What I'd like to see in a video from Dave:
1. Understanding what is really going on with the bulb turning on "instantly" according to the distance between the bulb and switch: (it just the capacitance).
2. Relaxing the ridiculous assumptions that make the above result seem significant (infinite impedance in the bulb, zero impedance battery, and zero resistance wire)
3. Explaining how I^2 R losses are extremely important in practice, and they DO depend on the volume of copper, and so it is still correct from an intuitive point of view to say that the copper carries current.
You can observe this with a rubber garden hose having a spray nozzle. If you shut off the spray, the hose will bulge due to the backed up water pressure. If you open the nozzle the hose will relax. Whether the nozzle is open or closed, the water inside the hose has exactly the same energy--the energy it had when it came out of the faucet--the only difference is whether it is flowing or not.
Sounds like a >45min video. Will this be the first you attempt a partial script?What I'd like to see in a video from Dave:
1. Understanding what is really going on with the bulb turning on "instantly" according to the distance between the bulb and switch: (it just the capacitance).
2. Relaxing the ridiculous assumptions that make the above result seem significant (infinite impedance in the bulb, zero impedance battery, and zero resistance wire)
3. Explaining how I^2 R losses are extremely important in practice, and they DO depend on the volume of copper, and so it is still correct from an intuitive point of view to say that the copper carries current.
All that is planned to be in the video.
Step 1: Show how this is a very basic transmission like problem.
Step 2: Explain how there is nothing new here for an engineer, we know about drift velocity, we know about power being transfered in the electromagnetic fields, it's all fundamental stuff.
Step 3: Explain how the undersea cable thing was an early development of transmission line theory.
Step 4: Explain how engineers have developed models, tools, and methods to get practical real world results istead of having to use Poynting vectors et.al.
Step 5: Explain the DC conumdrum and how there is essentially zero practial in continuing the extend Poynting vector theory into the DC realm. It's just a game of spherical cows. And how this is just another silly physicist vs engineer debate like Walter Lewin and how KVL is wrong.
What I'm saying is that it's of no practical value to an engineer to analyse it like this.
Just like his video is of no practical value to an engineer. Engineers have developed tool methods for practically implementing the flow of energy and signal transmission for this very reason.
Further pontification on the subject of "flow" and what does it actually mean?
According to standard electrical theory, a conductor carrying a steady DC current has a magnetic field around it. But the same conductor carrying no current has no such field.
However, what does electrical current, or flow of charge, mean in this situation? The wire with a current, and the wire without a current, are identical in internal structure and charge distribution. Furthermore, every electron is identical to every other electron, therefore if electrons had been displaced, how could you even tell?
It seems that the distinguishing manifestation of current in a conductor is the magnetic field surrounding it. Why, therefore, say that the current induces a magnetic field? Why not say that the magnetic field actually is the current, since this is the observable, detectable manifestation? It seems more real than magic pixies inside the wire.
What I'm saying is that it's of no practical value to an engineer to analyse it like this.
Just like his video is of no practical value to an engineer. Engineers have developed tool methods for practically implementing the flow of energy and signal transmission for this very reason.
I fully agree with everything you say here. If you have a steady state DC circuit, solving field equations in 3D space and integrating Poynting vectors over a plane slicing the universe into two halves is ridiculous, impractical, inefficient, etc etc.
But, just don't forget that if you go to all that ridiculous effort, it gives the correct answer, despite all the apparent power flux being localized outside the wires. So labelling this method of analysis as "totally impractical" is 100% fine, labelling it as flat-out "wrong" would be... rather difficult to defend? (But reading between the lines I suspect you've already reached this conclusion.)
Sounds like a >45min video. Will this be the first you attempt a partial script?What I'd like to see in a video from Dave:
1. Understanding what is really going on with the bulb turning on "instantly" according to the distance between the bulb and switch: (it just the capacitance).
2. Relaxing the ridiculous assumptions that make the above result seem significant (infinite impedance in the bulb, zero impedance battery, and zero resistance wire)
3. Explaining how I^2 R losses are extremely important in practice, and they DO depend on the volume of copper, and so it is still correct from an intuitive point of view to say that the copper carries current.
All that is planned to be in the video.
Step 1: Show how this is a very basic transmission like problem.
Step 2: Explain how there is nothing new here for an engineer, we know about drift velocity, we know about power being transfered in the electromagnetic fields, it's all fundamental stuff.
Step 3: Explain how the undersea cable thing was an early development of transmission line theory.
Step 4: Explain how engineers have developed models, tools, and methods to get practical real world results istead of having to use Poynting vectors et.al.
Step 5: Explain the DC conumdrum and how there is essentially zero practial in continuing the extend Poynting vector theory into the DC realm. It's just a game of spherical cows. And how this is just another silly physicist vs engineer debate like Walter Lewin and how KVL is wrong.
Remember, the entire premise of the video is that the energy/power flows outside the wire. We all know how to explain this for high frequency, and it's useful at a practical level. But how do you explain it at DC that is of any use practically.
This ignores the flow-dependent pressure drop in the faucet and plumbing....
Giving "good" coverage of all that within 10 mins is going need a really tight script. Will be impressive if you manage to squeeze all that in only 10 min (or even 30min), particularly considering your usual presentation style. The original Veritasium video is nearly 15min and we can see how much that "skips over".Sounds like a >45min video. Will this be the first you attempt a partial script?What I'd like to see in a video from Dave:
1. Understanding what is really going on with the bulb turning on "instantly" according to the distance between the bulb and switch: (it just the capacitance).
2. Relaxing the ridiculous assumptions that make the above result seem significant (infinite impedance in the bulb, zero impedance battery, and zero resistance wire)
3. Explaining how I^2 R losses are extremely important in practice, and they DO depend on the volume of copper, and so it is still correct from an intuitive point of view to say that the copper carries current.
All that is planned to be in the video.
Step 1: Show how this is a very basic transmission like problem.
Step 2: Explain how there is nothing new here for an engineer, we know about drift velocity, we know about power being transfered in the electromagnetic fields, it's all fundamental stuff.
Step 3: Explain how the undersea cable thing was an early development of transmission line theory.
Step 4: Explain how engineers have developed models, tools, and methods to get practical real world results istead of having to use Poynting vectors et.al.
Step 5: Explain the DC conumdrum and how there is essentially zero practial in continuing the extend Poynting vector theory into the DC realm. It's just a game of spherical cows. And how this is just another silly physicist vs engineer debate like Walter Lewin and how KVL is wrong.
It might be actually. Maybe not script word for word, but at least have my points in order and stick strictly to them. It needs to be a 10min video I think.
Giving "good" coverage of all that within 10 mins is going need a really tight script. Will be impressive if you manage to squeeze all that in only 10 min (or even 30min), particularly considering your usual presentation style. The original Veritasium video is nearly 15min and we can see how much that "skips over".
Derek's video reminded me of the famous Dr. Walter Lewin experiment with two multimeters measuring different voltages at the same circuit points. I'm sure most of you know that lecture.
"my model is correct and your model is different to mine therefore your model is incorrect" -- no, very different models can both be correct!
You can even think about there being no EM waves at all and the energy is be transported by photons (since after all they're the same thing) between the battery and light (and along the surface of the wires).
I don't think Derek is trying to say this is useful for practical engineers... It's a physics question and we should approach it from that angle.
I think all the commenters and controversy is playing right into his hands. Everyone is now doing a double take on their own understanding.
Check out one of his very early talks about "The key to effective educational science videos".
(Clear and concise videos actually hinder learning for most.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQaW2bFieo8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQaW2bFieo8)
Anyway, let's not forget that even Maxwell's equations are simplified models and this rabbit hole goes deeep...
You can even think about there being no EM waves at all and the energy is be transported by photons (since after all they're the same thing) between the battery and light (and along the surface of the wires).
Look up "ladder line"
I know what it is, 300R flat antenna cables were common many years ago and I still have them roaming around my house. But if I hook up a 9 volt battery to one end and a bulb to the other, I don't call that a transmission line. And even if I tried to analyze the initial conditions of connection this way, it is still a 300R characteristic impedance while the resistance of the loop is likely to be much lower.
It's really interesting to think about why we're happy to say that the power travels in the interior of a wave guide at xx GHz, yet we have such a visceral reaction against saying that the power travels outside the wires in a DC scenario. Yes, the way that we're taught how to think about wave guides advocates power travelling through the air; while the way that we're taught how to think about DC circuits is the much more simplified model, KCL and all that. This is fine and good and practical and exactly as it should be as already discussed. But, there is a perfect continuum from 45 GHz to 100 Hz to 0.01 Hz to DC, and Maxwell's equations apply equally the whole way. So at what point do we say that the power is flowing in the wires rather than the air? At the point where it becomes more convenient for practical analysis?
As I explained earlier, the issue with power and frequency is EM radiation--it is zero with DC and then increases to a nuisance level at moderate frequencies, then a significant factor at higher frequencies and then the dominant model at even higher frequencies. Of course transients and step functions can span quite a range of bandwidth, thus the current discussion.
If it is 30000000 meters long and you are interested in the turn on transient behavior then it absolutely is a transmission line.
One way to work up to this is start with a circuit that has no transmission lines but to simply put 300 ohm resistors between the battery and the lamp. Then what happens is obvious. Now replace those resistors with 300 ohm transmission likes terminated by 300 ohms. We know that in this case the behavior will be exactly the same as just the resistor no matter how long the transmission lines are. So make the transmission lines 3e8 meters long. Finally replace the resistors with short circuits. This changes the behavior but since they are a light-second away we don't see the effect until the reflected wave gets back. The initial behavior will be as if fed by the characteristic impedance of the line then after a round trip time it will settle to the DC value.
You can even think about there being no EM waves at all and the energy is be transported by photons (since after all they're the same thing) between the battery and light (and along the surface of the wires).
Sure, look up the energy of a single photon for the DC case (frequency is zero).
Well so much for my 10min video.
Just the simulation part turned out to be 8 minutes :palm:
It's really interesting to think about why we're happy to say that the power travels in the interior of a wave guide at xx GHz, yet we have such a visceral reaction against saying that the power travels outside the wires in a DC scenario. Yes, the way that we're taught how to think about wave guides advocates power travelling through the air; while the way that we're taught how to think about DC circuits is the much more simplified model, KCL and all that. This is fine and good and practical and exactly as it should be as already discussed. But, there is a perfect continuum from 45 GHz to 100 Hz to 0.01 Hz to DC, and Maxwell's equations apply equally the whole way. So at what point do we say that the power is flowing in the wires rather than the air? At the point where it becomes more convenient for practical analysis?
Yes, exactly that.
It's really interesting to think about why we're happy to say that the power travels in the interior of a wave guide at xx GHz, yet we have such a visceral reaction against saying that the power travels outside the wires in a DC scenario. Yes, the way that we're taught how to think about wave guides advocates power travelling through the air; while the way that we're taught how to think about DC circuits is the much more simplified model, KCL and all that. This is fine and good and practical and exactly as it should be as already discussed. But, there is a perfect continuum from 45 GHz to 100 Hz to 0.01 Hz to DC, and Maxwell's equations apply equally the whole way. So at what point do we say that the power is flowing in the wires rather than the air? At the point where it becomes more convenient for practical analysis?
Yes, exactly that.
That's... not right. You're advocating that the answer to a perfectly cromulent scientific question ("how much power is flowing in this point in space") is not just a function of the circuit/situation, but also a function of what the engineers looking at the problem are thinking. I'm puzzled that you wouldn't see that as "pragmatism" taken way too far?
You no doubt begin to get the impression that the Poynting theory at least partially violates your intuition as to where energy is located in an electromagnetic field. You might believe that you must revamp all your intuitions, and, therefore have a lot of things to study here. But it seems really not necessary. You don’t need to feel that you will be in great trouble if you forget once in a while that the energy in a wire is flowing into the wire from the outside, rather than along the wire. It seems to be only rarely of value, when using the idea of energy conservation, to notice in detail what path the energy is taking. The circulation of energy around a magnet and a charge seems, in most circumstances, to be quite unimportant. It is not a vital detail, but it is clear that our ordinary intuitions are quite wrong.
Well so much for my 10min video.It was always going to be a challenge :-DD
Just the simulation part turned out to be 8 minutes :palm:
In this example there is no steady state power flow in the space between the wires. PERIOD....See rs20's previous post: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3829172/#msg3829172 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3829172/#msg3829172)
Ver is completely wrong about this.
Poynting vector is for self propagating electromagnetic waves. Not static waves.
The electric field is preserved along the wire by its low resistance and shows up at the load to push electrons through the load. Work done is E*J ( * is vector dot product E is electric field and J is current density vector )
DC the energy storage and power transfer are through the E&M fields, and generally energy dominated by the fields in free space and dielectrics.
And mentioning that, the question is very deliberately set to 1m apart, because he knows damn well the capacitance will be practically zero so it's harder to justify his claim with that. When it's 1m apart you have some realistic numbers to work with.
With absolutely no discredit to Dave's response video, the transmission lines approach represents the length of the wires effectively and demonstrates the coupling from source to load is not relying on anything that cannot be modelled with lumped components and certainly doesn't require analysis of all the fields going on...
But... does it not highlight one weakness of the transmission line model in that it does not handle the lateral (1/c) delay properly? Only that of an infinitesimally thin structure that so happens to have the equivalent characteristics of something 1m wide? So it doesn't *actually* provide an answer to the multiple-choice, only that it's not 0.5, 1 or 2 seconds?
In this example there is no steady state power flow in the space between the wires. PERIOD....
Ver is completely wrong about this.
Poynting vector is for self propagating electromagnetic waves. Not static waves.
The electric field is preserved along the wire by its low resistance and shows up at the load to push electrons through the load. Work done is E*J ( * is vector dot product E is electric field and J is current density vector )
Err, last I checked, engineering is an applied science.
It's why ohms law, Kirchhoff's laws, and countless other practical theorems were developed, so we didn't have to "go back to basics" and use Maxwell and Poynting for everything. Even conventional current flow is a thing for a reason.
Exactly. The electric field inside an ideal conductor is zero so the work done on the charges in the wire (E*J) is zero.
We need to stop treating Maxwell’s equations and field theory as something to be avoided.
@EEVBlog I think your model is a fallacy. You assume there is capacitive coupling between the wires. But lets eliminate capacitive coupling by inserting a shield between the wires, or use shielded wires with the shields soldered together all along the way and grounded. So ideally zero capacitive coupling. There will be no spike then at t=0, which proves the model is wrong.
Secondly, it was not necessary to go to the trouble of modelling a transmission line to demonstrate capacitive coupling, just draw two wires with a capacitor.
I think it says that at a point in a static field the energy into the point and out of the point are equivalent. So no actual energy flow.No, that would mean there's no accumulation if "flow" into and out of a point is equal.
I seem to have been thinking about an essentially different type of problem, having watched Dave's video, and read the last few replies.
My assumption was that we were considering a geometry where there was negliglible capacitive coupling between the bulb-side and battery-side, but where we would have to consider wire-to-ground coupling, and where the bulb-side would be considered to be in the far-field from the POV of the battery-side. So I wasn't really thinking about a transmission line scenario as Dave has modelled.
Is this really the setup that the Veritasium guy was proposing? If so, it seems a little boring - it's hardly earth-shattering to note that two long wires close to each other can be capacitively coupled. I'd be more interested in a setup where we have the whole wire arrangement isolated in free space (so no ground coupling to consider), with the 0.5 light-second wires, but with say 1 km along the short sides.
There is capacitive coupling between the wires - but far smaller than what Dave put in his model. It would at best be a couple of pF/m. Had he used realistic C and L parameters, the energy reaching the bulb at 3ns would be *tiny*.
But... does it not highlight one weakness of the transmission line model in that it does not handle the lateral (1/c) delay properly? Only that of an infinitesimally thin structure that so happens to have the equivalent characteristics of something 1m wide? So it doesn't *actually* provide an answer to the multiple-choice, only that it's not 0.5, 1 or 2 seconds?
I seem to have been thinking about an essentially different type of problem, having watched Dave's video, and read the last few replies.
My assumption was that we were considering a geometry where there was negliglible capacitive coupling between the bulb-side and battery-side, but where we would have to consider wire-to-ground coupling, and where the bulb-side would be considered to be in the far-field from the POV of the battery-side. So I wasn't really thinking about a transmission line scenario as Dave has modelled.
Is this really the setup that the Veritasium guy was proposing? If so, it seems a little boring - it's hardly earth-shattering to note that two long wires close to each other can be capacitively coupled. I'd be more interested in a setup where we have the whole wire arrangement isolated in free space (so no ground coupling to consider), with the 0.5 light-second wires, but with say 1 km along the short sides.
Right, it is weird everyone latched to a "transmisison line" approach, which to me is a wrong one and not what Veritasium meant. The wire could be spaced 1 or 1000kM part, shaped in a spiral or in a circle, etc.
@EEVBlog I think your model is a fallacy. You assume there is capacitive coupling between the wires. But lets eliminate capacitive coupling by inserting a shield between the wires, or use shielded wires with the shields soldered together all along the way and grounded. So ideally zero capacitive coupling. There will be no spike then at t=0, which proves the model is wrong.
Secondly, it was not necessary to go to the trouble of modelling a transmission line to demonstrate capacitive coupling, just draw two wires with a capacitor.
Well so much for my 10min video.It was always going to be a challenge :-DD
Just the simulation part turned out to be 8 minutes :palm:
Pretty nice video on that one aspect regardless. I suspect there will be confused and angry comments from physicists without prior knowledge of transmission lines but not too much you can do about that I suppose. I think it would be nice if you could show how (roughly) a transmission line model can be set up using the given problem parameters to produce the same 1/c delay predicted by the "physics", that would really help push the point that the transmission line based model is accurate and equivalent; similar to the slides provided to Derek by the professors but explained more eloquently.
Whereas you seem to see "how much power is flowing in this point in space" merely as a potential means to an end, thinking about problem solving/engineering and applied, applied, applied. I'm not making a judgement call here, just trying to get the root of our subjective difference of opinion.
Exactly. The electric field inside an ideal conductor is zero so the work done on the charges in the wire (E*J) is zero.
You're simply exchanging one imperfect, incomplete model for another. The electric fields inside a conductor, even a superconductor, are not zero. Your model just says they are because that mostly works out in the macro domain that it is intended for. What goes actually goes on is more complex. Quantum mechanics aside, I fail to see how you can continue to maintain the the energy flow (whatever that is) in the DC case is due to fields outside of the conductor without stating what those fields are. Poynting vectors are not fields. There is the magnetic field which is unchanging for DC current and then a static E-field where the conductor has a net charge. Neither of those can do work on charges. Now you can have a wrong or simplified model that still predicts at least some things correctly, so if you can have a battery on one end of a pair of wires and a load on the other and you have some diagram with some arrows that shows the E-field of the battery being magically transferred to the other end to do work on the load--whether it is Poynting vectors or monkeys with wheelbarrows--you still haven't explained how it came to be that the charge density is what it is at the load end of the wires.
I seem to have been thinking about an essentially different type of problem, having watched Dave's video, and read the last few replies.
My assumption was that we were considering a geometry where there was negliglible capacitive coupling between the bulb-side and battery-side, but where we would have to consider wire-to-ground coupling, and where the bulb-side would be considered to be in the far-field from the POV of the battery-side. So I wasn't really thinking about a transmission line scenario as Dave has modelled.
Is this really the setup that the Veritasium guy was proposing? If so, it seems a little boring - it's hardly earth-shattering to note that two long wires close to each other can be capacitively coupled. I'd be more interested in a setup where we have the whole wire arrangement isolated in free space (so no ground coupling to consider), with the 0.5 light-second wires, but with say 1 km along the short sides.
Right, it is weird everyone latched to a "transmisison line" approach, which to me is a wrong one and not what Veritasium meant. The wire could be spaced 1 or 1000kM part, shaped in a spiral or in a circle, etc.
He meant a transmission line, as he mentioned impedance in the video, he just didn't say it, because that gives the game away for engineers watching.
You will not ge the 1m/c answer if the lines are not 1m apart. He actually got that bit wrong and said the answer is 1/c, it's not, it's 1m/c. He doesn't even get the units analysis right, and maybe that's deliberate, because once again putting in the 1m/c instead of 1/c is giving the game away.
The experiment is a bit of a red herring and doesn't really help with the main point of the film that the energy is transferred in the fields.
We need to stop treating Maxwell’s equations and field theory as something to be avoided.
I'm not suggesting that we avoid or forget them, but what important advances in science or technology have been made recently using field theory? Unless you continue on into the realm of quantum mechanics and so forth, you've long lost sight of anything all that new in the modern technological and scientific context. The stuff you talk about is important to know and understand, but you also need to realize that as a model it, like every other model, eventually becomes either incorrect or inapplicable. This is especially evident when we start making 'theoretical' arguments with simplified models that are physically impossible.
He meant a transmission line, as he mentioned impedance in the video, he just didn't say it, because that gives the game away for engineers watching.
You will not ge the 1m/c answer if the lines are not 1m apart. He actually got that bit wrong and said the answer is 1/c, it's not, it's 1m/c. He doesn't even get the units analysis right, and maybe that's deliberate, because once again putting in the 1m/c instead of 1/c is giving the game away.
I think the purpose of leaving out that was just to avoid jargon to only the most salient points because most of his audience are not electrical engineers. The fact that it is a transmission line is not necessary for the effect
The experiment is a bit of a red herring and doesn't really help with the main point of the film that the energy is transferred in the fields.
That is an understatement! In his zeal to emphasize the the power flow via fields, he essentially states that the fields magically go in some directed way to a load, independent of the wire path. Yes, there will be a tiny signal at the bulb roughly 3ns after switch closure - you'd no doubt hear a click in an AM receiver placed a meter away, but you won't see any light for at least a second.
The most widely produced device in history, 13 sextillion (13 followed by 21 zeros) of them to be precise, has the word field as part of its name. I think field theory is not a mere curiosity anymore, not even for the “practical” engineer.
The experiment is a bit of a red herring and doesn't really help with the main point of the film that the energy is transferred in the fields.
That is an understatement! In his zeal to emphasize the the power flow via fields, he essentially states that the fields magically go in some directed way to a load, independent of the wire path. Yes, there will be a tiny signal at the bulb roughly 3ns after switch closure - you'd no doubt hear a click in an AM receiver placed a meter away, but you won't see any light for at least a second.
The current through the lamp will be Vbatt / (2Zo + Zlamp) starting about 3 ns after switch closure and it will remain approximately the same until the rising edge reflects off the end and returns.
Whether that generates a lot of light or not depends on the characteristics of the light, battery and the wire diameter but he was fairly clear about what he was asking.
The current through the lamp will be Vbatt / (2Zo + Zlamp) starting about 3 ns after switch closure and it will remain approximately the same until the rising edge reflects off the end and returns.
Whether that generates a lot of light or not depends on the characteristics of the light, battery and the wire diameter but he was fairly clear about what he was asking.
Your claim equates to having a perfect coupling between those two antennas. If that's the case, then we clearly have a breakthrough in wireless power transmission!
The experiment is a bit of a red herring and doesn't really help with the main point of the film that the energy is transferred in the fields.
That is an understatement! In his zeal to emphasize the the power flow via fields, he essentially states that the fields magically go in some directed way to a load, independent of the wire path. Yes, there will be a tiny signal at the bulb roughly 3ns after switch closure - you'd no doubt hear a click in an AM receiver placed a meter away, but you won't see any light for at least a second.
The current through the lamp will be Vbatt / (2Zo + Zlamp) starting about 3 ns after switch closure and it will remain approximately the same until the rising edge reflects off the end and returns.
Whether that generates a lot of light or not depends on the characteristics of the light, battery and the wire diameter but he was fairly clear about what he was asking.
Respectfully disagree. What would happen if instead we had just 10 meters of wire on each side of the bulb, and 10 meters on each side of the switch/battery, 1 meter apart, but open ended. For the first 30 ns or so, this setup should be indistinguishable from the Veritasium setup, since nothing could propagate beyond those 10 meters in that first 30 ns. What you have now are two dipole antennas separated by a meter. Your claim equates to having a perfect coupling between those two antennas. If that's the case, then we clearly have a breakthrough in wireless power transmission!
Sounds like a >45min video. Will this be the first you attempt a partial script?
I gave up trying, so I just shot a reaction, added the simulation part and a few other bits and it's 45 minutes! :palm:SPOT ON!
Probably should have commented earlier but in physics it's pretty common to omit units labels in equations and only put the final overall units when giving the final value. So "1/c s" is kinda eh but probably would get full marks in a physics exam (if the rest of the working is correct). It certainly does make the implication of that option less obvious however.
[KVL is not a special case of Faraday’s law, it was derived first and exists by itself as a consequence of conservation of energy.]
Maybe the wording could be better but the point there is KVL can be modelled and exists independently to (and historically was discovered/described prior to) Faraday's Law. [Rather than being a "result" of Faraday's Law] Anyway I don't really want to go down the KVL vs Faraday's law and varying definitions of "voltage" rabbit hole again.[KVL is not a special case of Faraday’s law, it was derived first and exists by itself as a consequence of conservation of energy.]
What? Of course KVL is a special case of Farady's law. Specifically it is the case when the time derivative of magnetic flux is zero. In the presence of time varying magnetic fields ∮E • dL != 0, E by itself is not a conservative field, and therefore voltage is not well defined.
I think the LC ladder for Dave's transmission line example is actually "the wrong way around". The ladder should be "rotated 90 degrees" so the inductance elements are in series between the source and the load and the capacitance is in parallel to the source and the load. The L will be very large and the C very small. When you model the ladder correctly between the source and load, you should get the expected delay and dispersion exactly.
https://www.falstad.com/circuit/e-ladder.html (https://www.falstad.com/circuit/e-ladder.html)
Edit: Might be good to append for further reading:
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_24.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_24.html)
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/introduction-to-the-transmission-line/ (https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/introduction-to-the-transmission-line/)
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/transmission-lines-from-lumped-element-to-distributed-element-regimes/ (https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/transmission-lines-from-lumped-element-to-distributed-element-regimes/)
Yeah I think you did a good job addressing that around 19 min.Probably should have commented earlier but in physics it's pretty common to omit units labels in equations and only put the final overall units when giving the final value. So "1/c s" is kinda eh but probably would get full marks in a physics exam (if the rest of the working is correct). It certainly does make the implication of that option less obvious however.
My money is on deliberately though ;D
Didn't know that was common in physics. I of course leave them out regularly because I'm lazy, but you'd get your knuckles rapped by the ruler if you left them off in class.
And even in some companies I've been admonished for leaving them off in reports and analysis.
Well, expect to get called out on that then! [The "correct" model would help show the model equivalence with equal resultant delay.]I think the LC ladder for Dave's transmission line example is actually "the wrong way around". The ladder should be "rotated 90 degrees" so the inductance elements are in series between the source and the load and the capacitance is in parallel to the source and the load. The L will be very large and the C very small. When you model the ladder correctly between the source and load, you should get the expected delay and dispersion exactly.
https://www.falstad.com/circuit/e-ladder.html (https://www.falstad.com/circuit/e-ladder.html)
Edit: Might be good to append for further reading:
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_24.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_24.html)
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/introduction-to-the-transmission-line/ (https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/introduction-to-the-transmission-line/)
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/transmission-lines-from-lumped-element-to-distributed-element-regimes/ (https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/transmission-lines-from-lumped-element-to-distributed-element-regimes/)
Yes, that is the generic equivalent model most people end up using, but I thought that visually it was better to use the full balanced representation here.
I think the LC ladder for Dave's transmission line example is actually "the wrong way around". The ladder should be "rotated 90 degrees" so the inductance elements are in series between the source and the load and the capacitance is in parallel to the source and the load. The L will be very large and the C very small. When you model the ladder correctly between the source and load, you should get the expected delay and dispersion exactly.
https://www.falstad.com/circuit/e-ladder.html (https://www.falstad.com/circuit/e-ladder.html)
Edit: Might be good to append for further reading:
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_24.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_24.html)
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/introduction-to-the-transmission-line/ (https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/introduction-to-the-transmission-line/)
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/transmission-lines-from-lumped-element-to-distributed-element-regimes/ (https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/transmission-lines-from-lumped-element-to-distributed-element-regimes/)
Yes, that is the generic equivalent model most people end up using, but I thought that visually it was better to use the full balanced representation here.
Well, expect to get called out on that then! [The "correct" model would help show the model equivalence with equal resultant delay.]I think the LC ladder for Dave's transmission line example is actually "the wrong way around". The ladder should be "rotated 90 degrees" so the inductance elements are in series between the source and the load and the capacitance is in parallel to the source and the load. The L will be very large and the C very small. When you model the ladder correctly between the source and load, you should get the expected delay and dispersion exactly.
https://www.falstad.com/circuit/e-ladder.html (https://www.falstad.com/circuit/e-ladder.html)
Edit: Might be good to append for further reading:
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_24.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_24.html)
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/introduction-to-the-transmission-line/ (https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/introduction-to-the-transmission-line/)
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/transmission-lines-from-lumped-element-to-distributed-element-regimes/ (https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/transmission-lines-from-lumped-element-to-distributed-element-regimes/)
Yes, that is the generic equivalent model most people end up using, but I thought that visually it was better to use the full balanced representation here.
Found an exampleDerivation for a twin line might be more illustrative, certainly easier for people to see the equivalence... Could also get more hits looking for "Distributed-element model"
http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~traylor/ece391/Andreas_slides/ECE391-S14-Lect1-web.pdf (http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~traylor/ece391/Andreas_slides/ECE391-S14-Lect1-web.pdf)
Meh. I'm not going to go back and reshoot the entire thing. And it's just yet another thing I'd have to explain. If I just showed the simple model then I'll get people saying "why is there no inductance in the other wire?"Up to you :-// I think the Falstad demo is really good at showing how a transmission line with lumped elements produces a delay though...
Up to you :-// I think the Falstad demo is really good at showing how a transmission line with lumped elements produces a delay though...
Which other wire? Both the positive and negative side wires will have series inductance elements with a capacitance between the wires in the "correct" model.
I get what you mean but it really does irk me as an "incorrect" model that doesn't actually model the behaviour in question: the delay.Up to you :-// I think the Falstad demo is really good at showing how a transmission line with lumped elements produces a delay though...
Which other wire? Both the positive and negative side wires will have series inductance elements with a capacitance between the wires in the "correct" model.
The bottom wire which is just shown as one long straight wire with no inductance along it's entire length. Visually I think it's poor.
I don't want to show how the waves travel, I'm just trying to explain how 1m/c answer is derived because of the nearby capacitance between cables.
Just showing the Falstead demo makes it hard to visually relate the Veritasium circuit I show above. It's all about the visuals and trying to match it so people understand.
Which one makes it more obvious what's happening?
I get what you mean but it really does irk me as an "incorrect" model that doesn't actually model the behaviour in question: the delay.Up to you :-// I think the Falstad demo is really good at showing how a transmission line with lumped elements produces a delay though...
Which other wire? Both the positive and negative side wires will have series inductance elements with a capacitance between the wires in the "correct" model.
The bottom wire which is just shown as one long straight wire with no inductance along it's entire length. Visually I think it's poor.
I don't want to show how the waves travel, I'm just trying to explain how 1m/c answer is derived because of the nearby capacitance between cables.
Just showing the Falstead demo makes it hard to visually relate the Veritasium circuit I show above. It's all about the visuals and trying to match it so people understand.
Which one makes it more obvious what's happening?
Well, glad you are at least aware and acknowledge it. :-//I get what you mean but it really does irk me as an "incorrect" model that doesn't actually model the behaviour in question: the delay.Sorry, but I don't care. That's not what I'm going for.
I think “science” YouTubers ought to stick to a field within which they specialise, as a whole. We have some exceptions, such as the savant-esque, polymath that is “Tech Ingredients”, who seems to genuinely possess a VAST amount of deep and wide knowledge across various disciplines of science and engineering, but I don’t see many of his ilk around the net. Portraying yourself as a jack of all trades “scientist” means you better REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY know what you’re on about, down to the excruciating detail, as there’s always someone with greater knowledge in the specific subject, and they’re very likely to have dedicated most of their life to that one subject or discipline.
Then again, this mass appeal “science” gets hits and makes him money, and so many people can’t see any further than that - whether he’s right or wrong, or a bit of both, he’s still attracted himself a nice income, and it’s sad that this is increasingly seen to be of more value than humility and knowing your actual stuff, regardless of your wealth.
Ps, I don’t give a shit what “respected scientists” nod in agreement with him about - we use wires and solder down here on planet practical, that’s most of what matters - leave the intellectuals to play their thought experiments if they want to.
Dave I’ve downloaded your unlinked video in case you decide to delete it. I won’t share it but thanks mate 😎
Dave I’ve downloaded your unlinked video in case you decide to delete it. I won’t share it but thanks mate 😎
It's all in the main channel video BTW.
Dave I’ve downloaded your unlinked video in case you decide to delete it. I won’t share it but thanks mate 😎
It's all in the main channel video BTW.
The one you’ve linked is not on either of your channels as viewable - only found it here as unlisted mate.
Dave I’ve downloaded your unlinked video in case you decide to delete it. I won’t share it but thanks mate 😎
It's all in the main channel video BTW.
The one you’ve linked is not on either of your channels as viewable - only found it here as unlisted mate.
I have not released the main channel video yet, will do so at midnight when the eyeballs timing is better.
The other shot one was not meant to be released, it was just a clip for this forum.
Dave I’ve downloaded your unlinked video in case you decide to delete it. I won’t share it but thanks mate 😎
It's all in the main channel video BTW.
The one you’ve linked is not on either of your channels as viewable - only found it here as unlisted mate.
I have not released the main channel video yet, will do so at midnight when the eyeballs timing is better.
The other shot one was not meant to be released, it was just a clip for this forum.
What, this 45 min long clip? You posted it on page 11 mate.
Dave I’ve downloaded your unlinked video in case you decide to delete it. I won’t share it but thanks mate 😎
It's all in the main channel video BTW.
The one you’ve linked is not on either of your channels as viewable - only found it here as unlisted mate.
I have not released the main channel video yet, will do so at midnight when the eyeballs timing is better.
The other shot one was not meant to be released, it was just a clip for this forum.
What, this 45 min long clip? You posted it on page 11 mate.
I meant that it hasn't been released to the public on my channel yet, it's still set as unlisted. This is why it only has 71 views instead of 10's of thousands.
I think “science” YouTubers ought to stick to a field within which they specialise, as a whole. We have some exceptions, such as the savant-esque, polymath that is “Tech Ingredients”, who seems to genuinely possess a VAST amount of deep and wide knowledge across various disciplines of science and engineering, but I don’t see many of his ilk around the net. Portraying yourself as a jack of all trades “scientist” means you better REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY know what you’re on about, down to the excruciating detail, as there’s always someone with greater knowledge in the specific subject, and they’re very likely to have dedicated most of their life to that one subject or discipline.
Then again, this mass appeal “science” gets hits and makes him money, and so many people can’t see any further than that - whether he’s right or wrong, or a bit of both, he’s still attracted himself a nice income, and it’s sad that this is increasingly seen to be of more value than humility and knowing your actual stuff, regardless of your wealth.
Ps, I don’t give a shit what “respected scientists” nod in agreement with him about - we use wires and solder down here on planet practical, that’s most of what matters - leave the intellectuals to play their thought experiments if they want to.
1- When the switch is flipped an electron will accelerate (the first one at the switch itself). This causes a changing magnetic field. This field is mediated by a gauged boson - which for electromagnetism is the photon. So it 'travels' at the speed of light. The changing magnetic field will induce a movement of charge at the light bulb after 1m/c seconds. Veritasium defined his light bulb as lighting from *any* amount of current. So the induced current, no matter how small, turns on his light globe 'wirelessly'.
1- When the switch is flipped an electron will accelerate (the first one at the switch itself). This causes a changing magnetic field. This field is mediated by a gauged boson - which for electromagnetism is the photon. So it 'travels' at the speed of light. The changing magnetic field will induce a movement of charge at the light bulb after 1m/c seconds. Veritasium defined his light bulb as lighting from *any* amount of current. So the induced current, no matter how small, turns on his light globe 'wirelessly'.
So does the capacitance between the wires.
Everyone with even fairly basic knowledge of electronics can understand the capacitor model. No guaged bosons or magnetic field knowledge required.
But hey, that's not the cool physics explanation, engineers are boring ;D
1- When the switch is flipped an electron will accelerate (the first one at the switch itself). This causes a changing magnetic field. This field is mediated by a gauged boson - which for electromagnetism is the photon. So it 'travels' at the speed of light. The changing magnetic field will induce a movement of charge at the light bulb after 1m/c seconds. Veritasium defined his light bulb as lighting from *any* amount of current. So the induced current, no matter how small, turns on his light globe 'wirelessly'.
So does the capacitance between the wires.
Everyone with even fairly basic knowledge of electronics can understand the capacitor model. No guaged bosons or magnetic field knowledge required.
But hey, that's not the cool physics explanation, engineers are boring ;D
I guess my point is... all you need for this experiment is: electron, photon, and the electromagnetic field. You don't need capacitors, or transmission lines, and its a round about way to arrive at the same conclusion. Why not break it down the most elementary minimum of components? His bulb lights lights on any current. Therefore it can be 1 electron. Another electron 1 meter away accelerating will light the light bulb after 1m/c seconds due to electromagnetism. There is really nothing more that needs explaining.
I can't believe there is a 45 minute video for this... to me this just highlights how poorly everyone understand this.
A note on KVL with respect to Maxwell. Many seem to believe that KVL is is derived from Farady's Law (in the correct modern form formulated by Maxwell) as ∮ E • dL=0 and ∑ Vn=0 is a consequence when in reality it is historically the other way around! Kirchoff developed and published his laws of closed loop circuits independently in 1845 *16 years* before Maxwell publish his work on electromagnetics in 1861. You can see the original publication yourself in german here: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k151490/f509 The typical introduction to KVL as a derivation of Faraday's law in typical physics pedagogy (and in physics textbooks) is a result of the tendency to introduce the less abstract Faraday's law first. Engineering education often simply states the law as is was originally defined since Faraday's law is often not introduced early in the engineering pedagogy.
[KVL is not a special case of Faraday’s law, it was derived first and exists by itself as a consequence of conservation of energy.]
Some more notes on history here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations#Historical_publications
Not entirely sure you're agree or disagreeing. This a response to the comment made in the video that KVL came about as a construct after the formulation of Maxwell's equations and also the general misconception that KVL historically arose as a simplification of Faraday's law which is not the case since KVL was formulated (aka derived, aka written down and publish) before Faraday's Law was.A note on KVL with respect to Maxwell. Many seem to believe that KVL is is derived from Farady's Law (in the correct modern form formulated by Maxwell) as ∮ E • dL=0 and ∑ Vn=0 is a consequence when in reality it is historically the other way around! Kirchoff developed and published his laws of closed loop circuits independently in 1845 *16 years* before Maxwell publish his work on electromagnetics in 1861. You can see the original publication yourself in german here: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k151490/f509 The typical introduction to KVL as a derivation of Faraday's law in typical physics pedagogy (and in physics textbooks) is a result of the tendency to introduce the less abstract Faraday's law first. Engineering education often simply states the law as is was originally defined since Faraday's law is often not introduced early in the engineering pedagogy.
[KVL is not a special case of Faraday’s law, it was derived first and exists by itself as a consequence of conservation of energy.]
Some more notes on history here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations#Historical_publications
Derived doesn't mean that one discovery led to another. Derived means that Faraday's law INCLUDES KVL. You can deduce KVL from Faraday's. Faraday's law, therefore, is a more complete, precise and accurate description of the circuital phenomenon than KVL.
For the record, Faraday discovered the phenomenon of magnetic induction BEFORE KVL. Maxwell just gave a math description to it.But point is the description of KVL doesn't come from doing maths on Faraday's law as described mathematically by Maxwell's work. The fact Faraday did his electromagnetic induction experiments before-hand is irrelevant.
Dumb question then...
Wikipedia says that as the resistance near the surface of the wire increases, the poynting vector tilts towards the conductor, and this is said to slow the velocity of propagation. Does this mean that the velocity factor of a wire/transmission line is not only dependent on the insulation's permeability, but also on the conductor's resistivity/skin effect? Will a thin wire propagate energy slower than a thick wire (...if that answer reverts to inductance and capacitance, ill be like |O)? And now I am really confused, because all that silver nitrate that I electrodeposited allegedly required electrons, something that I now hear doesn't move but at a snail's pace, (some millimeters/second? they must be really tightly packed in there!!!). So, a relation between all of this theory and Faraday's constant would be wonderful! Isn't that 6.252 x 10^18 electrons in one second for 1 amp? That's slow?
Derived doesn't mean that one discovery led to another. Derived means that Faraday's law INCLUDES KVL. You can deduce KVL from Faraday's. Faraday's law, therefore, is a more complete, precise and accurate description of the circuital phenomenon than KVL.
Not entirely sure you're agree or disagreeing.
It's certainly a bit of a matter of semantics. "Power flow" is not really an observable property. The power produced by the battery and dissipated in the resistor/lamp are easily defined but the power flow requires a bit more care.
1- When the switch is flipped an electron will accelerate (the first one at the switch itself). This causes a changing magnetic field. This field is mediated by a gauged boson - which for electromagnetism is the photon. So it 'travels' at the speed of light. The changing magnetic field will induce a movement of charge at the light bulb after 1m/c seconds. Veritasium defined his light bulb as lighting from *any* amount of current. So the induced current, no matter how small, turns on his light globe 'wirelessly'.
So does the capacitance between the wires.
Everyone with even fairly basic knowledge of electronics can understand the capacitor model. No guaged bosons or magnetic field knowledge required.
But hey, that's not the cool physics explanation, engineers are boring ;D
I guess my point is... all you need for this experiment is: electron, photon, and the electromagnetic field. You don't need capacitors, or transmission lines, and its a round about way to arrive at the same conclusion. Why not break it down the most elementary minimum of components? His bulb lights lights on any current. Therefore it can be 1 electron. Another electron 1 meter away accelerating will light the light bulb after 1m/c seconds due to electromagnetism. There is really nothing more that needs explaining.
Sure, multiple ways to explain it. Some people know more about or are more familiar with capacitors than photons and electromagnetic fields and virce-versa. The best explanation is the one that works for the individual.
With respect, the simulation in the video and capactor/inductor model does not give the answer as 1m/c. It gives the answer as 0s.
To get the actual answer of 1m/c you would need to bring in the electro/magnetic scaling constants - as their mean inverse is the speed of light.
For example how would distance change be simulated? By changing the value of C? This will not change the time to the instant spike.
With respect, the simulation in the video and capactor/inductor model does not give the answer as 1m/c. It gives the answer as 0s.
To get the actual answer of 1m/c you would need to bring in the electro/magnetic scaling constants - as their mean inverse is the speed of light.
For example how would distance change be simulated? By changing the value of C? This will not change the time to the instant spike.
With respect, the simulation in the video and capactor/inductor model does not give the answer as 1m/c. It gives the answer as 0s.
To get the actual answer of 1m/c you would need to bring in the electro/magnetic scaling constants - as their mean inverse is the speed of light.
For example how would distance change be simulated? By changing the value of C? This will not change the time to the instant spike.
Not to be pedantic or anything, but the transmission line approximation doesn't seem to be fully correct here. For the first 1/2 second or so (until the pulse hits the far end of the wires), this system is a dipole antenna transmitter and a dipole antenna receiver located 1 m away. It isn't quite right to consider the bulb side a part of the transmission line since it is not being actively driven - it is a passive receiver. A proper solution would be a rather complicated near field analysis of the transmitter / receiver pair. With that said, I won't discount a solution that is close based on a transmission line approximation - nor would I be surprised if it varied significantly. Doing that type of near field analysis is, how shall I put it, *difficult*. I'm inclined to try actual measurements of a scaled down version - perhaps a few meters on each side, and varying the separation. My limited equipment may not be fully up to the task, but it's worth a shot. I'm not so much interested in measuring the time delay of seeing a signal at the "bulb" (I don't think there is any question it will arrive at 1m / c), but I would like to see how much current could actually be delivered with this setup.
I'm inclined to try actual measurements of a scaled down version - perhaps a few meters on each side, and varying the separation. My limited equipment may not be fully up to the task, but it's worth a shot. I'm not so much interested in measuring the time delay of seeing a signal at the "bulb" (I don't think there is any question it will arrive at 1m / c), but I would like to see how much current could actually be delivered with this setup.Yes, the more I think into this, the more convinced I feel that energy reaches the bulb 1 m/c after switching on, but not yet sure about the amount of energy or the time needed to achieve steady state. But, as you, my equipment is not suitable for the experiment.
Also, not sure now if transmission line models are applicable here (at least I realized now that I applied it in the wrong way some thread pages ago).
My issue Vertiaseum with isn't over Poynting, which I probably passed an exam on many decades ago and certainly don't dispute any more than I dispute Faraday, it is with his casual mixing of two different issues in a way that I have seen cause confusion already elsewhere. He is conflating the Poynting model for DC/LF with things like transmission lines and EM radiation. This leads to people thinking that their speaker cables and electric cables in their wall work as a transmission line, among other things. They don't. Despite his example which theoretically can transmit power over a meter of space, that effect has nothing to do with how power gets to your house. Instead, to the extent that it occurs, it is a parasitic effect that results in losses. Yes, for very long power lines this effect is part of the model, but not because it is helpful and has been deliberately incorporated, but because it is unavoidable.
I still don't quite get his explaination at 7:35It is a DC circuit, but not a dead one. There is obviously a energy transfer from the battery to the load, so there must be Poynting vector "field lines" going from the battery to the bulb. The Poynting vector is neither an AC nor a wave related concept, but a general EM concept applicable even when there are no waves and fields are static.
He shows the Poynting vector S coming out from the battery in a DC circuit. How? There is no EM radiation loss.
My issue Vertiaseum with isn't over Poynting, which I probably passed an exam on many decades ago and certainly don't dispute any more than I dispute Faraday, it is with his casual mixing of two different issues in a way that I have seen cause confusion already elsewhere. He is conflating the Poynting model for DC/LF with things like transmission lines and EM radiation. This leads to people thinking that their speaker cables and electric cables in their wall work as a transmission line, among other things. They don't. Despite his example which theoretically can transmit power over a meter of space, that effect has nothing to do with how power gets to your house. Instead, to the extent that it occurs, it is a parasitic effect that results in losses.
I still don't quite get his explaination at 7:35
He shows the Poynting vector S coming out from the battery in a DC circuit. How? There is no EM radiation loss.
I still don't quite get his explaination at 7:35It is a DC circuit, but not a dead one. There is obviously a energy transfer from the battery to the load, so there must be Poynting vector "field lines" going from the battery to the bulb. The Poynting vector is neither an AC nor a wave related concept, but a general EM concept applicable even when there are no waves and fields are static.
He shows the Poynting vector S coming out from the battery in a DC circuit. How? There is no EM radiation loss.
Yes, so shouldn't the Poynting vector be along the wires instead?
i.e. visually, how does the vector coming out of the battery know where the battery is physically?
I still don't quite get his explaination at 7:35
He shows the Poynting vector S coming out from the battery in a DC circuit. How? There is no EM radiation loss.
i.e. visually, how does the vector coming out of the battery know where the battery is physically?
I think you are correct and I think people are making mistakes in analyzing DC/LF circuits and expecting them to look like the results they get with EM radiation.
In this case if you draw the Poynting vector at the conductor, where the E-field is always going to be perpendicular, you should have an arrow drawn straight up the wire.
Some people try to explain that with a hydrolic analogy of tightly packed electrons pushing on each other, but that falls apart if you look too closely: the question then is what is the equivalent of the speed of sound? No amount of looking at just the conductor will answer that question it is almost entirely determined by the dielectric between the wires with a small modification for skin effect. In fact if you want to show that you don't have to treat your power line or audio cables as transmission lines you need to figure out the phase velocity and this is how you do it.
Likewise poynting vector analysis clearly answers questions such as how is power transmitted through capacitors and transformers when there is no path for electrons at all? I think it's pretty cool that the poynting vector power flow will go straight through a transformer basically as if it wasn't there even when there is no electric current, not even a displacement current connecting the primary and secondary. To me this is the killer reason to say that the poynting vector approach is the best interpretation of "where is power transmitted in an electric circuit" even at LF/DC despite the fact that it can give somewhat unintuitive answers they are always consistent and properly connect sources to loads.
Another question. Suppose now that, in the original Veritasium circuit layout, the 1m long wire segments at the extremes are not present. Will the bulb light when the switch is closed? Will it reach maximum brightness? How much time, if any, will it be lit?
Yes, so shouldn't the Poynting vector be along the wires instead?
i.e. visually, how does the vector coming out of the battery know where the battery is physically?
I still don't quite get his explaination at 7:35
He shows the Poynting vector S coming out from the battery in a DC circuit. How? There is no EM radiation loss.
Yes, so shouldn't the Poynting vector be along the wires instead?
i.e. visually, how does the vector coming out of the battery know where the battery is physically?
I don't think there is a single Poynting vector, I think there are an infinite number of them corresponding to the infinite number of points in space where you could calculate it. However, if you take the integral over all points in space (add up all the infinitesimal vectors), the resulting "total" vector will end up pointing from the battery to the lamp. (If I understand correctly--I have no expertise in electromagnetics beyond the most elementary level.)
Yes, so shouldn't the Poynting vector be along the wires instead?
i.e. visually, how does the vector coming out of the battery know where the battery is physically?
I don't think there is a single Poynting vector, I think there are an infinite number of them corresponding to the infinite number of points in space where you could calculate it. However, if you take the integral over all points in space (add up all the infinitesimal vectors), the resulting "total" vector will end up pointing from the battery to the lamp. (If I understand correctly--I have no expertise in electromagnetics beyond the most elementary level.)
As Derek said, energy flow happens when you have electric fields and magnetic fields. If there is no current, there is no magnetic field, so no energy flow. The Veritasium simulations don't have a switch, and he shows current happening instantaneously everywhere. Would current move everywhere in the circuit when the switch is thrown? I don't believe it. So his Poynting Vector model is broken.
As to the fundamental question of whether the power is transmitted in the wire or the space around the wire, imagine the bottom half of the circuit (as our moderator has sketched it) is completely surrounded by perfect shielding. If Derek is right, no power should flow because the fields can't extend beyond the wire. As the EEVblog simulation is formulated, the question is really: is the line coming into the bulb coupled to the line leaving the switch? And the answer is yes, of course. But does that mean the power is being transmitted by fields?
Attached article provides a quantitative analysis which shows at DC condition Poynting vector has two components, one along the surface of the wire in the direction of power transfer and the other one perpendicular to the wire directed into the wire, representing power loss dissipated inside the wire due to active resistance.
It had to be done.
I still don't quite get his explaination at 7:35
He shows the Poynting vector S coming out from the battery in a DC circuit. How? There is no EM radiation loss.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1331771;image)
you're wrong that the component running along the surface of the wire represents power transfer to the load.
My counter-argument is this: If Dave's argument is true, we would not have EMI, grounding, ground-loop, signal-integrity etc. issues in our circuits, because if practicing engineers really knew and understood how the EM-fields were actually flowing in the circuits, they would not make that many troublesome designs.
Since in practice we see way too often designs that have these kind of issues, it is clear that a) practicing engineers do not really understand EM-fields, and b) it is not really sufficient to think that the energy flows only along wires.
My counter-argument is this: If Dave's argument is true, we would not have EMI, grounding, ground-loop, signal-integrity etc. issues in our circuits, because if practicing engineers really knew and understood how the EM-fields were actually flowing in the circuits, they would not make that many troublesome designs.
Since in practice we see way too often designs that have these kind of issues, it is clear that a) practicing engineers do not really understand EM-fields, and b) it is not really sufficient to think that the energy flows only along wires.
It's not necessarily a matter of not understanding EM fields though. It's essentially a matter of any real-world system being HARD to model, and determining when a simple model is adequate and when it is not is also a difficult matter. Another issue when strictly using circuit analysis - as most of us do - and that was pointed out in the famous KVL thread, is that finding a proper lumped model for a given circuit operating in EM fields is HARD too. So we use a lot of rules of thumb.
As to how electrons "flow" in a conductor, this is still a non-trivial point at all and far from being what we are usually taught, and that should be the key point in Veritasium's video. I'm not 100% sure his circuit example is fully relevant to illustrate the point though.
[...]
My counter-argument is this: If Dave's argument is true, we would not have EMI, grounding, ground-loop, signal-integrity etc. issues in our circuits, because if practicing engineers really knew and understood how the EM-fields were actually flowing in the circuits, they would not make that many troublesome designs.
Since in practice we see way too often designs that have these kind of issues, it is clear that a) practicing engineers do not really understand EM-fields, and b) it is not really sufficient to think that the energy flows only along wires.
But otherwise, yes, the power is transmitted in the fields. A capacitor is an electic field.
Buildings have walls and halls.
People travel in the halls, no the walls.
Circuits have traces and spaces.
Energy travels in the spaces, not the traces.
- Ralph Morrison
When conductors become long, that is, they become a significant fraction of the wavelength of the signals on them, they can no longer be represented as a simple lumped-parameter series R–L network [...] Under these circumstances, the signal conductor and its return path must be considered together as a transmission line, and a distributed-parameter model of the line must be used.
[...]
The important concept to understand is that we are moving an electromagnetic field, or energy, from one point to another, not a voltage or current. The voltage and current exist, but only as a consequence of the presence of the field.
[...]
It is important to note that what travels at, or close to, the speed of light on a transmission line is the electromagnetic energy, which is in the dielectric material not the electrons in the conductors. The speed of the electrons in the conductors is approximately 0.01 m/s (0.4 in./s) (Bogatin, 2004, p. 211) which is 30 billion times slower than the speed of light in free space. In a transmission line, the most important material is therefore the dielectric through which the electromagnetic energy (field) is propagated, not the conductors that are just the guides for the energy.
Now the electric field inside a perfect conductor is zero. So, by Poynting’s theorem, no (real) energy flows inside such a wire; if there is to be any energy flow, it must take place entirely in the space outside of the wire. Many students who comfortably and correctly manipulate Poynting’s theorem to solve advanced graduate problems in field theory nonetheless have a tough time when this particular necessary consequence is expressed in words, for it seems to defy common sense and ordinary experience (“I get a shock only when I touch the wire”).
The resolution to this seeming paradox is that conductors guide the flow of electromagnetic energy. This answer may seem like semantic hair-splitting, but it is actually a profound insight that will help us to develop a unified understanding of wires, antennas, cables, waveguides, and even optical fibers. So for the balance of this text (and of your professional careers), retain this idea of conductors as guides, rather than conduits, for the electromagnetic energy that otherwise pervades space. Then many apparently different ways to deliver electromagnetic energy will be properly understood simply as variations on a single theme.
Electromagnetic energy is not transmitted in the interior of a conductor; it travels in the region surrounding the conductor, while the conductor merely guides the waves. The currents established at the conductor surface propagate into the conductor in a direction perpendicular to the current density, and they are attenuated by ohmic losses. This power loss is the price exacted by the conductor for acting as a guide."
The energies stored in the fields travel with them, and this phenomenon is the basic and sole mechanism whereby electric power transmission takes place. Thus the electrical energy transmitted by means of transmission lines flows through the space surrounding the conductors, the latter (conductors) acting merely as guides.
[...]
The usually accepted view that the conductor current produces the magnetic field surrounding it must be displaced by the more appropriate one that the electromagnetic field surrounding the conductor produces, through a small drain on its energy supply, the current in the conductor. Although the value of the latter (current) may be used in computing the transmitted energy, one should clearly recognize that physically this current produces only a loss and in no way has a direct part in the phenomenon of power transmission.
As another example, we ask what happens in a piece of resistance wire when it is carrying a current. ... . . There is a flow of energy into the wire all around. It is, of course, equal to the energy being lost in the wire in the form of heat. So our crazy theory says that the electrons are getting their energy to generate heat because of the energy flowing into the wire from the field outside. Intuition would seem to tell us that the electrons get their energy from being pushed along the wire, so the energy should be flowing down (or up) along the wire. But the theory says that the electrons are really being pushed by an electric field, which has come from some charges very far away, and that the electrons get their energy for generating heat from these fields. The energy somehow flows from the distant charges into a wide area of space and then inward to the wire.
... that the energy is flowing into the wire from the outside, rather than along the wire.
But otherwise, yes, the power is transmitted in the fields. A capacitor is an electic field.Yes, that explains how power flows through a capacitor. Rings a bell. ;D
[...]
My counter-argument is this: If Dave's argument is true, we would not have EMI, grounding, ground-loop, signal-integrity etc. issues in our circuits, because if practicing engineers really knew and understood how the EM-fields were actually flowing in the circuits, they would not make that many troublesome designs.
Since in practice we see way too often designs that have these kind of issues, it is clear that a) practicing engineers do not really understand EM-fields, and b) it is not really sufficient to think that the energy flows only along wires.
In a world where EMI etc was the only objective in all designs, then sure, that argument would be absolutely true. Not saying it's false in its reasoning, but maybe not the only conclusion you can draw. We would probably also have to assume that all designs produced from a true understanding of EM would also meet thermal, mechanical, cost, and functional constraints... and still meet all of those constraints when the sales team decide what they actually wanted was a plastic enclosure and have it delivered the week previous. It's always a balance and most engineers are unfortunately humans: mistakes and carelessness happen, things get overlooked with different priorities, it doesn't say anything about their understanding.
Attached article provides a quantitative analysis which shows at DC condition Poynting vector has two components, one along the surface of the wire in the direction of power transfer and the other one perpendicular to the wire directed into the wire, representing power loss dissipated inside the wire due to active resistance.
Anyone in wild agreeement/disagreement with those points?
So both of these points indicate to me that it is not the E field of the battery that is of interest in deriving the correct arrangements of E/B fields to account for the energy flow in this circuit, but is rather the local E fields generated by the local charge distributions on the surface of the wires that we need to know about.
So if we want to explain clearly how the Poynting vector and subsequent energy flow arises in this DC steady state case, then we have to derive the charge distributions on the wires; it's not enough to hand-wave and point at the E field of the battery.
Anyone in wild agreeement/disagreement with those points?
Only the fields from the orthogonal wires contribute to the poynting vector
Anyone in wild agreeement/disagreement with those points?
1. A PP3 9 V battery is sufficiently small that its E field will look like a dipole to the rest of the circuit, and so drops in intensity by 1/r^3.
Near the resistance, this will be too small to account for the required intensity of the Poynting vector. If this is isn't true for a circuit with 10 m sides, then it certainly is for one with 10 km sides, yet the resistance will clearly still dissipate the same power in the latter.
The first detail he missed is that electromagnetic fields significantly decrease in strength over distance. I did a calculation that estimates the magnitude of the poynting vector going directly from source to load, and finds the energy transferred over 1/c seconds. For the calculation, I assumed a typical bulb resistance and ideal wire. Only the fields from the orthogonal wires contribute to the poynting vector, and they are so far away that I can assume they are effectively a point charge. The value for the magnitude of the poynting vector and for the energy transfer are so small, they are effectively zero. These values increase as the position of the vector moves towards the wires, and it doesn't become significant until you are right next to them. So the path of the energy does follow the wire. It doesn't just jump through thin air wherever it wants to go."The value for the magnitude of the poynting vector and for the energy transfer are so small, they are effectively zero" was the conclusion I jumped to. But the fine print says the bulb lights if any current flows. It is a totally artificial situation, so "effectively zero" isn't zero. We have to conceded that it is a teeny weeny bit more than zero so the fine print applies. Although the effect is minuscule, it is likely there are real world instruments sensitive enough to detect it.
:
:
Since EM fields are created and carried by charges, you can't have one without the other. So it's silly to say, "the energy doesn't transfer through the electrons, it travels through the EM fields." You might as well say, "My car didn't move me across town, the gas in the tank moved me." In both statements, the distinction is misleading.
I still don't quite get his explaination at 7:35
He shows the Poynting vector S coming out from the battery in a DC circuit. How? There is no EM radiation loss.
You have a fundamental misconception about how power is transferred in DC. In your video you say that the direction of the Poynting vector is away from the source only in AC, and throw in for some reason the skin effect,
I always pay careful attention to all the little technical details like that - to do otherwise is to besmirch the memory of people like Faraday and Maxwell, who figured all this stuff out.Anyone in wild agreeement/disagreement with those points?
Thanks for not drawing the battery at the top of the diagram, otherwise all electrons would fall out.
1. A PP3 9 V battery is sufficiently small that its E field will look like a dipole to the rest of the circuit, and so drops in intensity by 1/r^3.
This would be true (maybe, idk actually) if the battery were just floating in space with no wires attached. However, that's not the real situation here. One of those wires has a voltage 9V higher than the other, and since E = ∇ V, there an electric field between between the two wires.
I cannot stress enough that if you correctly integrate the Poynting vectors over a plane dividing the battery from the load, you will see the correct value for the power being transferred from battery to load. If you disagree, you made a mistake in the calculation :)I don't think anyone is disagreeing. I'm certainly not. I suspect that you misunderstood the point that I was making - I have tried to clarify it above.
However... there is one huge, laughable error in his presentation. Observe his graphic of an EM wave fields in space. Spot the error.
My comment on youtube, buried in 46,785 other comments:
Speaking of 'wrong things', your graphic of the E and M fields for light, radio etc is wrong. One field is phase shifted from the other by 90 degrees. Eg the blue will be maximum while the red is going through zero. It's the rate of change of each one that creates the other.
Did anyone else in this long thread notice that?
If we could see the magnitude of S as a glowing substance in my circuit, it would be glowing hot near the wires, and much dimmer away from the wires (if my hand-waving is even nearly right). However hot the glow is 1 cm from the wire, it would be 1% of that intensity 10 cm away.
https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/532541/is-the-electric-field-in-a-wire-constant/532550#532550
John D. Jackson, the dreadfully respected author of the bible of Classical EM, wrote a paper about the role of these surface/interface charges, where he noted that this knowledge sorely lacks in most curricula at the time (1996, but I see not much has changed).Oh dear. Yeah, I remember Jackson for EM. Almost as scary as Goldstein for mechanics
John D. JacksonIs a copy of this available on the webs?
Surface charges on circuit wires and resistors play three different roles
American Journal of Physics 64 (7), July 1996
A much much easier read might be the note from Chabay and Sherwood:Hmm. Seems to be fairly well hidden.
Bruce A. Sherwood, Ruth W. Chabay
A unified treatment of electrostatics and circuits
American Journal of Physics
This can be find online.
a wire sitting at ground potential will have zero E field around it if everything nearby is at ground potential. But add nearby wires at non-ground potentials, and you'll see an E field appearing between those wires. It's very much a function of the spacing between the wires and the voltage across those wires; I'd personally not put too much thought into "local charge distributions on the surface of the wires", I don't quite see how that could lead to correct computation of the E field around the wires.I have to say that I can't follow your point here at all. Sorry. I've only just got up though, so it may all come into focus as the day proceeds.
If we could see the magnitude of S as a glowing substance in my circuit, it would be glowing hot near the wires, and much dimmer away from the wires (if my hand-waving is even nearly right). However hot the glow is 1 cm from the wire, it would be 1% of that intensity 10 cm away.
I fully agree with the statement above (if anything, I suspect the falloff might be more extreme than r^2 even), and the reasoning leading up to it.
https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/532541/is-the-electric-field-in-a-wire-constant/532550#532550 (https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/532541/is-the-electric-field-in-a-wire-constant/532550#532550)Is a copy of this available on the webs?
...
John D. Jackson
Surface charges on circuit wires and resistors play three different roles
American Journal of Physics 64 (7), July 1996
QuoteBruce A. Sherwood, Ruth W. ChabayHmm. Seems to be fairly well hidden.
A unified treatment of electrostatics and circuits
American Journal of Physics
This can be find online.
Anyway, I'm glad to see that a ferret is really making something of his life - and in Antarctica too. Must be tough.
If the battery and bulb are close together, but the wires go off to the sides, there is going to be very little E-field at all along the wires. The S-field has to, mainly, jump across the gap between the source and sink where both the fields have any strength.
I'd be interested to see how you have derived this. It's all very well stating that this is the correct arrangement of fields, but I think that this is a situation where we need to see the detailed working, from the underlying physical principles.
If the battery and bulb are close together, but the wires go off to the sides, there is going to be very little E-field at all along the wires. The S-field has to, mainly, jump across the gap between the source and sink where both the fields have any strength.
One thing bothers me, it must be langauge thing. People are speaking how power is not transmitted through wires, but "flying in free-space". In similar sense power is spoken as current or potential difference or their fields. In my understanding power is byproduct not primary 'force' so to speak. :-//
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRR0gHh9a4s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRR0gHh9a4s)
This is a very artificial problem. It requires zero resistance wires, and an unobtainium light bulb that lights on any current other than zero.
Before the switch is closed, no current is flowing.
Switch closes, battery sees a charge deficit (switch is on the -ve pole of the battery, has an electron surplus) so current flows to remove the deficit. How much current? ignoring the return wire for the moment, the current is moving for at least a second into what looks like an infinite wire with no resistance. The only thing stopping the current going to infinity is the intrinsic inductance of a straight wire - so it will rise as fast as that inductance allows. With 12V it will rise to thousands of Amps.
The transient lighting of the bulb due to parasitic capacitance and inductance in the attached transmission lines is not interesting to me. Obviously it will occur to some extent. And it would not illuminate any real light bulb. But technically some power appears nearly immediately.
The claim that steady state DC power flow does not happen in the wires is interesting. Is that being claimed in the video ?
If so how does that happen? I know about the poynting vector but what is this in a steady state DC circuit. At a point in space B and E fields are constant. Is power flowing through this point as indicated by poynting ?
[...] the current through the load is significant [...] right from the start [...]
To reach a conclusion, you must first define what EXACTLY is the question, and as I said a few posts ago, I think the initial question is ill-defined. So that can run in circles forever. Not that the points made about it all are not interesting. ;DIll defined or not, it is interesting to read and follow the discussion, by someone who is not (unfortunately) dealing with these at day job. Here is many that are much more accustomed in fields, transmission line theory and physics involved... or they at least have really good "consultant facade". ::)
Kalvin's model, like most models, ignores the inductance of a straight wire. Understandable in a model because it isn't easy to determine and is usually negligible. Models aren't designed to handle 300,000km of zero resistance wire. They don't crop up much.
The first question that came to mind is where did the 12V come from to drive current through the 200 ohm load. Anyone who says capacitive coupling is welcome to calculate the capacitance per meter of two parallel wires a meter apart.
But yes there will be 12V, it comes from the tiny amount of shared magnetic flux as the current in the switched wire ramps up from zero to a few thousand amps, enough to create a few milliamps in the return wire.
Anybody that thinks that the circuit will only show the characteristics of a transmission line is missing something. There are parallel wires in your street delivering loads of amps to all the houses. They don't behave like there's a few hundred ohms of impedance stopping the the flow of current. There isn't a huge drop of voltage because of reactance. They behave like low resistance wires with a tiny, tiny hint of a transmission line.
So there's no use in quoting transmission line formulae here. They really don't apply.
The overhead transmission line is generally categorized into three classes,[3] depending on the length of the line:
The transmission lines which have a length less than 50 km are generally referred to as short transmission lines.
The transmission line having its effective length more than 50 km but less than 150 km is generally referred to as a medium transmission line.
A transmission line having a length more than 150 km is considered as a long transmission line.
This categorization is mainly done for the ease of performance analysis of transmission lines, by power engineers.
Anybody that thinks that the circuit will only show the characteristics of a transmission line is missing something. There are parallel wires in your street delivering loads of amps to all the houses. They don't behave like there's a few hundred ohms of impedance stopping the the flow of current. There isn't a huge drop of voltage because of reactance. They behave like low resistance wires with a tiny, tiny hint of a transmission line.Like Kalvin said, this is dependent of frequency and more precisely wave lenght (approx. λ=c/f) to component size relation (eg. local distribution network), although same transients are there in switching, load variations (eg. high-impedance load separations) and high-frequency switching (eg. VFDs without filters and chokes). For 50Hz the nominal lenght is 6000km while eg. 50kHz (high-audio) wave length is approx. 6 kilometers. That is also the reason we can calculate 50/60Hz distribution lines so conveniently with extended DC equations as they were DC (..and common practice is to forgot transients ... until they matter). And there is transients, but that is usually measured as "Light bulb flicker" ... very scientific, indeed. Again some convention inherited from ages of tube radios and other atomic age apparatuses.
So there's no use in quoting transmission line formulae here. They really don't apply.
Quote from a stack exchange article "Thus a wire becomes a transmission line when the cycle time of the signal energy is shorter than the propagation delay." [best I could find] Since this problem is a direct current problem, there is no cycle time. My comparison of street wiring with propagation delay shorter than 50Hz wavelength and a 300,000km wire with propagation delay of > 1 second and a zero frequency supply looks OK - in both cases the cycle time is longer than the propagation delay.I would need to blow dust (a thick layer) from my handbooks, so I can not give you help about the calculation. However, your assumption is wrong that there is no "frequency" involved, any rate of change is actually Ac (altenating current) component. If you do not believe measure how capacitor conduct, when you vary the DC voltage from your laboratory power supply to it, that is DC, isn't it or is it?
I tried to calculate the rate at which the current ramps up when the switch is closed. My intuitive idea of thousands of amps is flawed. Assuming an inductance of 1nH/m for a single wire (it appears to be around that according to articles), then 300,000km of wire has an inductance of around 0.3H, the circuit is 4 times that (1.2H) so if 12V is applied for any length of time with no light bulb then the current would ramp up - delta A = 10A/s. However, current doesn't increase from zero everywhere when the switch is closed, it travels at the speed of light from the switch. I don't know how to model that.
Quote from a stack exchange article "Thus a wire becomes a transmission line when the cycle time of the signal energy is shorter than the propagation delay." [best I could find]It is pretty much the same as wavelenght vs physical size, both can be expressed IIRC by function permeability and permittivity and c. The reason this matters is because the current is at different (unknown)phase on both ends of object (eg. transistor), so the potential difference is also different what lumped model predicts, which leads to that you can not apply eg. kirchoffs or ohm's laws directly to it. You need a new (mathematical) model to apply these laws and it is called transmission line. This is how I have internalized it to my self and can remember at the moment, I do hope it is not too far off, so take this with grain of salt.
....
I tried to calculate the rate at which the current ramps up when the switch is closed. My intuitive idea of thousands of amps is flawed. Assuming an inductance of 1nH/m for a single wire (it appears to be around that according to articles), then 300,000km of wire has an inductance of around 0.3H, the circuit is 4 times that (1.2H) so if 12V is applied for any length of time with no light bulb then the current would ramp up - delta A = 10A/s. However, current doesn't increase from zero everywhere when the switch is closed, it travels at the speed of light from the switch. I don't know how to model that.
I tried to calculate the rate at which the current ramps up when the switch is closed. My intuitive idea of thousands of amps is flawed. Assuming an inductance of 1nH/m for a single wire (it appears to be around that according to articles), then 300,000km of wire has an inductance of around 0.3H, the circuit is 4 times that (1.2H)
(2) What *is* electricity? I should know, maybe I once did, but I strongly suspect it all came about from being told stuff, and believing it with varying levels of reluctance. The balls in a pipe analogy is nice, but it swims amongst charges, fields, fanciful claims (like 1), and div and curl operators which leave you wondering about your misspent education, and its effect on your future (fortunately, none, I'm pretty sure it's never come up since - until now).
Pretty sure I never knew that a magnetic field was an electric field in the charge carrier's perspective, nor that it had "simple relativity" at its core. Why did no one say? Perhaps my educators either didn't really understand it themselves, or were too academic to see beyond established models (and therefore didn't really understand it themselves). Or I was absent that day. Or it just doesn't matter.
So is this quasi-classical description fairly right?: Electrons (and protons) have charge (excepting exotic matter), and are responsible for (all?) electric fields. Solid matter has electrons and protons, generally held together by electric fields at an atomic scale (not a nuclear scale). Some electrons are mobile in a metal, but otherwise follow the same rules which pack them in at a nominal spacing, so they are a barely compressible fluid (effectively in fixed sized piping). It takes mechanical force (for example an acoustic wave) to squeeze or stretch such materials, whether that be the bound nuclei or free electrons. The former does not alter the bulk charge, but does alter the size. The latter is the reverse. This force is the level of compression of the material, better described as its pressure.
Other than that, pressure is less of a real physical artefact relating to the matter, and more an external philosophical measure of the potential to do work - the so-called potential energy. Force (converted from pascals for atoms and volts for electrons) in newtons, times distance (in metres) is the actual energy (joules).
Current flowing in a DC circuit is a feature of charge, in a hydraulic circuit electrons and protons (and neutrons) flow, in an electrical circuit only the electrons move. Both happen as a result of the mechanical pressure, which supplies the potential energy, but it is the duration of this pressure which transfers real energy (power). In a lossless circuit (superconductor / superfluid) no pressure is required to keep the fluid flowing, so it takes no energy. In an open circuit pressure might be as high as you like, but nothing moves, so that takes no energy.
So back to point (1) above, it's like dragging a brick along the ground with a string (in my very TBD vlog I go off on a tangent and precisely grind a V-notch around it to stop the string getting abraded, thereby getting all sorts of street appeal for being "interesting"): Once the superfluous setup montage ends, I am pulling the string in at a constant rate, performing what some would loosely call work, while getting all sorts of strange looks (I prefer to call them views). Undoubtedly transmitting power to the brick scraping surfaces (remember there are two) - but how? There is a negative pressure in the string, it is moving. Is the energy flowing "through" it? With respect to me as a stationary observer? I think it is. But I am putting the ground in compression (I am kicking it under the brick), it is moving relative to the string. So is the energy "really" flowing through the space between string and ground, on account of it enjoying both pressure difference and relative motion? With respect to the system on the physical scale of energy transfer (the current loop)? I think so. But its exact path (see Feynman lecture 27-4, handily provided in this thread), like the "potential" energy, are philosophical constructs designed to imagine something that doesn't seem to physically exist, not in this realm anyway. So it's a pretty tough call to make a statement that one particular location is "right" and another "wrong".
The main context here is not phisics or electrical engineering: this is a multiple choises question!In that case the "s" should be left out as well :-+, so 2 errors.
Here if a question "seems" to be right but has an error inside it's wrong!
So, because the respose D contains a dimensional error (missing "m") it's wrong!
And the right answer is E :-)
To me it seems the answer is 2m/c seconds -- 1m/c seconds for the E-M wave to travel to the light bulb and another 1m/c seconds for a photon from the bulb to reach the operator. Having the operator detect photons from the bulb at t=1m/c seconds would seem to defy causality.
Pretty sure I never knew that a magnetic field was an electric field in the charge carrier's perspective, nor that it had "simple relativity" at its core. Why did no one say? Perhaps my educators either didn't really understand it themselves, or were too academic to see beyond established models (and therefore didn't really understand it themselves). Or I was absent that day. Or it just doesn't matter.
Yeah, this is, I guess embarrassing to say, pretty fundamental to E&M and Relativity -- but it might still be no accident that you missed this particular fact -- whether through absence, or not having made the inference. And, insights like these being what they are, it's no shame to miss such a thing -- we honor the names of those few who discover them, after all!
Other than that, pressure is less of a real physical artefact relating to the matter, and more an external philosophical measure of the potential to do work - the so-called potential energy. Force (converted from pascals for atoms and volts for electrons) in newtons, times distance (in metres) is the actual energy (joules).
Physics tends to work more in energy, and energy seems to be more fundamental to quantum processes. For classical problems, it tends to be a shortcut -- who cares how something gets there, just figure out where the energy goes -- but we might just as well imagine we're being smart using forces and trajectories to solve a problem, when the energy truly is more fundamental, while the trajectory is irrelevant, or even a fiction.
And yes, in any case, energy is an abstract quantity; it's not easy to teach I think, and coming up with analogies and explanations, may range from the philosophical to metaphysical...
Or, for another thought experiment -- consider spinning a magnet fast enough that it emits significant electromagnetic radiation -- i.e. by itself, without surrounding antenna structures. It simply has to spin so many orders of magnitude faster than any material can bear. (To be a properly resonant dipole, it needs a tangential velocity very near c, after all.)
Interesting turn of phrase - I would never make the inference myself, as students we were essentially not permitted to. Yes there was the whole "it's not like being taught at school, you learn how to learn" schtick, but ultimately, if it was not taught, it was not to be learnt. Engineering was a contradiction not wrapped in any sort of enigma or riddle. Our job was to transcribe and somehow learn the material as presented, think about it critically and with free and inquiring mind, but not question its Ultimate Truth. That only seemed to get me into trouble. While we revelled in the fact we were being trained as units of production with some begrudging allowance for original thought - it was simply so we could turn up at work with our brains switched on, not to ask questions. I can't see medicine or law being any different. Maybe physics is!
My point was to intentionally equate hydraulic and electric current as not just an analogy, but physically equivalent. So the balls in a pipe go in one end, and come out the other. A wire as an acoustic waveguide for electrons, forced in one end using real newtons, and exerting a force at the other in real newtons, propagating via longitudinal electric field waves, same as water does. Except the electrons being very light, can't really carry what we would call a "wave" (pressure on inertia causing velocity etc, as you say it needs density), so it still propagates but with infinite velocity (which is c).
This infinitely fast massless longitudinal wave (current) can't store or propagate energy on its own (ping pong balls with the same rigidity as steel bearings), all it can do is exert a force at the same instant it is applied, which is why the only mode possible is transverse pressure (pulling on string while pushing on ground, imagine if they were massless, again this is a real state of matter and the physics are not an analogy). And other things.
To the extent that it does (carry magic), fine, but students get stuck between mathematical hyperbole and a "we'll upgrade your understanding next year but for now this will do". In other words, establishing truths that are not real risks a belief in magic.
My confusion, instilled from an early-ish age, is with the physical reality of charge, pressure, current, and energy. Poynting might agree that energy is a concept, not something that anyone can take a picture of (drawing a diagram is not the same as taking a photo). Similar for time, and pressure. Consider a pipe with water at 1000 psi in it, versus a cylindrical hole in an infinite solid made of the same thing: Despite the mechanical configuration of water being the same (compressed to the same degree), the former has potential energy, for the latter it has something that does not exist. The maths is the same, the model is correct, the concept exists the same in both cases, but a seemingly irrelevant change makes it physically implausible in one case.
Some commenters (here or on YT - can't find now) have boiled the "energy flows outside the wires" down to nicely intuitive statements that basically go; the space between the conductors is where the potential difference exists, the conductors are where the charge carriers flow, so it has to be a combination of wire and space that "energy" traverses. (I was going to add the example of a PCB with power and ground planes, and say the only place you need go looking for power is in the gap - but that's kind of redundant.)
Except it's worse than that - a location for the potential difference isn't needed, nor its "field strength", it just has to exist. And that is clear from the language, the focus is on force and movement. No one seems to question why power in a chain drive flows "outside the chain" (which is the same kind of situation).
I'd go one step further though; and infer that because energy seems to take a path that occupies either all or no space, and seems to transmit as if there were nothing in its way, it seems not to flow in spacetime at all. There is just distance and time. Kind of like it goes in a straight line but without direction, and chooses where to go based on external constraints. Photons show this behaviour.
I have! I wanted to make one (not a lot). Put it in a ferrite rod (which I guess is the epitome of an antenna structure) and there's not much difference between that and an AM radio. It also becomes a lot more practical to spin at 60MRPM.
The total propagation delay of the reflection is twice the line length or 1 second.Or 2 seconds. He says the lines are 300,000km long. And since current propagates slower than light speed it will be greater.
Tim
...energy is force times distance, so if we differentiate energy with respect to distance, we get something force-like. ...
...(indeed, over short time scales, nothing can due to skin effect)...
My confusion, instilled from an early-ish age, is with the physical reality of charge, pressure, current, and energy. Poynting might agree that energy is a concept, not something that anyone can take a picture of (drawing a diagram is not the same as taking a photo). Similar for time, and pressure. Consider a pipe with water at 1000 psi in it, versus a cylindrical hole in an infinite solid made of the same thing: Despite the mechanical configuration of water being the same (compressed to the same degree), the former has potential energy, for the latter it has something that does not exist. The maths is the same, the model is correct, the concept exists the same in both cases, but a seemingly irrelevant change makes it physically implausible in one case.
Ah but does it, really? A pipe at only 1000 PSI is a vacuum compared to deep underground. Energy is relative!
I'm not sure what you're getting at with the infinite solid? Mind, it's not perfectly rigid, the hole expands somewhat under internal pressure, tangentially stretching at the inner surface while radially compressing the surrounding material (how much, is given by the elastic modulus). In terms of the pipe's stretchiness adding to the compressibility of the fluid and thus affecting wave velocity/impedance, the two situations will be different, but the latter will certainly not be the same as an ideal (truly incompressible, perfectly rigid) pipe, there will always be some effect.
Some commenters (here or on YT - can't find now) have boiled the "energy flows outside the wires" down to nicely intuitive statements that basically go; the space between the conductors is where the potential difference exists, the conductors are where the charge carriers flow, so it has to be a combination of wire and space that "energy" traverses. (I was going to add the example of a PCB with power and ground planes, and say the only place you need go looking for power is in the gap - but that's kind of redundant.)
Except it's worse than that - a location for the potential difference isn't needed, nor its "field strength", it just has to exist. And that is clear from the language, the focus is on force and movement. No one seems to question why power in a chain drive flows "outside the chain" (which is the same kind of situation).
I'd go one step further though; and infer that because energy seems to take a path that occupies either all or no space, and seems to transmit as if there were nothing in its way, it seems not to flow in spacetime at all. There is just distance and time. Kind of like it goes in a straight line but without direction, and chooses where to go based on external constraints. Photons show this behaviour.
Well, hold on a moment. Energy is certainly flowing in the chain -- it might not be obvious how much is there, from just looking at one side of the drive, but considering the complete chain, we can take its velocity (which will be, on average, equal for both up and down sides), and the total tension (i.e., the difference -- the total with respect to a consistent direction, as one side is pulling up, the other down), and there's the power. Clearly the power is contained within the chain!
Or for a more mathematical treatment: say we slice the system in half, between pulleys. One side of the chain flows into the cutting plane, the other side out. Integrate the tension over the chain cross-section (well, it'll be pressure at this point), and multiply by velocity. Now we don't need to look at chains or belts under tension, we can do it for any mass flow: the crack of a whip, or fluids in a pipe (or not, like a waterfall). And, as long as our cutting surface is closed (an infinite plane can be seen as a facet of an infinite sphere, or we can make a smaller box around a source or load of interest), we'll always have the correct total; we'll never miss the return path of a hydraulic pump for example, or when fluid is spraying out onto the floor. (Not that it's necessarily easy to account for such flows, like evaporation and ground-seepage of water in the environment -- just that, in principle, it will be in this way.)
And, voila, that's how you use a Gaussian surface, you look at the total flux in/out of the surface, and that corresponds to the total contained within.
Well, if we do the same thing with the circuit, we find a superposition of two things:
1. DC flow in the wire,
2. AC flow around the wire (and along its surface).
The Poynting vector is just the quantity we integrate when we want to find total power flow. How it's distributed spatially, depends on which case we're checking; both are valid in general!
@adx - it took me a while to get past the 'electricity is like water in a pipe' concept. …
Ah yes, that was quite a hasty analogy wasn't it, and not only that but tension isn't even a vector; it has direction, but it's more complicated than that, it's an aspect of the stress tensor. Which is still a differential thing so needs to be integrated, but the value you get out the other side (and the operation to get it, i.e. what kind of integral) will be different. If nothing else, I've proven that I'm no mechanical engineer, which is true enough. :-DD
Tim
ElectroBOOM has jumped on the bandwagon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iph500cPK28 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iph500cPK28)
Without clarity from Derek, my take is that the vagueness is deliberate: thus, I take it to be a trick question. Kinda disappointed to be honest, especially as the etymology for "veritasium" is rooted in the latin word for "truth". The more I think about it, the more I['m coming the the conclusion that the original video was more about clicks and engagement than it was about truth.
Derek managed to successfully dismiss the idea that currents and voltages carry energy. Currents and voltages are a consequence of the existence of the electromagnetic field, and that's what conveys energy.
Mehdi's videos are a pure waste of time.
You've stated that very poorly. The magnetic fields are themselves a result of the movement of charges, including spin of course. The existence of the electric field is a result of the distribution of charge. I'm not sure what you mean by the 'electromagnetic field', but if you mean EM radiation, OK that's another layer and self-propagating, but still originates with moving charges. It's not even a chicken/egg dilemma, the charges can be moving for any reason you like. It can be a bag of protons on a hamster wheel.
Actually I think he did fairly well this time and I not an Electroboomer but I did watch it for once--it only had two "Ow my balls" moments. He made a lot of the same observations as I did, but I haven't expounded here because there's not much point, IMO. The basic premise is that the original video attacks a straw man 'big misconception' and depends on a trick question to demonstrate....something. If you think leakage current is negligible, then I think it is fair to consider the current through a total of about 2kohms from a 12V battery as also 'negligible' when it come to lighting a light bulb such as the one he showed in the video. And then there's the likely thousands or millions of volts you would actually pick up from wires that long hanging out in the solar wind.
But what really happens...
But what really happens...
There's no need to introduce Quantum Field Theory or Feynman diagrams into a situation that can be adequately modelled without them. And even QFT isn't "what really happens", it is just the next layer down. We never get to "what really happens".
As for the 'thought experiment', I agree with Mehdi that certain imprecisions and ambiguities were deliberately introduced to make it a trick question. If you pick and choose which things you are going to consider and which you are going to ignore, you can arrive at any result you want. In the actualworlduniverse, you don't get to pick and choose.
And in that direction, I'd give him credit for noticing, as I did, that the initial short spike in the simulations was due to the limitations of the transmission line model and a real transmission line wouldn't have that.
Derek managed to successfully dismiss the idea that currents and voltages carry energy. Currents and voltages are a consequence of the existence of the electromagnetic field, and that's what conveys energy.
You've stated that very poorly. The magnetic fields are themselves a result of the movement of charges, including spin of course. The existence of the electric field is a result of the distribution of charge. I'm not sure what you mean by the 'electromagnetic field', but if you mean EM radiation, OK that's another layer and self-propagating, but still originates with moving charges.
The technicality brought by Mehdi about the leakage current to say Derek was wrong is simply ridiculous. It's obviously implicit that if there were some leakage current it would be considered negligible.
Without clarity from Derek, my take is that the vagueness is deliberate: thus, I take it to be a trick question. Kinda disappointed to be honest, especially as the etymology for "veritasium" is rooted in the latin word for "truth". The more I think about it, the more I['m coming the the conclusion that the original video was more about clicks and engagement than it was about truth.
Or if you really want to be nitpicking: "when will the energy provided by the closing of the switch start to arrive at the lamp?"
:-// Is Derek wrong because of that?
Quote:-// Is Derek wrong because of that?
Yes. "Demonstrating" a theoretical concept with an example that cannot be modelled--requires conditions that cannot exist and neglecting factors that would swamp the claimed effect in the real world--is just showmanship, not education.
Electricity is a sneaky thing. I will be flowing as a field around the wire, but as soon as it meets the copper plate, it will get into the wire. As soon as it has cleared the copper plate it will resume flowing as the field around the wire. You cannot fool electricity. :PA field enters a wire only when the wire is resistive. When a field enters such a wire it creates heat in the wire.
Now the question is, after I close this switch, how long would it take for the bulb to light up?...
...(converging on it like a black hole) ...
...It's not even a chicken/egg dilemma, the charges can be moving for any reason you like. It can be a bag of protons on a hamster wheel.
So if energy flows not in wires but near the surface, then if we take a fairly large sheet of copper, ground it, drill a hole in the center with the hole diameter being very close to the wire diameter, and run the wire thru the hole, then we will block the flow of energy (assuming the hole walls are so close to the wire surface but not touching it ) along the wire surface , and therefore when we close the switch the load will not get any energy in DC steady state because no electromagnetic field can break through the shield . I do not think anyone here would believe that at DC no energy will flow into the load in this experiment. Therefore the claim that energy flows not in wires is bogus.
Based on the title, I'd argue that's he's still "right".
The video is fundamentally about the misconception that energy flows in wires, and he did a fairly decent job of explaining why that's not the case.
So if energy flows not in wires but near the surface, then if we take a fairly large sheet of copper, ground it, drill a hole in the center with the hole diameter being very close to the wire diameter, and run the wire thru the hole, then we will block the flow of energy (assuming the hole walls are so close to the wire surface but not touching it ) along the wire surface , and therefore when we close the switch the load will not get any energy in DC steady state because no electromagnetic field can break through the shield . I do not think anyone here would believe that at DC no energy will flow into the load in this experiment. Therefore the claim that energy flows not in wires is bogus.
The energy is in the fields, and most notably in the fields generated by the surface charge. Not that of the electrons 'flowing' inside the conductor.
The energy is in the fields, and most notably in the fields generated by the surface charge. Not that of the electrons 'flowing' inside the conductor.
Why 'fields' (plural) without naming them? Since the Poynting vector is the cross product of the E and B fields, why do you say that the E-field generated by the surface charge is somehow more important than the curled magnetic field, which is indeed due to the electrons flowing inside the conductor?
So if energy flows not in wires but near the surface, then if we take a fairly large sheet of copper, ground it, drill a hole in the center with the hole diameter being very close to the wire diameter, and run the wire thru the hole, then we will block the flow of energy (assuming the hole walls are so close to the wire surface but not touching it ) along the wire surface , and therefore when we close the switch the load will not get any energy in DC steady state because no electromagnetic field can break through the shield . I do not think anyone here would believe that at DC no energy will flow into the load in this experiment. Therefore the claim that energy flows not in wires is bogus.
Why do you think it will block the 'flow' of energy? The energy is in the fields, and most notably in the fields generated by the surface charge. Not that of the electrons 'flowing' inside the conductor. When you create a hole in your shield, you let the conductors through it, without touching the shield. This means that the surface charge (albeit a tad disturbed by the capacitance of the shield, but let's neglect that) will go through as as well. And with the surface charge, so do the fields. And the energy.
Compute the Poynting vector inside the conductor with E = 0. What do you get? Zero.
There is no energy being carried inside the perfect conductor. It's all in the space between conductors.
So if energy flows not in wires but near the surface, then if we take a fairly large sheet of copper, ground it, drill a hole in the center with the hole diameter being very close to the wire diameter, and run the wire thru the hole, then we will block the flow of energy (assuming the hole walls are so close to the wire surface but not touching it ) along the wire surface , and therefore when we close the switch the load will not get any energy in DC steady state because no electromagnetic field can break through the shield . I do not think anyone here would believe that at DC no energy will flow into the load in this experiment. Therefore the claim that energy flows not in wires is bogus.
Why do you think it will block the 'flow' of energy? The energy is in the fields, and most notably in the fields generated by the surface charge. Not that of the electrons 'flowing' inside the conductor. When you create a hole in your shield, you let the conductors through it, without touching the shield. This means that the surface charge (albeit a tad disturbed by the capacitance of the shield, but let's neglect that) will go through as as well. And with the surface charge, so do the fields. And the energy.
Because E and B fields do not crawl *On* the wire surface in their entiety, they also exist at a distance from the surface albeit at a deminishing amplitude. Still, you'd need to integrate them thruoghout the entire space in order to arrive to a total. Therefore if we only leave a tiny hole very close to the wire surface , only the field portion that is closest to the surface will squeeze in and the rest will be blocked by the shield. That is why i said "there should be measureable difference in delivered power with the shield vs no shield".
[/quote]Compute the Poynting vector inside the conductor with E = 0. What do you get? Zero.
There is no energy being carried inside the perfect conductor. It's all in the space between conductors.
Perhaps we don't disagree, I never implied that the Poynting vector in the wire was anything other than zero or close to it. Rather I'm pointing out that the existence of one of the two required fields is directly due to the actual movement of electrons. And the other is due to where they end up. If you'll amend 'between' to 'around' I would be even more agreeable.
So if energy flows not in wires but near the surface, then if we take a fairly large sheet of copper, ground it, drill a hole in the center with the hole diameter being very close to the wire diameter, and run the wire thru the hole, then we will block the flow of energy (assuming the hole walls are so close to the wire surface but not touching it ) along the wire surface , and therefore when we close the switch the load will not get any energy in DC steady state because no electromagnetic field can break through the shield . I do not think anyone here would believe that at DC no energy will flow into the load in this experiment. Therefore the claim that energy flows not in wires is bogus.
lol, still going strong. Yet only one mention of Litz!
The "argument" is framed around such a nonsense assumption/premise, its intentionally trying to break peoples heads by equating radically different modes of propagation.
Back in the real world, with the sort of power people actually use to power lighting devices (I'll send you a $1 if you actually have an installed and in use microwave power system) is so low in frequency that all these "clever" ways of moving power are irrelevant and lost in the noise.
Does power travel in the conductor/wire, yes it does,
otherwise hollow shell conductors (just the shield of an empty coax) would be as effective or better than a solid of the same outside dimensions and material. You're going to revolutionise the world with that material saving, send me just 1% of the sales as royalties ;).
Litz wire gives the practical example that people can play with at reasonable frequencies and see the effects, at some frequency the energy does concentrate to the surface/outside, and below that it appears the same as a solid of the same cross section...
The fact that the Poynting vector is usually introduced in later chapters in introductory physics and EM book does not mean you cannot consider it at DC.
..
The concept of power 'travelling' is interesting in itself. If you have a motor transmitting rotational power (torque x speed) through a shaft to a load in a completely constant manner, so that the energy of the shaft--which consists of the angular momentum and flex torsion--is absolutely constant, how does the power 'travel'? No energy is going in or out of the shaft itself, yet power is applied at one end and applied to the load at the other.
..
The fact that the Poynting vector is usually introduced in later chapters in introductory physics and EM book does not mean you cannot consider it at DC.
You can consider it, but IMO it is poyntless. For a given DC circuit made up of specific components and wires of a given resistance, no matter how you physically rearrange it all solutions will degenerate to the exact same result.
What. Are. You. Talking. About. ?
"The Poynting Vector is pointless."
Please, kindly, toss all your coax cables out the window then.
I said that they are poyntless in that they serve no purpose other than to give you the smug satisfaction that you are above all the other heathens because you somehow "know what is really going on".
If I have the basic circuit with a completely defined battery, two uniform wires of known resistance and a completely defined light bulb, I can model the circuit for voltage, current, power, fields, heating, etc. I can also draw some nice Poynting vectors--but only after I use my model to determine the E and B fields at each point in space. Now if I physically rearrange my circuit--put the wires in a circle, twist them, wrap the circuit in tin foil, encase it in an iron block--each of those instances will have a different set of fields and a different S-field and Poynting vectors at each point in space. However, no matter how I do that in the DC case, my power transfer to the light bulb will be exactly the same.
That's what I mean by 'degenerate'--you have infinitely many Poynting vector solutions corresponding to infinitely many physical configurations that will always work out to the same result, the result that I got by just considering the characteristics of the battery, bulb and resistance of the wires.
...
You seem to think that fields are 'material arrows' connected along lines that must pass inside the hole. No, they are manifestation of charges and currents. ...
... So the vector product with B, whatever that may be will be ZERO. Ergo, no energy is being carried inside the wires.
...
The wires are necessary, but they do not carry the energy, they just guide it.
The concept of power 'travelling' is interesting in itself. If you have a motor transmitting rotational power (torque x speed) through a shaft to a load in a completely constant manner, so that the energy of the shaft--which consists of the angular momentum and flex torsion--is absolutely constant, how does the power 'travel'? No energy is going in or out of the shaft itself, yet power is applied at one end and applied to the load at the other. Likewise, the static fields of a DC system store some energy, but since they are static and their energy never increases or decreases, can you say that energy flows 'through' them even though it doesn't flow in or out? Even if you do (a semantic issue IMO), you'd have to concede that this is at least nominally distinguishable from the case where energy is put into a field, it's energy measurably increases and then at a later time and perhaps at a different location, that energy is dissipated in a load and the field's energy decreases.
Going back to the 1st post and video, shirley I could test this with a blue LED, photodiode and ~20m of wire. :popcorn:
How is the Poynting vector useless when it is the answer, the solution to what was being discussed?
To know what is 'really' going on (and 'really' here means in the context of classical electrodynamics, at least for me) is the whole point of the discussion.
@Bud: The magnetic field at DC will go straight through a copper plate. The electric field AKA voltage difference will crowd into the gap. From this time of night I can't see how that makes you wrong. The bulk of the magnetic field will be in a place with no electric field.
"The Poynting Vector is pointless."
Please, kindly, toss all your coax cables out the window then.
Apparently you missed the context. I was referring to steady-state DC circuits exclusively, which ironically I often use coax cables for--but that's a different issue. And I didn't say that they (Poynting vectors) can't be calculated, drawn or that they somehow don't apply--I said that they are poyntless in that they serve no purpose other than to give you the smug satisfaction that you are above all the other heathens because you somehow "know what is really going on".
@Bud: The magnetic field at DC will go straight through a copper plate. The electric field AKA voltage difference will crowd into the gap. From this time of night I can't see how that makes you wrong. The bulk of the magnetic field will be in a place with no electric field.
But does the current create the magnetic field, or does the magnetic field create the current? :popcorn:
"The Poynting Vector is pointless."
Please, kindly, toss all your coax cables out the window then.
Apparently you missed the context. I was referring to steady-state DC circuits exclusively, which ironically I often use coax cables for--but that's a different issue. And I didn't say that they (Poynting vectors) can't be calculated, drawn or that they somehow don't apply--I said that they are poyntless in that they serve no purpose other than to give you the smug satisfaction that you are above all the other heathens because you somehow "know what is really going on".
Anyone who brings up poynting vectors in DC circuit theory will be laughed out of any engineering classroom or lab.
"The Poynting Vector is pointless."
Please, kindly, toss all your coax cables out the window then.
Apparently you missed the context. I was referring to steady-state DC circuits exclusively, which ironically I often use coax cables for--but that's a different issue. And I didn't say that they (Poynting vectors) can't be calculated, drawn or that they somehow don't apply--I said that they are poyntless in that they serve no purpose other than to give you the smug satisfaction that you are above all the other heathens because you somehow "know what is really going on".
Anyone who brings up poynting vectors in DC circuit theory will be laughed out of any engineering classroom or lab.
You say that but I teach DC and AC circuit theory at my university alma mater, so... >:D
Yes. "Demonstrating" a theoretical concept with an example that cannot be modelled
--requires conditions that cannot exist and neglecting factors that would swamp the claimed effect in the real world--is just showmanship, not education.
I've said in other discussions that there is absolutely no need to teach electronics at any level with exemplar circuits that do not work properly, or would be totally impractical, because it is always feasible--and better in the long run--to do a bit of extra work and provide a realistic, practical example. The same goes for this case.
He creates a false dichotomy--false because power actually won't get from the generating plant to your house if the electrons don't actually move in the wires and that motion is inextricably connected to the fields involved--and then 'proves' it with a non-falsifiable 'experiment' where he visually misrepresents what he is saying and demands physically impossible conditions to boot. Will the exact light bulb he uses in the video light in the manner he shows in that video with a current of 6 milliamperes or less?
Without clarity from Derek, my take is that the vagueness is deliberate: thus, I take it to be a trick question. Kinda disappointed to be honest, especially as the etymology for "veritasium" is rooted in the latin word for "truth". The more I think about it, the more I['m coming the the conclusion that the original video was more about clicks and engagement than it was about truth.
You don't have to guess at that, Derek himself did an entire video saying that going forward his videos were going to be optimised for viral views and clicks. He succeeded, he knew very well this would bring an avalance of responses from engineers. You can almost see the joy on his face as the professors told him he would get called out on it.
Anyone who brings up poynting vectors in DC circuit theory will be laughed out of any engineering classroom or lab.
But that's the point of it all.
Derek's question and answer were obviosuly a troll, so Medhi successfully trolled back.
Without clarity from Derek, my take is that the vagueness is deliberate: thus, I take it to be a trick question. Kinda disappointed to be honest, especially as the etymology for "veritasium" is rooted in the latin word for "truth". The more I think about it, the more I['m coming the the conclusion that the original video was more about clicks and engagement than it was about truth.
You don't have to guess at that, Derek himself did an entire video saying that going forward his videos were going to be optimised for viral views and clicks. He succeeded, he knew very well this would bring an avalance of responses from engineers. You can almost see the joy on his face as the professors told him he would get called out on it.
They didn't say Derek would be called out because engineers know best.
But that's the point of it all.The difference is that Derek didn't lie in his video. Mehdi did.
Derek's question and answer were obviosuly a troll, so Medhi successfully trolled back.
They didn't say Derek would be called out because engineers know best. Quite the opposite. Engineers are essentially dumbed-down "physicists". But that's not a problem. The problem is that most of them don't know that and some of them keep pestering physicists when physicists show them the limitations of their knowledge.
We, engineers, need to stop this. We need to acknowledge that physicists hold all the keys to our knowledge.
Even though there will be some current flowing immediately, it will take some time before the lamp is fully lit, and the turning on will exhibit interesting stepwise increase of the light intensity.
This stepwise behavior is seen also in some oscilloscope pictures above.
I don't know, because I think my brain actually hurts. Or at least the parts of it capable of feeling pain.@Bud: The magnetic field at DC will go straight through a copper plate. The electric field AKA voltage difference will crowd into the gap. From this time of night I can't see how that makes you wrong. The bulk of the magnetic field will be in a place with no electric field.
But does the current create the magnetic field, or does the magnetic field create the current? :popcorn:
"The Poynting Vector is pointless."
Please, kindly, toss all your coax cables out the window then.
Apparently you missed the context. I was referring to steady-state DC circuits exclusively, which ironically I often use coax cables for--but that's a different issue. And I didn't say that they (Poynting vectors) can't be calculated, drawn or that they somehow don't apply--I said that they are poyntless in that they serve no purpose other than to give you the smug satisfaction that you are above all the other heathens because you somehow "know what is really going on".
Anyone who brings up poynting vectors in DC circuit theory will be laughed out of any engineering classroom or lab.
You say that but I teach DC and AC circuit theory at my university alma mater, so... >:D
I wonder how many EEs, as opposed to physicists, have had a practical use for directly using Poynting vectors or Maxwell's equations since leaving university? Sure we all know the right- and left-hand rules, and an RF engineer might well have use them indirectly when using an EM or antenna modelling package, put I doubt most EEs will have touched them, or have had a need to do so directly, since leaving the classroom.
Nobody here is denying that the physics isn't right. We are pointing out that there are ALSO ways that engineers look at these sorts of problems, and for good reason. And it also gives people ANOTHER WAY to look at the problem and get the same answer. That's a good thing. Not everyone is best served with a Maxwell and Poynting explanation for everything.From an engineering perspective, it is more important to understand the role of impedance matching. Without proper matching, the light bulb might fail due to overvoltage after a few seconds.
I've said in other discussions that there is absolutely no need to teach electronics at any level with exemplar circuits that do not work properly, or would be totally impractical, because it is always feasible--and better in the long run--to do a bit of extra work and provide a realistic, practical example. The same goes for this case.
What is more practical than a battery, a switch, wires and a lamp?
"The Poynting Vector is pointless."
Please, kindly, toss all your coax cables out the window then.
Apparently you missed the context. I was referring to steady-state DC circuits exclusively, which ironically I often use coax cables for--but that's a different issue. And I didn't say that they (Poynting vectors) can't be calculated, drawn or that they somehow don't apply--I said that they are poyntless in that they serve no purpose other than to give you the smug satisfaction that you are above all the other heathens because you somehow "know what is really going on".
Anyone who brings up poynting vectors in DC circuit theory will be laughed out of any engineering classroom or lab.
Modeled with what model? With the model of your misconception? That's precisely the point of Derek's video: show that your model doesn't work.
Someone here in this thread reproduced his experiment using shorter wires, pulse generators and an oscilloscope capable of detecting picoseconds.
What is more practical than a battery, a switch, wires and a lamp?
His experiment is falsifiable, because you can reproduce it in dimensions other than wires extending 300.000 km. He just chose those dimensions because it gives round numbers like 1 second, 2 seconds, etc. Time delays that are intuitive to a non specialized audience.
I wonder how many EEs, as opposed to physicists, have had a practical use for directly using Poynting vectors or Maxwell's equations since leaving university? Sure we all know the right- and left-hand rules, and an RF engineer might well have use them indirectly when using an EM or antenna modelling package, put I doubt most EEs will have touched them, or have had a need to do so directly, since leaving the classroom.
My job as an educator (and as a working professional mentoring interns) is to do my best to ensure they have the correct physics understanding of the underlying phenomena so they can apply it to ANY EM problem and arrive at the correct answer. They can make their own shortcuts and tools with this knowledge.
I'm doing a disservice to the profession of engineering if I handwave away Maxwell and say "well you'll never actually need this so I'm not going to show you where the shortcut comes from but just give you the shortcut..." and substitute the rote intuition of limited models applied to specific conditions for the actual physical theory whose simplifications have created the models.
There are reasons this theoretical knowledge gets tested to become a professional licensed engineer.
Except it's not clear to me what those "reasons" are, when compared to other more practical and applicable skills as an engineer.
QuoteExcept it's not clear to me what those "reasons" are, when compared to other more practical and applicable skills as an engineer.
Because the people sitting in those committees are not practical engineers, they are academic rats.
The first and most important thing an engineer should learn is: know the limits of your models.
You and Mehdi think the effect of the field propagating from the switch can be modeled by a transmission line that extends in the perpendicular direction? Think again.
I looked into becoming licensed but decided it was not worth it. It would not give me anything beside being out of $2000 each year in license fees and spam mail from the committee in my community mailbox with invitations to paid events. Now tell me where my $2000 were going to go, in whose pocket ?
If you're educating engineers, I'd recommend not fixating excessively and unnecessarily on something they're unlikely to ever use, at the expense of something they will. Not to mention, it's pretty difficult to make dry theory engaging when there's not an immediately obvious practical use for it.
My view is that you're doing a disservice to the profession of engineering by unnecessarily teaching details at the expense of more useful and widely applicable practical skills in EE. As an example, almost all of the ES & EM theory stuff I learned parrot fashion for my degree I've never needed to use since. That hasn't hindered me in designing satellite communication systems, whether it's the antenna, the feed, the LNA, the PA, the mixers, the oscillators, the filters, the quadrature modulators and demodulators, the modulation and coding schemes, or the firmware implementations.
Except it's not clear to me what those "reasons" are, when compared to other more practical and applicable skills as an engineer.
I'm not suggesting that there is no place for Poytning, Fleming, Maxwell, Faraday etc in engineering, just that it's unlikely to be needed directly in the day job, and that academia places too much priority on them at the expense of other more useful skills to engineers.
At its extreme, it's perfectly possible in my direct experience to go through an entire electronics engineering degree without ever having picked up a soldering iron or used an oscilloscope.
My view is that you're doing a disservice to the profession of engineering by unnecessarily teaching details at the expense of more useful and widely applicable practical skills in EE.Charles Inglis said the following:
Going back to the 1st post and video, shirley I could test this with a blue LED, photodiode and ~20m of wire. :popcorn:
However, if I ask an engineer, 'where is the energy in the coax cable?' and they respond 'in the wire' then I know they don't actually understand how it works
Another good example of this is voltage transformation in a transformer. Yes - the turns ratio for voltage transformation is described by a simple fraction, but getting that fraction from Faraday's Law is quite interesting and provides tremendous insight into how AC asynchronous induction motors work
As a thought experiment I'm trying to figure what a H shape would do, I suspect the time delay in the bulb coming on would still be only the 1 meter delay time between the switch and and bulb, but that's just a poyntless guess.
Most everyone seems to take induction motors for granted--and often incorrectly assume that they all share common performance characteristics--but the actual design of them is quite an art. Or science.Well if you calculate the difference on motor design shops vs motor implementation shop you soon notice why it is taken as granded another thing is that the Steinmetz model have been the de facto aproximation for ac motors past 100 years, so much that most even don't know anymore where that model originates. Luckily these days any well respected motor and drive manufacturer have a design tool where you can apply the process model (if it is known) to get the right model from hundrets if not thousands of models.
QuoteMy view is that you're doing a disservice to the profession of engineering by unnecessarily teaching details at the expense of more useful and widely applicable practical skills in EE.Charles Inglis said the following:
'In brief, young people should learn at the university all those parts of electrical engineering which they cannot conveniently learn with us in industry: when they come to us, they should be able to measure, to use mathematics, and they should be clear about the fundamentals. The rest is not part of the job of the University, and cannot be taught by it in the way that we need.'
Well if you calculate the difference on motor design shops vs motor implementation shop you soon notice why it is taken as granded another thing is that the Steinmetz model have been the de facto aproximation for ac motors past 100 years, so much that most even don't know anymore where that model originates. Luckily these days any well respected motor and drive manufacturer have a design tool where you can apply the process model (if it is known) to get the right model from hundrets if not thousands of models.
Well no, no, no put an physicist to work some practical engineering problems and find out. The same applies to your rather insightfull post as what Feinman said relationship between physicist and mathematicians.Without clarity from Derek, my take is that the vagueness is deliberate: thus, I take it to be a trick question. Kinda disappointed to be honest, especially as the etymology for "veritasium" is rooted in the latin word for "truth". The more I think about it, the more I['m coming the the conclusion that the original video was more about clicks and engagement than it was about truth.
You don't have to guess at that, Derek himself did an entire video saying that going forward his videos were going to be optimised for viral views and clicks. He succeeded, he knew very well this would bring an avalance of responses from engineers. You can almost see the joy on his face as the professors told him he would get called out on it.
They didn't say Derek would be called out because engineers know best. Quite the opposite. Engineers are essentially dumbed-down "physicists". But that's not a problem. The problem is that most of them don't know that and some of them keep pestering physicists when physicists show them the limitations of their knowledge.
We, engineers, need to stop this. We need to acknowledge that physicists hold all the keys to our knowledge.
However, if I ask an engineer, 'where is the energy in the coax cable?' and they respond 'in the wire' then I know they don't actually understand how it works
I can't think of anyone who would get that wrong as long as the problem is in the transmission line domain (not DC). The discussion might be more interesting at DC.
Well, showing the turns ratio vs voltage ratio is actually a trivial problem with Faraday's law once you lay it out, but I'd be interested in how you extend that to induction motors at that level. Most everyone seems to take induction motors for granted--and often incorrectly assume that they all share common performance characteristics--but the actual design of them is quite an art. Or science.
My view is that you're doing a disservice to the profession of engineering by unnecessarily teaching details at the expense of more useful and widely applicable practical skills in EE. As an example, almost all of the ES & EM theory stuff I learned parrot fashion for my degree I've never needed to use since. That hasn't hindered me in designing satellite communication systems, whether it's the antenna, the feed, the LNA, the PA, the mixers, the oscillators, the filters, the quadrature modulators and demodulators, the modulation and coding schemes, or the firmware implementations.
My view is that you're doing a disservice to the profession of engineering by unnecessarily teaching details at the expense of more useful and widely applicable practical skills in EE.
As an example, almost all of the ES & EM theory stuff I learned parrot fashion for my degree I've never needed to use since. That hasn't hindered me in designing satellite communication systems, whether it's the antenna, the feed, the LNA, the PA, the mixers, the oscillators, the filters, the quadrature modulators and demodulators, the modulation and coding schemes, or the firmware implementations.
At its extreme, it's perfectly possible in my direct experience to go through an entire electronics engineering degree without ever having picked up a soldering iron or used an oscilloscope.
QuoteMy view is that you're doing a disservice to the profession of engineering by unnecessarily teaching details at the expense of more useful and widely applicable practical skills in EE.Charles Inglis said the following:
'In brief, young people should learn at the university all those parts of electrical engineering which they cannot conveniently learn with us in industry: when they come to us, they should be able to measure, to use mathematics, and they should be clear about the fundamentals. The rest is not part of the job of the University, and cannot be taught by it in the way that we need.'
Which model of mine 'doesn't work' ??
No, they used a scaled-down experiment that is similar but not identical. And I wish they'd held off until you had actually stated how you expected the circuit to respond so we could compare your results with the pretty much correct results from the heathens using LT-Spice and so on (the stepped reflections).
With superconducting wires and a lamp that lights at any current level?
Yes, the actual phenomenon would be dry and boring so he spiced it up for the 'general audience'.
Charles Inglis was an academic and during the war, government officer. I don't want to belittle his contribution (or that quoted intention above), but he seems to have been on 'the other side'.
You criticized those who demonstrate circuits that can't be modeled. I asked first. What model are you talking about? Perhaps those people are trying to show you that it's your model that is broken. Not their circuits of their demonstrations.
Correct my donkey. In LT-Spice, currents flow immediately between the terminals of a capacitor giving a spurious spike before 1 m /c seconds. There is no simultaneity in the universe. This is what Einstein deduced from Maxwell's equations when he formulated his theory of special relativity.
The correct modeling of this problem can only be precisely predicted using the Poynting theorem, which can only be deduced from Maxwell's equations. This is why engineers study these "unecessary" things in their respective degrees.
What do you have against audience engagement?
Relativity is one reason that Derek's proposed correct answer is clearly wrong. If you accept his impossible magical conditions, an observer at the switch will see the light turn on at about 6.66ns, or twice as long as he says. An observer at the light will observe both events to be nearly simultaneous. Only an observer halfway between the two or very far away above or below the plane of the wires will see the approximately 3.33ns transition time. So (E) None of the above--unless you are in just the right spot.
Nothing. Look at this whole discussion!
... I proposed no specific model for this case, others came up with the transmission line. I think there is more to it, as even with no resistance it should also radiate energy into space--so even an ideal transmission line is not a perfect model. But that doesn't affect the outcome of the question posed.
So, if I have a transmitter, 3,000 km away from you, and I send you a signal, will it take around 10 ms to reach you, or 20 ms because I need to observe you receiving the signal?
Given the choice between an EE graduate who can solder up a circuit, use an oscilloscope, and one who's able to quote verbatim Maxwell's four equations, I'm 100% sure who I'd go for.
Given the choice between an EE graduate who can solder up a circuit, use an oscilloscope, and one who's able to quote verbatim Maxwell's four equations, I'm 100% sure who I'd go for.
You're free to hire anyone you want, of course, but I disagree that there is any equivalency between these two skills. In fact, I'd say the second thing isn't even a skill at all, it's a strawman.
….
All these things require EEs to understand the physics of the equations - not just quoting them.
Just like owning an oscilloscope or a soldering iron is no guarantee they know how to use it.
The first and most important thing an engineer should learn is: know the limits of your models.
You and Mehdi think the effect of the field propagating from the switch can be modeled by a transmission line that extends in the perpendicular direction? Think again.
Which fields? If you are talking of the E-field from the positive battery terminal, it should already have propagated to the lamp because if it can propagate over 1 meter of space it can certainly propagate over the switch contacts (and no I don't mean leakage current). There are no new fields propagating 'from the switch' when it is closed, all of the effects in this circuit are a direct result of current flow--yes, moving charges again--down the wires and the changing fields that result from that.
As far models go, the transmission line model seems to pretty closely match the experimental results for the scaled-down versions. And those that used the lumped-element model of a transmission line have acknowledged the limitations such as the spike from the capacitor being first (Mehdi) and the additional propagation delay across the line due to the model not incorporating physical size in that dimension (Dave Jones). It's not like they're ignorant of these things.
..The E and B fields follow the "path of least resistance/effort" (a fundamental law of physics, afaik) - that means directly from the battery to the bulb 1 meter apart.
Whatever shape and length of the wires you choose, the bulb X meters apart from the battery will always lit in X meters/c secs.
You need to fold back to EM field simulators.
So far, the only simulation I've seen that has a suitable answer is that by Ben Watson
(https://i.postimg.cc/c4LcZ7cV/screenshot-27.png)
Youtube video: https://youtu.be/aqBDFO1bEs8
QuoteI fully agree that a proper EM simulation and/or experimental evaluation are the only ways to study this problem.
You need to fold back to EM field simulators.
So far, the only simulation I've seen that has a suitable answer is that by Ben Watson
(https://i.postimg.cc/c4LcZ7cV/screenshot-27.png)
Youtube video: https://youtu.be/aqBDFO1bEs8
I also looked at this interesting video. My only criticism is the fact that he integrates the magnetic field around a loop to calculate the current. We know that Ampere’s law is incomplete. He should use the full Maxwell’s 4th equation.
I can’t find anything wrong in Veritasium’s video.
In particular, the perturbation in the electric field (and in the magnetic field associated with the charges set in motion inside the portion of conductor where j is nonzero) will reach the opposing load in d/c seconds.
This propagation along the transversal direction IS NOT MODELED by the transmission line model.
The transmission line model does not model the effect Derek is talking about.
So far, the only simulation I've seen that has a suitable answer is that by Ben Watson
Given the choice between an EE graduate who can solder up a circuit, use an oscilloscope, and one who's able to quote verbatim Maxwell's four equations, I'm 100% sure who I'd go for.
You're free to hire anyone you want, of course, but I disagree that there is any equivalency between these two skills. In fact, I'd say the second thing isn't even a skill at all, it's a strawman.
….
All these things require EEs to understand the physics of the equations - not just quoting them.
Just like owning an oscilloscope or a soldering iron is no guarantee they know how to use it.
But I explicitly never made that claim, you did. And you accuse me of making a strawman?! ;-)
You’re also misrepresenting my general position for some reason.
For the last time, I am not suggesting that the general basis and awareness of these fundamentals aren’t taught, I’m questioning the level of depth imposed, particularly at the undergrad level, when it’s at the expense of other skills they’ll need from day one, like being able to measure things with an oscilloscope or read and understand a datasheet for example.
I still don’t know why you’d need a working understanding at such a deep level of the details of the physics of Maxwell’s equations when no EE I know of ever thinks at that level, even when using EM design tools. As someone mentioned earlier, it’s the same as the holes and electron doping model of PN junctions, it’s an interesting sidebar for an EE, but unless you’re building semiconductors from raw materials, it has zero relevance in how an EE goes about their daily tasks. EEs are not physicists or chemists, they are about providing practical solutions built on scientific principles, but the vast majority of the time they have no need to do the scientists’ jobs for them.
Finally, in conclusion, no, I am not suggesting ceasing the teaching of Maxwell’s equations et al, I’m merely questioning the value of going any further than a general awareness to the vast majority of EEs and undergrad level when there are so many other skills they’ll actually need from day one. A chef doesn’t need to be a biologist or a chemist to make a great omelette or soufflé.
You, me and the signal itself are all on different clocks, ours just happen to be progressing at about the same rate for now.Speaking of signal’s clock, does photon experience proper time?
I am wondering, what would be the correlation between the group of electrical engineers who strongly argue against Veritasium, and a group of engineers who often struggle with passing EMI/EMC tests.
In particular, the perturbation in the electric field (and in the magnetic field associated with the charges set in motion inside the portion of conductor where j is nonzero) will reach the opposing load in d/c seconds.I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
The questions are whether that perturbation will turn the light on and then more generally, what will the current through the lamp look like over time.
QuoteThis propagation along the transversal direction IS NOT MODELED by the transmission line model.I agree that the transmission line model has flaws
If you are only interested in the precise nature of the response in the first few nanoseconds, then your concerns are entirely valid and the exact geometry would need to be stipulated before you could simulate or calculate anything. However, if the geometry is very close to an ideal transmission line, then I would expect its behavior to correspond closely to an ideal resistor with a delay in proportion to its dimensions.
...
Other than the limitation of light speed and the physical dimensions, what would an accurate transmission line model lack?
However, if you can specify a reasonably scaled equivalent and then model it, and your model differs significantly from the adjusted predictions of the transmission line model, I can build it and test it experimentally--if someone hasn't beaten me to it.
Speaking of signal’s clock, does photon experience proper time?
I am wondering, what would be the correlation between the group of electrical engineers who strongly argue against Veritasium, and a group of engineers who often struggle with passing EMI/EMC tests.
lol, still going strong. Yet only one mention of Litz!
The "argument" is framed around such a nonsense assumption/premise, its intentionally trying to break peoples heads by equating radically different modes of propagation.
Back in the real world, with the sort of power people actually use to power lighting devices (I'll send you a $1 if you actually have an installed and in use microwave power system) is so low in frequency that all these "clever" ways of moving power are irrelevant and lost in the noise.
Noting to do with DC? its an excellent example of just that point! At DC all that matters is the cross sectional area (for conductors of same material). Yet one has much higher surface area, if surface area had something to do with DC power then we'd expect it to be different. ergo DC power delivery is not related to surface area, proximity effect, external fields etc. A practical and tangible way for people to consider and experiment with where currents are flowing in wires, that shows quite easily measurable results many hobbyists would be able to reproduce (much easier than the speed of light scale, measuring propagation delay in "long" wires).Litz wire gives the practical example that people can play with at reasonable frequencies and see the effects, at some frequency the energy does concentrate to the surface/outside, and below that it appears the same as a solid of the same cross section...
Litz wire and the skin effect has NOTHING to do with the transfer of power at steady state in DC.
One might argue that the proximity effect can change a hair here or there but that is again missing the point.
But I am sure that a lot of people who did not study EM and just heard Dave - uncorrected - talking about the Poynting vector pointing the other way around in DC (LOL) and the supposed role of the skin effect (in what is not clear), well they will think you have a point.
This is how disinformation works on Youtube. It's self-feeding.
Back to the real world where copper has a finite conductivity. Yes, now size matters. Still, the power is not carried inside the wiresBaloney! If the power were outside or on the surface then the above example you immediately dismissed as being irrelevant at DC (changing the surface area and relative positions of multiple conductors) would make a difference. You cant have it both ways.
While I'm at it, the repeating L C model does model delay and distance (pF per length, nH per length). As shown by the delay in the signal. In Dave's simulation IIRC (and departing from calling people by their vlogger name). The same could be done with the feed lines, if they existed in the example. Looking at my schematic, you'd think they were there, and I started believing they existed in the example.
What I was getting at with the feed lines is I'm sure I've seen 2D grid arrangements of lumped elements used to implement a kind of field solver in SPICE for RF work.
What I was getting at with the feed lines is I'm sure I've seen 2D grid arrangements of lumped elements used to implement a kind of field solver in SPICE for RF work.
... I proposed no specific model for this case, others came up with the transmission line. I think there is more to it, as even with no resistance it should also radiate energy into space--so even an ideal transmission line is not a perfect model. But that doesn't affect the outcome of the question posed.It's a great big terminated folded dipole. Was going to be a caveat in my scaled-down (15km cables) model.
I always thought Spice uses the ABCD parameters of the transmission line, like I did in my theoretical analysis on page 19.
Back to the original problem:
My view is that our understanding of the physical world is like the onion with many layers that Feynman spoke of:
1. The top layer is Kirchhoff’s laws and electron flow. I use them with great confidence in circuit analysis even though I know that they do not tell the full story.
2. Then come Maxwell’s equations, of which Kirchhoff’s laws are a special case. Now we can explain electromagnetic waves.
3. Beyond that I’m lost, but I know that there are more layers of understanding.
I’ve heard that everything in Electromagnetism can be explained in terms of either the electric field or the magnetic field. We don’t need both concepts.
Maybe this is all a special case of the Dunning Kruger effect?
Many people seem to forget that the 1m/c answer only applies when it's 1m away. But practically any physical wire that is more than 1m away is not going to give you the 1m/c answer.
We are being trolled.
... I proposed no specific model for this case, others came up with the transmission line. I think there is more to it, as even with no resistance it should also radiate energy into space--so even an ideal transmission line is not a perfect model. But that doesn't affect the outcome of the question posed.It's a great big terminated folded dipole. Was going to be a caveat in my scaled-down (15km cables) model.
Don't forget that it takes time for a signal to propagate along a dipole antenna too.
Many people seem to forget that the 1m/c answer only applies when it's 1m away. But practically any physical wire that is more than 1m away is not going to give you the 1m/c answer.
We are being trolled.
... I proposed no specific model for this case, others came up with the transmission line. I think there is more to it, as even with no resistance it should also radiate energy into space--so even an ideal transmission line is not a perfect model. But that doesn't affect the outcome of the question posed.It's a great big terminated folded dipole. Was going to be a caveat in my scaled-down (15km cables) model.
Don't forget that it takes time for a signal to propagate along a dipole antenna too.
Many people seem to forget that the 1m/c answer only applies when it's 1m away. But practically any physical wire that is more than 1m away is not going to give you the 1m/c answer.
We are being trolled.
Many people seem to forget that the 1m/c answer only applies when it's 1m away. But practically any physical wire that is more than 1m away is not going to give you the 1m/c answer.
We are being trolled.
3) people are too willing to look at parallel wires and call them a transmission line. It all depends on the scenario. I won't go into why I think the problem under consideration does not satisfy the criteria, said it all before.In my opinion there is nothing wrong with modelling two parallel wires as a transmission line.
-- the time delay is plain, but the total waveform depends on things that are neither specified nor modeled by the thought experiment.
-- the time delay is plain, but the total waveform depends on things that are neither specified nor modeled by the thought experiment.
I think that about sums it all up...
Who cares? It doesn't change the fact that the "engineering 101" is limited. It didn't predict that initially, and after the transient, energy flows from the battery to the lamp through space.
Who cares? It doesn't change the fact that the "engineering 101" is limited. It didn't predict that initially, and after the transient, energy flows from the battery to the lamp through space.
Oh please stop with that. Nearly everyone understood that part, the issue there was the magnitude of that response and whether that would 'light a lamp'. And I still think a fuller model or experiment with 1 meter spaced wires will show even less of a response than the transmission line model predicts, so I agree with you there. And you're still welcome to show us your model--I offered to physically build it if there's any significant disputes after you do that.
There's a legal concept of a cure, that I think is relevant here. When the court shall be lenient with the parties, it will allow a generous reading of the matter at stake (e.g., an ambiguous contract or legislative law). The ambiguous matter is construed in the most reasonable way, curing the defect.
In this case, we can cure the lamp being unsuitable, by simply choosing one of appropriate rating. I mean, duh, right? And we know precisely what rating will suffice, because, even if it's a poor transmission line model, it's definitely more accurate than more simplified models, and the geometry determines the impedance -- around a kohm, so we know a lamp of around that value will do the job. The power output will be small, but it will certainly visible, even in daylight, given the high luminance of a suitable LED.
The legal concept you refer to will have variable success depending on context. You may make your equitable argument and the judge may say 'nope, the law is the law'. BTDT. In this case, my main quibble with the video is the context and supposed implications, especially for the portion of the viewers that have a much more basic level of understanding. If you are within 100 feet of a power substation but due to some quirk of transmission line topology the route that the wires take to get to your house is 2000 miles, how long will it take your lights to come on after they throw the switch on? Will the power flow through the 2000 mile long route along the wires and take longer, or will it magically flow through space and get there in 100ft/c time? IMO Derek set that whole thing up quite deliberately to be, as Mehdi said, a trick question. So I'm less inclined than you are to cut him slack.
Now for the specific question, I and surely many others immediately realized that closing Derek's switch would cause an EM response of some sort that would traverse the 1m of space. IIRC you were the first (here) to propose what so far has turned out to be the simplest model that matches scaled experiments so far. However, I'm not fully convinced that the actual response of the any reasonable version of the proposed setup--which has to include actual 1m spacing of the wires--will actually result in current that will light up any actual bulb in anything close to 3.3ns. If I haven't erred, a transmission line with 1cm diameter wire separated by 1 kilometer results in an impedance of 1400 ohms--so the circuit would still light a bulb if that were all there was to it. So I'm guessing that the transmission line is an incomplete model, and under these extreme separations--whether 1m or 1km--it will ultimately prove erroneous. And I mean entirely erroneous, not some nitpicking.
What does it mean to model parallel wires as a transmission line? It is to understand the behaviour when a signal of some arbitrary frequency is passed down both conductors. The formulas calculate a resistance which, if matched by the source and terminating resistance yields no reflections.Quote3) people are too willing to look at parallel wires and call them a transmission line. It all depends on the scenario. I won't go into why I think the problem under consideration does not satisfy the criteria, said it all before.In my opinion there is nothing wrong with modelling two parallel wires as a transmission line.
The Telegrapher’s equations are the solutions to Maxwell’s equations for this configuration. The lumped element model appears when we approximate the derivative dy/dx with Delta y/Delta x.
Transmission line theory in central to both electric power systems and radio frequency circuits. One of the most important observations from transmission line theory is the importance of impedance matching, which has not really featured in this discussion. If the resistance of the bulb is correctly matched with that of the transmission line, then half of the battery voltage will “immediately” appear over the bulb and the full battery voltage after 1 second.
The problem is that we must also model the “end effects”, particularly at the sending end. These end effects are responsible for the initial delay. In my opinion, they can only be studied through simulation.
In this case, the source is a battery, which is unlikely to have an internal resistance as high as 900 ohms. It is likely to be a few ohms at most (a 12V car battery has an internal resistance measured in milliohms). So closing the switch creates a current inrush, with the possibility of creating standing waves. However the current inrush is effectively a square wave with all frequencies and is only on one wire of the two wires. What use is the transmission line model in coming up with meaningful information - not much.The "source resistance" is actually the baterry resistance in series with resistance of the bulb, as shown in the attached document. Another way to look at the problem is to use symmetry and to split the circuit in two symmetrical mparts, like Electroboom did in his video. The transission line looks like a resistor that changes its value every time a reflection arrives back at the source.
From the start, the assumption is made that this is only a transmission line. This is wrong.QuoteIn this case, the source is a battery, which is unlikely to have an internal resistance as high as 900 ohms. It is likely to be a few ohms at most (a 12V car battery has an internal resistance measured in milliohms). So closing the switch creates a current inrush, with the possibility of creating standing waves. However the current inrush is effectively a square wave with all frequencies and is only on one wire of the two wires. What use is the transmission line model in coming up with meaningful information - not much.The "source resistance" is actually the baterry resistance in series with resistance of the bulb, as shown in the attached document. Another way to look at the problem is to use symmetry and to split the circuit in two symmetrical mparts, like Electroboom did in his video. The transission line looks like a resistor that changes its value every time a reflection arrives back at the source.
Transmission line equations do not apply when the frequency applied is significantly longer than the line length.
Wikipedia " The term applies when the conductors are long enough that the wave nature of the transmission must be taken into account." - DC does not have a "wave nature" although transients do. Which is why I say the transmission line model is insufficient. It handles the transients OK, but that isn't the whole of reality.Quote
Transmission line equations do not apply when the frequency applied is significantly longer than the line length.
Can you please provide a reference that confirms your statement? I don’t see this restiction in the derivation of transmission line theory. Are you aware of the concept of bounce diagrams?
Transmission line theory is widely used to analyse power systems, where the line length can be a fraction of the wavelength.
Quote
Transmission line equations do not apply when the frequency applied is significantly longer than the line length.
Can you please provide a reference that confirms your statement? .
What the author of the Wikipedia article is trying to say is that you must apply transmission line theory if you need to take the wave nature into account. ...
This is being taught at the universities on Day 1 of Transmission Lines course.Then you were taught incorrect information. You should have waited until day two when you would have derived the equations and would have seen that there is no such restriction.
Thank you very much, spent quite a few yeras at a Uni. The postulate is transmission line properties apply when its length becomes comparable with the wave length, the minimum value commonly used is 1/8 of the wave length. Do not make people laugh applying transmission line theory to DC case.QuoteThis is being taught at the universities on Day 1 of Transmission Lines course.Then you were taught incorrect information. You should have waited until day two when you would have derived the equations and would have seen that there is no such restriction.
Didn’t they teach you about quarter-wavelength lines and short lines?
So if energy flows not in wires but near the surface, then if we take a fairly large sheet of copper, ground it, drill a hole in the center with the hole diameter being very close to the wire diameter, and run the wire thru the hole, then we will block the flow of energy (assuming the hole walls are so close to the wire surface but not touching it ) along the wire surface , and therefore when we close the switch the load will not get any energy in DC steady state because no electromagnetic field can break through the shield . I do not think anyone here would believe that at DC no energy will flow into the load in this experiment. Therefore the claim that energy flows not in wires is bogus.
@Bud: The magnetic field at DC will go straight through a copper plate. The electric field AKA voltage difference will crowd into the gap. From this time of night I can't see how that makes you wrong. The bulk of the magnetic field will be in a place with no electric field.
How does a transmission line know it is too long or too short?The transmission line must have gone to the same Uni where they do not teach about dV/dt and dI/dt
Does the transmission line really work from DC to daylight?
At low frequencies, down to audio frequencies, the impedance of the line starts to change because the distributed resistance of the line will become higher than the distributed inductive reactance:
http://k9yc.com/TransLines-LowFreq.pdf (http://k9yc.com/TransLines-LowFreq.pdf)
This is what caused problems for the telegraphers.
At high frequencies, you can have higher order modes of propagation. For example if the spacing of the line is one half wavelength there would be some strange resonance behavior where the wave just bounces back and forth between the two conductors and doesn't propagate down the line. I'm not sure what this would do for this example, but maybe, if you had a very fast edge when you threw the switch, there could be some "ringing" as the wave bounced back and forth.
dc switch on of a transmission line.There is a (not so) subtle difference between the scenario in the pdf and the circuit in the video. In the pdf, the battery is connected to both wires of the transmission line. So current flows in both wires in opposite directions and satisfies the transmission line concept.
http://wcchew.ece.illinois.edu/chew/ece350/ee350-12.pdf (http://wcchew.ece.illinois.edu/chew/ece350/ee350-12.pdf)
Just because we might find some of the apparent insights unsatisfying (e.g., a 12V battery is constantly emitting 12V into its terminals' transmission line equivalent, so, say that happens to be Zo = 200ohm, well that's a continuous 12V/200ohm = 60mA outflow; which is immediately reflected back, in phase, for a 60mA inflow, balancing to zero net, and thus zero power loss), doesn't mean it's inapplicable!
Shrug. To anyone less familiar with the subject, a practical answer to your version is fairly trivial -- within a cycle, less than the blink of an eye. Who could care whether it's 100ns or 10µs, right?
Another example of the apparent craziness of applying the Poynting vector to DC:
Take two circuits with batteries and resistors. Put the resistor of one circuit very close to the battery of the other circuit:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1349570;image)
It appears that energy is flowing across the gap from the battery to the resistor. Yet obviously, if you disconnect the battery on the right, it doesn't affect the circuit with the resistor on the left. The resistor still dissipates the same amount of power.
dc switch on of a transmission line.There is a (not so) subtle difference between the scenario in the pdf and the circuit in the video. In the pdf, the battery is connected to both wires of the transmission line. So current flows in both wires in opposite directions and satisfies the transmission line concept.
http://wcchew.ece.illinois.edu/chew/ece350/ee350-12.pdf (http://wcchew.ece.illinois.edu/chew/ece350/ee350-12.pdf)
In the video, only one terminal of the battery is connected to the 'transmission line' and the other terminal is connected to another 'transmission line'. There is no opposite direction current when the switch is closed. Does not satisfy the criteria for a transmission line.
I'd call that example mathturbation. Your mathematical model works to produce an apparently correct result under some theoretically ideal conditions, but does not actually reflect 'what is really going on'. It isn't that it is unsatisfying, it's that the model fails as soon as you introduce any real components.
The full transmission line equations do depend on frequency and thus any transmission line where either the conductance of the dielectric or the resistance of the wires is not zero, the characteristic impedance rises towards infinity (or the leakage conductance of the dielectric if not zero) as frequency goes to zero and then becomes a divide-by-zero error at DC.
As an educational aside, one of my gripes that I've repeated about the original video is how it is confusing rather than 'mind-blowing'. Someone looking at your example might easily confuse your fictitious continuous reflected current as something similar to the recirculating current in an AC system with a power factor of less than 1, and then if they see that battery connected to a length of actual 300-ohm twin-lead, they would assume that the resistance of the wires would cause a continuous dissipation of energy. If you send a pulse down that same line and it is reflected back, you do have a loss due to copper resistance. You don't in the DC case. Why? Only with zero-resistance wires can you just 'imagine' as much current as you like without consequences.
There are times when it might be helpful to model a battery + wires in this way, such as when the circuit is subject to perturbations. I have no problem with that. I do object to it being touted as a 'better' model or worse, 'the correct' model. My model is that when connected to the 'transmission line', charges rearrange themselves until the distribution is such that there is a 12V potential between the conductors and a static electric field reflecting that is established and then the whole thing just sits there doing nothing. When you introduce real components--wire resistance and dielectric conductance, my model is easily adjustable and doesn't break.
Actually 2000 miles would be approximately 1 cycle, which is why I picked the number. Now imagine we find a shorter route that is 1000 miles and use that instead, but just for redundancy we connect them in parallel. This was also sort of a trick question--indeed I could care less if my lights take an extra 8 or 16ms to turn on. But I do care about connecting my power lines out of phase. So I need to know if the power goes through (or along) the wires or directly through space? What does Derek's video indicate to a viewer that is much less advanced than you are?
Oh grow up. I did not say equal, I did not say reaction. What I said was for half a second the circuit does not satisfy the criteria for a transmission line. You may take that as it doesn't work, but there are a surprising number of circuits that work even when their designers don't take every factor into account.dc switch on of a transmission line.There is a (not so) subtle difference between the scenario in the pdf and the circuit in the video. In the pdf, the battery is connected to both wires of the transmission line. So current flows in both wires in opposite directions and satisfies the transmission line concept.
http://wcchew.ece.illinois.edu/chew/ece350/ee350-12.pdf (http://wcchew.ece.illinois.edu/chew/ece350/ee350-12.pdf)
In the video, only one terminal of the battery is connected to the 'transmission line' and the other terminal is connected to another 'transmission line'. There is no opposite direction current when the switch is closed. Does not satisfy the criteria for a transmission line.
Oh, no equal and opposite reaction, right. I'll just throw out literally every circuit I've ever made. Their operation must be a total illusion.
Wikipedia " The term applies when the conductors are long enough that the wave nature of the transmission must be taken into account." - DC does not have a "wave nature" although transients do. Which is why I say the transmission line model is insufficient. It handles the transients OK, but that isn't the whole of reality.Quote
Transmission line equations do not apply when the frequency applied is significantly longer than the line length.
Can you please provide a reference that confirms your statement? I don’t see this restiction in the derivation of transmission line theory. Are you aware of the concept of bounce diagrams?
Transmission line theory is widely used to analyse power systems, where the line length can be a fraction of the wavelength.
I still don't know why you'd need 1 km of wire to measure that. Except of course to make clickbait YT videos.
Transmission line models can be used at any length, 1% of wavelength is fine if wanting to determine some small phase shift, I would have assumed without a second thought.
There is a lot of common mode reflection visible (after 1us) in the purple and cyan traces bouncing up and down. The lines are not being driven in a balanced manner because of the scope probe ground on the driver. Because the lines are referenced to ground (literally) my instincts say the same desired result could be achieved by having the circuit drive only 1 leg of the setup to a ground reference.
It does seem weird to me, that the initial step is rather small? It should be more like half the final amplitude, if it's well terminated. (And yeah, it seems reasonably well terminated, given that attenuation and Zo varies with frequency due to the above effects; hence why you see so much slop and bounce when the wave returns, different frequencies are matched better or worse.)
He's using 4 probes, and using them in x1 mode which means about 85pF of capacitance between each of those points and ground.
So the 0.2V he's seeing is likely completely dominated by the probe capacitance. If so then the wire plays no part except when the wave hits the end and gets reflected back.
Am I wrong?
He's using 4 probes, and using them in x1 mode which means about 85pF of capacitance between each of those points and ground.
So the 0.2V he's seeing is likely completely dominated by the probe capacitance. If so then the wire plays no part except when the wave hits the end and gets reflected back.
Am I wrong?
I think this is just another factor, the others being ground lead inductance, geometry and so on, that prevents any meaningful measurement of the leading edge part--like whether the light turns on at 1m/c or 3m/c--but I'm not sure it invalidates the whole test at the microsecond level. 85pF and 1kR means a time constant of 85ns. So I think he does more or less capture the effect that he was looking for. If you want to eliminate the types of errors that are in the same class as using the 1X probe, I think a lot of attention would have to be paid to the geometry of the layout, the connections and the fixtures for the test leads.
I think to do this properly you'd have to use a completely isolated scope on the load with the trigger coming from another scope on the switch side via optical fibre. And then you'd have to account for the skew correction in that trigger system as well. Very messy!
Is he going to 'run some wires in the desert' as he said?
I think to do this properly you'd have to use a completely isolated scope on the load with the trigger coming from another scope on the switch side via optical fibre. And then you'd have to account for the skew correction in that trigger system as well. Very messy!
I think to do this properly you'd have to use a completely isolated scope on the load with the trigger coming from another scope on the switch side via optical fibre. And then you'd have to account for the skew correction in that trigger system as well. Very messy!
The initial current that flows into the load might flow in the load alone and not in the rest of the circuit, including any external probe you might attach to it.
You want to measure the transient when the current is forming in the wire, not the effect of a current flowing in the whole circuit. Do not expect KCL to work in the first few nanoseconds.
I think to do this properly you'd have to use a completely isolated scope on the load with the trigger coming from another scope on the switch side via optical fibre. And then you'd have to account for the skew correction in that trigger system as well. Very messy!You guys are still thinking you can measure that current with an oscilloscope, but that is not certain at all.
The initial current that flows into the load might flow in the load alone and not in the rest of the circuit
I think to do this properly you'd have to use a completely isolated scope on the load with the trigger coming from another scope on the switch side via optical fibre. And then you'd have to account for the skew correction in that trigger system as well. Very messy!
What I'm saying is that that transient current can flow in the resistor without giving rise to charge accumulation at its extremes. So you won't be able to 'see' it from the exterior.
The surface charge induced by the electric field (perturbation) that has propagated from the switch will create localized field lines, that will create a localized flow of current.
What we are trying to look at here is the buildup before voltage and current behave as we are used to in circuit theory.
What we are trying to look at here is the buildup before voltage and current behave as we are used to in circuit theory.
Even if the charges within the light/resistor are just reacting to local EMF induced by an EM wave, they're still moving locally. For a resistor of size 1cm, over what timeframe could there be internally induced current flow without a corresponding voltage being observable at the terminals? And is that really what we are looking for in the original question?
you are not thinking quadridimensionally, Dave.
the lamp can light up without voltage being seen at the attached scope.
What we are trying to look at here is the buildup before voltage and current behave as we are used to in circuit theory.
you are not thinking quadridimensionally, Dave.
the lamp can light up without voltage being seen at the attached scope.
What we are trying to look at here is the buildup before voltage and current behave as we are used to in circuit theory.
The "we" is just you!
you are not thinking quadridimensionally, Dave.
the lamp can light up without voltage being seen at the attached scope.
What we are trying to look at here is the buildup before voltage and current behave as we are used to in circuit theory.
The "we" is just you!
Just look at Ben Watson simulation, here's the screenshot of the currents
(https://i.postimg.cc/c4LcZ7cV/screenshot-27.png)
He is computing currents in three points of the same loop, and he is getting three different values.
KCL is dead. I would say that current does not behave as we are used to in circuit theory.
But I guess I'll have to add the term "KCLer" to my vocabulary.
He is computing currents in three points of the same loop, and he is getting three different values.
KCL is dead. I would say that current does not behave as we are used to in circuit theory.
He is computing currents in three points of the same loop, and he is getting three different values.
KCL is dead. I would say that current does not behave as we are used to in circuit theory.
So what's the problem with that and what's the point? Did anyone propose using KCL over the whole circuit to predict the short-term behavior at the light in the first few nanoseconds after the switch is turned on?
If KCL is dead in the loop under test, it is also reasonable to assume it is dead in the measurement loop.
If KCL is dead in the loop under test, it is also reasonable to assume it is dead in the measurement loop.
No, that's not reasonable, it's absurd. KCL doesn't 'die' here, it just gets a little behind the curve.
It's a transitory thing
and that is why I've repeatedly asked you about the timeframe. What is the permittivity of the conductors in this timeframe? How large is the measurement loop compared to the test loop? I would have been more careful than AlphaPhoenix with the test setup, but for the timeframe he was displaying it was fine. Or at least OK-ish. Maybe. KCL doesn't 'work' in the main loop for a microsecond or so due to the propagation speed and self-capacitance and probably other things. The KCL issues in the measurement loop are going to be in the double-digit picoseconds at most.
What is the permittivity of the conductors in this timeframe?
I'm at a loss to describe my feelings on KCL, or even what it is. Fortunately I don't remember. It's probably at the core of simulator technology, in addition to matrices. Something to do with things adding up to zero, which sounds awfully like circuit analysis in model land. The type of circuits we draw with long lines representing zero length connections.
KCL continues to hold for practically every daily use it's put to by every practicing engineer everywhere.
You might want to think about that question for a second. In particular about the words 'permittivity' and 'conductor'. Hint: one working definition of a conductor would be that electric charges can freely move about in it.
I think I can see why there are a lot of people going around in circles here...
KCL continues to hold for practically every daily use it's put to by every practicing engineer everywhere.
Dave, I love you, your channel, your blog, your forum, and I'm grateful for you being an inspiration for countless of people to pursue a career in engineering. You're even the inspiration behind the name of my channel.
But someone has to say this: your understanding of electricity is incomplete. Even for a "practicing" engineer.
Well, yes. That's whatwesome people are trying to analyze: what happens in the first few nanoseconds before the perturbation that travels along the wires reaches the load.
Look at Ben Watson's simulation data for that 9cm x 2.5 cm strip (IIRC), you can see that even after 620 ps after the 'switch has closed' the currents in three different points of the loop are very different. To me that means that KCLdiesgets behind the curve, and it's still de--- way behind the curve after 1.8 ns, for that tiny strip.
What legal and technical remedies would you suggest?
So all those designs I've made with KL just don't work? Should I notify my customers? Refund my wages as clearly I've stolen from them with such shoddy work? What legal and technical remedies would you suggest?
You might want to think about that question for a second. In particular about the words 'permittivity' and 'conductor'. Hint: one working definition of a conductor would be that electric charges can freely move about in it.
I think I can see why there are a lot of people going around in circles here...
Well, you might want to examine the limitations of the traditional notion that the permittivity of a conductor is inherently infinite.
I'll do that immediately after you show me a working solid copper capacitor.
KCL continues to hold for practically every daily use it's put to by every practicing engineer everywhere.
Dave, I love you, your channel, your blog, your forum, and I'm grateful for you being an inspiration for countless of people to pursue a career in engineering. You're even the inspiration behind the name of my channel.
But someone has to say this: your understanding of electricity is incomplete. Even for a "practicing" engineer.
So all those designs I've made with KL just don't work? Should I notify my customers? Refund my wages as clearly I've stolen from them with such shoddy work? What legal and technical remedies would you suggest?
I'll do that immediately after you show me a working solid copper capacitor.
OK. Grab any chuck of copper that you have handy. Have a close look. That's a capacitor.
So with that out of the way, how does the infinite permittivity of a conductor manifest itself? And does that process take any amount of time? If so, what can you say about the interim period?
Weird, the LCR meter says it's a dead short, even at DC. I thought capacitors blocked D.C.? Silly me, I clearly know nothing and am forced to bow to your deeper knowledge of this arcane electrickery thing.
I'll do that immediately after you show me a working solid copper capacitor.
OK. Grab any chuck of copper that you have handy. Have a close look. That's a capacitor.
So with that out of the way, how does the infinite permittivity of a conductor manifest itself? And does that process take any amount of time? If so, what can you say about the interim period?
Weird, the LCR meter says it's a dead short, even at DC. I thought capacitors blocked D.C.? Silly me, I clearly know nothing and am forced to bow to your deeper knowledge of this arcane electrickery thing.
Clearly whoever designed the thing is a nutjob;
So, to whatever extent you want to consider such frequencies to construct a "capacitor", or care to have complex-valued capacitance -- there you have it.
Well, you thought they worked, your customers thought they worked, but now you know this was just all an illusion.
Clearly circuit analysis doesn't work to explain how energy flows in circuits. People, including Dave, who uselessly insist in using a completely inadequate tool to explain the phenomenon, incur invariably in gross errors.
We are engineers.
Then why do the products designed with these 'gross errors' seem to work pretty well?
We are engineers.QuoteAre we?
They simply don't.
You can't design a transformer with KL. No one can. Transformers are everywhere and every single one was designed without it.
But someone has to say this: your understanding of electricity is incomplete. Even for a "practicing" engineer.
Well, you thought they worked, your customers thought they worked, but now you know this was just all an illusion.Guys, you're so melodramatic.
Perhaps you didn't comprehend. I asked why the products designed by uninformed cretins seem to work OK despite your alleged 'gross errors' in analysis.
Are you suggesting that in fact, the products do not function as intended?
OK, has anyone here proposed designing a transformer using Kirchoff's laws? I think that thread is long enough and pretty dead by now, no need to drag it over here.
I suppose it figures that, once all the inquiring minds have long left this thread, their questions answered, all that's left are the trolls.
"Uninformed cretins" can design things using solutions devised by those with the appropriate knowledge. If someone gives you the equations you need to design a transformer, you can do that without knowing Faraday's law. However you would not know exactly why that equation works, whether that is an approximation, or what assumptions were taken, etc. You'd be limited.
When something odd or different from expected happens, you'll be lost.
"Uninformed cretins" can design things using solutions devised by those with the appropriate knowledge. If someone gives you the equations you need to design a transformer, you can do that without knowing Faraday's law. However you would not know exactly why that equation works, whether that is an approximation, or what assumptions were taken, etc. You'd be limited.
When something odd or different from expected happens, you'll be lost.
I'm starting to doubt you a bit. That statement seems ridiculous on the face of it. The implications of Faraday's law seem blindingly obvious when it comes to transformer design, provided you understand leakage inductance. There are a slew of more complex factors that are actually likely to bite you if you miss them in a transformer design. Not that I'm an expert in the field, but I think core magnetics--permeability, whether you want energy storage, hysteresis, etc etc would merit more concern than pondering Faraday. And those are things you mostly look up, not derive from first principles. Somebody who designs transformers is welcome to correct or further enlighten me.
There is a huge difference between lack of understanding and simply not caring about the physics details. I understand the argument, I just don't care.
I'm essentially on Medhi's side when it comes to the KVL debate, even though I have categorically stated that Lewin is not wrong.
There is a huge difference between lack of understanding and simply not caring about the physics details. I understand the argument, I just don't care.Maybe I'm getting old and my brain is failing me, but you can't say Lewin is not wrong and be on Mehdi's side. Mehdi says Lewin is wrong. This is a contradiction.
I'm essentially on Medhi's side when it comes to the KVL debate, even though I have categorically stated that Lewin is not wrong.
Mehdi was not constituted a representative of any body of engineers anywhere. When he says things like that he's just talking out his ass. Lots of people don't like him, me included, because his attitude raises many ethical issues.
"Uninformed cretins" can design things using solutions devised by those with the appropriate knowledge. If someone gives you the equations you need to design a transformer, you can do that without knowing Faraday's law. However you would not know exactly why that equation works, whether that is an approximation, or what assumptions were taken, etc. You'd be limited.I think I am somewhat in the "Uninformed cretin" category as I 'use solutions devised by those with the appropriate knowledge'. So far that approach hasn't let me down until this thread. In my Reply #648 I proposed a solution based on what I believe is a reasonable approach. I would appreciate someone looking at this and either verifying my assumptions or shooting them down.
When something odd or different from expected happens, you'll be lost.
And you are trolling.
Once again, lest this thread repeat the Mehdi/Lewin KVL thread, there is basically no one here, myself included, that disagrees with the fundamental physics.
Most are just happy to get on with their engineering life using KVL and KCL and be done with it.
If you want to argue the physics knock yourself out, just don't expect anyone else to indulge you, nor get upset when people just roll their eyes at you ::)
I have absolutely no interest in debating this with you. Just wanted to say that.
Mehdi was not constituted a representative of any body of engineers anywhere. When he says things like that he's just talking out his ass. Lots of people don't like him, me included, because his attitude raises many ethical issues.
Ever wondered that people may think the same of you?
At least he's not an anonymous person on a forum, and wants to debate stuff genuinely.
Greatif that's what you are after, but you wouldn't pick it up to design a transformer.
Somebody who designs transformers is welcome to correct or further enlighten me.
It's all there. From Maxwell to an actual transformer. Brought to you in glorious potato vision.
This is when I believed I could contribute meaningful knowledge to the community. Until you-know-who said that you could design everything with KVL because it, according to his misconception, "always holds". No wonder the father mocker never made a video about transformer design.
It's all there. From Maxwell to an actual transformer. Brought to you in glorious potato vision.
This is when I believed I could contribute meaningful knowledge to the community. Until you-know-who said that you could design everything with KVL because it, according to his misconception, "always holds". No wonder the father mocker never made a video about transformer design.
There is a huge difference between lack of understanding and simply not caring about the physics details.
There is a huge difference between lack of understanding and simply not caring about the physics details.
In this case the detail are relevant. This thread is about Derek's thought experiment that has all to do with the details of what happens in the first handful of nanoseconds in the circuit. You are free to ignore the details, but then why do you insist in hammering that square peg into this round hole?
Newtons laws continue to hold for practically every daily use it's put to by every practicing engineer everywhere.
You can even uses them to compute probe trajectories to Pluto.
But if you want to understand how to correctly synchronize your probe and satellite timers, you need to go into the nitty gritty details of general relativity. There is no point in saying "I don't care about faffing around those edges of physics". Your circuits won't work.Quote
You open a thread about it and then conclude that you do not care about what's really going on because "it's on the edge of physics"
You are blowing this way out of proportion and taking the statement too literally.There is a huge difference between lack of understanding and simply not caring about the physics details.
In this case the detail are relevant. This thread is about Derek's thought experiment that has all to do with the details of what happens in the first handful of nanoseconds in the circuit. You are free to ignore the details, but then why do you insist in hammering that square peg into this round hole?
Newtons laws continue to hold for practically every daily use it's put to by every practicing engineer everywhere.
You can even uses them to compute probe trajectories to Pluto.
But if you want to understand how to correctly synchronize your probe and satellite timers, you need to go into the nitty gritty details of general relativity. There is no point in saying "I don't care about faffing around those edges of physics". Your circuits won't work.Quote
QuoteYou open a thread about it and then conclude that you do not care about what's really going on because "it's on the edge of physics"
I did not open the thread.
I'm done here. It seems that there are people here who don't want to debate this honestly, they just want to berate people who are trying to help people look at it from other perspective.
If he has to start explaining scopes and probing, then he's probably lost half his audience.
In this case the detail are relevant. This thread is about Derek's thought experiment that has all to do with the details of what happens in the first handful of nanoseconds in the circuit. You are free to ignore the details, but then why do you insist in hammering that square peg into this round hole?
In this case the detail are relevant. This thread is about Derek's thought experiment that has all to do with the details of what happens in the first handful of nanoseconds in the circuit. You are free to ignore the details, but then why do you insist in hammering that square peg into this round hole?
I think the original idea was to see what happens over a period of seconds (Derek) or microseconds (AlphaPhoenix) and how the fast the initial (nanoseconds) response was compared to the longer-term response of the full circuit. I don't see any evidence that either of them intended to get bogged down in the minutiae of the exact picosecond-by-picosecond analysis of that initial EM-mediated behavior. The story was simply that there was 'some' response in a time of about d/c.
Some people have proposed some (necessarily) simplified models including the transmission line. In fact, the physical experiments seem to me to indicate that this is a pretty good starting point. So are you here simply to yank Dave's chain about every grievance and supposed 'errors' that you have sniffed out or do you have something worthwhile to add?
Are you here to beat up on poor Kirchoff some more (what did that guy ever do to you?) or can you perhaps expand on, defend--and quantify--your assertion that current can flow in the load but not be observable to an oscilloscope connected across the terminals of that load?
Who is the "father mocker"?Who else? Old Nick. A.k.a. Ahriman, in certain parts of the world.
Why the insults?"Faffing around the edges of physics" is not an insult? OK. I'll update my definition of insult. Thank you, Dave.
That's all basic engineering transformer theory, just jump to the transformer formulas and you are good to go for most cases. For specific useage cases, other formula exist. Little need for any advanced maths or physics.
And I'm NOT saying it's not good to know where it all comes from. Go and read Hayt and see how deep the rabbit hole goes. But like I said, it's not a text you'd pick up to design your transformer.
BTW, after talking with Derek at length on the video it was clear that there was no intentional troll toward engineers with the question. He genuinely thought the question would help his target audience of people who have learnt some basic electicical theory and weren't really taught how EM fields related to it later on.
With the testing he's doing now I pointed out the potential probing issues like with the AlphaPhoenix test, and how testing this is guaranteed to drag the engineers further into the debate.
And how any testing video is bound to be messy from an explanation point of view.
I also tried to explain why the dual transmission line model cannot let you see correctly what happens in the first nanoseconds because it's literally zero dimensional in the transverse direction.
Look at Ben's simulation: do the two legs behave like ordinary transmission lines? Shouldn't you be seeing a symmetric red-.green aura going back and forth along the top and bottom conductors? While in this circuit the red-green aura travel along the bottom conductors first (whith a faint ghost on the top one) and then gets back on the top one? In my eyes this is a radically different behavior that tells me that field simulation is the way to go.
BTW, after talking with Derek at length on the video it was clear that there was no intentional troll toward engineers with the question. He genuinely thought the question would help his target audience of people who have learnt some basic electicical theory and weren't really taught how EM fields related to it later on.
That's a pretty good introductory video for someone with little or no idea on transformer basics, or even a run-through for someone who is rusty.
But it isn't the sort of thing you'd reach for when you suddenly need to design a custom transformer for some specific purpose and you don't do it on a regular basis. You'd look for a reference like this instead. And I'm fairly sure that the experienced engineer that wrote this article knows every single thing you have in your video.
https://talema.com/smps-transformer-design/
Derek is successfully introducing Maxwell's equations and the Poyinting theorem to a lay audience, while we are discouraging engineers to understand the concept.
With the testing he's doing now I pointed out the potential probing issues like with the AlphaPhoenix test, and how testing this is guaranteed to drag the engineers further into the debate.
And how any testing video is bound to be messy from an explanation point of view.
ep yep yep. Seems like many people, here and elsewhere, are largely underestimating the challenges of proper probing here.
Remember that probing was also a large part in the "debate" about Kirchhoff laws and Lewin's experiment.
Measuring in general is one of the trickiest parts of experimental physics.
Derek is successfully introducing Maxwell's equations and the Poyinting theorem to a lay audience, while we are discouraging engineers to understand the concept.Straw man. No one's discouraging anyone from trying to understand either.
Some of us are just saying that for most EEs, there is no practical need to resort to directly using either.
I'm at a loss to describe my feelings on KCL, or even what it is. Fortunately I don't remember. It's probably at the core of simulator technology, in addition to matrices. Something to do with things adding up to zero, which sounds awfully like circuit analysis in model land. The type of circuits we draw with long lines representing zero length connections.
- Speechless -
Like I've said before, if Derek didn't have the question in there, this thead likely wouldn't exist, and there wouldn't be any response videos. Most of us would have just said "cool video on Maxwell and Poynting" and that would be it. But when you introduce a practical engineering question, and not mention any practical engineering ways of looking at it or coming up with the answer, then you invite the lively debate we have seen.
It's a bit of a tricky question.
But still, you'd think one camp would win out over the other with a technically superior result given all the advances of humanity and technology, but it just hasn't happened.
People are running around testing things like it's 1900. It's a bit of a tricky question, but not complex and not beyond human knowledge.
EDIT: Photoshopped image removed by admin. He is referring to Mehdi.
Yes, the Mehdi/Lewin debate was essentially about the setup, not the fundmental physics.
But when you introduce a practical engineering question, and not mention any practical engineering ways of looking at it or coming up with the answer, then you invite the lively debate we have seen.
But when you introduce a practical engineering question, and not mention any practical engineering ways of looking at it or coming up with the answer, then you invite the lively debate we have seen.
Translation: We, the parcel of engineers who despise Maxwell's equations and the Poynting theorem, self styled "practical engineers", are butthurt because we cannot devise a way to solve a problem proposed by a thought experiment with the limited set of tricks we rely on to get away in our trade.
The solution to this problem is simple: stop despising Maxwell's equations and the Poynting theorem.
... Lewin puts the two of you to shame. ... ... [there's a whole video in there] ... and dismissed Mehdi's claims as bullshit, because that's precisely what they are.
Translation: We, the parcel of engineers who despise Maxwell's equations and the Poynting theorem, self styled "practical engineers", are butthurt because we cannot devise a way to solve a problem proposed by a thought experiment with the limited set of tricks we rely on to get away in our trade.
"Uninformed cretins" can design things using solutions devised by those with the appropriate knowledge. If someone gives you the equations you need to design a transformer, you can do that without knowing Faraday's law. However you would not know exactly why that equation works, whether that is an approximation, or what assumptions were taken, etc. You'd be limited.I think I am somewhat in the "Uninformed cretin" category as I 'use solutions devised by those with the appropriate knowledge'. So far that approach hasn't let me down until this thread. In my Reply #648 I proposed a solution based on what I believe is a reasonable approach. I would appreciate someone looking at this and either verifying my assumptions or shooting them down.
When something odd or different from expected happens, you'll be lost.
It seems a simple question. A wire carrying current creates a flux. A proportion of that flux cuts a parallel wire. We could put figures on it to match AlphaPhoenix video: wires 1mm diameter, spacing 250mm. What's the proportion?
The trick to being an uninformed cretin is to know enough to ask the right question.
Like I've said before, if Derek didn't have the question in there, this thead likely wouldn't exist, and there wouldn't be any response videos. Most of us would have just said "cool video on Maxwell and Poynting" and that would be it. But when you introduce a practical engineering question, and not mention any practical engineering ways of looking at it or coming up with the answer, then you invite the lively debate we have seen.Without being primed on how to react, it seems the world has struggled to come up with an answer.
The only debate is essentially how much it turns on, which is moot, because the question itself ignores that.According to maximum power transfer theory, the answer is 25% (of the steady-state power), provided that the resistance of the light bulb is twice the characteristic impedance of the lossless transmission line.
Like I've said before, if Derek didn't have the question in there, this thead likely wouldn't exist, and there wouldn't be any response videos. Most of us would have just said "cool video on Maxwell and Poynting" and that would be it. But when you introduce a practical engineering question, and not mention any practical engineering ways of looking at it or coming up with the answer, then you invite the lively debate we have seen.Without being primed on how to react, it seems the world has struggled to come up with an answer.
I don't think so. Every engineer seems to look at this question and come up the C (1s/c) answer using one of several methods that give the same answer.
The only debate is essentially how much it turns on, which is moot, because the question itself ignores that.
Straw man. No one's discouraging anyone from trying to understand either.
Some of us are just saying that for most EEs, there is no practical need to resort to directly using either.
I know you enjoy using them as tools to make you classes more challenging, and good for you.
But for the vast majority of EEs, that is all they will ever be: a challenging class exercise.
the question: how long does it take for the energy coming out of the battery to first arrive at the lamp after the switch is closed?
My point exactly. Re-translation: We, the parcel of engineers who drool over Maxwell's equations and the Poynting theorem, self styled "<TBD> engineers", are butthurt because we cannot devise a way to solve a problem proposed by a thought experiment with the limited set of tricks we rely on to get away in our trade.
No one has come up with a clean solution. Transmission line theorists, antenna masochists, electromagnetic solverists, or wire unreelists for that matter.
But still, you'd think one camp would win out over the other with a technically superior result given all the advances of humanity and technology, but it just hasn't happened.
Because that's just not how science works. There is no "truth" that wins. There are just human-made models that fit reality through experiments under certain conditions. Of course models that make no sense and don't pass the test of reproducible experiments are just garbage to throw away. For the rest, it's all relative. As Einstein would say. In other words, we can prove some theories are patently wrong (it just takes one counter-example), but we can't prove anything is "true". We can just have a good level of confidence that we've not been able to prove it wrong so far, and that it appears useful when applied to *some* reality.
People are running around testing things like it's 1900. It's a bit of a tricky question, but not complex and not beyond human knowledge.
The question itself is ill-defined to begin with, which is the main reason for so much debate and people trying to prove things through experiments (most of them having no clue how to conduct those experiments properly, by the way, IMHO.) As I (and others) have said a while ago now, what IS the real question here? Can you state it clearly, and if so, how do the various experiments we have seen so far answer the question exactly? Why is it that people confuse steady-state and transient behavior?
That said, it shows that modeling power transfer using lumped models, while certainly possible, can be pretty tricky. And yes, it's related to the whole previous "Lewin" debate. In the end, some have tried to show that using lumped models was just not possible in some cases, some have tried to prove the opposite. Where is the "truth" that many of us are so eager for? "The truth is out there", as they say. ;D
...
the question: how long does it take for the energy coming out of the battery to first arrive at the lamp after the switch is closed?
:horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse:
Actually you mean " the question: how long does it take for some of the energy (meaning any discernable--or even not discernable according to some--amount) coming out of the battery to first arrive at the lamp after the switch is closed?"
And the only real dispute there is about the definition of 'how long' in the context of the concepts of simultaneity and observability when relativistic speeds are involved. Not that I see any need to beat that horse corpse either.
Transmission lines don't account for radiation
[\quote]
You are absolutely correct. We also have to include a dipole in the model. I will see if I can figure out the details.
electro-magnetic energy does NOT travel in wires.
highlighting video’s imperfections, ranging from messed up units of measure through omissions in the definition of the thought experiment.
[...] People are running around testing things like it's 1900. [...]
Engineering is not the harbor of ignorance.It really is. A working engineer might need to worry about annealing of copper in a dubious glass to copper seal one day, then coefficients of a biquad filter the next. So for that matter might a physicist. There is too much to do to maintain a clear working understanding of something that has never and probably never will come up in their career.
You see, in the past, engineers had insights in physics, that's why many of them contributed both to engineering and science.Engineers number in the millions now. The type of insights you're talking about seem to come from once in a generation people, and from times when it was a lot more practical to make a notable fundamental contribution to science. Where are those opportunities these days?
Now engineers are seen as dogmatic people who cannot think outside of the box.Engineering is mostly a commercial task-based function. Thinking outside the box can get you fired.
People you have to be careful not to trigger when you want to expose something that go against their preconceptions.
These engineers think they "own" circuit theory. They don't understand that circuit theory is just as physics as the Maxwell equations are. In fact circuit theory is just a special case of them.No they obviously understand it and aren't arguing against reality. They are pointing out some impracticalities to going full-academic treatment. Yes, some people are rallying against the message (on YT comments etc), I don't think any are formally trained electrical engineers.
No one has come up with a clean solution. Transmission line theorists, antenna masochists, electromagnetic solverists, or wire unreelists for that matter.
The solution was given by Derek. You have a Poynting vector pointing directly from the battery to the load. The electromagnetic field propagates at the speed of light, so energy will first arrive at the load at exactly 1 m/c seconds. That's simple and elegant. AND there's no other "approach" to the problem. Other "approaches" will give you the wrong answer.
electro-magnetic energy does NOT travel in wires.
Who suggested otherwise?
I haven't read the whole thread, but Veritasium hasn't said anything incorrect, or controversial in his video. It's certainly easier to understand than the wind powered vehicle moving faster than the wind video.This is exactly the conclusion I came to in the note I published on p 19. However, I since realised that there's more to the problem. The transmission line model doesn’t account for electromagnetic radiation from the folded dipole.
My main criticism is he fails to mention transmission lines, which are crucial to understanding this.
The most important thing to understand is, the wires are capacitively and inductively coupled. When the switched is closed, current will flow immediately, due to the capacitive coupling between the two wires. The bulb will immediately light, but not at full brightness. This is because the instant the circuit is made, the transmission line will have an impedance, equal to its characteristic impedance. Once the circuit has reached steady state, the battery will see the bulb's impedance.
I haven't read the whole thread, but Veritasium hasn't said anything incorrect, or controversial in his video. It's certainly easier to understand than the wind powered vehicle moving faster than the wind video.
My main criticism is he fails to mention transmission lines, which are crucial to understanding this.
The most important thing to understand is, the wires are capacitively and inductively coupled. When the switched is closed, current will flow immediately, due to the capacitive coupling between the two wires. The bulb will immediately light, but not at full brightness. This is because the instant the circuit is made, the transmission line will have an impedance, equal to its characteristic impedance. Once the circuit has reached steady state, the battery will see the bulb's impedance.
I haven't read the whole thread,
My main criticism is he fails to mention transmission lines, which are crucial to understanding this.
The most important thing to understand is, the wires are capacitively and inductively coupled. When the switched is closed, current will flow immediately, due to the capacitive coupling between the two wires. The bulb will immediately light, but not at full brightness.
My main criticism is he fails to mention transmission lines, which are crucial to understanding this.
He does that on purpose.
My main criticism is he fails to mention transmission lines, which are crucial to understanding this.
He does that on purpose.
I very very strongly doubt that.
It's 15 pages long. Even though I'm still on Christmas break, I still don't have enough time on my hands to read every single post. At this point in the thread, it's completely unreasonable to expect someone making their first post to have read all of it.I haven't read the whole thread,
We love people who have not read the whole thread.
Well, of course, the electric field between the two plates of the capacitor, can only travel at the speed of light.QuoteMy main criticism is he fails to mention transmission lines, which are crucial to understanding this.
He does that on purpose. He's challenging the idea that, because you have a 'transmission line", the transmission of energy will necessarily be confined to it.
This is not a problem of academic interest only. The other day we were discussing on this very forum (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/power-transformer-question-why-is-core-magnetic-flux-maximum-at-no-load/) how energy could possibly be transmitted inside a linear transformer, since the net magnetic field is just the magnetizing field, which stores energy from the primary in one half cycle, but returns it immediately in the next half cycle to the primary. Circuit theory led us to a dead end. The answer, you guessed it, is the Poynting vector (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43483876_Power_flow_in_transformers_via_the_poynting_vector).QuoteThe most important thing to understand is, the wires are capacitively and inductively coupled. When the switched is closed, current will flow immediately, due to the capacitive coupling between the two wires. The bulb will immediately light, but not at full brightness.
You see? Circuit theory will lead you to the wrong conclusion. The bulb will not start to light up immediately. It'll take 1 m/c for the energy to arrive at the bulb.
So the "main criticism" you have is precisely the misconception he managed to debunk.
My main criticism is he fails to mention transmission lines, which are crucial to understanding this.
He does that on purpose.
I very very strongly doubt that.
I asked him this and I don't recall his answer directly (we talked for like 45min), if he sends me the recording I'll be able to answer this question.
The most important thing to understand is, the wires are capacitively and inductively coupled. When the switched is closed, current will flow immediately, due to the capacitive coupling between the two wires. The bulb will immediately light, but not at full brightness.
Unfortunately, I do not have access to the necessary simulation software.
You're right of course, the magnetic fields due to the inductance can also only propagate at the speed of light. Yes, it's not accurate to think about it as a lumped model, but it does make it easier. It's true the transmission line initially looks like a resistor, until the steady state is reached. In a lossless transmission line, energy won't be lost due to radiation.The most important thing to understand is, the wires are capacitively and inductively coupled. When the switched is closed, current will flow immediately, due to the capacitive coupling between the two wires. The bulb will immediately light, but not at full brightness.
We know that energy from the battery will reach the bulb at approximately 1m/c seconds. So Veritasium’s question has been answered. The following is my attempt to gain some further insight.
The lumped-element equivalent-circuit of the transmission line can easily lead to misinterpretation:
1. Do we start with a capacitor or an inductor when drawing the circuit? If we start with a capacitor, our intuition tells us that the transmission line looks like a short circuit at the moment the transient is initiated. If we start with an inductor, our intuition tells us that it will looks like an open circuit.
2. In fact, our intuition is giving us the wrong answer. The lossless transmission line’s input impedance is purely resistive. It is neither capacitive nor inductive. During the transient the capacitors and inductors in the transmission line store energy. This happens in such a way that the transmission line looks like a resistor at its sending end.
3. The transmission line looks like a short circuit in the steady state. The inductors are now short circuits while the capacitors are open circuits.
But there’s more to the story. We are looking at something like a folded dipole which also radiates electromagnetic energy during the transient, because of the unbalanced way in which it is driven. The transmission line model doesn’t account for this.
In [1] it is shown that a folded dipole may be analysed by considering its current to be composed of two distinct modes, namely, a transmission line mode and an antenna mode. A transient analysis of an ordinary dipole antenna can be found in [2]. The author later corrected the analysis in [3]. He shows that, wen driven by an ideal step voltage source, the initial input current to the antenna is infinite.
My conclusion is that we can gain some valuable insight from transmission line theory and from antenna theory, but that we cannot model the behaviour of this circuit exactly by theoretical means.
It is not necessary to take the full length of the wires into account in simulation studies. We are only interested in, let’s say, the first 50 ns during which the electromagnetic wave would only have travelled about 15m. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the necessary simulation software.
[1] G. Thiele, E. Ekelman and L. Henderson, "On the accuracy of the transmission line model of the folded dipole," in IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 700-703, September 1980, doi: 10.1109/TAP.1980.1142400.
[2] Tai Tsun Wu , "Transient Response of a Dipole Antenna", J. Math. Phys. 2, 892-894 (1961) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1724237
[3] Collin, R.E. and Zucker, F.J., “Antenna Theory: Part 1”, 1969
There is too much to do to maintain a clear working understanding of something that has never and probably never will come up in their career.
[...]
Engineers number in the millions now. The type of insights you're talking about seem to come from once in a generation people, and from times when it was a lot more practical to make a notable fundamental contribution to science. Where are those opportunities these days?
[...]
Engineering is mostly a commercial task-based function. Thinking outside the box can get you fired.
That's just belief at work. The dubiously existent backfire effect. Maxwellians have been equally triggered by comments which go against their worldview.
More importantly, I don't think this "triggering" is as serious as you make out. Engineers are pointing out working realities that physicists might miss, and taking on the challenge of being "triggered" for a bit of fun and the opportunity to have a say. Neither Dave nor Mehdi actually disagreed with the core findings of Derek's video. I don't think any trained engineers on this forum have seriously taken exception to any core fact. I have trouble accepting an opinion that power 'flows' in a completely static magnetic field, but I am not arguing against the fact that Poynting's model works. Therefore people aren't arguing against fact or evidence. Nothing is being "exposed" beyond some raw nerves over things like education and the realities of an engineering life.
[...]
No they obviously understand it and aren't arguing against reality. They are pointing out some impracticalities to going full-academic treatment. Yes, some people are rallying against the message (on YT comments etc), I don't think any are formally trained electrical engineers.
Maxwell is not needed
As I mentioned - and sorry if it had been already, the thread is now pretty long - as far as experimentation goes, AlphaPhoenix did the trick IMO Unfortunately, I can't see completely clearly on the video all the details of the setup, especially regarding the probing. That's the thing I would be particularly cautious about: making sure any voltage we see on the scope is not coupled to the probes themselves in any way. Other than that, what he gets is congruent with was is expected.
In a lossless transmission line, energy won't be lost due to radiation.I used to think so as well. However, the following paper:
So now, let's study the same setup, but with a circular wire loop instead of a rectangular one. :)I assume we are talking about two circular loops, replacing the two rectangular loops?
The first half with formula's I skipped, but the 2nd half shows to me a valid point about electric fields in wires vs air gap when using quatum theory.
Which would mean that most of the energy is transported through the wire, just as most people would have expected. The video of Veritasium was quite different and seems a misrepresentation of the theory (in comparison).The first half with formula's I skipped, but the 2nd half shows to me a valid point about electric fields in wires vs air gap when using quatum theory.
I am guessing that she is just explaining the inverse square drop off of the Coulomb force by using quantum field theory, saying it is much stronger between electrons in the wire than electrons separated by one meter.
Which would mean that most of the energy is transported through the wire, just as most people would have expected. The video of Veritasium was quite different and seems a misrepresentation of the theory (in comparison).The first half with formula's I skipped, but the 2nd half shows to me a valid point about electric fields in wires vs air gap when using quatum theory.
I am guessing that she is just explaining the inverse square drop off of the Coulomb force by using quantum field theory, saying it is much stronger between electrons in the wire than electrons separated by one meter.
So now, let's study the same setup, but with a circular wire loop instead of a rectangular one. :)I assume we are talking about two circular loops, replacing the two rectangular loops?
If one posts a video about "misconception about electricity", which shows large fields around the wire and is probably a huge misrepresentation of the underlying theory than things don't get better in the common understanding of things.
It seems like the probably vague conception (called misconception) most people had/have is closer to the truth/theory, which would make the video kinda pointless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZoApkw4AM0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZoApkw4AM0)
I got this one in my recommended list, which has only a few hundred views, so hence I link it here. The first half with formula's I skipped, but the 2nd half shows to me a valid point about electric fields in wires vs air gap when using quantum theory.
Her response does not make sense in its battery near bulb part. The circuit needs to be closed in order for the current to flow and produce the fields. You do not have to believe me, just put your current clump over a disconnected battery terminal and see what it will show you.
Nice explanation, sounds pretty solid to me. Quantum probability theory trumping Poynting?
Nice explanation, sounds pretty solid to me. Quantum probability theory trumping Poynting?It was rather offhand and not really rigorous and didn't really address the actual question (1m/c or 1 second). The presentation started to discuss the nature of fields, but then seemed more to only address the earlier part of Derek's video. Perhaps that was the intent.
To me the switch question is a different discussion entirely, and probably a detriment to the fundamental question the video proposes....
This is why I think any discussion about fundamentals of the "misconception" video should be discussed at DC steady state. Or at the very least, 50/60Hz mains.
The switch question is secondary to the purpose of the video which was to show the "misconception" that energy flows in the field around the wire instead of within the wire.
That is the fundamental question. To me the switch question is a different discussion entirely, and probably a detriment to the fundamental question the video proposes. The question is one fundamentally of fields.
This is why I think any discussion about fundamentals of the "misconception" video should be discussed at DC steady state. Or at the very least, 50/60Hz mains.
The switch question is secondary to the purpose of the video which was to show the "misconception" that energy flows in the field around the wire instead of within the wire.
Well, you're right. But that's the fundamental issue with this video. The transient phase is the only way he's found to illustrate the point.That is the fundamental question. To me the switch question is a different discussion entirely, and probably a detriment to the fundamental question the video proposes. The question is one fundamentally of fields.
Sure, but the video started it. That's what the video proposes. And I agree it is detrimental to the point made in the *title* of the video.This is why I think any discussion about fundamentals of the "misconception" video should be discussed at DC steady state. Or at the very least, 50/60Hz mains.
At DC steady state only would be really good actually. But unfortunately, I don't think the video addressed that properly. Which leads me to ask: what kind of illustration, and from there, experiment, could you devise to prove the fundamental question, *at DC steady state*? It looks much trickier.
At DC steady state only would be really good actually. But unfortunately, I don't think the video addressed that properly. Which leads me to ask: what kind of illustration, and from there, experiment, could you devise to prove the fundamental question, *at DC steady state*? It looks much trickier.
But once again for me it comes down to the DC question (and also low frequency AC like 50/60Hz power transmission). Does the energy *actually* flow in the field or not. My engineer mind is vastly more at ease with the quantum field theory and it's implication at DC and LF. I'd only take power flowing in the field (and hence dielectrics like PCB material and coax cable material) at really high frequencies. It just doesn't "feel right" that the energy is flowing in the field at DC."
But once again for me it comes down to the DC question (and also low frequency AC like 50/60Hz power transmission). Does the energy *actually* flow in the field or not. My engineer mind is vastly more at ease with the quantum field theory and it's implication at DC and LF. I'd only take power flowing in the field (and hence dielectrics like PCB material and coax cable material) at really high frequencies. It just doesn't "feel right" that the energy is flowing in the field at DC."
So if I have a long, slow transmission line--like a really effective delay line--I can put a pulse of energy in and then I can understand that the energy is in that pulse, a wave travelling through the transmission line, although charges are still moving. Same if a pulse is radiated through an EM wave, you can understand that the energy is travelling through space, in the form of a wave/photon. But in those cases you have changing fields and you can point to the energy as it moves and say "there it is!" at each point in it's travels. In the DC case, I don't see how you can say that as the only thing moving are the charges--the fields are static and conservative. And for the LF case like power distribution, perhaps it is a blend, but the question is which model dominates? Can you point to the 'energy' and say "there it is!" at each point in time? I think you absolutely can--and you'll be pointing at the charges. The fact that you can calculate an S-field and Poynting's Theorem still works out mathematically does not persuade me of anything in particular here.
I have not heard a compelling case of Poynting at DC that makes me think in any way that it's useful.
"In Fig. 10-19aflow lines of the Poynting vector (power flow lines) are shown. It is evident that the power flow is through the empty space surrounding the circuit, the conductors of the circuit acting as guiding elements. From the circuit point of view we usually think of the power as flowing through the wires but this is an oversimplification and does not represent the actual situation."
I have not heard a compelling case of Poynting at DC that makes me think in any way that it's useful.
Take your pick:
*snip*
John D. Kraus
Electromagnetics 2e
section 10.20 Circuit Applications of the Poynting Vector
p. 416
on p. 418, after considering a circuit with a battery (DC) and a resistors he writes:Quote"In Fig. 10-19aflow lines of the Poynting vector (power flow lines) are shown. It is evident that the power flow is through the empty space surrounding the circuit, the conductors of the circuit acting as guiding elements. From the circuit point of view we usually think of the power as flowing through the wires but this is an oversimplification and does not represent the actual situation."
It depends on what is meant by lossless. If it has zero resistance, but is unshielded, then you're right, it will act as an antenna and radiate, but if it's perfectly screened as well, then it will not radiate.QuoteIn a lossless transmission line, energy won't be lost due to radiation.I used to think so as well. However, the following paper:
J. E. Storer and R. King, "Radiation Resistance of a Two-Wire Line," in Proceedings of the IRE, vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 1408-1412, Nov. 1951, doi: 10.1109/JRPROC.1951.273603.
shows that a lossless transmission has a finite radiation resistance.
Nope, still not telling me anything useful, just stating that's a way to look at it.
What can looking at it that way DO FOR ME?
Do you have any comment on how quantum field theory views this? or do you think it's bunk?
You don't need to go as far as QFT to muddy the waters. Even plain quantum mechanics can make things so complicated that you won't be able to have intuitive insights.
You don't need to go as far asQFTPoynting to muddy the waters. Even plainquantum mechanicsPoynting Thereom can make things so complicated that you won't be able to have intuitive insights.
Back to QFT. My understanding is that more advanced theories can extend our knowledge to explain more of what we observe. So the question is: will QFT give different values for the electric and magnetic field in the space around the wires? I doubt it. These fields can be measured, so if QFT is that good of a theory they say (and it is) it will agree with experimental measures.
Do you think that the value of the electric and magnetic field in the middle of a circuit with battery and resistor will be different from what is predicted by classical ED? (I am not talking about vacuum fluctuation, but fields of the order of magnitude we can measure with 'ordinary' instruments).
And what does thinking the power flows in the cable do for you? If all you want to see is voltage and current, you don't need that information either.
When you have to power a 1kW heater, do you look for a cable capable of sustaining 1kW of power? You just need to dissipate the power associated with the Poynting vector impinging in the cable.
To me it seems that when using wires the movement of electric charge alone could do work and transfer energy.
I am not talking about the measurements, they will be as they always have been. I'm talking about the the title of this thread "The Big Misconception About Electricity". Does the energy flow in the field around the wire or does it flow in the wire at DC? Poynting/classical field theory says outside, QFT appears to say inside.There’s nothing wrong with Maxwell’s equations. The problem is the misinterpretation of what the Poynting vector tells us. Here is what Haus and Melcher says in Section 11.3 of their book:
I want to know what you and others who have been so (not incorrectly) dogged about anyone that dares think of this in any other way than Maxwell/Poynting think about this apparent conundrum.
Fig. 11.3.1 is a nice illustration of this misinterpretation.
There’s nothing wrong with Maxwell’s equations. The problem is the misinterpretation of what the Poynting vector tells us. Here is what Haus and Melcher says in Section 11.3 of their book:
"we illustrate the danger of ascribing meaning to S evaluated at a point, rather than integrated over a closed surface."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZoApkw4AM0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZoApkw4AM0)
I got this one in my recommended list, which has only a few hundred views, so hence I link it here. The first half with formula's I skipped, but the 2nd half shows to me a valid point about electric fields in wires vs air gap when using quantum theory.
Very interesting, thanks for posting.
Nice explanation, sounds pretty solid to me. Quantum probability theory trumping Poynting?
I've sent this to Derek.
Isn't that just a question of probabilities?
Isn't that just a question of probabilities?
It is all just a question of probabilities, but then you have to do the math. It isn't just the electrons that are a wave function, molecules are as well. It's just that the probability distribution for a molecule is more localized than a free electron in a conductor. This doesn't mean that the concept of individual electrons flowing in a wire is any less valid than water molecules flowing in a pipe.
As for whether they flow through the wire or outside of it, that was the exact point made at the end of Farmer's video--both are theoretically possible, the former is astronomically more likely.
Does the energy flow in the field around the wire or does it flow in the wire at DC? Poynting/classical field theory says outside, QFT appears to say inside.
Thanks I am the one who made this video. I would sum it up like what you said and add only this. In a classical point of view of physics things happen or they do not happen, in a QFT point of view there are non zero and tiny probabilities of everything happening. Quantum Electro Dynamics is the specific theory that applies to E and M.
As this video from PBS space time explains much better than me with my barely functional white boards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATcrrzJFtBY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATcrrzJFtBY)
you must be following pretty recent advances in physics research...while giving some quantum properties to molecules so far, it still doesn't say that water molecules through a pipe would flow in any similar way electrons "flow".
Well yes! But we still haven't defined while "through the wire" exactly meant, unless I missed it. Can we find a definition?
The Poynting vector seems to work for all cases. So why use two different definitions of energy flux?
The Poynting vector seems to work for all cases. So why use two different definitions of energy flux?
Because a simple (and completely solved) problem like my thermal socks unnecessarily becomes a non-intuitive unworkable mess. The real question for me is why you would analyze any problem from the perspective of 'energy flux'. If there's a valid reason to do so, perhaps Poynting is the way to go. There's a reason the Poynting's Theorem and the concept of the S-field shows up where it does.
Yet people can't agree that energy is outside the wire in the fields vs inside carried by electrons.
No, the concept of the localization of the wave function of any particle or object, quantified as its de Broglie wavelength, has been taught in introductory QM for decades and I had to demonstrate it experimentally (for electrons) in one of my undergraduate physics labs via the standard Davisson-Germer experiment. Nothing new, except that the de Broglie wavelength for larger objects is so small and thus the distribution probability so localized that it is much more difficult to observe.
I did not say that the flow of water through a pipe was in any way 'similar' to the flow of electrons in a wire--nor did I say they were dissimilar-- I simply said that they were both valid concepts.
QuoteWell yes! But we still haven't defined while "through the wire" exactly meant, unless I missed it. Can we find a definition?Well, if you want a QM definition, I think it would simply be that the spatial probability distribution of the electrons in question at each point in time ( Ψ [x,y,z] (t) ) mostly falls somewhere within the dimensions of the wire.
Whether the energy is 'contained' in the charge or the field seems a questionable question since both are required. You can have any field you want, but without a charge to work on there's no energy.
It seems like a chicken and the egg thing. All electromagnetic fields are created by charges. The energy was put into the system when the charges were moved. You can't have one without the other.
Uh, yeah. Precisely. The wave function applied to "any object" of any scale is a cute theory, but it just failed for anything other than very small particles.
But after reading all those various approaches, I'm still under the impression that the question is both unanswered and ill-defined. :)
So a Megajoule laser pulse doesn't contain any energy?
Charges gave up energy to create the pulse. Charges will eventually absorb energy when the pulse hits them. But how did the energy go from one location to the other?
Apparently not in the fields, because without a charge there's no energy?
Perhaps you are saying that static fields do not contain energy.
QM, QED and QFT are non-intuitive and hard to grasp, but they certainly aren't a cute theory that fails.
The fact that some of those QM results are difficult to observe directly doesn't invalidate or marginalize the theory in any way.
I was specifically talking about the cases in which it "failed" so far. Do not generalize what I said, which would tend towards a strawman argument. =)
Perhaps you could read my post that I've linked and the one after it and then see whether you agree, disagree or don't understand my position on that. Can you have a static E-field without charges?
Perhaps you could read my post that I've linked and the one after it and then see whether you agree, disagree or don't understand my position on that. Can you have a static E-field without charges?
I agree that moving the charge with tongs is creating an "energy flux". It can be thought of as P = VI. You will also create a magnetic field by moving that charge, so the Poynting theorem will give you the same answer. It has to. It is just math. I am content to consider it a mathematical result with no practical value for the DC case.
I agree that a static E-field requires charges to create the field. Let's say the E-field is created by separating charges and holding them in position. That required energy. You are saying the energy is in the charges instead of the field, or a combination of charge and field?
I agree that anything that changes that energy will require the movement of charges.
And yet, there is such a thing as "energy per unit volume" of an electrostatic field:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_potential_energy#Energy_stored_in_an_electrostatic_field_distribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_potential_energy#Energy_stored_in_an_electrostatic_field_distribution)
Nope, still not telling me anything useful, just stating that's a way to look at it.I have not heard a compelling case of Poynting at DC that makes me think in any way that it's useful.
Take your pick:
What can looking at it that way DO FOR ME?
Clearly energy is coming from the solenoid and going to the magnet, which is being dissipated as heat.
Clearly energy is coming from the solenoid and going to the magnet, which is being dissipated as heat.Is it clear? How about if we replace the coil with a big fixed permanent magnet? Is energy flowing from the big magnet to the small one? :)
I was specifically talking about the cases in which it "failed" so far. Do not generalize what I said, which would tend towards a strawman argument. =)
I don't intentionally do the strawman and although reductio ad absurdum often looks like that, I haven't intentionally done that here either. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding somewhere, so can you cite an example where standard QM/QED has 'failed'? Or a situation or 'context' where it is not valid?
Clearly energy is coming from the solenoid and going to the magnet, which is being dissipated as heat.Is it clear? How about if we replace the coil with a big fixed permanent magnet? Is energy flowing from the big magnet to the small one? :)
Ooh! I forgot to include the doggone switch.
Clearly energy is coming from the solenoid and going to the magnet, which is being dissipated as heat.
Is it clear? How about if we replace the coil with a big fixed permanent magnet? Is energy flowing from the big magnet to the small one? :)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1366826;image)
It's only been observed for very small particles (notwithstanding the mentioned recent experiments, which are interesting, but for which I'm still prudent.) And as I said earlier, any theory that can't survive observation under certain conditions can't be claimed to be valid for those conditions. So, while many physicists believe that the same laws hold at any scale, the honest ones will tell you that they just don't know. That it appears plausible, but we have no proof. The others are believers.
Arguably, you are storing potential energy while moving the magnets closer? - and when they are standing still... that energy is still there!
I am not talking about the measurements, they will be as they always have been. I'm talking about the the title of this thread "The Big Misconception About Electricity". Does the energy flow in the field around the wire or does it flow in the wire at DC? Poynting/classical field theory says outside, QFT appears to say inside.
I want to know what you and others who have been so (not incorrectly) dogged about anyone that dares think of this in any other way than Maxwell/Poynting think about this apparent conundrum.
"For the phenomena under discussion here Quantum Electro Dynamics would find that the path of highest probability is along the wire, where all the free electrons are and can interact with each other at inter atomic distances VS the vast 1m void between them and the bulb."
"You don't need to go as far as Poynting to muddy the waters. Even plain Poynting Thereom can make things so complicated that you won't be able to have intuitive insights."
You are now saying the same thing that many people say about Poynting/Maxwell for DC and LF.
If engineers are so dumb these days as you say, why do they get into discussing things they not only do not understand, but, worse, also don't want to understand?
Oh! Of course! They're dumb.
That's just belief at work. The dubiously existent backfire effect. Maxwellians have been equally triggered by comments which go against their worldview.
Have you heard of an Einsteinian? If someone calls your attention to the fact that you might be making mistakes because you don't really understand the theory of relativity, you call this person an Einsteinian?
There's no such thing as a "Maxwellian". Maxwell's equations are the theory of everything classical electromagnetism. Everything that is classically electric/magnetic has to be checked against this theory and, if it fails, dismissed right away.
So Maxwell's equations are not a worldview, they are a theoretical tenet of our trade. That's why people get impatient when someone exhibits total ignorance of that fact and claims to be an electronics engineer at the same time. That's cringe worthy and embarrassing.
It's a thought experiment. Thought experiments are designed to test the limits of a concept. You're not expected to really accomplish them. ...
Avoiding Maxwell is not an option. Whether you are aware that what you doing is described by his theory or not. He's inescapable.
...
Or, if you want to fly a bit lower, Kraus
John D. Kraus
Electromagnetics 2e
section 10.20 Circuit Applications of the Poynting Vector
p. 416
on p. 418, after considering a circuit with a battery (DC) and a resistors he writes:Quote"In Fig. 10-19aflow lines of the Poynting vector (power flow lines) are shown. It is evident that the power flow is through the empty space surrounding the circuit, the conductors of the circuit acting as guiding elements. From the circuit point of view we usually think of the power as flowing through the wires but this is an oversimplification and does not represent the actual situation."
There’s nothing wrong with Maxwell’s equations. The problem is the misinterpretation of what the Poynting vector tells us. Here is what Haus and Melcher says in Section 11.3 of their book:
"we illustrate the danger of ascribing meaning to S evaluated at a point, rather than integrated over a closed surface."
They are using an alternative energy flux vector S, not the Poynting vector.
Starting with conservation of energy, looking at the energy in a volume of space, you get the change in that energy by integrating an energy flux over the surface of the volume. The form you choose for that flux may be arbitrary. If there are no sources or dissipation of energy in that volume, you may have zero flux on the surface or you may have equal flux going in as going out.
They chose an alternative definition of energy flux that only depends on current density. It still satisfies energy conservation. But it only works in certain cases.
Clearly it doesn't work for a propagating wave in free space.
The Poynting vector seems to work for all cases. So why use two different definitions of energy flux?
This is an interesting setup, but it isn’t DC. As soon as the magnetic starts moving, the magnetic flux changes with time, inducing a time-varying voltage across the coil.It's only been observed for very small particles (notwithstanding the mentioned recent experiments, which are interesting, but for which I'm still prudent.) And as I said earlier, any theory that can't survive observation under certain conditions can't be claimed to be valid for those conditions. So, while many physicists believe that the same laws hold at any scale, the honest ones will tell you that they just don't know. That it appears plausible, but we have no proof. The others are believers.
OK, I see our point of departure is at the definition of 'failure' of a theory. So you are saying that if the theory is not feasibly falsifiable, we should remain skeptical. OK, so it is not currently possible to experimentally verify the de Broglie wavelength of a tuna swimming in the sea, so your position is that we should regard any theoretical statement of it as unproven. That's not an inherently unreasonable position, but keep in mind that it then also applies to common laws that we accept will apply universally, or at least over a broad set of conditions that we don't expect to be able to analyze experimentally. I don't see QM/QED as being any different than any other physical laws or models in that regard. It is verifiable until you simply reach experimental limits. It's not like string theory, which AFAIK has not made any experimentally falsifiable conclusions.
The problem is that humans misinterpret the meaning of the Poynting vector. It has no meaning without taking the integral over the surface of an enclosed volume.
Arguably, you are storing potential energy while moving the magnets closer? - and when they are standing still... that energy is still there!
If the magnets are aligned so as to attract, it takes negative energy to move them into position from any further position or as physics teachers would posit, from infinity.
There’s nothing wrong with Maxwell’s equations. The problem is the misinterpretation of what the Poynting vector tells us. Here is what Haus and Melcher says in Section 11.3 of their book:
"we illustrate the danger of ascribing meaning to S evaluated at a point, rather than integrated over a closed surface."
I attach the relevant pages from Haus and Melcher.
They use the standard Poynting vector S=ExH in Example 11.3.1. [snip]
Let's assume that the Poynting vector does indicate the path along which power is transferred. Then what is the mechanism that causes power to be transferred from the washer-shaped conductor to rod in this example?
The problem is that humans misinterpret the meaning of the Poynting vector. It has no meaning without taking the integral over the surface of an enclosed volume.
Of course not and that is just another of your ridiculous straw men. The cable needs to dissipate the power associated with the required current and the cable's resistance. Somehow determining that by calculating Poynting vectors and an S-field would be the most ludicrously obtuse way that I can think of.
Thanks I am the one who made this video.Thank you professor for making this video, and deriving Coulomb's inverse square law (one of Maxwell's equations - the Gauss' law) from QED.
Thank you for this example. It makes my point even clearer. According to the Poynting vector, energy is transferred from one resistor to the other. We know this isn’t what is happening. Energy is transferred from the source to each resistor and not from one resistor to the other!There’s nothing wrong with Maxwell’s equations. The problem is the misinterpretation of what the Poynting vector tells us. Here is what Haus and Melcher says in Section 11.3 of their book:
"we illustrate the danger of ascribing meaning to S evaluated at a point, rather than integrated over a closed surface."QuoteI attach the relevant pages from Haus and Melcher.
The full text is also online:
http://web.mit.edu/6.013_book/www/chapter11/11.3.html (http://web.mit.edu/6.013_book/www/chapter11/11.3.html)QuoteThey use the standard Poynting vector S=ExH in Example 11.3.1. [snip]
Let's assume that the Poynting vector does indicate the path along which power is transferred. Then what is the mechanism that causes power to be transferred from the washer-shaped conductor to rod in this example?
And what seems to be the problem?
The fact that you have lines going from a resistor to another resistor?
This is a kind of unusual geometry: we have a battery whose pole is directly connected to two resistors and then a perfect conductor shorting the other ends of these resistors.
Let's see if we can untangle the geometry and still see a problem. Consider this other example:
(https://www2.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/CircuitSurveyor/media/screenshot-a.png)
source: https://www2.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/CircuitSurveyor/help.html (https://www2.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/CircuitSurveyor/help.html)QuoteThe problem is that humans misinterpret the meaning of the Poynting vector. It has no meaning without taking the integral over the surface of an enclosed volume.
Is the fact that the first resistor in the above figure is getting all the field lines coming from the battery what you find of concern?
If I grow wings and become capable of flight (and do fly), that isn't because of some cosmic permission granted by the author of a theory of flight.
If I grow wings and become capable of flight (and do fly), that isn't because of some cosmic permission granted by the author of a theory of flight.
You don't get it. There is a phenomenon that your dumbed-down understanding can't explain.
-- Here, take this theory, it explains it in clear terms what is going on.
-- Oh no, I'm an engineer, I cannot see the world except through my dumbed-down understanding. In fact, I'm going to declare that this phenomenon doesn't exist and who says that it does is wrong.
Give me break.
This kind of mindset is stupid. Especially in the case of engineers who are thought this bleep in their respective degrees.
QFT. Whatever comes next.
And Derek is a marketing genius. ;D
So are the others who said he is wrong. All of them have talked out of their butts. Lots of views. All opinion. No facts.
Maxwell's equations and the Poynting theorem explain the phenomenon perfectly.
... Maxwell's equations are just QFT for when the Plank constant is made zero. ...
So are the others who said he is wrong. All of them have talked out of their butts. Lots of views. All opinion. No facts.
Like your post right there?
Did I miss the post where you used those to accurately predict the behavior the circuit in question before experiments were done? If I did could you link it for me or give me the reply#? I apologize in advance if you did post such an analysis. And I don't mean the trivial answer of 1m/c that despite allegations of engineers not understanding light speed due to dumbness, very few people here actually missed.
Yet, like it or not, QFT has provided a 'worldview' which assists in 'debunking' (intentionally being loose with that wording) Poynting's vector as a source of truth for power flow at DC, a situation which is not far off being untestestable. It would require the experimental capabilities of Henry Cavendish's Earth density determination squared.
QuoteConsider this other example:Thank you for this example. It makes my point even clearer. According to the Poynting vector, energy is transferred from one resistor to the other. We know this isn’t what is happening.
(https://www2.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/CircuitSurveyor/media/screenshot-a.png)
source: https://www2.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/CircuitSurveyor/help.html (https://www2.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/CircuitSurveyor/help.html)
Is the fact that the first resistor in the above figure is getting all the field lines coming from the battery what you find of concern?
Energy is transferred from the source to each resistor and not from one resistor to the other!
Enclose each resistor in a gauss surface and compute the net flux of S through that closed surface to find the power absorbed and you will see that each resistor is getting the power corresponding to V times I. ...
The Poynting vector is weird, but it is what is really going on there. Welcome to reality.
Enclose each resistor in a gauss surface and compute the net flux of S through that closed surface to find the power absorbed and you will see that each resistor is getting the power corresponding to V times I. ...
Do the same procedure on some space inside the loops but not where wires or resistors are. Then tell me how the result in any way supports the concept that "power doesn't flow in the wires"?
(Yes I'm aware of what will happen if you include some wire. That's not the question.)
I think you're probably right. But that's not certain, and no amount of introspection on the mathematical details of some theory is going to answer that last part.
I get it now, and I can see the attraction. Some people just want to believe.
[I have a question though. Consider the following experiment. Let's take a rubidium laser, shine its beam through a beam splitter, then one of the beams goes through a thick copper plate to a detector A, and another beam goes through the air unobscured directly to a detector B (sea level, 25C air temperature, 30% relative humidity). Can I assume that the probability of a photon reaching detector A (the one behind the metal plate) would be 999999 times higher than probability of reaching detector B, considering the same Coulomb's law and QED?
PS. Simplified version of this experiment can be reproduced by every member of this forum with a flashlight and a frying pan.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1367267;image)
...
Or, if you want to fly a bit lower, Kraus
John D. Kraus
Electromagnetics 2e
section 10.20 Circuit Applications of the Poynting Vector
p. 416
on p. 418, after considering a circuit with a battery (DC) and a resistors he writes:Quote"In Fig. 10-19aflow lines of the Poynting vector (power flow lines) are shown. It is evident that the power flow is through the empty space surrounding the circuit, the conductors of the circuit acting as guiding elements. From the circuit point of view we usually think of the power as flowing through the wires but this is an oversimplification and does not represent the actual situation."
This (italics mine). Is an example of an academic sermonising scientific hypothesis as fact. It may seem harmless, but results in generations(s) of disciples believing stuff.
547.] He [Faraday] observes, however, that 'the first thought that arises in the mind is that the electricity circulates with something like momentum or inertia in the wire.' Indeed, when we consider one particular wire only, the phenomena are exactly analogous to those of a pipe full of water flowing in a continued stream. If while the stream is flowing we suddenly close the end of the tube, the momentum of the water produces a sudden pressure, which is much greater than that due to the head of water, and may be sufficient to burst the pipe.
If the water has the means of escaping through a narrow jet when the principal aperture is closed, it will be projected with a velocity much greater than that due to the head of water, and if it can escape through a valve into a chamber, it will do so, even when the pressure in the chamber is greater than that due to the head of water.
It is on this principle that the hydraulic ram is constructed, by which a small quantity of water may be raised to a great height by means of a large quantity flowing down from a much lower level.
548.] These effects of the inertia of the fluid in the tube depend solely on the quantity of fluid running through the tube, on its length, and on its section in different parts of its length. They do not depend on anything outside the tube, nor on the form into which the tube may be bent, provided its length remains the same.
In the case of the wire conveying a current this is not the case, for if a long wire is doubled on itself the effect is very small, if the two parts are separated from each other it is greater, if it is coiled up into a helix it is still greater, and greatest of all if, when so coiled, a piece of soft iron is placed inside the coil. Again, if a second wire is coiled up with the first, but insulated from it, then, if the second wire does not form a closed circuit, the phenomena are as before, but if the second wire forms a closed circuit, an induction current is formed in the second wire, and the effects of self-induction in the first wire are retarded.
549.] These results shew clearly that, if the phenomena are due to momentum, the momentum is certainly not that of the electricity in the wire, because the same wire, conveying the same current, exhibits effects which differ according to its form; and even when its form remains the same, the presence of other bodies, such as a piece of iron or a closed metallic circuit, affects the result.
550.] It is difficult, however, for the mind which has once recognised the analogy between the phenomena of self-induction and those of the motion of material bodies, to abandon altogether the help of this analogy, or to admit that it is entirely superficial and misleading.
The idea that nothing is happening at DC so the energy cannot flow through the fields is a misconception. At DC, AC, whatever, the electrons are exchanging virtual particles. That's why energy flows in the fields, even if the fields are not changing or moving.
Dave thinks that the Poynting vector does not work at DC because he is a circuit-headed engineer. The only way he can think of the energy traveling through space is when you have AC or RF. At DC no worky, because capacitors, transformers, and antennas, which are the only devices he knows that allow the transmission of energy through space, block DC.
The Poynting vector is weird, but it is what is really going on there. Welcome to reality.
But, but, but, Derek did that in his video! Why should I redo what is already perfect?
Is the fact that the first resistor in the above figure is getting all the field lines coming from the battery what you find of concern?
But I think you missed the point of Farmer's video. As she pointed out, those exchanges are much, much more likely to occur along the wire rather than across the space.
IIRC, Dave and almost everyone else here has not somehow stated that Poynting's Theorem is incorrect.
...
Or, if you want to fly a bit lower, Kraus
John D. Kraus
Electromagnetics 2e
section 10.20 Circuit Applications of the Poynting Vector
p. 416
on p. 418, after considering a circuit with a battery (DC) and a resistors he writes:Quote"In Fig. 10-19aflow lines of the Poynting vector (power flow lines) are shown. It is evident that the power flow is through the empty space surrounding the circuit, the conductors of the circuit acting as guiding elements. From the circuit point of view we usually think of the power as flowing through the wires but this is an oversimplification and does not represent the actual situation."
This (italics mine). Is an example of an academic sermonising scientific hypothesis as fact. It may seem harmless, but results in generations(s) of disciples believing stuff.
Let’s look at Haus and Melcher’s example 11.3.1 in more detail. We look at the example from the point of view of conservation of energy. We can calculate the power entering the washer from the voltage source. We can also calculate the power entering the rod from the voltage source.
We then use Poynting’s theorem to calculate the power that is dissipated in the rod and the power that is dissipated in the washer. It all ads up correctly. All the power that is delivered by the voltage source to the rod is dissipated in the rod. All the power that is delivered by the voltage source to the washer is dissipated in the washer.
According to our misinterpretation of the Poynting vector, Fig 11.3.1 leads to the conclusion that power is being transferred from the washer to the rod through region (a). This simply isn’t happening.
Is the fact that the first resistor in the above figure is getting all the field lines coming from the battery what you find of concern?I downloaded that and was unable to get it to run (yes I read the instructions) and apparently you haven't either since you just posted the sample shot.
I'm not sure that it is complete or accurate, but maybe it doesn't matter. What happens if you disconnect the first resistor right at the two ends?
I fully agree with everything you are saying. We are making the same point.Let’s look at Haus and Melcher’s example 11.3.1 in more detail. We look at the example from the point of view of conservation of energy. We can calculate the power entering the washer from the voltage source. We can also calculate the power entering the rod from the voltage source.
We then use Poynting’s theorem to calculate the power that is dissipated in the rod and the power that is dissipated in the washer. It all ads up correctly. All the power that is delivered by the voltage source to the rod is dissipated in the rod. All the power that is delivered by the voltage source to the washer is dissipated in the washer.
According to our misinterpretation of the Poynting vector, Fig 11.3.1 leads to the conclusion that power is being transferred from the washer to the rod through region (a). This simply isn’t happening.
We can say the same for the three parallel resistors: in the middle section we see lines of Poynting field coming out of the first resistor and getting into the second one. The first resistor is in the way of power transfer to the second resistor but is not the source of the energy (no more than the empty space between battery and first resistor is). Didn't Haus and Melcher warn the reader about the dangers of ascribing meaning to S evaluated at a point, rather than integrated over a closed surface?
And besides, you say
"All the power that is delivered by the voltage source to the rod is dissipated in the rod. All the power that is delivered by the voltage source to the washer is dissipated in the washer."
The same happens with the parallel resistors: all the power delivered to the first resistor - which you can compute by integrating over a closed surface containing it - is dissipated in the first resistor (where else?)
In the convoluted geometry of H&M cylinder, washer and rod share the power delivered by the battery. Change the resistivity of the material and you should be able to have one glow red hot, while the other stays cool.
Ascribing meaning to the Poynting vector at a point leads us to the wrong conclusion, as shown by Fig. 11.3.1.
I’m not quite sure what you a trying to say by “glowing red hot”. Are you saying that energy is now transferred through thermal radiation?
... It makes my point even clearer. ...
Ascribing meaning to the Poynting vector at a point leads us to the wrong conclusion, as shown by Fig. 11.3.1.
I didn't see Haus and Melcher recant what they wrote
"Even with the fields perfectly stationary in time, the power is seen to flow through the open space to be absorbed in the volume where the dissipation takes place."
Did you?QuoteI’m not quite sure what you a trying to say by “glowing red hot”. Are you saying that energy is now transferred through thermal radiation?
No, I'm saying that by making rod and washer of very different materials you can have one glow red hot while the other stays cool, and viceversa. There still will be Poynting field lines in the space inside the can and they will account for the difference between the total power delivered by the battery and the power absorbed by the rod.
In one case you will see a lot of lines coming out of a cool washer to impinge into a red hot rod.
... 'Millikan tongs' ... So in this special case, can we agree that the energy is 'flowing' in the succession of 1eV-potential electrons being carried by the tongs? It's hard for me to see it any other way.
Enclose each resistor in a gauss surface and compute the net flux of S through that closed surface to find the power absorbed and you will see that each resistor is getting the power corresponding to V times I. ...
Do the same procedure on some space inside the loops but not where wires or resistors are. Then tell me how the result in any way supports the concept that "power doesn't flow in the wires"?
(Yes I'm aware of what will happen if you include some wire. That's not the question.)
I guess we can get to the conclusion that vacuum does not absorb energy?
(I wonder what a QFT theorist would say about that...)
...
Or, if you want to fly a bit lower, Kraus
John D. Kraus
Electromagnetics 2e
section 10.20 Circuit Applications of the Poynting Vector
p. 416
on p. 418, after considering a circuit with a battery (DC) and a resistors he writes:Quote"In Fig. 10-19aflow lines of the Poynting vector (power flow lines) are shown. It is evident that the power flow is through the empty space surrounding the circuit, the conductors of the circuit acting as guiding elements. From the circuit point of view we usually think of the power as flowing through the wires but this is an oversimplification and does not represent the actual situation."
This (italics mine). Is an example of an academic sermonising scientific hypothesis as fact. It may seem harmless, but results in generations(s) of disciples believing stuff.
I know this was already a page ago, but can we pause for a moment to appreciate that John D. Kraus, the inventor of the helical antenna and corner reflector array, is being called a sermonizing academic?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Kraus
I mean, you can call him wrong, and you'd be wrong to call him wrong, but Kraus was hardly an ivory tower academic who didn't build anything practical... he used his exquisite knowledge of Maxwell's equations and Poynting theory to create entirely new types of antennas and waveguides - and all without numerical EM-simulators that we take for granted.
What she said is that an electron has a much higher probability of interacting with another electron a billionth of a meter apart than with one 1 m away. Just that.
Dave says it doesn't apply to DC. He's wrong. But the issue here is not technical, as Maxwell himself pondered on.
It's difficult to accept that an analogy that you held dear turns out in the end to be superficial and misleading.
[I have a question though. Consider the following experiment. Let's take a rubidium laser, shine its beam through a beam splitter, then one of the beams goes through a thick copper plate to a detector A, and another beam goes through the air unobscured directly to a detector B (sea level, 25C air temperature, 30% relative humidity). Can I assume that the probability of a photon reaching detector A (the one behind the metal plate) would be 999999 times higher than probability of reaching detector B, considering the same Coulomb's law and QED?
PS. Simplified version of this experiment can be reproduced by every member of this forum with a flashlight and a frying pan.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1367267;image)
Your simple experiment is so brilliant that the Poynting-haters didn't even realize it.
So all the power entering the washer from the voltage source is dissipated in the washer and all the power entering the rod from the voltage source is disspiated in the rod.
There is no power being transferred in the region between the washer and the rod.
You cannot conclude that from your calculation. It could be that power is exiting the washer and flowing into space (into the fields) and the same amount of power is flowing into the rod from the space (the fields) around it.
There is no double counting of power. Both views are equally valid in terms of conservation of energy.
But the "alternative" approach is only valid for DC. Using the Poynting vector is valid for all cases.
Your simple experiment is so brilliant that the Poynting-haters didn't even realize it.
So now, let's study the same setup, but with a circular wire loop instead of a rectangular one. :)I assume we are talking about two circular loops, replacing the two rectangular loops?
Uh. Sometimes, words are poor at expressing simple things. So, what I meant was essentially something like this: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3823973/#msg3823973 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3823973/#msg3823973)
With the battery and switch (let's neglect the distance between those two again) diagonally opposite to the load, and R the radius of the circle.
So now, let's study the same setup, but with a circular wire loop instead of a rectangular one. :)I assume we are talking about two circular loops, replacing the two rectangular loops?
Uh. Sometimes, words are poor at expressing simple things. So, what I meant was essentially something like this: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3823973/#msg3823973 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg3823973/#msg3823973)
With the battery and switch (let's neglect the distance between those two again) diagonally opposite to the load, and R the radius of the circle.
So, anyone? ;)
So back to the Poynting vector. What does it mean to say that an arrow on a diagram represent power flow density in W/m2? Specifically, in the classic battery/wires/load rectangle there is a Poynting vector poynting directly away from the load on the outer side of the battery. Many diagrams conveniently omit it, Derek's video shows it but just truncates it without explaining its meaning. What does that arrow represent? Is it something tangible that can be measured, used, interfered with, etc? If I say that it is just a mathematical result (from two actual physical manifestations, E and B) that has no corresponding manifestation of its own in reality, just like the imaginary currents in the open transmission line above, can you counter that?
I'm just going to accept that these are mathematical models that engineers can use to get hopefully the right numbers. I leave it to philosophers to try to define their version of reality.
I think you're probably right. But that's not certain, and no amount of introspection on the mathematical details of some theory is going to answer that last part.
I get it now, and I can see the attraction. Some people just want to believe.
What is funny is that the Poynting theorem was independently studied by Oliver Heaviside, the same guy who developed the transmission line model, that you attempted, without success, to use to try to "debunk" Derek. His study of energy flow through fields is what made it possible for him to come up with the modern version of Maxwell's equations, without which we wouldn't have the transmission line model, nor the high frequency electronics we have today, from computers to radio.
So all the power entering the washer from the voltage source is dissipated in the washer and all the power entering the rod from the voltage source is disspiated in the rod.
There is no power being transferred in the region between the washer and the rod.
You cannot conclude that from your calculation. It could be that power is exiting the washer and flowing into space (into the fields) and the same amount of power is flowing into the rod from the space (the fields) around it.
There is no double counting of power. Both views are equally valid in terms of conservation of energy.
But the "alternative" approach is only valid for DC. Using the Poynting vector is valid for all cases.
In the linked section from Haus and Melcher about the S vector.
Eq 23
S = phi( J + part_D / part_t)
In the free space surrounding the wires for DC current both J and part_D / part_t are zero.
S is zero
The Poynting vector should then show something quite different.
... of an electromagnetic wave and the direction in which it propagates. ...italic text is mine
bold text is my $.02
... at which point my brain shuts down and spits out the most recent result with an error flag set.
... of an electromagnetic wave and the direction in which it propagates. ...italic text is mine
bold text is my $.02... at which point my brain shuts down and spits out the most recent result with an error flag set.
That result is something like a standing wave of order 0, even though though that does not make sense (since the theory holds that the resistor(s) is dissipating the power), but neither does the first iteration of the endless loop; how can a travelling wave "propagate" in DC? It implies continuous conduction, moving charges, static fields.
... of an electromagnetic wave and the direction in which it propagates. ...italic text is mine
bold text is my $.02... at which point my brain shuts down and spits out the most recent result with an error flag set.
That result is something like a standing wave of order 0, even though though that does not make sense (since the theory holds that the resistor(s) is dissipating the power), but neither does the first iteration of the endless loop; how can a travelling wave "propagate" in DC? It implies continuous conduction, moving charges, static fields.
I am only aware of two mechanisms by which electromagnetic energy is transferred:
1. Flow of charge
2. Time-varying electric and/or magnetic fields
At DC, energy is only transferred by means of the flow of charge through an electric field. In this case the Poynting vector is the result of the flow of charge.
For AC, in the far field, only time-varying electric and magnetic fields.
But this is only the picture I have in my mind. Maybe there are more mechanisms.
I’m not sure if Maxwell’s equations can answer this question. Maybe we need to peel another layer of Feynman’s onion.
Note that in real life, "DC" is more or less a fantasy. We're always dealing with time-varying fields. Even when the frequency is very low. (And anyway, you'll also have some high-frequency content - just with possibly very low amplitude, but not inexistent.) So in the end, it's always a matter of using an approximation that is "good enough" for a given application. There are always a ton of phenomenons that we are neglecting. :popcorn:
By looking closely at Example 11.3.1 of Haus and Melcher we can see that Veritasium is wrong. In this example, all the power is being transferred by the conductors. No power is transferred in the region outside the conductors. Haus and Melcher should have said "power seems to flow through the open space" instead of "power is seen to flow through the open space".
The power entering the washer from the voltage source is:
Pw = 2*pi*sigma*delta*V*V/ln(a/b)
By integrating the Poynting vector over the outer surface, we find that the power that is dissipated in the washer is:
Pw = 2*pi*sigma*delta*V*V/ln(a/b)
The power entering the rod from the voltage source is:
Pr = pi*b^2*sigma*V^2/L
By integrating the Poynting vector over the outer surface, we find that the power that is dissipated in the rod is:
Pr = pi*b^2*sigma*V^2/L
So all the power entering the washer from the voltage source is dissipated in the washer and all the power entering the rod from the voltage source is disspiated in the rod.
There is no power being transferred in the region between the washer and the rod.
Will someone please check my calulations?
By looking closely at Example 11.3.1 of Haus and Melcher we can see that Veritasium is wrong. In this example, all the power is being transferred by the conductors. No power is transferred in the region outside the conductors. Haus and Melcher should have said "power seems to flow through the open space" instead of "power is seen to flow through the open space".
The power entering the washer from the voltage source is:
Pw = 2*pi*sigma*delta*V*V/ln(a/b)
By integrating the Poynting vector over the outer surface, we find that the power that is dissipated in the washer is:
Pw = 2*pi*sigma*delta*V*V/ln(a/b)
The power entering the rod from the voltage source is:
Pr = pi*b^2*sigma*V^2/L
By integrating the Poynting vector over the outer surface, we find that the power that is dissipated in the rod is:
Pr = pi*b^2*sigma*V^2/L
So all the power entering the washer from the voltage source is dissipated in the washer and all the power entering the rod from the voltage source is disspiated in the rod.
There is no power being transferred in the region between the washer and the rod.
Will someone please check my calulations?
I checked. Your calculations are wrong.
You are missing the directions of the vectors. For the rod, the S vector is radial, pointing in to the center axis. So at the end of the rod, S is parallel to the surface. S dot dA is zero at the end of the rod. So the power entering the rod from the end contact is zero. All the power is entering the rod from the region between washer and rod.
The same is true for the disk.
The power doesn't flow through the conductors, it flows in the space around the conductors.
The math still works.
I did take the direction of the vectors into account. So did Haus and Melcher when they calculated the integral of the Poynting vector over the outer surface of the rod and got the same answer as I did.
What you are doing is exactly the misinterpretation of the Poynting vector I am referring to.
You have to calculate the integral of the Poynting vector over the total outer surface of the rod. You then have to add up the contributions from the different surfaces before coming to a conclusion. You cannot conclude that Power is entering the rod through a particular surface by looking at the integral of the Poynting vector over that surface.
I suggest that you do the following:
Calculate the integral of sigma times E dot E o
ver the volume of the rod and the washer. This is the amount of electromagnetic power that is converted to heat (dissipated) in each of them. Now look at the problem from the circuit analyses point of view and calculate the current that is entering the rod and the washer. You will see that all the power that is transferred from the voltage source to the rod is dissipated in the rod. Likewise, all the power that is transferred from the voltage source to the washer is dissipated in the washer, i.e. there is no net transfer of power between the washer and the rod.
Ascribing meaning to the Poynting vector at a point leads us to the wrong conclusion, as shown by Fig. 11.3.1.
I didn't see Haus and Melcher recant what they wrote
"Even with the fields perfectly stationary in time, the power is seen to flow through the open space to be absorbed in the volume where the dissipation takes place."
Did you?QuoteI’m not quite sure what you a trying to say by “glowing red hot”. Are you saying that energy is now transferred through thermal radiation?
No, I'm saying that by making rod and washer of very different materials you can have one glow red hot while the other stays cool, and viceversa. There still will be Poynting field lines in the space inside the can and they will account for the difference between the total power delivered by the battery and the power absorbed by the rod.
In one case you will see a lot of lines coming out of a cool washer to impinge into a red hot rod.
On the next page they say:
" we illustrate the danger of ascribing meaning to S evaluated at a point, rather than integrated over a closed surface."
I'm not sure why you are dragging thermal issues into the argument. We can also make your resistors glow, but why would we? Add a cooling system if you are worried about conductors glowing red.
The point is that there is no power being transferred from the washer to the rod. All the power is accounted for. Misinterpreting the meaning of the Poynting vector leads us to incorrectly believe that power is flowing from the washer to the rod. Please do the calculations. You have all the information you require.
Note that in real life, "DC" is more or less a fantasy. We're always dealing with time-varying fields. Even when the frequency is very low. (And anyway, you'll also have some high-frequency content - just with possibly very low amplitude, but not inexistent.) So in the end, it's always a matter of using an approximation that is "good enough" for a given application. There are always a ton of phenomenons that we are neglecting. :popcorn:
But I have to concede that for the electrical system you [bdunham7] describe, energy does have to be put into those field(s) to make it work, so the DC analysis is a kind of fallacy (in that there is always going to be stored energy which is there and can conceptually be taken from, and refuelled at the other end). This is central to my gripe with Bernoulli's principle and its (I say false) assumption of conservation of energy. The system has to be charged up before it will work, and energy is different for different arrangements. ...
...
Coming to think of it, the lightbulb requires a flow of charge (current) to heat up its element. Since the power travelling through empty space cannot be converted to a flow of charge, this cannot be the energy that powers the bulb. The energy has to come through the wires.
Since all the energy that leaves the battery is disspiated in the lightbuld there cannot be any energy transfer through open space at DC.
Maybe Dave should confront Veritasium with this argument.
For now, I would like to point out that the rotating electric and magnetic dipoles do not represent static conditions. The static fields may exert a force on the dipoles. There is no work being done if there is force without motion. As soon as they start rotating the time derivates of the magnetic and/or electric fields are no longer zero.
For now, I would like to point out that the rotating electric and magnetic dipoles do not represent static conditions. The static fields may exert a force on the dipoles. There is no work being done if there is force without motion. As soon as they start rotating the time derivates of the magnetic and/or electric fields are no longer zero.
The Poynting vector will appear briefly during the (ideally quasi-static) movement and will disappear when you are in the new steady-state condition.
EDIT: I had forgotten that the damper would take energy out of the system. To make the addition and subtraction of energy reversible we need veeeeeeeeery slow motion.Unfortunately this a not allowed. We are looking at the problem from the static point of view. We can split the solution to Maxwell's equations into static and transient solutions. We are only looking at the static solution.
For now, I would like to point out that the rotating electric and magnetic dipoles do not represent static conditions. The static fields may exert a force on the dipoles. There is no work being done if there is force without motion. As soon as they start rotating the time derivates of the magnetic and/or electric fields are no longer zero.
The Poynting vector will appear briefly during the (ideally quasi-static) movement and will disappear when you are in the new steady-state condition.
This implies time varying electric and/or magnetic fields. This not a static system.
We know that electromagnetic energy can be transferred in a quasistatic system. The capacitor and transformer are examples. However, none of them will work in a static system.
How do you expect to put or extract energy from an EM system if you do not allow for charges to change position (and moving when doing so)?Exactly the point I am trying to make. How do we do it? How does the lightbulb harvest energy from the static electric and magnetic fields around it?
The circuit with a current flowing is not a static system. It has charges moving. It's quasi-static.The electric and magnetic fields are constant over time. So it's a static system. Charge may move at a constant rate in a static system.
... still, the phi J representation appears to be weaker than the ExH representation. ... this alternative method is not a general method that takes into consideration the whole physical system. In fact, it does not take into account what happens in the space around the conductors and elements. ...
4) ... one conductor is bringing power to the resistor and the other one doesn't? Does it reverse if we reverse the polarity?
5)... What exactly makes the energy hide into the conductors?
Let's start with an EM beam at very high frequency, such as a laser beam. Is the energy in the space occupied by the beam? I guess it is. Let's lower the frequency and consider an RF antenna beam: is the energy in the space? I guess it still is.
Exactly the point I am trying to make. How do we do it? How does the lightbulb harvest energy from the static electric and magnetic fields around it?
The electric and magnetic fields are constant over time. So it's a static system. Charge may move at a constant rate in a static system.
And we cannot add any solenoidal field to the Poynting vector. It violates the conservation of angular momentum.
If anyone knows of a way to harvest energy from the electric and magnetic fields near a High Voltage DC (HVDC) powerline, then get to your local patent office as fast as you can. You will become very rich.
Will a fluorescent lightbulb glow in a static electric field?
Taking account of the protons in the wire would make the model harder to work out and add a correction to the math but it would not change the fundamental semi-classical result. That the probability of one field interacting with the other would be approximated by the inverse square law. With a much greater probability of interaction the closer they are (at inter atomic distances) than at a meter apart.
I like your video very much, especially that part where you say that, in QFT, there's no distinction between particles and fields. But I have a question. What if your wire, besides the interacting electrons you showed, also had protons?
Cool, so the energy-carrying particles are the photons, which are just oscillations in the EM field.
I am not talking about the measurements, they will be as they always have been. I'm talking about the the title of this thread "The Big Misconception About Electricity". Does the energy flow in the field around the wire or does it flow in the wire at DC? Poynting/classical field theory says outside, QFT appears to say inside.
I want to know what you and others who have been so (not incorrectly) dogged about anyone that dares think of this in any other way than Maxwell/Poynting think about this apparent conundrum.
What I'm saying is that I am not at all sure that the QFT theory pointo of view is at odds with what is forecasted by Poynting. It might make it harder to see, but if you get the same measurements for the fields, then chances are that energy flow will follow what Poynting forecasts.
Regarding that video on QFT, it seems to me the point made is that the conductors are best at 'communicating' the electric field. And I can see that in classical theory as well: if there is only the battery, the electric field of each pole dies off as 1/r^2, and whatever field was there near the poles of your 12V battery, will be greatly attenuated at the distance of 1 meter. But if you attach cables at the two poles and place the other ends near each other (let's say the same distance as the battery's electrodes) one meter away from the battery, you will basically see there the same field you see between the electrodes.
Now, if QFT explains this through probabilities of interactions, instead of fields propagating from charges, well, good for QFT. But does this tell us where the energy actually flows in the first few nanoseconds in Derek's experiment?
In a post above the author of the video says
COMSOL jumps into the fray:
>https://www.comsol.com/blogs/how-long-does-it-take-an-engineer-to-turn-on-a-light-bulb/?utm_content=bufferc79f7&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=LinkedIn&utm_campaign=comsol_social_pages (https://www.comsol.com/blogs/how-long-does-it-take-an-engineer-to-turn-on-a-light-bulb/?utm_content=bufferc79f7&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=LinkedIn&utm_campaign=comsol_social_pages)
Simulation video included.
Can you zoom in in the first ten nanoseconds, to see how well they match?We can’t expect them to match. Transmission line theory cannot be used to model the initial 1m/c delay. I mentioned this in my previous posts.
Can you zoom in in the first ten nanoseconds, to see how well they match?
Can you zoom in in the first ten nanoseconds, to see how well they match?We can’t expect them to match. Transmission line theory cannot be used to model the initial 1m/c delay. I mentioned this in my previous posts.
If COMSOL change the resistance of the bulb to 718 Ohm then half the battery voltage will appear across the bulb after 3.3 ns.
Can you zoom in in the first ten nanoseconds, to see how well they match?We can’t expect them to match. Transmission line theory cannot be used to model the initial 1m/c delay. I mentioned this in my previous posts.
We both know they do not match. I just wanted to see if you can show just the first ten nanoseconds to see how much they do not match.
(This, as well has been debated in previous posts - but it would be nice to see it graphically)
According to transmission line theory, the bulb current is constant between t=0ns and t=100ns. So, the COMSOL simulation is delayed by 3.3ns compared to transmission line theory. I attach the full explanation.Can you zoom in in the first ten nanoseconds, to see how well they match?We can’t expect them to match. Transmission line theory cannot be used to model the initial 1m/c delay. I mentioned this in my previous posts.
We both know they do not match. I just wanted to see if you can show just the first ten nanoseconds to see how much they do not match.
(This, as well has been debated in previous posts - but it would be nice to see it graphically)
I wonder if the 1m/c is cumulative over every reflection. I suppose it has to be.
COMSOL jumps into the fray:
https://www.comsol.com/blogs/how-long-does-it-take-an-engineer-to-turn-on-a-light-bulb/?utm_content=bufferc79f7&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=LinkedIn&utm_campaign=comsol_social_pages (https://www.comsol.com/blogs/how-long-does-it-take-an-engineer-to-turn-on-a-light-bulb/?utm_content=bufferc79f7&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=LinkedIn&utm_campaign=comsol_social_pages)
Simulation video included.
It's not "at odds" with it. All QFT predicts is that while energy can flow via the path Pyonting predicts it can also flow via an Infinite number of other paths. Incuding paths via the wire. When one carries out the computation, taking account the presence of existence of the wire as a path of charges which are very close toegher for the battery to interact with, the path of highest probability is along the wire. The path suggested by Pyonting also exist but the probability of conduction via that path is low.
The classical theory is not "wrong" it is just too limited for this situation. The very size of it makes the speed of light relevant and so relativity has to be accounted for.
According to transmission line theory, the bulb current is constant between t=0ns and t=100ns. So, the COMSOL simulation is delayed by 3.3ns compared to transmission line theory. I attach the full explanation.
Edit: I updated the note which now includes a comparison over the first 500ns.
If the bulb is properly matched to the line (R=2Zo), we will get 25% of full power in the bulb after 3.3 ns. I wonder how QED explains this. Is the probability time dependent?
It's not "at odds" with it. All QFT predicts is that while energy can flow via the path Pyonting predicts it can also flow via an Infinite number of other paths. Incuding paths via the wire. When one carries out the computation, taking account the presence of existence of the wire as a path of charges which are very close toegher for the battery to interact with, the path of highest probability is along the wire. The path suggested by Pyonting also exist but the probability of conduction via that path is low.
The classical theory is not "wrong" it is just too limited for this situation. The very size of it makes the speed of light relevant and so relativity has to be accounted for.
I don't understand this argument. The classical theory (Maxwell's equations) is compatible with special relativity. We use it all the time to deal with problems where waves move at the speed of light. Also, we have only one reference frame here. Relativity doesn't come into it.
Of course if you want to account for gravity considering we are going half way to the moon and back, then general relativity may come in. But I gather that is not compatible with QFT?
Supposedly QFT should give basically (with a probability of 99.99...%?) the same answer as classical theory so I'm not seeing the point, I guess.
This one using a homebrew FDTD simulation with MATLAB. :clap:
According to transmission line theory, the bulb current is constant between t=0ns and t=100ns. So, the COMSOL simulation is delayed by 3.3ns compared to transmission line theory. I attach the full explanation.
Edit: I updated the note which now includes a comparison over the first 500ns.
Ah your note takes me back - is the sort of thing I have not done since uni (decades). Nothing personal against Laplace, but I found the transforms and representation extremely cumbersome - unbelievably so, I went to university believing I knew a fair bit about electronics as a hobby and knowing things like Ohm's law, so this was surprising at the time. It would have been extremely useful in the 1700s - 1800s. Z transform made a little more practical sense to me, closer to actual numbers. Oh - looking at Wikipedia, it was originally (due to Laplace) the discrete Z-transform. All this stuff I didn't know.
It might still be good to see it shifted 3.33ns (just an idea, not really necessary).
"Most engineers find acceptable the concept of energy transmission through space, either with or without guiding conductors, when wave motion is present. However, for many engineers this picture becomes disturbing for transmission line propagation in the DC case.
When E and H are static fields produced by unrelated sources, the picture becomes even less credible. The classic illustration of a bar magnet on which is placed an electric charge is one which is often cited. In this example a static electric field is crossed with a steady magnetic field and a strict interpretation of Poynting's theorem seems to require a continuous circulation of energy around the magnet. This is a picture that the engineer generally is not willing to accept (although he usually does not question the theory of permanent magnetism which requires a continuous circulation of electric currents within the magnet)."
"The energy flow associated with S in this case is merely formal; it has no physical significance because it cannot be detected."
Although it is known from the proof only that total energy flow out of a region per unit time is given by the total surface integral
fig poynting theorem
it is often convenient to think of the [Poynting] vector P defined by P = E x H as the vector giving direction and magnitude of energy flow density at any point in space. Though this step does not follow strictly, it is a most useful interpretation and one which is justified for the majority of applications.
"We know that this result does represent the correct power flow into the conductor, being dissipated in heat. If we accept the Poynting vector as giving the correct density of power flow at each point, we must then picture the battery or other source of energy as setting up the electric and magnetic fields, so that the energy flows through the field and into the wire through its surface.
The Poynting theorem cannot be considered a proof of the connectedness of this interpretation, for it says only that the total power balance for a given region will be computed correctly in this manner, but the interpretation is nevertheless a useful one."
"It should be noted that there are cases for which there will be no power flow through the electromagnetic field. Accepting the foregoing interpretation of the Poynting vector, we see that it will be zero when either E or H is zero or when the two vectors are mutually parallel.
• Thus, for example, there is no power flow in the vicinity of a system of static charges that has electric field but no magnetic field.
• Another very important case is that of a perfect conductor, which by definition must have a zero tangential component of electric field at its surface. Then P can have no component normal to the conductor and there can be no power flow into the perfect conductor."
"Poynting’s Theorem: In the preceding sections of this chapter it has been shown how the work done in bringing about small variations in the intensity or distribution of charge and current sources may be expressed in terms of integrals of the field vectors extended over all space.
The form of these integrals suggests, but does not prove, the hypothesis that electric and magnetic energies are distributed throughout the field with volume densities respectively
fig densities formulae
"The derivation of these results was based on the assumption of reversible changes; the building up of the field was assumed to take place so slowly that it might be represented by a succession of stationary states".
"It is essential that we determine now whether or not such expressions for the energy density remain valid when the fields are varying at an arbitrary rate. It is apparent, furthermore, that if our hypothesis of an energy distribution throughout the field is at all tenable, a change of field intensity and energy density must be associated with a flow of energy from or toward the source."
"As a general integral of the field equations, the validity of Poynting's theorem is unimpeachable. Its physical interpretation, however, is open to some criticism. The remark has already been made that from a volume integral representing the total energy of a field no rigorous conclusion can be drawn with regard to its distribution. The energy of the electrostatic field was first expressed as the sum of two volume integrals.
Of these one was transformed by the divergence theorem into a surface integral which was made to vanish by allowing the surface to recede to the farther limits of the field. Inversely, the divergence of any vector function vanishing properly at infinity may be added to the conventional expression u = 1/2 E.D for the density of electrostatic energy without affecting its total value. A similar indefiniteness appears in the magnetostatic case."
"The classical interpretation of Poynting’s theorem appears to rest to a considerable degree on hypothesis. Various alternative forms of the theorem have been offered from time to time,’ but none of these has the advantage of greater plausibility or greater simplicity to recommend it, and it is significant that thus far no other interpretation has contributed anything of value to the theory.
The hypothesis of an energy density in the electromagnetic field and a flow of intensity S = E x H has, on the other hand, proved extraordinarily fruitful. A theory is not an absolute truth but a self-consistent analytical formulation of the relations governing a group of natural phenomena. By this standard there is every reason to retain the Poynting-Heaviside viewpoint until a clash with new experimental evidence shall call for its revision."
See for yourself
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1119/1.1286115
Surface charge accounts for the Electric field intensity at a conducting boundary.
https://eng.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Electrical_Engineering/Electro-Optics/Book%3A_Electromagnetics_I_(Ellingson)/05%3A_Electrostatics/5.18%3A__Boundary_Conditions_on_the_Electric_Flux_Density_(D)
We conclude this section with a warning. Even
though the SI units for D are C/m2, D describes an
electric field and not a surface charge density. It is
certainly true that one may describe the amount of
charge distributed over a surface using units of C/m2.
However, D is not necessarily a description of actual
charge, and there is no implication that the source of
the electric field is a distribution of surface charge.
On the other hand, it is true that D can be interpreted
as an equivalent surface charge density that would
give rise to the observed electric field, and in some
cases, this equivalent charge density turns out to be
the actual charge density.
Yet, like it or not, QFT has provided a 'worldview' which assists in 'debunking' (intentionally being loose with that wording) Poynting's vector as a source of truth for power flow at DC, a situation which is not far off being untestestable. It would require the experimental capabilities of Henry Cavendish's Earth density determination squared.Debunking? You got to be kidding me. QFT in fact confirms the Poynting vector at DC or at any frequency. The idea that nothing is happening at DC so the energy cannot flow through the fields is a misconception.
At DC, AC, whatever, the electrons are exchanging virtual particles. That's why energy flows in the fields, even if the fields are not changing or moving.
Dave thinks that the Poynting vector does not work at DC because he is a circuit-headed engineer. The only way he can think of the energy traveling through space is when you have AC or RF. At DC no worky, because capacitors, transformers, and antennas, which are the only devices he knows that allow the transmission of energy through space, block DC.
Well, surface charge is exceedingly small in ordinary circuits. I have always wondered if there are instances where it would be required to have fraction of the charge of the electron, and how - if it is possible - to resolve that classically
The fields have been shown to be real. See for example jefimenko's 1962 paper ( or his book)
I've been gone for several weeks, can someone TLDR me what happened here in regards to the quantum field theory explanation? Thanks.
<snip>
What if those fields are inside the copper wire at DC?
Again, the fundamental question here is whether energy flows inside or outside the wire (or both). And it should be easiest to argue this for DC.
<snip>
I have never said that Poynting vector math doesn't work at DC, I have in fact said that it does. What I was getting at is that they basically become of no practical relevance at DC.
Another cool simulation video. Shows that energy outside the wires flows along parallel to the wire direction from source to load. Ohmic losses flow in towards the center of the wire. This one simulates at low frequency, close to DC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkXx-MAFU4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkXx-MAFU4)
If that simulation is for DC why does he run it at 1 hz. Why does he discuss skin depth so much.
Where in the video does he support dc power flowing outside the wires.
If DC power is flowing outside the wires shouldn't it be easy to prove without so much blah blah blah.....
...Of course it doesn't - voltage is a property of matter, and is the excess charge density (number of extra or missing electrons from a state of absolute neutrality). When a metal, it represents the mechanical pressure of those electrons in the wire, a pressure that can't exist in a vacuum (unless a cleaner). But the mathematical field can - it predicts the force that would act on a charge if one were there.
Ok, how about assuming the field isn't real. It is always the interaction between charged particles.
I've been gone for several weeks, can someone TLDR me what happened here in regards to the quantum field theory explanation? Thanks.
Not sure, but I think it's done at least one more cycle of spiralling in on zero or more answers!
Best I can see is it's down to semantic differences, which trigger different thought pathways in people's heads leading them to have no way to reasonably dispute what they are now thinking, or at least wondering about the conflict now centred in their minds rather than projected externally. I say, faux psychoanalytically.
I'm starting to wonder if classical theory is grossly misleading through no fault of its own, just that it has propagated through textbooks where the authors have struggled for teachable meaning, now just layers of history and interpretation. Should have prefaced that with an extreme cynicism warning, but seems too true.
I like QTF in that it seems to predict that in all probability the majority of energy flow is inside the wire.
I like QTF in that it seems to predict that in all probability the majority of energy flow is inside the wire.
But does QFT predict that?
Shouldn't QFT give the same results as the classical model? The classical model agrees with measurements.
Of course, if we can't actually measure "energy flow", then that could be a problem. In that case, QFT's prediction would be just as useless as the classical model.
...Which is why I kept croaking that you can't consider power to be 'in' the fields on their own without considering charges.
Shouldn't QFT give the same results as the classical model? The classical model agrees with measurements.You've neatly summarized the issue. Both the QFT and classical model will agree as to the movement of the charges, the dissipation of energy in the load, the surface charges and fields, the magnetic fields and so on. So both should agree with any actual physical measurements you can take, but they arrive at their results differently. There's no reason to assume that the two models have to agree on intermediate constructs like probability, virtual particles, S-fields or other mathematical results.
Of course, if we can't actually measure "energy flow", then that could be a problem. In that case, QFT's prediction would be just as useless as the classical model.
Has one slope really carried 100 times the energy of the other one? ...
tl;dr : energy flows in wires. Or in vacuum. Whatever.
One century later, Carpenter arrives, in 1989.
If you know a bit of multivariate calculus, definitely read his papers: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.4488&rep=rep1&type=pdf (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.4488&rep=rep1&type=pdf) http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.4597&rep=rep1&type=pdf (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.4597&rep=rep1&type=pdf)
547.] He [Faraday] observes, however, that 'the first thought that arises in the mind is that the electricity circulates with something like momentum or inertia in the wire.' Indeed, when we consider one particular wire only, the phenomena are exactly analogous to those of a pipe full of water flowing in a continued stream. If while the stream is flowing we suddenly close the end of the tube, the momentum of the water produces a sudden pressure, which is much greater than that due to the head of water, and may be sufficient to burst the pipe.
If the water has the means of escaping through a narrow jet when the principal aperture is closed, it will be projected with a velocity much greater than that due to the head of water, and if it can escape through a valve into a chamber, it will do so, even when the pressure in the chamber is greater than that due to the head of water.
It is on this principle that the hydraulic ram is constructed, by which a small quantity of water may be raised to a great height by means of a large quantity flowing down from a much lower level.
548.] These effects of the inertia of the fluid in the tube depend solely on the quantity of fluid running through the tube, on its length, and on its section in different parts of its length. They do not depend on anything outside the tube, nor on the form into which the tube may be bent, provided its length remains the same.
In the case of the wire conveying a current this is not the case, for if a long wire is doubled on itself the effect is very small, if the two parts are separated from each other it is greater, if it is coiled up into a helix it is still greater, and greatest of all if, when so coiled, a piece of soft iron is placed inside the coil. Again, if a second wire is coiled up with the first, but insulated from it, then, if the second wire does not form a closed circuit, the phenomena are as before, but if the second wire forms a closed circuit, an induction current is formed in the second wire, and the effects of self-induction in the first wire are retarded.
549.] These results shew clearly that, if the phenomena are due to momentum, the momentum is certainly not that of the electricity in the wire, because the same wire, conveying the same current, exhibits effects which differ according to its form; and even when its form remains the same, the presence of other bodies, such as a piece of iron or a closed metallic circuit, affects the result.
550.] It is difficult, however, for the mind which has once recognised the analogy between the phenomena of self-induction and those of the motion of material bodies, to abandon altogether the help of this analogy, or to admit that it is entirely superficial and misleading.
a) Derek insisted you use a counterintuitive (but correct) understanding of energy flow in a context where it is poyntless, claiming other ones are wrong, without proving they are wrong.
b) everything else is incorrect, except possibly the engineering history of the first transatlantic cables.
Note 1: Regarding the transformations so slow as to be considered almost static so they would not lose energy to radiation, I have found comfort in
Stratton,
Electromagnetic Theory
1941:
p. 131, italics mineQuote"Poynting’s Theorem: In the preceding sections of this chapter it has been shown how the work done in bringing about small variations in the intensity or distribution of charge and current sources may be expressed in terms of integrals of the field vectors extended over all space.
The form of these integrals suggests, but does not prove, the hypothesis that electric and magnetic energies are distributed throughout the field with volume densities respectively
fig densities formulae
"The derivation of these results was based on the assumption of reversible changes; the building up of the field was assumed to take place so slowly that it might be represented by a succession of stationary states".
"It is essential that we determine now whether or not such expressions for the energy density remain valid when the fields are varying at an arbitrary rate. It is apparent, furthermore, that if our hypothesis of an energy distribution throughout the field is at all tenable, a change of field intensity and energy density must be associated with a flow of energy from or toward the source."
On the arbitrariness of the assumptions relating Poynting's theorem Stratton has this to say:
p. 133Quote"As a general integral of the field equations, the validity of Poynting's theorem is unimpeachable. Its physical interpretation, however, is open to some criticism. The remark has already been made that from a volume integral representing the total energy of a field no rigorous conclusion can be drawn with regard to its distribution. The energy of the electrostatic field was first expressed as the sum of two volume integrals.
Of these one was transformed by the divergence theorem into a surface integral which was made to vanish by allowing the surface to recede to the farther limits of the field. Inversely, the divergence of any vector function vanishing properly at infinity may be added to the conventional expression u = 1/2 E.D for the density of electrostatic energy without affecting its total value. A similar indefiniteness appears in the magnetostatic case."
But all in all
pp. 134-135, bold mineQuote"The classical interpretation of Poynting’s theorem appears to rest to a considerable degree on hypothesis. Various alternative forms of the theorem have been offered from time to time,’ but none of these has the advantage of greater plausibility or greater simplicity to recommend it, and it is significant that thus far no other interpretation has contributed anything of value to the theory.
The hypothesis of an energy density in the electromagnetic field and a flow of intensity S = E x H has, on the other hand, proved extraordinarily fruitful. A theory is not an absolute truth but a self-consistent analytical formulation of the relations governing a group of natural phenomena. By this standard there is every reason to retain the Poynting-Heaviside viewpoint until a clash with new experimental evidence shall call for its revision."
Now, what experimental evidence have we?
tl;dr : energy flows in wires. Or in vacuum. Whatever.
What Maxwell is saying is that magnetic momentum does not behave entirely like mechanical momentum. He is right.tl;dr : energy flows in wires. Or in vacuum. Whatever.
Is the earth the center of the universe? YES, at least for 1500 years. If you don't live under a rock, you'll see that the sun, the moon, the stars and the planets all traverse the skies every day and every night around us. The planets have that little loop they do in their orbits, but that's all perfectly predicted by the theory of the epicycles.
If that is so, why don't we use it anymore these days? It is because Galileo pointed his telescope to Jupiter and it became pretty clear that calculating the orbits of its recently discovered moons would be a nightmare.
Galileo then came with the Galileo's invariance, a.k.a. Galileo's relativity, where all inertial frames are equivalent to each other and their results can be converted from one to another using Galileo's transformation.
This principle underpins Newtonian mechanics.QuoteOne century later, Carpenter arrives, in 1989.
If you know a bit of multivariate calculus, definitely read his papers: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.4488&rep=rep1&type=pdf (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.4488&rep=rep1&type=pdf) http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.4597&rep=rep1&type=pdf (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.4597&rep=rep1&type=pdf)
What the author is basically saying is that engineers are too dumb to understand energy in the fields (fields are counterintuitive, current as a fluid is not) so the author suggests that we embrace a concept abandoned by Maxwell and Heaviside because of its incompleteness.
As Maxwell himself pondered in his treatise below:Quote547.] He [Faraday] observes, however, that 'the first thought that arises in the mind is that the electricity circulates with something like momentum or inertia in the wire.' Indeed, when we consider one particular wire only, the phenomena are exactly analogous to those of a pipe full of water flowing in a continued stream. If while the stream is flowing we suddenly close the end of the tube, the momentum of the water produces a sudden pressure, which is much greater than that due to the head of water, and may be sufficient to burst the pipe.
If the water has the means of escaping through a narrow jet when the principal aperture is closed, it will be projected with a velocity much greater than that due to the head of water, and if it can escape through a valve into a chamber, it will do so, even when the pressure in the chamber is greater than that due to the head of water.
It is on this principle that the hydraulic ram is constructed, by which a small quantity of water may be raised to a great height by means of a large quantity flowing down from a much lower level.
548.] These effects of the inertia of the fluid in the tube depend solely on the quantity of fluid running through the tube, on its length, and on its section in different parts of its length. They do not depend on anything outside the tube, nor on the form into which the tube may be bent, provided its length remains the same.
In the case of the wire conveying a current this is not the case, for if a long wire is doubled on itself the effect is very small, if the two parts are separated from each other it is greater, if it is coiled up into a helix it is still greater, and greatest of all if, when so coiled, a piece of soft iron is placed inside the coil. Again, if a second wire is coiled up with the first, but insulated from it, then, if the second wire does not form a closed circuit, the phenomena are as before, but if the second wire forms a closed circuit, an induction current is formed in the second wire, and the effects of self-induction in the first wire are retarded.
549.] These results shew clearly that, if the phenomena are due to momentum, the momentum is certainly not that of the electricity in the wire, because the same wire, conveying the same current, exhibits effects which differ according to its form; and even when its form remains the same, the presence of other bodies, such as a piece of iron or a closed metallic circuit, affects the result.
550.] It is difficult, however, for the mind which has once recognised the analogy between the phenomena of self-induction and those of the motion of material bodies, to abandon altogether the help of this analogy, or to admit that it is entirely superficial and misleading.
A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, 3d edition, J.C. Maxwell, pp 195-196.Quotea) Derek insisted you use a counterintuitive (but correct) understanding of energy flow in a context where it is poyntless, claiming other ones are wrong, without proving they are wrong.
b) everything else is incorrect, except possibly the engineering history of the first transatlantic cables.
Well, we can go back to the epicycles. It is intuitive and we don't even have to learn the counterintuitive laws of Newton. But the scientific paradigm shifted long ago, so saying that the earth is the center of the universe may sound like a misconception these days. Kids don't even learn about epicycles in school.
Enlarged text mine.
You've found comfort in a text from 1941? Ok, whatever makes you sleep well at night!
What Maxwell is saying is that magnetic momentum does not behave entirely like mechanical momentum. He is right.
Perhaps you didn't get the memo, but many scientists are using a terrestrial reference frame, where the origin is at the center of the Earth. And they will continue to do so even if you laugh at them shouting "epicycles!", as they are not impressed.
Now I can see that you did not come up with an example which contradicts the JV law. Can you guess why? (They don't exist.)
So perhaps you should learn physics until you can find one, instead of shouting epicycles.
Are you ready to forgo semiclassical theories and wanna go full quantum? Then stick to QFT and start computing probabilities for everything. But then basically everything you said in your video becomes lies.
You can't have cake and eat it.
tl;dr : energy flows in wires. Or in vacuum. Whatever.
I'm begining to think that Derek/Ponyting can no more correctly claim that the energy actually flows outside the wires than QFT says it flows mostly inside the wire.
Dude, that's Stratton. One of the most cited textbooks in EM.Yes. Did he prove that it was wrong to say energy flows in wires? No.
But he acknowledges the same points made by Stratton in 1941 and has a little paragraph that says "It may seem odd that the Poynting vector for a wire circuit does not predict energy flow parallel to the wire itself. This and other unanticipated features of some Poynting flows prompt some authors to define a Poynting vector using S = E x B/mu0 + curl X. The vector field X is chosen to make [the Poynting vector] point in more “natural” directions. The [above] definition does not disrupt Poynting’s theorem because the latter contains only ∇ · S. Relativistic considerations constrain, but do not completely eliminate, this arbitrariness in the definition of S.That's right it's not an observable. So you can claim that the energy flows in wires. And you can also claim that energy flows from battery to the lamp by going behind the Moon.
There is no real problem in any event because the Poynting vector is not an observable."
Point is: you have to choose a theory and stick to it.Yes.
Do you use voltages and currents, and consider current as a flow of charge carriers? Stick to classical ED (it automatically incorporates special relativity) and learn how to correctly apply Maxwell's equations
(to the point of being able to tell that the Poynting vector does not point directly towards the battery - or even good conducting wires - at DC because you've seen a picture on Feynman where it points radially in, in a resistive wire).No. It's not in Maxwell's equations. It's not about an observable.
tl;dr : energy flows in wires. Or in vacuum. Whatever.
I'm begining to think that Derek/Ponyting can no more correctly claim that the energy actually flows outside the wires than QFT says it flows mostly inside the wire.
You see? It is you that are saying that. What "QFT" professor said is just that the probability of an electron interacting with another in the wire is greater than that of an electron interacting with another one 1 m apart. You jumped automatically to the conclusion that the energy flows in the wires due to your bias.
That's how misconceptions spread.
The "QFT" professor said that her field of research is not related to QFT. I suggest you interview a specialist in the study of QED to analyze Derek's claims and provide an unbiased conclusion.
Once again, the fundmental question being asked here is whether or not energy flows inside or outside the wire.Just to be clear: this is not a question which can be settled with experimental evidence (unlike what Stratton said or implied).
A lot of the "debate" coming more from using different (or even vague) definitions and a philosophical approach of science rather than experimental, it can probably go on forever. =)
Just like with the KVL one.
And the correct answer is: it depends what you're doing, both are correct (until someone finds a flaw in Carpenter's computations… but don't wait for it).
The energy flowing in the wires can be correct, however, you'll have a hard time to explain how energy flows from the primary to the secondary of a transformer, for instance.
The energy flowing in the wires can be correct, however, you'll have a hard time to explain how energy flows from the primary to the secondary of a transformer, for instance.
At steady-state DC, the energy flowing in the wires perfectly explains the flow of energy from primary to secondary, just as it also describes the radiation from dipole antenna. There is none. So what's the problem?
You guys don't seem to like it because it seems to predict contrary to what Poynting and classical theory predicts. All of you were all gung-ho beating everyone with a Poynting stick until QTF was brought up. Now it seems like the eyes are darting around, because maybe, just maybe, you might have been trumped.
And even Sredni is posting his own references that say "hmm, maybe it's not quite right/complete".
Now you're saying that energy flows from the primary to the secondary. Did you compute Poynting's vector? What is the result ?
Here's a McDonald quote: "This problem was posed by Siegman [1], which led to several conflicting responses [2, 3, 4, 5], all of which seem somewhat misguided". So don't look in McDonald's paper nor in Carpenter's and tell us.
he knows that energy flows in the wires, he just doesn't find it convenient.
Once again, the fundmental question being asked here is whether or not energy flows inside or outside the wire.Just to be clear: this is not a question which can be settled with experimental evidence (unlike what Stratton said or implied).
For macroscopic events like the one proposed by Derek's thought experiment, Quantum and Classical ED converge. So what the "QFT" professor said tells only part of the story. She says she's not a specialist on the subject. So we need the complete picture if you're going down that rabbit hole.
As it turns out though, it seems she has published a book involving QFT
https://www.amazon.com.au/Quantum-Space-Time-Dynamics-Hontas-Farmer/dp/0578007320 (https://www.amazon.com.au/Quantum-Space-Time-Dynamics-Hontas-Farmer/dp/0578007320)
Carpenter's theorem states that if Maxwell's equations are correct, then JV is a valid energy flow. And with JV, energy flows only in wires.he knows that energy flows in the wires, he just doesn't find it convenient.As inconvenient as considering the earth flat. T'works for short distances. Fails in the long haul.
Carpenter's theorem states that if Maxwell's equations are correct, then JV is a valid energy flow. And with JV, energy flows only in wires.he knows that energy flows in the wires, he just doesn't find it convenient.As inconvenient as considering the earth flat. T'works for short distances. Fails in the long haul.
So either:
a) you find a flaw in the 3 lines proof of the theorem
b) you find a counter-example to the theorem
c) you compare Maxwell's equations to flat earth-theory.
Conclusion: the statement "energy flows only in wires" is correct.
Dave: could you transmit the first message to Derek please?
Carpenter's energy flow goes from the battery to the wires connected to it.But that can't be entirely true in the transient scenario. It's demonstrably true that energy reaches the bulb at 1m/c, and that can't go through the wire.Carpenter's theorem states that if Maxwell's equations are correct, then JV is a valid energy flow. And with JV, energy flows only in wires.he knows that energy flows in the wires, he just doesn't find it convenient.As inconvenient as considering the earth flat. T'works for short distances. Fails in the long haul.
So either:
a) you find a flaw in the 3 lines proof of the theorem
b) you find a counter-example to the theorem
c) you compare Maxwell's equations to flat earth-theory.
Conclusion: the statement "energy flows only in wires" is correct.
Am I missing something? Sorry, I have not been following this thread for 2 weeks.
Carpenter's theorem states that if Maxwell's equations are correct, then JV is a valid energy flow. And with JV, energy flows only in wires.
So either:
a) you find a flaw in the 3 lines proof of the theorem
b) you find a counter-example to the theorem
c) you compare Maxwell's equations to flat earth-theory.
Conclusion: the statement "energy flows only in wires" is correct.
Current "goes through" (and Carpenter's flow does the same) the capacitor, and on the other side, wires move energy into the bulb.
Yes the theorem is entirely true.
Exactly! These concepts are tools.
Exactly! These concepts are tools.
Careful, I've been constantly put down on this thead for being a dumb arse engineer for dare suggesting that engineers have tools that solve problems, and not understanding that Poynting is the only true way that energy flows ::)
To explain the photoelectric effect, Einstein introduced the idea that light itself is made of discrete units of energy.
So, uh, what about photons?
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon):QuoteTo explain the photoelectric effect, Einstein introduced the idea that light itself is made of discrete units of energy.
Yet another tool to use in the right situation.
The core, represented largely by an equivalent surface current J, , has the effect of a flywheel, into which the primary injects and recovers momentum by the remote action effect of A. The electron stream in the secondary conveys energy into the load, which generates a p4/2 pressure in the winding, and hence controls the rate at which energy is extracted from the ‘fluid."
Once f is known everywhere, then the energy transferred by the moving charges is given by in accordance with eqn. 13, and the antennas are no different in this respect from the plates in Fig. 1, or from the wires in Fig. 4a. Both examples illustrate the way in which removing the energy from empty space also removes the energy flow vector which is needed to account for it, and makes the question of the ‘mechanism’ of energy transfer wholly irrelevant. The mutual energy is divided between the charges, so that they necessarily become the vehicle by which the energy is transferred. It
is, perhaps, remarkable that, although Maxwell’s attempts to use field theory to develop a mechanistic aether model have been universally abandoned, and with them the possibility of any useful meaning to the concept of the field as providing a force transfer mechanism, the properties of mass, energy and momentum in empty space are still interpreted literally, and go largely unchallenged
However, the mechanisms of the electromagnetic interactions, all of which are remote, are of no interest to the engineer if they are not needed to predict the behaviour of electromagnetic devices, and the general objective of Reference 2 was to show that this is so. As J4 satisfies the stored energy and force requirements, the point which remains is not whether it is a ‘correct’ description of energy flow (a question which is clearly meaningless in view of the variety of the alternatives), but whether or not it is sufficient for practical purposes.
Exactly! These concepts are tools.
Careful, I've been constantly put down on this thead for being a dumb arse engineer for dare suggesting that engineers have tools that solve problems, and not understanding that Poynting is the only true way that energy flows ::)
Carpenter's theorem states that if Maxwell's equations are correct, then JV is a valid energy flow. And with JV, energy flows only in wires.
QuoteThe core, represented largely by an equivalent surface current J, , has the effect of a flywheel, into which the primary injects and recovers momentum by the remote action effect of A. The electron stream in the secondary conveys energy into the load, which generates a p4/2 pressure in the winding, and hence controls the rate at which energy is extracted from the ‘fluid."
Hmm, what is this "remote action effect"? Does he just mean... field effect? But doesn't want to say fields?
In electrodynamics, the retarded potentials are the electromagnetic potentials for the electromagnetic field generated by time-varying electric current or charge distributions in the past. The fields propagate at the speed of light c, so the delay of the fields connecting cause and effect at earlier and later times is an important factor: the signal takes a finite time to propagate from a point in the charge or current distribution (the point of cause) to another point in space (where the effect is measured), see figure below.
So, uh, what about photons?Photon are quantum mechanical, there is no photon in Maxwell's equations.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon):QuoteTo explain the photoelectric effect, Einstein introduced the idea that light itself is made of discrete units of energy.
Yet another tool to use in the right situation.
So, all I'm getting from his paper is that he doesn't give a damn what happens in the middle (and uses the ad hoc 'remote action effect' term) - all he cares about is the end result. How much power is delivered from source to load?A charge here creates scalar (Lorenz) potential V everywhere.
But, this interpretation seems to be insufficient to answer Derek's question about how long it takes for the bulb to receive energy in the transient period. The mechanism of EM interaction IS important to Derek's question (that EM energy can traverse empty space at speed c, and if so, how?) - otherwise you'd be led to the wrong answer.
Classically, it's all fields.
If there is no energy in light - then what is radiation pressure?Potential momentum qA being increased/decreased (remember that Lorenz' A propagates at the speed of light), and converted in a mechanical one.
Yes all this are valid power flows. So it should start by yes or you are just making a controversy where there shouldn't be one.Carpenter's theorem states that if Maxwell's equations are correct, then JV is a valid energy flow. And with JV, energy flows only in wires.
Yes, it actually flows in the upper wire.
No, in the lower wire
No, wait, half and half.
No, no, wait again... it's 5/8 in the upper one and 3/8 in the lower one.
Or, the other way around?
The phi J representation is subject to as many representations as the potential. We have already been over that, some five or six pages ago.
If there is no energy in light - then what is radiation pressure?
34–9 The momentum of light
Now we turn to a different topic. We have never, in all our discussion of the past few chapters, said anything about the effects of the magnetic field that is associated with light. Ordinarily, the effects of the magnetic field are very small, but there is one interesting and important effect which is a consequence of the magnetic field. Suppose that light is coming from a source and is acting on a charge and driving that charge up and down. We will suppose that the electric field is in the x-direction, so the motion of the charge is also in the x-direction: it has a position x and a velocity v, as shown in Fig. 34–13. The magnetic field is at right angles to the electric field. Now as the electric field acts on the charge and moves it up and down, what does the magnetic field do? The magnetic field acts on the charge (say an electron) only when it is moving; but the electron is moving, it is driven by the electric field, so the two of them work together: While the thing is going up and down it has a velocity and there is a force on it, B times v times q; but in which direction is this force? It is in the direction of the propagation of light. Therefore, when light is shining on a charge and it is oscillating in response to that light, there is a driving force in the direction of the light beam. This is called radiation pressure or light pressure.
A lot of the "debate" coming more from using different (or even vague) definitions and a philosophical approach of science rather than experimental, it can probably go on forever. =)
Just like with the KVL one.
A charge here creates scalar (Lorenz) potential V everywhere.
A moving charge here creates vector (Lorenz) potential A everywhere.
Potentials propagate at the speed of light, and this gives the answer: when you close the switch an EM disturbance is created, it propagates to the light and "switch it on".
(It's all fields until you remove them. See Liénard-Wiechert potential, for example in an Atoms & Sporks video or in Wiki)
Potential momentum qA being increased/decreased (remember that Lorenz' A propagates at the speed of light), and converted in a mechanical one.
So yes Carpenter's energy of light is 0, Carpenter's momentum of light is 0. It's vacuum after all! Why would you put energy in vacuum! 8)
Therefore the force, the “pushing momentum,” that is delivered per second by the light, is equal to 1/c times the energy absorbed from the light per second! That is a general rule, since we did not say how strong the oscillator was, or whether some of the charges cancel out. In any circumstance where light is being absorbed, there is a pressure. The momentum that the light delivers is always equal to the energy that is absorbed, divided by c:
⟨F⟩=dW/dtc.(34.24)
That light carries energy we already know. We now understand that it also carries momentum, and further, that the momentum carried is always 1/c times the energy.
The Casimir effect is a pretty peculiar beast. =)
But one thing to consider is that vacuum is not void.
Carpenter's theorem states that if Maxwell's equations are correct, then JV is a valid energy flow. And with JV, energy flows only in wires.
So either:
a) you find a flaw in the 3 lines proof of the theorem
b) you find a counter-example to the theorem
c) you compare Maxwell's equations to flat earth-theory.
Conclusion: the statement "energy flows only in wires" is correct.
Dave: could you transmit the first message to Derek please?
I'm always VERRRRRRRRY skeptical of anyone who uses transparent, clickbaity hyperbole such as prepending the title with ✌️"The big..."✌️
I automatically think "if it's that big, people will know it instinctively, ergo your emphasising this is redundant, or merely for likes and subs" (sadly nearly ALWAYS the case, no matter who they are, or how "reputable".
It's sad, and somewhat amusing to me that supposedly intelligent people on YouTube, nearly ALL seem to fall into that trap.
QuoteConclusion: the statement "energy flows only in wires" is correct.
What you're doing is the same thing you're accusing Derek of having done. If the energy flows ONLY in the wires, the other theories are wrong.
Depends what you mean by fields, when people say "energy is in the fields" they mean in fact "energy is in vacuum", and with Carpenter's interpretation, V,A are mathematical fields but vacuum plays no role at all, it's just the place where they propagate.A charge here creates scalar (Lorenz) potential V everywhere.Maybe I'm an idiot but I really don't see how this interpretation removes any of the fields. And I looked at the Liénard-Wiechert potential - it's defined in terms of vector fields. We're still talking about the propagations of fields, through empty space.
A moving charge here creates vector (Lorenz) potential A everywhere.
Potentials propagate at the speed of light, and this gives the answer: when you close the switch an EM disturbance is created, it propagates to the light and "switch it on".
(It's all fields until you remove them. See Liénard-Wiechert potential, for example in an Atoms & Sporks video or in Wiki)
The concepts have to change with the theory you use, and the theory with what you're doing.The Casimir effect is a pretty peculiar beast. =)Indeed. And I don't mean to be unfair by bringing it up. The Casimir Effect is not something predicted by Classical ED even if it has thematic similarities to aether ideas from Maxwell. I guess it just shows they had a shadow of vision of the future.
But one thing to consider is that vacuum is not void.
What I'm driving at is that in neither Classical ED, nor Einsteinian QM, nor in modern QFT is the vacuum considered to be a void that can't have energy in it. Thus, I don't really respond to philosophical arguments that suppose the vacuum can't have energy going through it 'just because' - whether it's energy-less photons or these "signals" (as Atom & Sporks says in the video recommended video by Naej) from one charge to another that are very totally not energy propagating in a field, just, 'remote action effects.' :-[
Yes, I'm aware of Feynman's explanation of radiation pressure - that's why I question the statements Naej is making in their interpretation of Carpenter. After all, Feynman remarks a moment later,QuoteTherefore the force, the “pushing momentum,” that is delivered per second by the light, is equal to 1/c times the energy absorbed from the light per second! That is a general rule, since we did not say how strong the oscillator was, or whether some of the charges cancel out. In any circumstance where light is being absorbed, there is a pressure. The momentum that the light delivers is always equal to the energy that is absorbed, divided by c:
⟨F⟩=dW/dtc.(34.24)
That light carries energy we already know. We now understand that it also carries momentum, and further, that the momentum carried is always 1/c times the energy.
The most obvious is momentum. The idea of electromagnetic
radiation carrying with it a momentum, and
hence exerting a force on any absorbing surface, epitomises
the properties which are customarily taken as
direct experimental evidence of the existence of the field.
But, as is well recognised [4-9], these properties are
unsupported by any evidence which is independent of the
way in which they are defined.
That is because " Engineers are essentially dumbed-down "physicists". " :popcorn:
Yes, I'm aware of Feynman's explanation of radiation pressure - that's why I question the statements Naej is making in their interpretation of Carpenter. After all, Feynman remarks a moment later,QuoteTherefore the force, the “pushing momentum,” that is delivered per second by the light, is equal to 1/c times the energy absorbed from the light per second! That is a general rule, since we did not say how strong the oscillator was, or whether some of the charges cancel out. In any circumstance where light is being absorbed, there is a pressure. The momentum that the light delivers is always equal to the energy that is absorbed, divided by c:
⟨F⟩=dW/dtc.(34.24)
That light carries energy we already know. We now understand that it also carries momentum, and further, that the momentum carried is always 1/c times the energy.
Carpenter denies there is any experimental evidence that light carries momentum:QuoteThe most obvious is momentum. The idea of electromagnetic
radiation carrying with it a momentum, and
hence exerting a force on any absorbing surface, epitomises
the properties which are customarily taken as
direct experimental evidence of the existence of the field.
But, as is well recognised [4-9], these properties are
unsupported by any evidence which is independent of the
way in which they are defined.
I'm not buying it. I suppose he means that the way he defines things, it is charges acting on each other at a distance rather than fields acting on particles.
This would require reformulating lots of physics since Maxwell.
Yes. He says momentum, which is just like energy, is just as arbitrary. You can observe a charge at point A accelerating a charge at point B but you can't tell from the experiment whether:Yes, I'm aware of Feynman's explanation of radiation pressure - that's why I question the statements Naej is making in their interpretation of Carpenter. After all, Feynman remarks a moment later,QuoteTherefore the force, the “pushing momentum,” that is delivered per second by the light, is equal to 1/c times the energy absorbed from the light per second! That is a general rule, since we did not say how strong the oscillator was, or whether some of the charges cancel out. In any circumstance where light is being absorbed, there is a pressure. The momentum that the light delivers is always equal to the energy that is absorbed, divided by c:
⟨F⟩=dW/dtc.(34.24)
That light carries energy we already know. We now understand that it also carries momentum, and further, that the momentum carried is always 1/c times the energy.
Carpenter denies there is any experimental evidence that light carries momentum:QuoteThe most obvious is momentum. The idea of electromagnetic
radiation carrying with it a momentum, and
hence exerting a force on any absorbing surface, epitomises
the properties which are customarily taken as
direct experimental evidence of the existence of the field.
But, as is well recognised [4-9], these properties are
unsupported by any evidence which is independent of the
way in which they are defined.
I'm not buying it. I suppose he means that the way he defines things, it is charges acting on each other at a distance rather than fields acting on particles.
This would require reformulating lots of physics since Maxwell.
Let's insert another coin. ;D
Why is it that to illustrate the fact that the energy would flow "in fields" rather than "in wires" (again, whatever that really means), you have to resort to a transient phenomenon, and that you can't observe it at DC?
Can you transfer energy from one wire to another distant (but unconnected to the first) one, at DC steady state? If you can't, why? =)
And if you can, how close would the wires have to be?
So yes, you can transfer energy from one wire to another at DC steady state and it happens all the time.
The field effect does not reduce with distance, that is an illusion caused by objects appearing smaller as they go further away in space(time), so there is no limit to the spacing.
That is because " Engineers are essentially dumbed-down "physicists". "To me it is the other way around. Engineers spend time at the whiteboard writing equations and then go to the bench and use the soldering iron and physical artefacts to proof the model. Physicist only spent time at the witeboard writing equations unable to prove in real world, and therefore they are dumber than engineers.
:popcorn:
That is because " Engineers are essentially dumbed-down "physicists".To me it is the other way around. Engineers spend time at the whiteboard writing equations and then go to the bench and use the soldering iron and physical artefacts to proof the model. Physicist only spent time at the witeboard writing equations unable to prove in real world, and therefore they are dumber than engineers.
Can you transfer energy from one wire to another distant (but unconnected to the first) one, at DC steady state? If you can't, why? =)
That is because " Engineers are essentially dumbed-down "physicists". "To me it is the other way around. Engineers spend time at the whiteboard writing equations and then go to the bench and use the soldering iron and physical artefacts to proof the model. Physicist only spent time at the witeboard writing equations unable to prove in real world, and therefore they are dumber than engineers.
:popcorn:
That is because " Engineers are essentially dumbed-down "physicists". " :popcorn:
LOL :) Quite accurate. Engineers are taught to be effective - to *not* dig into deep details of underlying physics and calculations as long as simplified model gives results within target tolerance.
Lets have two slides with almost no friction and with the same slope. One is at one meter above ground level (plus the minimum height to get the minimum slope to compensate for friction), the other is at 100 meters above ground. We make two one ton stones slide for 1 km to their destination: a machine that will make the block fall and turn all gravitational potential energy into heat (eat your heart out, Carnot!).
The block falling one meter generates m g (1 meter) J of energy. The block falling 100 meters generates one hundred times that energy.
Has the energy travelled along the slide?
Both slides are identical, both stone blocks are identical, and the both moved at the same speed on the slide.
Has one slope really carried 100 times the energy of the other one? ...
Lets have two slides with almost no friction and with the same slope. One is at one meter above ground level (plus the minimum height to get the minimum slope to compensate for friction), the other is at 100 meters above ground. We make two one ton stones slide for 1 km to their destination: a machine that will make the block fall and turn all gravitational potential energy into heat (eat your heart out, Carnot!).
The block falling one meter generates m g (1 meter) J of energy. The block falling 100 meters generates one hundred times that energy.
Has the energy travelled along the slide?
Both slides are identical, both stone blocks are identical, and the both moved at the same speed on the slide.
Has one slope really carried 100 times the energy of the other one? ...
It has to carry the same, and it has to be the absolute amount of energy, so any expenditure of energy comes off what it was sent with, solving the paradox of unknown potential or unrealisable energy. If the block is returned over the direction of "travel" then relative energy is easy to define.
The gravitational potential energy of the blocks is converted to kinetic energy as they accelerate down the slides. The OP does not explain what happens to the kinetic energy of the blocks at the end of the slide... (do they hit a sand pit?) but is there any doubt that the energy "followed the blocks" and traveled from the top to the bottom of the ramps?
The gravitational potential energy of the blocks is converted to kinetic energy as they accelerate down the slides. The OP does not explain what happens to the kinetic energy of the blocks at the end of the slide... (do they hit a sand pit?) but is there any doubt that the energy "followed the blocks" and traveled from the top to the bottom of the ramps?
So yes, you can transfer energy from one wire to another at DC steady state and it happens all the time.
Can you show us? =)The field effect does not reduce with distance, that is an illusion caused by objects appearing smaller as they go further away in space(time), so there is no limit to the spacing.
That's quite fascinating. Can you show us?
The gravitational potential energy of the blocks is converted to kinetic energy as they accelerate down the slides. The OP does not explain what happens to the kinetic energy of the blocks at the end of the slide... (do they hit a sand pit?) but is there any doubt that the energy "followed the blocks" and traveled from the top to the bottom of the ramps?
I took it to be that the kinetic energy was small enough to not be important (there to stick with the analogy of resistance in wire, show that part of the experiment is the same, and block makes its way under its own steam). The difference is that one block dumps 100m of mgh of energy (and arguably had that extra to start), and the other only 1, plus subtle nonlinearities like you mentioned. We can go on about as much "potential" energy as we want, but the question is over whether the slide "carried" more energy. If you don't like the fact it is 100m higher, then allow the block to fall in a 99m hole and rest there until the end of the universe where this potential energy never becomes "real" (no work), and depending on the situation with the big bang, might never have been. This implies a weak form of acausality. Not mathematically because we can tack imaginary quantities in to match experiment, but conceptually, where the whole meaning of an energy flux rests. To add insult to injury, we don't get our blocks back, so we might not even know what happened to them. We don't know how long it took. Confuse-o-land.
So yes, you can transfer energy from one wire to another at DC steady state and it happens all the time.
Can you show us? =)The field effect does not reduce with distance, that is an illusion caused by objects appearing smaller as they go further away in space(time), so there is no limit to the spacing.
That's quite fascinating. Can you show us?
Yes and yes. Though conveniently I've run out of time. (...)
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transformed into another form!
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transformed into another form!
I suppose you are assuming conservation of energy, which holds if we consider an isolated system.
Is the universe an isolated system? I'm not sure this has been fully answered yet. =) But this sure goes beyond the points made in this thread.
The point, is, again, to see if the original example in Veritasium's video is really relevant in showing what was claimed when the system reaches steady state.
Note that I was merely talking about, say, two pieces of wire - ideally with zero resistance. Just like in the original circuit. With no significant heating.
The point was not to reinvent the vacuum tube. Now the alternative to heating that I know of (cold cathode) requires ionizing some gas, so it wouldn't work in a vacuum. But please elaborate, because I'm pretty sure I've missed something. Just keep in mind it shouldn't require more than "wires" in a vacuum.
The point, is, again, to see if the original example in Veritasium's video is really relevant in showing what was claimed when the system reaches steady state.
adx: if you follow Poynting then copper wires are the low-frequency equivalent of light fiber, a transformer is impedance matching, and a resistor is a low-frequency black-body.
For acoustic waves, half the energy is in the pressure, and half in the velocity (much like in light, half is in E, half is in B).
Derek has done an an entire video on how he is deliberately chasing the algorithm and views. he's quite up front about it and explains his reasons at 14:45 and I think they are solid. And I know he's genuine about wanting to get mainstream people into science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xHZPH5Sng (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xHZPH5Sng)
I think the "clickbating" aspect of his videos are of secondary importance. In this other video he discusses how misconceptions restrain people's ability to learn. That's why all Vertitasium videos start discussing the misconception first and then they introduce the scientific concept about the topic, because he saw that, that way, people invest mental effort in watching his videos and actually learn.
I think the "clickbating" aspect of his videos are of secondary importance. In this other video he discusses how misconceptions restrain people's ability to learn. That's why all Vertitasium videos start discussing the misconception first and then they introduce the scientific concept about the topic, because he saw that, that way, people invest mental effort in watching his videos and actually learn.
His PhD thesis was literally on this topic:
https://www.sydney.edu.au/science/physics/pdfs/research/super/PhD(Muller).pdf (https://www.sydney.edu.au/science/physics/pdfs/research/super/PhD(Muller).pdf)
The point, is, again, to see if the original example in Veritasium's video is really relevant in showing what was claimed when the system reaches steady state.
The question was clearly intended toward getting the 1/c instant response.
I have a quick question, maybe someone can help me understand:
What happens if we put the bulb inside a steel Faraday cage? That would mean an outside electrical field cannot reach it, and any magnetic field would not reach the bulb either (it would by-pass the bulb via the steel box).
I have a quick question, maybe someone can help me understand:
What happens if we put the bulb inside a steel Faraday cage? That would mean an outside electrical field cannot reach it, and any magnetic field would not reach the bulb either (it would by-pass the bulb via the steel box).
How would the wires get from the outside to the inside of the Faraday cage?
I am struggling to understand how the fields will be able to carry energy to the bulb. And if they do make it in... wouldn't the tortuous path they have to take to get there mean there would be more resistance, compared to a layout that does not impede the fields in any way?
I am struggling to understand how the fields will be able to carry energy to the bulb. And if they do make it in... wouldn't the tortuous path they have to take to get there mean there would be more resistance, compared to a layout that does not impede the fields in any way?
Nope.
I am struggling to understand how the fields will be able to carry energy to the bulb.
How would you draw the magnetic lines of force in this example? I really am struggling to see it. I'm probably overlooking something obvious.It would be like a coaxial cable with a very thin dielectric.
I am struggling to understand how the fields will be able to carry energy to the bulb. And if they do make it in... wouldn't the tortuous path they have to take to get there mean there would be more resistance, compared to a layout that does not impede the fields in any way?
How would you draw the magnetic lines of force in this example? I really am struggling to see it. I'm probably overlooking something obvious.It would be like a coaxial cable with a very thin dielectric.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Poynting_vector_coaxial_cable.svg)
The wires are very thin, 0.01mm, just enough to light a small bulb. The insulation is the thinnest possible layer of vacuum that you can have without flashing over (a few micrometers), and the box is at least 500mm thick.
I am struggling to understand how the fields will be able to carry energy to the bulb. And if they do make it in... wouldn't the tortuous path they have to take to get there mean there would be more resistance, compared to a layout that does not impede the fields in any way?
Thus, the information conveyed by signals propagating along transmission lines travels primarily within the space between the conductors, and not within the conductors. Information cannot travel primarily in the conductors, as this would then result in apparent phase velocity which is orders of magnitude less than c , as noted previously. Remarkably, classical transmission line theory employing the R′ , G′ , C′ , L′ equivalent circuit model2 gets this right, even though that approach does not explicitly consider the possibility of guided waves traveling between the conductors.
Let's take a step back, maybe I'm missing the point completely.
Are the fields that carry the energy outside the conductors normal electric and magnetic fields that we can measure if we want to?
Let's take a step back, maybe I'm missing the point completely.
Are the fields that carry the energy outside the conductors normal electric and magnetic fields that we can measure if we want to?
Yes. The 'S-field' vector at any point is the cross product of the E and H field vectors at that point.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transformed into another form!
I suppose you are assuming conservation of energy, which holds if we consider an isolated system.
Is the universe an isolated system? I'm not sure this has been fully answered yet. =) But this sure goes beyond the points made in this thread.
Can you think of an example where energy is created or destroyed, rather than transformed? - I have always thought it a very basic law of the known universe...
In the steady state, DC, does energy flow in the wires or in the fields?
Start with the fact that energy is contained in electromagnetic waves. If you have used solar panels, you should believe this is true.
Consider a plane wave propagating through free space. We know that energy is flowing with the plane wave. We can measure it, and we can calculate it. And the energy flux agrees with the Poynting vector. We don't even need the Poynting vector to calculate it, but it does agree with the calculation:
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/Book%3A_University_Physics_(OpenStax)/Book%3A_University_Physics_II_-_Thermodynamics_Electricity_and_Magnetism_(OpenStax)/16%3A_Electromagnetic_Waves/16.04%3A_Energy_Carried_by_Electromagnetic_Waves (https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/Book%3A_University_Physics_(OpenStax)/Book%3A_University_Physics_II_-_Thermodynamics_Electricity_and_Magnetism_(OpenStax)/16%3A_Electromagnetic_Waves/16.04%3A_Energy_Carried_by_Electromagnetic_Waves)
Now consider a transmission line. It can be a twin lead transmission line as we have discussed. Let's just feed it with a lumped source with say a sine wave. Again we know energy is propagating. We can measure it and we can calculate it. We know the wave fronts are moving and we know that since there is energy in the field, the field is carrying the energy. We can't say the energy flows in the wires or we would count twice the power that we measure.
Now lets say instead of a sine wave, we just have a battery and a switch. At time t=0 we turn on the switch. We have a rising edge, say 0V to 5V. Now we know that this edge propagates down the line. We can measure it. We know that the energy is moving down the line in the fields. We can see that if we slice up the space into thin slices of width dz, then as the wave front arrives at a point on the line, the energy of the slice goes up, and we know that that energy has to come from the slice behind it. So one by one slices are filling with energy and energy is flowing all along the line in the fields.
Now if we look at a point where the wavefront has already passed, the fields are constant. The voltage is constant and the current is constant DC. But we know that energy is flowing through this point to fill the slices up to the wave front. So here everything is static, except power is flowing through the fields.
Now we terminate the line with a resistor that matches the impedance of the line. When the wavefront reaches the resistor it is totally and continually absorbed in the resistor. But nothing has changed at the previous point on the line we looked at. Energy is still flowing there in the fields even though the whole system is now in a steady state and DC only.
That's one way of looking at it.
I have a quick question, maybe someone can help me understand:
What happens if we put the bulb inside a steel Faraday cage? That would mean an outside electrical field cannot reach it, and any magnetic field would not reach the bulb either (it would by-pass the bulb via the steel box).
If the Veritasium video is right and the energy is carried by the magnetic/electric field and not the wire itself... wouldn't that mean the bulb would not be able to light up inside the Faraday / magnetic shield cage? (Similarly, we could put the battery inside a steel box, or both...)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/?action=dlattach;attach=1387592;image)
Let's take a step back, maybe I'm missing the point completely.
Are the fields that carry the energy outside the conductors normal electric and magnetic fields that we can measure if we want to?
Yes. The 'S-field' vector at any point is the cross product of the E and H field vectors at that point.
So you are saying the thinner we make the insulator, the stronger the magnetic and electric fields will become (to carry the same amount of energy as before)?
Do electrons still actually flow in the wires, under the influence of the fields?
With a Faraday cage, you removed (almost entirely) the capacitive coupling between the wire near the switch and the light bulb.
You also added a strong capacitive coupling between the wire and the cage (because the distance is tiny), and the cage is a transmission line.
So you'll get large reflections at entry/exit of the cage, which will die down after a millisecond, and the lamp will be in its normal DC state.
In the light point of view, your cage is made with double-faced mirrors with 2 tiny holes, and you suddenly switch a light on. After a millisecond, there will be as much light inside as outside.
(And of course, no need for Poynting's vector to explain anything)
Except for this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov–Bohm_effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov–Bohm_effect)
:o
What we mean here by a “real” field is this: a real field is a mathematical function we use for avoiding the idea of action at a distance. If we have a charged particle at the position P, it is affected by other charges located at some distance from P. One way to describe the interaction is to say that the other charges make some “condition”—whatever it may be—in the environment at P. If we know that condition, which we describe by giving the electric and magnetic fields, then we can determine completely the behavior of the particle—with no further reference to how those conditions came about.
I like it at the end where Feynman shows where classical and quantum ED converge, i.e. give the same result, for when the "solenoid" is not microscopic, as it is in the Aharonov-Bohm experiment.
I like it at the end where Feynman shows where classical and quantum ED converge, i.e. give the same result, for when the "solenoid" is not microscopic, as it is in the Aharonov-Bohm experiment.
Ang on, didn't read that properly. The Aharonov-Bohm experiment is the size of a desk, if I have that picture right. I just very briefly looked at an explanation on Quora where it is compared to a (toridial) transformer - the windings are in a region of zero magnetic flux, yet they still pick up a voltage because of the enclosed flux. A "turn" is potential, I guess.
... we know energy is propagating. We can measure it and we can calculate it. We know the wave fronts are moving and we know that since there is energy in the ...(emphasis mine)
So yes, you can transfer energy from one wire to another at DC steady state and it happens all the time.
Can you show us? =)The field effect does not reduce with distance, that is an illusion caused by objects appearing smaller as they go further away in space(time), so there is no limit to the spacing.
That's quite fascinating. Can you show us?
I suppose time-varying electric fields will be produced by flowing charge. If you consider that a circuit must have a return path, then an electron going forward will push on the electron coming back, taking work from it and putting it into the field, which is returned after it passes. I guess topped up by the relativistic effect which produces magnetism, but that will be unequal and store energy in the electric field while current flows. Maybe something like that is responsible for the Poynting vector behaving as it does here.
The AB effect, an electron being able to sense the static magnetic field 'hidden' inside the solenoid, can thus be compared to the ability of an electron to sense the slit it did not pass through.
Trying to transpose this behavior to the macroscopic world is, in my view, trying to say that John, who entered the room through the front door, has also entered the room through the window. Or that, since in the quantum realm there is a tunnel effect, there is an appreciable probability that John has walked through walls. No, that probability is appreciable only if John is the size of an atomic particle and the walls are nanowide.
To my knowledge, the AB effect is a quantum effect that manifest itself on a microscopic scale (as bsfeechannel pointed out a few posts back). Very loosely speaking, it can be thought as being the consequence of the 'smearedness' of the wave function of the electrons: even if the little hard sphere we represent in our mind as being an electron is in a region without B, its wave function is spread out to encompass the microscopic solenoid and the region where B is.Absolutely not. Even if the solenoid is inside an impenetrable barrier (the electron wavefunction is 0 in this position) , you still get the effect.
It happens to be as magic as the interference of an electron with itself in the the double slit experiment. If we think the electron as a little hard sphere, then the double slit experiment with single electrons can only be explained by black magic. It appears that the little ball is capable of 'sensing' the presence of the slit it does not go through. But when you consider wave functions, that are delocalized, it seems a little less strange (while still remaining strange, but that is because we are limited to think in terms of either waves or particles).
The AB effect, an electron being able to sense the static magnetic field 'hidden' inside the solenoid, can thus be compared to the ability of an electron to sense the slit it did not pass through.
Trying to transpose this behavior to the macroscopic world is, in my view, trying to say that John, who entered the room through the front door, has also entered the room through the window. Or that, since in the quantum realm there is a tunnel effect, there is an appreciable probability that John has walked through walls. No, that probability is appreciable only if John is the size of an atomic particle and the walls are nanowide.
(A final note: in the case of the toroid in the macro world, we are able to 'detect' the B field hidden inside the infinite solenoid because it is changing and therefore the dA/dt brings into existence an actual electric field Eind in the point P outside the solenoid. Locality is saved. The AB effect is about a constant B field, so dA/dt is zero and there only is a time-constant A around the solenoid)
I re-did the ladder line tests I ran a few days ago to demonstrate the ~80ps delay over the 24mm wire spacing.Nice. I have not seen any comments re your experiment.
I used the same probe to probe the "switch" (the scope's integrated TDR, cyan reference trace) and the bulb side (green trace) so as not to introduce skew.
The cyan trace was taken at 10mV/div and the green at 2mV/div, so there's significant attenuation before we approach DC steady state.
The yellow trace is the TDR trace which you can't get rid of without turning off the TDR: the TDR triggers the scope and turns on a long time before the displayed traces, it has to propagate through the cables to the DUT, note the trace delay of ~27ns.
I measured the time between the beginning of the two rising edges, at about the 10% level.
(The scope's pretty dusty: I had a ceiling collapse some months ago in the room adjacent to this, and it's still being repaired, so things get pretty dusty round these parts.)
... gets a 0.3 mA signal from a 1.47 mA current, which is 2.0%, ...(original formatting)
All of the above percentages are astonishingly high. But i think i know what happens.
A lot of "advanced" thinking there, most of which I think I follow, but to me at least some is as confusing as the academic textbook treatments (with their diagrams of imaginary field lines, surface charges, and equations presented as some kind of reality in their own right).Yes 20.4% -- thanx – fixed.
I know it's only a work in progress and won't suggest it needs to fit this bill, but what I yearn for is some kind of description of rational physical reality which ultimately ties in well to experimental and numerical experience.... gets a 0.3 mA signal from a 1.47 mA current, which is 2.0%, ...(original formatting) 20%?
I am surprised that conventional lumped element models for TLs have not yet been proven to umpteen decimals. What happened?All of the above percentages are astonishingly high. But i think i know what happens.To me and some others here, these results were astonishingly low. For a properly terminated transmission line (which the arms of this circuit can be) and differential drive (which is impossible for the arms because they are driven with a common mode voltage), the initial voltage and current should be 50% of the steady state.
I don't know what "free surface electrons" are, nor why they should flow at such extremely high speeds "in" the insulation (I assume you mean the interface between wire and plastic). c/1000000 is 300m/s, compared with a drift velocity of somewhere around say 0.00001m/s expected at ~~10mA in the wire. (That's about 10000000 times slower.) It doesn't sound like you mean a skin effect, where electrons go fastest in the outer portion of a wire.Free (surface) electrons are my idea. They are conduction electrons that live on the outside of a wire. On a bare wire they might flow at say c/10,000 in air, & a bit faster than c/10,000 in vacuum -- & say c/100,000 (ie 3 km/s) in the (air in the porous) plastic insulation (ie the portion of the plastic touching the copper), which is 30,000,000,000,000 times faster than pseudo-electron-drift inside copper.
One thing about a wavefront overtaking the 50% of electrons who go right, is that this wavefront travels at the speed of light, so not only does it overtake those electrons in this particular case, but there is nothing which can overtake it in any situation. In the simulations you can see the calculated spherical wavefront match the speed of the signal along the wires. The pushing force of the electrons is delayed by 1/c too, so by the time the force reaches the electrons in the top wire, the wavefront has already gone past that x position along the region of the bottom wire. The wavefront is one and the same thing as the pushing force. It's hard to think of it in those terms (that a force can propagate in such a visually defined way through 'nothing'), but if we accept that the speed of light is a thing, then no other result is possible - we are watching the fabric of time itself in action.I believe that electricity (& everything else) is a process of & in the aether. I don’t believe in Einsteinian stuff. But i doubt that that is important here. I mentioned charge propagating along the bottom wire, but i didn’t explain. My idea is that electricity is mainly due to electons propagating along the surface of a wire. Electons are photons that hug the wire, propagating at the speed of light, eg the speed of light in plastic if the wire is coated. Electons have a negative charge, which might be equal to an electron's charge (or it might be more)(or less).
From this thread I have learned there is no more to electricity than this pushing force, and resultant movement of mobile charge carriers (in this case electron drift within the confines of wire). Pulling forces exist with positive charge carriers and also an absence of negative charges.My electon theory has pushing, but it does not have pulling.
I don’t believe any of the humps and bumps in Howardlong's result are due to any sort of difference between electron movement and what is conventionally known (EM, capacitance, magnetism). To me it's mostly down to measurement (and generator) risetimes and non-idealities. For those features visible in the simulations, it's possible to probe the simulation for understanding.I hope to analyse the (interesting) stage-1 of his initial transient later this week. Yesterday i looked into stage-2.
I was wondering if this experiment (eg AlphaPhoenix's) had proved some effect which has remained undiscovered (or more likely unnoticed), but there is very little to suggest that there is anything other than something obvious and known going on. Or rather it would be, if people generally understood how electricity works.Or, my new idea (that electricity in/on/along a wire is due only to two new causes), electons, & the flow of free (surface) electrons, might explain things better. We will see.
Someone working in the field (pun always intended) will gain a very good intuitive understanding of how electricity behaves, but can remain completely in the dark as to what it is. I think this is down to education of the subject being so physically abstract, to the point that the teachers themselves undoubtedly do not understand it. Concepts have not changed in 150-100 years, relying almost entirely on mathematical descriptions from some of the early greats in the field. I think their insights are sometimes forgotten next to their maths. Textbooks have formed a strong collection of opinions, trotting out the same received truths, but their focus is on how to best educate students, not to clarify the world's "description of rational physical reality" mentioned above. Somewhere along the way, the meaning has become lost.What do textbooks say about the speed of electricity being affected by plastic insulation?
dunning kruger.... paging mr krugerI am glad u came along. I need someone to give the conventional explanation for the green trace & for the white trace when the circuit is closed at both ends.
A lot of "advanced" thinking there, most of which I think I follow, but to me at least some is as confusing as the academic textbook treatments (with their diagrams of imaginary field lines, surface charges, and equations presented as some kind of reality in their own right).Yes 20.4% -- thanx – fixed.
I know it's only a work in progress and won't suggest it needs to fit this bill, but what I yearn for is some kind of description of rational physical reality which ultimately ties in well to experimental and numerical experience.... gets a 0.3 mA signal from a 1.47 mA current, which is 2.0%, ...(original formatting) 20%?
But 20.4% for 1000 mm spacing is mindblowing. I thought that the 2.0% should have been more like 0.2%.
I am surprised that conventional lumped element models for TLs have not yet been proven to umpteen decimals. What happened?All of the above percentages are astonishingly high. But i think i know what happens.To me and some others here, these results were astonishingly low. For a properly terminated transmission line (which the arms of this circuit can be) and differential drive (which is impossible for the arms because they are driven with a common mode voltage), the initial voltage and current should be 50% of the steady state.
I asked that someone do a TL model for Howardlong's X. Such a model would ideally predict/postdict each of the say 4 stages of the initial transients (of the induced currents)(before the main current arrives). And it could ideally predict/postdict the other say 10 stages of later transients (after the main current arrives)(transients caused by reflexions i suppose). However i suspect that such models were never designed to predict initial transients. I suspect that the models are okish for the later transients. Anyhow i am surprised that today there exist any problems with the application of TL models. Or, are they mainly for amusing skoolkids? ? ? ? ?
Look at all of the pseudo-mini-capacitors joining the top wire to the bottom wire (in TL models). They are drawn with a say 1 mm gap. For the Veritasium gedanken i reckon that they should have 1000 mm gaps. Look at the induced pseudo-current from the pseudo-mini-capacitors, i bet that it is all sent towards the pseudo-bulb, no, i reckon that a half should be sent away from the bulb.
I reckon that TL theory & TL models are wrong (physics wise) but give goodish results. This (goodish results) might indeed be so for DC steady state electricity (ie after the non-steady transients have gone), & for AC "steady state" (wall to wall steady transients). And now in the picosecond era we find that proponents of TL models (ie almost everybody) are confident that TL models can predict or postdict the initial stage-1 transients (in the first say 3 nanoseconds), plus stage-2 (say 10 ns) & stage-3 (say 1000 ns) etc.Yes 20.4% -- thanx – fixed. But 20.4% for 1000 mm spacing is mindblowing. I thought that the 2.0% should have been more like 0.2%.The per-length L and C of a transmission line does not change with end-on scale - 1m spacing and 10mm wires, or 10mm spacing with 0.1mm wires are the same (scale invariant). But remember it is thousands of km long, and since the wavefront travels extremely fast, within almost no time a very long section of cable (compared to spacing) is 'exposed' to electricity. Even in 1 microsecond a 300m length of 1m-spaced wire is involved, and in just 1 millisecond that extends to 300km of 'capacitor'. So it should be no surprise that it is capable of transmitting significant current. In my simulation on p 18 this is enough to light an 8W LED lamp at full brightness off 240V mains (assuming no radiated losses).
I thought that a radio signal (a brief almost immediate spike) would be all that we would ever see (in the first nanoseconds), but the AlphaPhoenix X pt1 opened my eyes. The radio spike must exist (made by the passing of the leading edge of the current along the primary wire) but it might be weak (perhaps less than 1 mA?).I think that's because there is no need to; they are engineering tools which work adequately for practical purposes, not precision experiments designed to test the limits of QFT. 1% error would usually be good enough. Their first application was sending digital data under the sea in the 1800s, and it and quite a bit of electrical theory grew from there. The need to test the limits for new physics probably never came up.I am surprised that conventional lumped element models for TLs have not yet been proven to umpteen decimals. What happened?All of the above percentages are astonishingly high. But i think i know what happens.To me and some others here, these results were astonishingly low. For a properly terminated transmission line (which the arms of this circuit can be) and differential drive (which is impossible for the arms because they are driven with a common mode voltage), the initial voltage and current should be 50% of the steady state.
But this isn't what you're asking. It's as I said: The Veritasium experiment drives the TL models in an unbalanced way; driving one wire and looking for a current out of the other, from the same end. Usually both lines are driven in opposite ways eg +1V and -1V where the current 'through' the send end of the line (ie in one terminal and out the other terminal) is less of a philosophical conundrum. Nothing went wrong. The Veritasium experiment's looped arms are instead an antenna system which radiates power.
I am pleased to see that TL models send the pseudo-mini-capacitor currents half each way.QuoteI asked that someone do a TL model for Howardlong's X. Such a model would ideally predict/postdict each of the say 4 stages of the initial transients (of the induced currents)(before the main current arrives). And it could ideally predict/postdict the other say 10 stages of later transients (after the main current arrives)(transients caused by reflexions i suppose). However i suspect that such models were never designed to predict initial transients. I suspect that the models are okish for the later transients. Anyhow i am surprised that today there exist any problems with the application of TL models. Or, are they mainly for amusing skoolkids? ? ? ? ?What I just wrote above is one reason why no one took up your request - it has already been determined in this thread. In my kind of tongue in cheek model on page 18, I expected radiation loss, but at the time <10% which is unimportant for lighting an 8W lamp at about the right brightness. It shows the disadvantage of running too far (quantifying) via intuitive feel. The numbers can be orders of magnitude out which is far away from "umpteen decimals". In short, TL models predict everything with 'great' accuracy, but are not an accurate tool to model the Veritasium circuit with, because it works differently.
Look at all of the pseudo-mini-capacitors joining the top wire to the bottom wire (in TL models). They are drawn with a say 1 mm gap. For the Veritasium gedanken i reckon that they should have 1000 mm gaps. Look at the induced pseudo-current from the pseudo-mini-capacitors, i bet that it is all sent towards the pseudo-bulb, no, i reckon that a half should be sent away from the bulb.
Schematic capacitors are not intended to depict anything physical so the 1mm gaps are neither here nor there, as I assume you know, but you still want to contrast them with 1000mm to make a point. The point is not lost on the engineers who draw them (Dave, Mehdi, etc), who know the capacitors can take on any value and thus feel no need to draw a 12pF cap with say a page-wide gap on paper. The actual gaps are 1m like you say, the current isn't a pseudo-current (or if it were, there is no means to distinguish it from a real current) and the mini capacitors are real not pseudo (the real distributed capacitance of a TL can be very easily measured between the wires for a defined short length). Yes, half this current does go forward and half back - the transmission line charges with current and delivers to an impedance-matched load in equal amounts. Enough for now, for the night.
But i think that it would take more than some smart elements, it would need the application of my new electricity (& the dumping of the old electricity).:-DD
I don't know what "free surface electrons" are, nor why they should flow at such extremely high speeds "in" the insulation (I assume you mean the interface between wire and plastic). c/1000000 is 300m/s, compared with a drift velocity of somewhere around say 0.00001m/s expected at ~~10mA in the wire. (That's about 10000000 times slower.) It doesn't sound like you mean a skin effect, where electrons go fastest in the outer portion of a wire.Free (surface) electrons are my idea. They are conduction electrons that live on the outside of a wire. On a bare wire they might flow at say c/10,000 in air, & a bit faster than c/10,000 in vacuum -- & say c/100,000 (ie 3 km/s) in the (air in the porous) plastic insulation (ie the portion of the plastic touching the copper), which is 30,000,000,000,000 times faster than pseudo-electron-drift inside copper.
My flow of free electrons is not a skin effect, skin effect is inside the copper. I am happy with a concept of electron drift inside copper, & electron drift close to the surface (skin effect). But i don’t think that such drifts are significant, & i don’t like the conventional idea that electric current is due to average drift or somesuch (hence i said pseudo-electron-drift).
And i don’t like the conventional idea that slowly drifting electrons can bump each other & make a wave that propagates along a wire at nearly the speed of light. Especially as the speed of em radiation in copper is (i think) 10 m/s.
Claim: When excess charge is placed on a solid conductor and is at rest (equilibrium), it resides entirely on the surface, not in the interior of the material.
Reason: The electric field within the conductor must be zero. If there is an electric field, the charges will move. As the electric field within the conductor is 0, by Gauss’s law, there must be no charges enclosed within the Gaussian surface.
Imagine an infinite region of finite charge densitySo with infinite potential everywhere, and with an electric field undefined?
- that will have zero electric field all throughout, plenty of electric potential as a constant, but all Gaussian surfaces will enclose charge. Thus proving the above wrong.Nah it's correct: in statics, no current, potential is constant in a conductor.
Those replies (aetherist) are branching too fast for me to sanity check and reply to in real time. Some passes, some fails. Were I to lob the odd "XYZ sounds crazy coz A<>B" that would feel like adding either fuel to the fire or water to the flood, so I'll take a pass.My new electricity invokes lots of ideas (some old some new). One idea is that there is a concentration (a sea) of free-ish electrons on the surfaces of a wire. This concentration (surface) effect arises naturally at all times on all wires because (as u get closer to a surface) there are more electrons pushing (other electrons) out towards the surface compared to in away from the surface. Hence some (conduction electrons) move to the surface. At the same time we must have a depletion of electrons inside the wire. Free-ish (surface) electrons might spend most of their time being free-ish & very little time being orbital.
Also I'm not the best person to talk to re a conventional understanding of something like capacitance, because I just don't. To that end I'll pick a few "points I wanted to make". A couple being:(And subsequent)I don't know what "free surface electrons" are, nor why they should flow at such extremely high speeds "in" the insulation (I assume you mean the interface between wire and plastic). c/1000000 is 300m/s, compared with a drift velocity of somewhere around say 0.00001m/s expected at ~~10mA in the wire. (That's about 10000000 times slower.) It doesn't sound like you mean a skin effect, where electrons go fastest in the outer portion of a wire.Free (surface) electrons are my idea. They are conduction electrons that live on the outside of a wire. On a bare wire they might flow at say c/10,000 in air, & a bit faster than c/10,000 in vacuum -- & say c/100,000 (ie 3 km/s) in the (air in the porous) plastic insulation (ie the portion of the plastic touching the copper), which is 30,000,000,000,000 times faster than pseudo-electron-drift inside copper.
My flow of free electrons is not a skin effect, skin effect is inside the copper. I am happy with a concept of electron drift inside copper, & electron drift close to the surface (skin effect). But i don’t think that such drifts are significant, & i don’t like the conventional idea that electric current is due to average drift or somesuch (hence i said pseudo-electron-drift).
And i don’t like the conventional idea that slowly drifting electrons can bump each other & make a wave that propagates along a wire at nearly the speed of light. Especially as the speed of em radiation in copper is (i think) 10 m/s.
Ok, I see your idea is a guess (theory). It aligns with the conventional conception "surface charge" (except for your guesses at mobility and speeds). I've seen respectable references that say for example that the charges in a Van de Graaf generator dome "move quickly to the outside". Do they swiftly go through the metal to do so? Or do they scoot around the surface to the outside, as some kind of rapid redistribution? Similar confusion surrounds Leyden jars around whether the charge resides in the water, or exactly on its surface. It appears you are with the conventionalists on this one, always with incomplete or incoherent mental depictions of some physical reality - which may be correct but all your (you, and conventionalists) explanations are clear as mud to me. Ok yours makes a bit more sense, in that the electrons that do the work are already on the surface, by definition, so they don't have to take some mystical journey to get there (yet once there, they go on another one, somehow, hence - mud). Except how do you explain skin effect if the "conduction electrons" are only at the surface? (BTW the surface charge idea is that only the excess electrons necessary to support a voltage are on the conductor, not that the majority involved in current are on the surface, so I'm not using logic in my argument, but that seems to have long since left the window.) Henry Cavendish was one of the first to dream up the concept of charge moving to surfaces, but back then things had barely moved on from electrostatics, and "charge" had a subtly different meaning (one you touched on; stored energy, in the sense of gunpowder).
In more seriousness, Gauss's law has been misapplied for conductors. The story going something like this (lifted from https://www.miniphysics.com/uy1-gausss-law-for-conductors.html (https://www.miniphysics.com/uy1-gausss-law-for-conductors.html)):QuoteClaim: When excess charge is placed on a solid conductor and is at rest (equilibrium), it resides entirely on the surface, not in the interior of the material.Imagine an infinite region of finite charge density - that will have zero electric field all throughout, plenty of electric potential as a constant, but all Gaussian surfaces will enclose charge. Thus proving the above wrong.
Reason: The electric field within the conductor must be zero. If there is an electric field, the charges will move. As the electric field within the conductor is 0, by Gauss’s law, there must be no charges enclosed within the Gaussian surface.
It's all fine until Gauss's law is brought into play: A compressed electron gas will have an absolute potential (or pressure) in a metal. We call it voltage these days. Electron charge will redistribute until the macroscopic gradient of the scalar potential field is zero (electric field is zero), confined by the 'energy well' of the surface of the metal (electrons don't want to go very far outside of the crystal lattice of the metal) for some surface charge but not representing the entire contents of the metal's electron gas. But zero electric field at all points doesn't equate to a region say to the left of each point containing zero charge, when an equivalent region to the right will cancel a flux emanating from the left. This is very much not unlike the same problem we've had in this thread with the Poynting vector vs its surface integral. Perhaps the 'proof' has been confused with using a Gaussian surface to generate a valid virtual surface charge.
Hence this flat Earth we've all been living in (oops, force of habit, on).
Re any dislike for the idea of very slow electron drift being responsible for potentially enormous currents (I guess that's the reason for your surface electron idea), remember this is not up to the electrons struggling against resistance in the wire. They drift exactly the same speed in a superconductor, where there's zero resistance. They go slow because they carry a lot of charge, compared to how many there are, and our relatively non-cosmic use of electricity (as in I've got this spinning black hole, and I'll just put this ring resonator around it sort of shenanigans - we like to look at 200uA flowing down 1km of cable on a farm). They go at a speed determined by the current which we want to flow. I for one am pleased that it is so sedate - rather than some horridious electromigratory copper-splattering mess. Not all the time, anyway. But fire, water, no.The reason i don’t like drift is that it can't explain how electricity propagates at the speed of light, & especially because it can't explain how electricity propagates at the speed of light in the plastic insulation. My new electricity is a work in progress, & it might run into problems re the (too) slow speed of my electrons flowing on a wire, or i should say the (too) slow speed of the wavefront of my electrons flowing on a wire, the wavefront being much much faster, but still much much slower than the desired speed of light.
In my reply#1052 i mentioned that AlphaPhoenix's mind melted a bit because the currents at both terminals of his source were different. I also mentioned that AlphaPhoenix did not show us the trace for the current at his negative terminal, ie the trace for the voltage through his resistor that sits near his switch.QuoteBut i think that it would take more than some smart elements, it would need the application of my new electricity (& the dumping of the old electricity).:-DD
Let us know how that works out.
Pinned by AlphaPhoenix 1 month ago (edited) COMMENTS AND CORRECTIONS:
Thanks to Derek at Veritasium for his blessing to make a real-world version of his gedanken experiment. If you haven't seen his video yet, you might want to go watch that for context, and I also highly recommend ElectroBOOM's video on the topic and EEVBlog's video on the topic. Electroboom's video has some simulated scope traces extremely close to what I saw IRL, and a REALLY fantastic animation (8:27) of him waving an electron around in his hand, shedding magnetic fields as it moves (Even though I ignore magnetic fields in this video - I'm trying to think of a test to find out if they matter).
CORRECTIONS TO THIS VIDEO:
The most important thing I believe I ignored in this video is the actual, physical distribution of charge in the switch-side wire while the current is starting up. How much charge travels AT the advancing wavefront and how much charge gets stuck along the wire in between the fuzzball I drew and the battery will depend on the physical size of the wires and how close they are to each other, setting their capacitance.
This charge distribution also DOES NOT look the same on both sides of the switch, although I drew it that way for simplicity.
In a later experiment (next video) my mind melted a bit as I measured the resistors on both sides of the battery and found the current going through them is different.
It doesn't change any of the logic I presented in this video, but it makes some diagrams less than perfect.
It's possible that cross-inductance between the wires contributes to the effect, using almost exactly the same diagram except the wires are connected by a magnetic field rather than an electric field. I couldn't figure out how to decouple these effects day-of, so I'm still thinking on how to test. Hopefully more to come there.
I'm sure there will be loads more - please leave comments about what I screwed up.[/color]
(7d) Similarly to (8a) if Brian showed us his trace for the resistor near the switch, i reckon that the current would have a quick spike & then fall, & after that grow in a similar fashion to the green trace.
So, Brian's X pt1 did a good job, & we are all eager to see pt2. And me myself i want to see the trace for the resistor near the switch.
Ok, terrible, unrealisable, example. Thanks for setting me straight. I was hoping the idea of zero electric field would come through. A test charge in such a place would experience zero force, assuming nothing else moved. That would break the proof if the test charge is zero, but that is kind of how it is worded.Imagine an infinite region of finite charge densitySo with infinite potential everywhere, and with an electric field undefined?
Yes, I'm wrong. For a constant pressure fluid, the only source of force can be at the walls.- that will have zero electric field all throughout, plenty of electric potential as a constant, but all Gaussian surfaces will enclose charge. Thus proving the above wrong.Nah it's correct: in statics, no current, potential is constant in a conductor.
[...]
The reason i don’t like drift is that it can't explain how electricity propagates at the speed of light, & especially because it can't explain how electricity propagates at the speed of light in the plastic insulation. My new electricity is a work in progress, & it might run into problems re the (too) slow speed of my electrons flowing on a wire, or i should say the (too) slow speed of the wavefront of my electrons flowing on a wire, the wavefront being much much faster, but still much much slower than the desired speed of light.
[...]
You're suspicion/dislike is not entirely unfounded/dis-believeable. There are a large number of models of electronic conduction in metals and based on external "measureable" E and B fields, there isn't a unique solution for what the electrons arre doing inside the wire.Will you please provide some of these examples? Isn't it always possible to calculate the charge distribution from the scalar potential by solving an integral equation?
I admit that I skipped a few pages in the middle of this thread, but am I the only one that understands that the electric potential does not travel at the speed of light in copper (i.e. c=3E8 m/s), but only about 0.65 c? In particular, AlphaPhoenix claimed to measure the length of each of his loops by measuring the time that it took for the potential to travel the loop. But, he used c=3e8 m/s for the speed and got the 'correct' result! WTF? This entire thread is a shitshow.Electricity propagates at the speed of light.
Electrons are not photons.I need to explain electons in more detail.
Electrons are massive Fermions with charge and spin 1/2. Being massive, they must travel at less than c.
Photons are massless Bosons with no charge and spin 1. Being massless, they must travel at c.
These properties make a difference in their behavior.
I see that there is lots of stuff re skin effect in wiki, i wish that i knew more about physics & math so that i could understand some of it. I would like to see the results of experiments, but i haven’t found much. Much of the verbiage re skin effect & electron drift seems to be a circular argument.[...]The reason i don’t like drift is that it can't explain how electricity propagates at the speed of light, & especially because it can't explain how electricity propagates at the speed of light in the plastic insulation. My new electricity is a work in progress, & it might run into problems re the (too) slow speed of my electrons flowing on a wire, or i should say the (too) slow speed of the wavefront of my electrons flowing on a wire, the wavefront being much much faster, but still much much slower than the desired speed of light.[...]
You're suspicion/dislike is not entirely unfounded/dis-believable. There are a large number of models of electronic conduction in metals and based on external "measureable" E and B fields, there isn't a unique solution for what the electrons are doing inside the wire. So long as the product of charge and velocity is a current that relates to the B field, it all works well for the fields. So yeah, its totally valid to disbelieve something. And so far, conceptually, your ideas are not totally crazy - they do however seriously need some quantitative analysis because they just don't add up to me.
How would skin effect at high-frequency work out in your model? Since there is no real evidence to suggest that electro-magnetic laws/theories completely disappear inside a conductor and that they seem to remain valid from microns to 1000's of km scales, they are quite difficult to dispute. Experimental evidence for the variation of ohmic/"real" resistance with increasing frequency would, to me at least, validate the idea that the distribution of current at DC is largely uniform and at HF, largely at the surface. The variation of distribution within the wire with frequency is also largely justified by measurements on conductors made from layers of varying conductivity (think silver plating on copper) where the real/"ohmic" resistance of the wire follows what is predicted for a current of specific skin depth and the corresponding resistance of the layers it falls within.
Would a surface current also not imply a rather significant increase in resistance for conductors with a particularly rough or serrated surface?
Electricity propagates at the speed of light.Wrong. See, for example, Wikipedia (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_electricity").
If a wire has insulation then the speed is the speed of light in that insulation, say 2c/3 if plastic.Wrong.
I have explained on this forum that electricity is mainly due to the flow of electons on the surface of a wire.Wrong. With AC currents there is a skin effect which makes the current density higher on the outside of the conductor than the center. But it is not true that current consists of electrons flowing on the surface of the conductor.
Electons are photons, that hug the wire. Hence electricity is indeed light, ie photonic.This is so wrong that I don't even know where to begin.
Correct (cf. your link) and correct if by electricity you refer to signals and light by EM waves at the frequency you're interested in.Electricity propagates at the speed of light.Wrong. See, for example, Wikipedia (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_electricity").QuoteIf a wire has insulation then the speed is the speed of light in that insulation, say 2c/3 if plastic.Wrong.
I admit that I skipped a few pages in the middle of this thread, but am I the only one that understands that the electric potential does not travel at the speed of light in copper (i.e. c=3E8 m/s), but only about 0.65 c?It's 2/3 c with plastic dielectric but ~1c when 99% of the dielectric is air. Using the correct method he got the correct result.
In particular, AlphaPhoenix claimed to measure the length of each of his loops by measuring the time that it took for the potential to travel the loop. But, he used c=3e8 m/s for the speed and got the 'correct' result! WTF?
This entire thread is a shitshow.
It looks to me that u dont like old electricity, & u dont like my new electricity.Electricity propagates at the speed of light.Wrong. See, for example, Wikipedia (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_electricity").QuoteIf a wire has insulation then the speed is the speed of light in that insulation, say 2c/3 if plastic.Wrong.QuoteI have explained on this forum that electricity is mainly due to the flow of electons on the surface of a wire.Wrong. With AC currents there is a skin effect which makes the current density higher on the outside of the conductor than the center. But it is not true that current consists of electrons flowing on the surface of the conductor.QuoteElectons are photons, that hug the wire. Hence electricity is indeed light, ie photonic.This is so wrong that I don't even know where to begin.
Believing that you understand physics better than what physicists have figured out in the last 150 years does not make you smart. It doesn't even make you look smart.
This entire topic is a shitshow.
[..]
Dividing Amps by Coulombs to get 0.1 mm/s average drift in a wire is enshrined in hymns & chants & gets a whole page in the Electricity Catechism. But is there any proof that even one electron drifts.
[...]
Yes, me myself i like the idea of electrons, alltho i dont like the idea that they are almost pointlike & orbit like planets. I reckon that they are photons that have formed a loop by biting their own tail (Williamson). Jeans called electrons bottled light. I reckon that electrons flow around (hug) a nucleus, they dont orbit.[..]Dividing Amps by Coulombs to get 0.1 mm/s average drift in a wire is enshrined in hymns & chants & gets a whole page in the Electricity Catechism. But is there any proof that even one electron drifts.[...]We know that a current in free space (electron beam) deflects, accelerates and interacts in good agreement with Maxwell and Lorentz etc and I'm not sure why there would particular reason that currents should stop behaving according to those laws in a conductor. There is a lot of evidence from gas ionisation due to gamma radiation, Millikan's oil drop and the photo-electric effect to suggest that electrons are indeed discrete things that we call particles that have a particular charge.
But, do they drift? There is strong evidence that they diffuse under temperature gradients and generate an electric field as a result - though I believe the Drude model doesn't accurately predict it - but surely it justifies the assumption of a chaotic gas-like cloud of electrons. The Hall effect then goes some way to justify that the bulk of gas-like electrons still behaves according to Lorentz force and that they behave as if they are particles with known mass, charge and a velocity that agrees with the Drude drift velocity. I personally tend to fall on the side of 'team drift', not that it's especially relevant.
Publish this 'new electricity' in IEEE Transactions. See how far you get writing "electrons are photons that hug the wires." :palm:Is this the same IEEE that would not let Heaviside publish in their journal?
According to "New Physics", what would the speed of sound be? Is it equal to the wind speed?I think u are referring to my new electricity.
Whether or not it gets published in the IEEE transactions, I think you should write up the new electronics in a formal paper that can be shared with others. It will save you a lot of work repeating yourself.Yes. I suppose that i should start a new thread re my new electricity. But it is a work in progress. I think that i thought of it after i saw Veritasium's footage. No, i think it was after i saw AlphaPhoenix's X pt-1 footage. Old electricity cant explain the traces. And best of all we have Howardlong's X using a 20 GHz scope -- wonderful. My new electricity has to tick all of the boxes. One strike & it is out.
Is this the same IEEE that would not let Heaviside publish in their journal?
Is this the same IEEE that called Heaviside a crackpot when he came up with his equations?
Is this the same IEEE that conceded that his equations worked when they fixed the telegraphy cable?
Lots of people say that wires are waveguides. The only way they could be guides is if something hugs them.
Unless the wave is inside the wire. And that silly skoolkid idea duznt work. Which is why the IEEE embraces it.
A paper re my new electricity would in the end have to include my new magnetism (there is no Einsteinian length contraction of moving charges), my new light (there is no rolling EbyH), my new electro fields (they only exist in mathland), & new lots of things.
No, my math is weak. I have trouble with Heaviside's vector versions of Maxwell's quaternion equations. But i get the gist. But i don’t have any ready paper, but i have written heaps over the years, lots of physics stuff, mainly aetheric stuff.Is this the same IEEE that would not let Heaviside publish in their journal?Is IEEE the same organization it was 150 years ago (controlled by 1 senior engineer by the name of William Preece who didn't understand Heaviside's vector calculus because Heaviside's vector calculus was truly brand new to physics and engineering)?
Is this the same IEEE that called Heaviside a crackpot when he came up with his equations?
Is this the same IEEE that conceded that his equations worked when they fixed the telegraphy cable?
But sure... you're just like Oliver Heaviside and electrons are photons. :-DD
Do you have a paper or any mathematics at all?
I did electricity-1 & 2 but didn’t do electricity-3 or 4.QuoteLots of people say that wires are waveguides. The only way they could be guides is if something hugs them.Have you ever even taken an Applied EM course? No gatekeeping to knowledge - but I see a profound lack of understanding of the terms and definitions.
Unless the wave is inside the wire. And that silly skoolkid idea duznt work. Which is why the IEEE embraces it.
Addendum on seeing your latest post: And seeing your latest post - we have gone full crank. No length contraction/time dilation of moving charges, eh? I'd be fascinated to see how you explain the muon. :box:
I have watched a bit of electroBoom's footage, but i dont know what he thinks about silly Einsteinian length contraction, or silly rolling EbyH light.A paper re my new electricity would in the end have to include my new magnetism (there is no Einsteinian length contraction of moving charges), my new light (there is no rolling EbyH), my new electro fields (they only exist in mathland), & new lots of things.You sound like a drunk electroboom.
... My new electricity has to tick all of the boxes. One strike & it is out.No that's not how it works (unless you feel the need to destroy it). Popper falsifiability is stretched too far as a dogma of science these days. Evidence is probabilistic at best, a battle between confirmation bias and entrenched consensus at worst. People don't believe evidence, they believe what they like. The legal profession has it more technically right, with this playing off of "alternative facts" against each other until one person makes a judgment based on considerations of reasonableness, it stops when one party runs out of money or the system gets sick of it and locks in an answer and moves on. Or is that science? (What would I know - I didn't know Karl Popper was my 'alma mater' until a few days ago, to the horror of those around me. The fact there is a "Popper" building should have perhaps triggered some thoughts, maybe I look up at the pigeons and think a mental "bdrrrtu" (or whatever they say) or perhaps even say one, and ride on oblivious to all else beyond their lofty lofts.)
Old electricity has not even faced a ball, it has been allowed to walk around & around the bases while everyone cheers & goes bananas every time it steps on the home plate, i think that old electricity duznt even own a bat.That's because it is 100-200 years old. It faced those balls in its youth, the cheering never stopped.
An electon propagates along the surface of a wire at the speed of light (in vacuum)(or in air)(or in plastic).What is an "electon"?
An electon is not an electron.An electon propagates along the surface of a wire at the speed of light (in vacuum)(or in air)(or in plastic).What is an "electon"?
I assume you are referring to an electron. An electron cannot move at the speed of light since its mass becomes infinite as it approaches the speed of light.
I suggest that you read the book entitled "The Physics of Vibrations and Waves" by H.J. Pain.
Here is an excerpt:
"At the outset we must be very clear about one point. The individual oscillators which make
up the medium do not progress through the medium with the waves. Their motion is simple
harmonic, limited to oscillations, transverse or longitudinal, about their equilibrium
positions. It is their phase relationships we observe as waves, not their progressive motion
through the medium.
There are three velocities in wave motion which are quite distinct although they are
connected mathematically. They are
1. The particle velocity, which is the simple harmonic velocity of the oscillator about its
equilibrium position.
2. The wave or phase velocity, the velocity with which planes of equal phase, crests or
troughs, progress through the medium.
3. The group velocity. A number of waves of different frequencies, wavelengths and
velocities may be superposed to form a group.
In general, the wave velocity is not equal to the particle velocity.
Please read p. 114 in Pain.Can u post a copy.
No wave of any kind can propagate at a velocity of any kind unless the medium moves at least briefly at that velocity or more.How does a wave travel at its normal velocity when amplitude is reduced indefinitely?
https://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfVibrationsAndWavesH.J.Pain/page/n15/mode/2upThat looks to be a dy/dt transverse particle velocity, not a dx/dt.
I dont understand. But i am talking about longi (axial) velocity not normal (transverse) velocity.No wave of any kind can propagate at a velocity of any kind unless the medium moves at least briefly at that velocity or more.How does a wave travel at its normal velocity when amplitude is reduced indefinitely?
[...]
Is this the same IEEE that would not let Heaviside publish in their journal?
Is this the same IEEE that called Heaviside a crackpot when he came up with his equations?
Is this the same IEEE that conceded that his equations worked when they fixed the telegraphy cable?
[...]
A stick. Quite a long stick. Poke at something fairly rigidly fixed but moves a little. Time how long it takes from pushing until the movement reaches the other end. Now this is complicated by the slowness of the motion needed to demonstrate that slow movement of the medium is translated to fast effect at the far end, but you could time it from peak to peak, or look for a percentage rise at the leading edge. Or simply calculate the max velocity of the medium and expected arrival time of the effect from the statement that the propagation velocity cannot exceed that of the medium's peak velocity. But that may be unsatisfying because it removes the stick from the system.I dont understand. But i am talking about longi (axial) velocity not normal (transverse) velocity.No wave of any kind can propagate at a velocity of any kind unless the medium moves at least briefly at that velocity or more.How does a wave travel at its normal velocity when amplitude is reduced indefinitely?
https://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfVibrationsAndWavesH.J.Pain/page/n15/mode/2upThat looks to be a dy/dt transverse particle velocity, not a dx/dt.
Is this the wrong time to introduce the G-string transmission line? (Or would there never be a right time?)Beaty always has lots of good stuff in his stuff.
http://amasci.com/tesla/tmistk.html (http://amasci.com/tesla/tmistk.html)
http://www.rfcafe.com/references/radio-electronics/g-string-transmission-helical-wave-coils-radio-electronics-june-1951.htm (http://www.rfcafe.com/references/radio-electronics/g-string-transmission-helical-wave-coils-radio-electronics-june-1951.htm)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goubau_line (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goubau_line)
Longitudinal surface waves on insulated wire(s), including enamelled. I had to wonder about AlphaPhoenix's experiment at the time.
AlphaPhoenix has a youtube that shows that tapping a 3 ft steel rod gives a shock wave that travels at the extensional speed of sound in steel ie 5180 m/s, a little slower than the longitudinal speed of sound of 5940 m/s.A stick. Quite a long stick. Poke at something fairly rigidly fixed but moves a little. Time how long it takes from pushing until the movement reaches the other end. Now this is complicated by the slowness of the motion needed to demonstrate that slow movement of the medium is translated to fast effect at the far end, but you could time it from peak to peak, or look for a percentage rise at the leading edge. Or simply calculate the max velocity of the medium and expected arrival time of the effect from the statement that the propagation velocity cannot exceed that of the medium's peak velocity. But that may be unsatisfying because it removes the stick from the system.I dont understand. But i am talking about longi (axial) velocity not normal (transverse) velocity.No wave of any kind can propagate at a velocity of any kind unless the medium moves at least briefly at that velocity or more.How does a wave travel at its normal velocity when amplitude is reduced indefinitely?
That's why I asked the question I did: Halve the amplitude of your poking, which halves the peak velocity of the medium. Does it reduce the propagation velocity? No. Ok halve it again, until you see the propagation velocity slow as you predict (when the medium is moving too slowly to support the propagation velocity you first saw). At some point the signal will become lost in noise or measurement precision, but until that point, conventional wave theory says the propagation velocity will not change in a linear medium like a stick. There is no identifiable point where it slows, down to (nearly) zero medium velocity.
Your idea might have more relevance when the propagation velocity is the speed of light.
I hope that readers here are starting to see how my new electricity ticks all of the boxes.
No wave of any kind can propagate at a velocity of any kind unless the medium moves at least briefly at that velocity or more.
Anyhow i can't see how the speed of a poke could exceed the speed of sound.
Yes, a slow transverse wave can in a say stiff bar propagate longitudinally very fast.Exactly! The particle and wave velocities are not equal.https://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfVibrationsAndWavesH.J.Pain/page/n15/mode/2upThat looks to be a dy/dt transverse particle velocity, not a dx/dt.
" The particle velocity ... is therefore given as the product of the wave velocity...and the gradient of the wave profile preceded by a negative sign for a right-going wave..."
I suggest that you read the whole chapter. Its quite an eye opener.
Yes, a slow transverse wave can in a say stiff bar propagate longitudinally very fast.Exactly! The particle and wave velocities are not equal.https://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfVibrationsAndWavesH.J.Pain/page/n15/mode/2upThat looks to be a dy/dt transverse particle velocity, not a dx/dt.
" The particle velocity ... is therefore given as the product of the wave velocity...and the gradient of the wave profile preceded by a negative sign for a right-going wave..."
I suggest that you read the whole chapter. Its quite an eye opener.
It might be possible to invoke that kind of relationship for em radiation for electricity along a wire. Probably can't be done. A generator would have to give electrons a transverse say up'n'down motion. Or perhaps a generator would have to give electrons a spin or a precession or nutation whereby the electron could be static or in a slow uniform motion but the precession etc might propagate at the speed of light. Interesting.
I suggest that you also read the next chapter on longitudinal waves.Yes, a slow transverse wave can in a say stiff bar propagate longitudinally very fast.Exactly! The particle and wave velocities are not equal.https://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfVibrationsAndWavesH.J.Pain/page/n15/mode/2upThat looks to be a dy/dt transverse particle velocity, not a dx/dt.
" The particle velocity ... is therefore given as the product of the wave velocity...and the gradient of the wave profile preceded by a negative sign for a right-going wave..."
I suggest that you read the whole chapter. Its quite an eye opener.
It might be possible to invoke that kind of relationship for em radiation for electricity along a wire. Probably can't be done. A generator would have to give electrons a transverse say up'n'down motion. Or perhaps a generator would have to give electrons a spin or a precession or nutation whereby the electron could be static or in a slow uniform motion but the precession etc might propagate at the speed of light. Interesting.
The speed at which an electromagnetic wave propagates is not the same as the electron drift speed. The wave can propagate without the presence of electrons. That's how sunlight reaches the earth.
A 180 deg u-turn around a wire of radius R (ie at a sharp bend in the wire) would be more drastic for an electon than a 90 deg turn along a radius of R (ie to follow the surface of a 90 deg sharp bend in a wire)(depending on the exact 3D geometry of the u-turn or bend).I hope that readers here are starting to see how my new electricity ticks all of the boxes.Yes, the G-string result has parallels with your theory (which is why I posted it).
I see some inconsistency in your descriptions. If an electon has difficulty clinging to an extremely mild curve in a G-line, then what makes some happily navigate a sharp 90 deg bend? "if it duznt detach" isn't an answer, it is a question.
Also you posited that electons are photons which travel (primarily?) on the outside of conductors, because EM travels at ~10m/s in copper if I got that right. In which case, your "reflexion" description describes surface electons either progressing around the corner or radiating away, but inner electons always reflect (at 10m/s).Electons hug the outside of a wire, whilst propagating at the speed of light.
How do you explain a reflection of spacetime ("its the surface that has done the u-turn") if you deny 'Einsteinian' time contraction?
Maybe your theory does tick all of the boxes (I'm not implying I think it does), but what it is also doing is adding mystery, like why electons roam around on the surfaces of battery plates while sitting in the shop, not slowly, but at the speed of light. That is an awful lot of activity for something which appears for all intents and purposes to be static, again the question is not whether they do (in the theory they do), but why they should want to - a good reason for being, beyond being an option which seems to make sense to some people in certain settings (our complaint over the Poynting vector).Electons are photons. All photons propagate at the speed of light. They can do no other.
What this ticked box adds to human 'knowledge' is a question. Each postulate also exists without quantified links to reality (measurement). By that I mean the numerical behaviour which explains (accurately) things like how many electons peel off the wire under defined circumstances. In time this would achieve predictive power beyond being a rough mental crutch to help think through physics situations. In spite of all this box ticking, the mystery quotient is increasing in an unbounded way.I don’t think that we have any good info re when electons peel off a G-string wire & when they don’t.
For all its deep mystery (which equates to perhaps an inability to tick a box), conventional electricity theory does make good 'reasons for being' for nearly everything (electrons drift because of electric field and carry potential energy around, skin effect results from inductance and resistance). It also ties all this behaviour together with extremely robust predictive capability which works to "umpteen decimals" (much more accurate than you seem to think), being formulated in terms of mathematics more than thoughts. In that respect its inventors went for the jugular, being all hopped up on science, as was the fashion of the day. It perhaps lacked some imagination.Old electricity fails in so many ways.
To that end, continuing on from my earlier post about Popper falsifiability, a good ideal to shoot for might be for half your ideas to fail: Much less, could mean you are either being too unimaginative, or testing too little (or combination).
Consider this: we take a pipe and stuff it full of marbles so that there is no room for any more.That is a good analogy for the theoretical speed of electricity due to drifting electrons, ie due to electrons being injected into one end of a wire.
Now stuff another marble in one end. What happens? Obviously an identical marble pops out the other end.
How long was the delay between when the first marble was stuffed in and the other one popped out? Don't need an exact number; was it fast or slow?
If you continuously stuff marbles in one end, what's the drift velocity of the marbles? How does this compare to the speed that the information got from one end of the pipe to the other?
I need to explain electons in more detail.
When i gave the name Electon to my semi-confined photons that hug wires (my new electricity) i knew that that name would be problematical.I need to explain electons in more detail.But not the detail of how to spell them. Is English your native language? Are you related to Electrodacus by any chance?
All of Einstein's Relativity is rubbish. His spacetime is rubbish (actually i don’t think that he believed in spacetime either).
Either Pain is wrong or u is wrong.Is English your native language?
[...]
I don’t think that i have ever seen a calculation for the faux-speed of (old) electricity, but it would come out to about c/100,000,000.
The delay for a marble popping out would be at least as long as the delay of a sound wave in a glass marble.
[...]
A thick enamel coating would affect the relationship between the external fields and internal charge density that would ultimately affect the speed of propagation. That is something that is probably most well studied in antenna theory, or at least if there were any surprising results, they'd have probably shown up in that field already... worth investigating maybe.
A thick enamel coating would affect the relationship between the external fields and internal charge density that would ultimately affect the speed of propagation. That is something that is probably most well studied in antenna theory, or at least if there were any surprising results, they'd have probably shown up in that field already... worth investigating maybe.
The topic is not new. Here is an example of a paper:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1131547
A thick enamel coating would affect the relationship between the external fields and internal charge density that would ultimately affect the speed of propagation. That is something that is probably most well studied in antenna theory, or at least if there were any surprising results, they'd have probably shown up in that field already... worth investigating maybe.
The topic is not new. Here is an example of a paper:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1131547
And... hey presto... it is and it has been well studied in antennas... won't be purchasing the article, but I guess it's a safe assumption that from an input impedance and fields perspective it shows a good agreement with Maxwell?
If enuff of us say is & if is becomes the most common usage then is will become the correct grammar.Either Pain is wrong or u is wrong.Is English your native language?
Goodish equations that give goodish numbers is ok, but i have not seen any good (convincing) description of how enamel might affect the speed of electricity in/on/around a wire.[...]I don’t think that i have ever seen a calculation for the faux-speed of (old) electricity, but it would come out to about c/100,000,000.How do you define the faux-speed? The change in charge distribution and current due to an electric field resulting from an injection of current or change in E-field or B-field is predicted rather well by Maxwell. Maxwell doesn't determine the electron velocities directly, only a J 'field', but it would be a pretty trivial step to determine how much charge is displaced and at what rate to satisfy the external E and B fields.
The delay for a marble popping out would be at least as long as the delay of a sound wave in a glass marble.[...]
A thick enamel coating would affect the relationship between the external fields and internal charge density that would ultimately affect the speed of propagation. That is something that is probably most well studied in antenna theory, or at least if there were any surprising results, they'd have probably shown up in that field already... worth investigating maybe.
aetherist, I had penned a reply which includes the above subject (insulation, slowing propagation) lastnight, something I meant to do a few pages back but ran out of time. It is only fair to explain, because it such a well-known result of conventional theory that it often taken for granted, which could leave you believing it is something new when it not.I think that u are saying that the online calculator has an input box where u can write the speed of light for the insulation (or u can write the permittivity or permeability or something), & that this then affects the calculated speed of electricity in the wire(s) by virtue of the TL's calculated capacitance or something (eg feeding lots of charge into the inductance)(or leakage into the characteristic impedance)(& using lots of elements in the model).
But empirically so far you seem incapable of following through on a back and forth argument without branching off rapidly and repeatedly to familiar but different places like a fractal. I can understand that! Many on here can probably also relate to some degree, but there will be a limit to how much apparent contradiction or sales-job like attempts to dress up an ill-formed (incomplete) idea that they will swallow. FYI I am past that point, because you are either arguing with or persistently ignoring facts in a very unintelligent way.
But plug the dielectric constant into any online calculator which shows the per-length L and C of a transmission line. You will see that the C increases, but L does not. I don't need to explain (or understand) how that is. But simulate a pulse travelling through a lumped element transmission line, using your choice of cell size. The propagation speed of that pulse slows, a result of the per length increase in C, itself a result of the dielectric. This closely matches measurement.
Maybe there are some differences in the details that are as yet undiscovered, but that doesn't mean the scope traces and descriptions which show slowing of EM energy are grossly wrong.
Re antennas -- my guess is that a transmitting dipole antenna painted with enamel would have to be 50% longer (to give the same frequency).I think no. This could be tested with a nanoVNA, balun, and some wire on strings. It is not a test I really want to do. Perhaps a bit head in the sand, but I'm old enough to rest on my assumptions and beliefs despite knowing that is how the rot sets in. (Note I said no not so.)
Re antennas -- no amount of so-called study can tell us the possible cause unless it looks deeply into the (microscopic) physics rather than the (macroscopic) maths.That's what I wanted to say about EM, if I didn't already. I said something similar, to bsfeechannel quite a few pages back, using the word "introspection". I think I was partly wrong, in that I think there is still a fair bit to learn from macroscopic maths about the claimed nature of electricity, in this day and age of computers. When these theories were invented (and tested), people were practically limited to analytical mathematics to probe the behaviour of the theory, because numerical calculations had to be done by hand (or very slow machines and tables). These people all had to be very clever, and very capable, and think in abstract mathematical concepts to some degree. They had no way to simulate (calculate a worked example) with say 1000 point charges spread in a ring on the surface of something. Now it is computationally trivial (hardware wise). Of course that gives next to no answers on the physical reality, which is what I meant, but it does allow us to probe the workings of a theory to see how it works at a more intuitive level of understanding. I'm talking about silly things like why a sheet of charge appears to have a constant (with distance) electric flux coming out the sides. Some people (most?) don't find the result of a symbolic integration even remotely mentally satisfying, and take it as a string of (dis)trust. Some academics seem to assume that this rational faith-based approach is palatable to everyone who should want to be a scientist or work in some science-based field. It might be a reasonable desire, but it does not represent fact (that most people run screaming from maths).
I started to take a closer look at Einstein in 2011, & i see that my science section in my computer now has 65,000 files, mainly aether stuff & Einsteinian stuff. But i didn’t take much interest in electricity nor in Einstein's connections to electricity & Maxwell.All of Einstein's Relativity is rubbish. His spacetime is rubbish (actually i don’t think that he believed in spacetime either).https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/science/fundamentals/article/2016/01/08/why-einsteins-general-relativity-such-popular-target-cranks (https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/science/fundamentals/article/2016/01/08/why-einsteins-general-relativity-such-popular-target-cranks)
aetherist, I had penned a reply which includes the above subject (insulation, slowing propagation) lastnight, something I meant to do a few pages back but ran out of time. It is only fair to explain, because it such a well-known result of conventional theory that it often taken for granted, which could leave you believing it is something new when it not.I think that u are saying that the online calculator has an input box where u can write the speed of light for the insulation (or u can write the permittivity or permeability or something), & that this then affects the calculated speed of electricity in the wire(s) by virtue of the TL's calculated capacitance or something (eg feeding lots of charge into the inductance)(or leakage into the characteristic impedance)(& using lots of elements in the model).
But empirically so far you seem incapable of following through on a back and forth argument without branching off rapidly and repeatedly to familiar but different places like a fractal. I can understand that! Many on here can probably also relate to some degree, but there will be a limit to how much apparent contradiction or sales-job like attempts to dress up an ill-formed (incomplete) idea that they will swallow. FYI I am past that point, because you are either arguing with or persistently ignoring facts in a very unintelligent way.
But plug the dielectric constant into any online calculator which shows the per-length L and C of a transmission line. You will see that the C increases, but L does not. I don't need to explain (or understand) how that is. But simulate a pulse travelling through a lumped element transmission line, using your choice of cell size. The propagation speed of that pulse slows, a result of the per length increase in C, itself a result of the dielectric. This closely matches measurement.
Maybe there are some differences in the details that are as yet undiscovered, but that doesn't mean the scope traces and descriptions which show slowing of EM energy are grossly wrong.
I can understand that we have an almost unlimited menu of smart devices for our elements for our models, & with a bit of luck or good management we can get goodish numbers that can partly mimic some of the traces we see in the AlphaPhoenix X pt1. But the numbers then have to explain all of the traces, especially when the AlphaPhoenix X pt2 is available. No-one has yet explained pt1, not even a part of pt1. And i suppose neither has my new electricity, but i am working on it (slowly).
However, my main problem with old electricity etc concerns what happens before we plug the dielectric constant into the online calculator.
How on earth can the online calculator have electricity propagating along (bare) wires at the speed of light, when the real speed of real em radiation in Cu is only about c/30,000,000, & when the faux-speed of the faux-drift of conduction electrons is only about c/30,000,000,000.
I have explained that my new electricity (ie my new electons) seems to explain what we see near a wire, ie it ticks all of the boxes, so far.
And i am trying to explain that if online calculators give good numbers then that does not necessarily confirm old electricity.
And i can add that if u & everyone else around here accept my new electricity then that duznt necessarily mean that online calculators will need major changes or even minor changes.
Ok, i had a good idea. Can u ask an online calculator to model the electricity along one of your G-string antenna feeder connections. This is a single wire, no return, no earth, no parallel isolated wire, nothing.
Do a model for a bare wire.
And do a model for a wire painted with enamel.
Did u get any sensible results?
Did u get an electricity speed of 2c/3 for the enamelled wire?
Did u have trouble selecting suitable elements?
Did ordinary TL lumped elements do the trick? I am thinking that it would be difficult to have mini-faux-capacitors feeding to fresh air.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12688660_Unskilled_and_Unaware_of_It_How_Difficulties_in_Recognizing_One's_Own_Incompetence_Lead_to_Inflated_Self-Assessments (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12688660_Unskilled_and_Unaware_of_It_How_Difficulties_in_Recognizing_One's_Own_Incompetence_Lead_to_Inflated_Self-Assessments)The authors had the choice of calling that paper -- The skilled have difficulty in recognizing their deflated self assessment of their own competence.
[...]Is this the same IEEE that would not let Heaviside publish in their journal?The biggest takeaway here is not that the IEEE were wrong to reject Heaviside, but that the process and progression of scientific understanding at its very core does not and should not look particularly fondly on logical jumps without sufficient evidence.
Is this the same IEEE that called Heaviside a crackpot when he came up with his equations?
Is this the same IEEE that conceded that his equations worked when they fixed the telegraphy cable?[...]
Seeing as you mentioned quaternions, I find it very difficult to believe that somebody favouring the GA representation of Maxwell could disregard relativity and Einstein-ism... surely sticking with vectors and tensors is the way to go if you're avoiding Einstein? The whole concept of space-time is baked right in there with GA isn't it? Do you have an alternative formulation, because that could be interesting?
I can assure you that you are not a smart fellow. :-DDhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/12688660_Unskilled_and_Unaware_of_It_How_Difficulties_in_Recognizing_One's_Own_Incompetence_Lead_to_Inflated_Self-Assessments (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12688660_Unskilled_and_Unaware_of_It_How_Difficulties_in_Recognizing_One's_Own_Incompetence_Lead_to_Inflated_Self-Assessments)However having been given the name that it has been given it still nonetheless applies to me. I am in the upper quartile, ie the smart fellows that habitually underestimate their genius.
[...]
I don’t know of any application of Einsteinian Relativity or spacetime to electricity, except for the silly invoking of relativistic length contraction to explain magnetism near a current in a wire.
[...]
[...]
I wonder whether we will ever figure it all out. My electon electricity is a good start.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12688660_Unskilled_and_Unaware_of_It_How_Difficulties_in_Recognizing_One's_Own_Incompetence_Lead_to_Inflated_Self-Assessments (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12688660_Unskilled_and_Unaware_of_It_How_Difficulties_in_Recognizing_One's_Own_Incompetence_Lead_to_Inflated_Self-Assessments)The authors had the choice of calling that paper -- The skilled have difficulty in recognizing their deflated self assessment of their own competence.
If they had given it that name then it would be easily seen that it applies to me.
However having been given the name that it has been given it still nonetheless applies to me. I am in the upper quartile, ie the smart fellows that habitually underestimate their genius.
Is this the same IEEE that would not let Heaviside publish in their journal?
Is this the same IEEE that called Heaviside a crackpot when he came up with his equations?
Is this the same IEEE that conceded that his equations worked when they fixed the telegraphy cable?
It was formed in 1963 from the amalgamation of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers and the Institute of Radio Engineers.
The Heaviside brothers thus could hardly have chosen a less opportune moment to call for adding inductance to telephone lines. In April 1887 they completed their joint paper on the subject and prepared to send it off to the Journal of the Society of Telegraph Engineers and of Electricians. As a post office employee, however, Arthur first had to secure clearance from his superior in the engineering ranks—none other than Preece, who promptly declared the paper worthless and blocked it. Arthur soon acquiesced, but Oliver emphatically did not. Through the summer of 1887 he sent the Electrician caustic letters attacking “the eminent scienticulist,” as he called Preece, but Biggs, though sympathetic, feared a libel suit and declined to publish them. Then in October, Biggs was abruptly removed as editor of the Electrician, a move he later hinted was prompted by his support for Heaviside. The new editor soon cancelled Heaviside’s long-running series of articles, saying he had asked around and found no one who read them.
Nice story re Heaviside, my hero. I have a bike in the shed -- i should ride it.Is this the same IEEE that would not let Heaviside publish in their journal?No. Not the same IEEE.
Is this the same IEEE that called Heaviside a crackpot when he came up with his equations?
Is this the same IEEE that conceded that his equations worked when they fixed the telegraphy cable?QuoteIt was formed in 1963 from the amalgamation of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers and the Institute of Radio Engineers.
Here's the real story, a nice biography of Heaviside by Bruce Hunt:
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.1788 (https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.1788)QuoteThe Heaviside brothers thus could hardly have chosen a less opportune moment to call for adding inductance to telephone lines. In April 1887 they completed their joint paper on the subject and prepared to send it off to the Journal of the Society of Telegraph Engineers and of Electricians. As a post office employee, however, Arthur first had to secure clearance from his superior in the engineering ranks—none other than Preece, who promptly declared the paper worthless and blocked it. Arthur soon acquiesced, but Oliver emphatically did not. Through the summer of 1887 he sent the Electrician caustic letters attacking “the eminent scienticulist,” as he called Preece, but Biggs, though sympathetic, feared a libel suit and declined to publish them. Then in October, Biggs was abruptly removed as editor of the Electrician, a move he later hinted was prompted by his support for Heaviside. The new editor soon cancelled Heaviside’s long-running series of articles, saying he had asked around and found no one who read them.
No. Not the same IEEE.Hell's bells. So, we have Electrical Engineers, who refuse to believe the truth that electricity is made by (hugging) photons, amalgamating with Radio Engineers, who believe that radio waves are nothing but photons (when the truth is that radio waves are not photons).
It was formed in 1963 from the amalgamation of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers and the Institute of Radio Engineers.
Why use an archaic, imprecise term like "electricity"?My new electricity says that there are 3 kinds of electricity propagating/flowing/drifting on/on/in a wire.
What is it supposed to mean? Electrical charge? Electric field?
What about magnetism? Electromagnetic fields? Are they included in "electricity"?
And let's dispense with the claim that Maxwell's equations don't accurately predict what we measure, or don't include the effects of a dielectric insulator. Or is mysterious or no one can solve them.
Those claims are utter complete bullshit as we all (with one exception) well know.
OK, I hope I'm done feeding the troll. :phew:
Or, they would be wrong, if they bothered to explain what they mean.
Why use an archaic, imprecise term like "electricity"?My new electricity says that there are 3 kinds of electricity propagating/flowing/drifting on/on/in a wire.
What is it supposed to mean? Electrical charge? Electric field?
What about magnetism? Electromagnetic fields? Are they included in "electricity"?
And let's dispense with the claim that Maxwell's equations don't accurately predict what we measure, or don't include the effects of a dielectric insulator. Or is mysterious or no one can solve them.
Those claims are utter complete bullshit as we all (with one exception) well know.
OK, I hope I'm done feeding the troll. :phew:
The em field or fields are the transmitters of the electrical force or forces.
Maxwell's (Heaviside's) equations are probably ok, except of course for the silly (needless) inclusion of the (impossible) displacement current.
But anyhow no-one uses Maxwell's equations i think. Except to confuse skoolkids. I don’t eat bread nowadays hence i guess that i no longer use curl (to make toast).
What it means is that Veritasium & Co are sort of slightly wrong re electricity being in the space around a wire.
Or, they would be wrong, if they bothered to explain what they mean.
The energy & power of electricity is primarily in the electons hugging the wires, not in the space around the wires.
However an electon's field(s) is a part of the electon. A photon includes its field(s).
The fields produce forces that transmit the energy & power of the (negatively charged) electons.
The fields radiate from the electons, & fields radiate from (negatively charged) electrons (in & on the wires) that have been influenced by the electons.
The influenced electrons then produce what can be considered to be the 2 other kinds of electricity.
But electron electricity is a secondary effect of the primary electon electricity.
The field(s) do carry energy & power in themselves.
And, the field(s) do detach from the central main part of the electon. And after they detach they do carry energy & power in their own right. Its complicated. I might explain in more detail later.
I am not sure whether to call it a field or fields. The electro field exists hand in hand with the magnetic field. I need to think it through.
Anyhow, the field(s) carry energy & power & they also transmit energy & power.
[...]I don’t know of any application of Einsteinian Relativity or spacetime to electricity, except for the silly invoking of relativistic length contraction to explain magnetism near a current in a wire.[...]Could you justify to us the grounds you have to claim relativistic length contraction as 'silly'? Are electrons in an accelerator beam not electricity?
I'm only being critical of your theory, I don't intend to be dismissive, there are some concepts you present that do have a (somewhat tenuous) link to actual physics concepts, but it does appear that there is a bit of a discrepancy between your adoption of concepts to explain un-measurable phenomena (literal electron drift velocity) by rejecting the models that explain actual measurable phenomena (special relativity), and that's going quite firmly against the whole premise of science in general.
Key example of the insulated antenna, the paper demonstrates how conventional EM theory and practical measurement agree... it sounds like you're disputing that.
If we are to make a good model for the (cause of the) em field around a wire then we firstly need to have good models for photons & electons & electrons etc.[...]I wonder whether we will ever figure it all out. My electon electricity is a good start.Why is it a better start than the one we already have? You've not actually provided any rational justification for the discrepancies that only you claim to be apparent.
Ok, after reading Heaviside et al, you have come up with a theory that is effectively identical to convention, aside some semantic differences which might collapse to the same meaning once stated or described more precisely.The acceptance & adoption of my new (electon) electricity will provide a better explanation for what we see.
It seems to me you are trying to invent something new out of something fixed (Heaviside's convention), so are stuck between a conventional description and a host of fanciful imaginings whereby you will invent a world of fake measurement discrepancies - they are not real.
I don’t have a problem with the former, but you will (and then might sidestep) result after result of evidence from measurement, because of the desire above. You won't face facts head on, you need to swerve and obfuscate at every turn. I can only guess that this arises because you know those results might limit your ideas (again, not a bad wish), and so very consciously engage in the swerving and contradictory BS descriptions of reality to avoid getting caught out.
Again, your theory, as stated above, does kind of hold water, and might hold useful insights which could possibly in time seem more correct than convention. But it is a restatement of convention, and you yourself admit that it might result in little to no change in the way things are calculated in practice.
Edit: Where did the "et" go?
What prediction of Einstein's special relativity has been shown to be incorrect?Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity says (predicts) that light must appear to have the same speed for all observers. But there have been many experiments that have shown that the speed of light varies with direction.
Ok, after reading Heaviside et al, you have come up with a theory that is effectively identical to convention, aside some semantic differences which might collapse to the same meaning once stated or described more precisely.The acceptance & adoption of my new (electon) electricity will provide a better explanation for what we see.
It seems to me you are trying to invent something new out of something fixed (Heaviside's convention), so are stuck between a conventional description and a host of fanciful imaginings whereby you will invent a world of fake measurement discrepancies - they are not real.
I don’t have a problem with the former, but you will (and then might sidestep) result after result of evidence from measurement, because of the desire above. You won't face facts head on, you need to swerve and obfuscate at every turn. I can only guess that this arises because you know those results might limit your ideas (again, not a bad wish), and so very consciously engage in the swerving and contradictory BS descriptions of reality to avoid getting caught out.
Again, your theory, as stated above, does kind of hold water, and might hold useful insights which could possibly in time seem more correct than convention. But it is a restatement of convention, and you yourself admit that it might result in little to no change in the way things are calculated in practice.
Edit: Where did the "et" go?
It probably wont affect existing practise.
It might allow better & quicker future inventions & designs.
It would be good if Howardlong tested the speed of electricity along a threaded rod. Electons have to go further (hugging the surface) due to the screw thread, hence they will appear to go more slowly (than on a plain rod).
That's cool.I reckon one strike & my new (electon) electricity is out. It has to tick every box.
What if an experiment were to give a result vastly closer to zero change in speed than the predicted slowdown due to surface hugging of the macroscopic threadform?
Would you consider a medium frequency (say 100MHz or 1 GHz) result for say the central conductor in a coax threaded vs 'smooth'?
Would you accept that increased loss is different from increased delay?
Not saying I have the intention or equipment, just wondering how you would handle a confounding result if it were to eventuate.
Similar for the painted antenna.
But, getting back to coaxial cables. Tony Wakefield did an experiment using a coaxial cable as a capacitor. This discharged at a half of the predicted voltage (ie a half of the voltage predicted by old electricity) taking double the predicted time (ie double the time predicted by old electricity). But as we all know the half voltage & doubled time accords exactly with my new (electon) electricity, where a half of the electons (in a capacitor) are going each way at any one time (ie before the discharge switch is closed). I think he used 18 m of coax, a 9 V battery, a mercury reed switch, & a 350 MHz scope.No! You ignoramus!
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm (http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm)
Erik Margan repeated Wakefield's X.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf (http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf)
[...]
Erik Margan repeated Wakefield's X.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf (http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf)
My new (electon) electricity model is unique, it is my own, i thought of it in Dec 2021.[...]Erik Margan repeated Wakefield's X. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf (http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf)I see, so your own theory of electrons isn't even your own theory? It is just a hunch based on a fallacious extension to a fallacious interpretation of a misrepresented version of a genuine theory? Or at least that is how it appears to me; your consistent inability to provide any genuine reasoning of your dogma speaks the loudest volume.
I'm still not totally dismissive of your ideas, after all, below the scale of common household particles (proton, neutron, electron etc), it's surely impossible to even comprehend and futile to even attempt a visualisation. I've personally never seen inside a wire, so sure, why not have electrons hugging wires, or skipping along the surface if the model agrees with those actual measurable quantities - why not?
So, hypothetically, let's say Einstein's work (and countless others' work before and after) was all wrong - what did he have that you don't? Why is he the one whose theory has been so widely accepted? There cannot possibly be such a huge conspiracy that could cause so many physicists to perpetuate a lie and consistently misrepresent results just to keep their funding up... I've met enough physicists to know just how keen any one of them would be to jump up and prove all others wrong. The keyword there being prove, a rational proof is what is required.
Without a rational, indisputable and well-formed proof any theory is irrational and absurd, except when it is asserted wildly on the internet where it is absurd irrational dogma. We could have a 'working theory' still in its early days, but it is just an insult to assert it as a fact.
... i would be forced to abandon electons & invoke my roo-tons, which are photons that hop along the surface.ie, from crest to crest (a point I missed while taking them too 'seriously'). Just making stuff up, on the fly - not even trying any more.
...An active admission it might be non-falsifiable and therefore worthy of endless echoes in a fantasy place of no relevance to industry or science. Knowing full well it won't work forever here.
Hence i think that we might have a hard time trying to see semi-confined photons (electons) hugging a wire.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp. They are not rational, indisputable and well-formed. They are an insult. They are dogma.They are also correct, to the best of our knowledge. We know SR and GR are theories, and to many people are horribly unintuitive, this fact isn't a problem for science.
The aether will return -- it never left.Feel-good sound bite of the echo chamber, repeating it here won't increase its chance of echoing, which you know.
In effect Veritasium believes in Heaviside's energy current, alltho i suspect that Veritasium duznt actually know much about Heaviside, Veritasium probably reckons that it is the Poynting field by another name.
I wonder what a proof of electons hugging a wire would look like.
At present we don’t have a proof that electrons orbit a nucleus. Or that electrons drift inside a wire. Or that electrons even exist.
We are presently in the Einsteinian Dark Age of science -- but the times they are a-changin'.I don't think you are using the terms "Einsteinian", "Dark Age" and "Science" correctly.
You seem to be confusing the contemporary American IEEE (formerly IRE) with the former British IEE (now renamed "IET").
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution_of_Electrical_Engineers[/url] ([url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution_of_Electrical_Engineers[/url])
Note the first line of the wikipedia article on the IEE: "Not to be confused with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE, I-triple-E)."
The electronic–hydraulic analogy (derisively referred to as the drain-pipe theory by Oliver Lodge) is the most widely used analogy for "electron fluid" in a metal conductor. Since electric current is invisible and the processes in play in electronics are often difficult to demonstrate, the various electronic components are represented by hydraulic equivalents. Electricity (as well as heat) was originally understood to be a kind of fluid, and the names of certain electric quantities (such as current) are derived from hydraulic equivalents. As with all analogies, it demands an intuitive and competent understanding of the baseline paradigms (electronics AND hydraulics).
If taken too far, the water analogy can create misconceptions. For it to be useful, one must remain aware of the regions where electricity and water behave very differently.
Fields (Maxwell equations, Inductance): Electrons can push or pull other distant electrons via their fields, while water molecules experience forces only from direct contact with other molecules. For this reason, waves in water travel at the speed of sound, but waves in a sea of charge will travel much faster as the forces from one electron are applied to many distant electrons and not to only the neighbors in direct contact. In a hydraulic transmission line, the energy flows as mechanical waves through the water, but in an electric transmission line the energy flows as fields in the space surrounding the wires, and does not flow inside the metal. Also, an accelerating electron will drag its neighbors along while attracting them, both because of magnetic forces.
Charge: Unlike water, movable charge carriers can be positive or negative, and conductors can exhibit an overall positive or negative net charge. The mobile carriers in electric currents are usually electrons, but sometimes they are charged positively, such as the positive ions in an electrolyte, the H+ ions in proton conductors or holes in p-type semiconductors and some (very rare) conductors.
Leaking pipes: The electric charge of an electrical circuit and its elements is usually almost equal to zero, hence it is (almost) constant. This is formalized in Kirchhoff's current law, which does not have an analogy to hydraulic systems, where the amount of the liquid is not usually constant. Even with incompressible liquid the system may contain such elements as pistons and open pools, so the volume of liquid contained in a part of the system can change. For this reason, continuing electric currents require closed loops rather than hydraulics' open source/sink resembling spigots and buckets.
Fluid velocity and resistance of metals: As with water hoses, the carrier drift velocity in conductors is directly proportional to current. However, water only experiences drag via the pipes' inner surface, while charges are slowed at all points within a metal, as with water forced through a filter. Also, typical velocity of charge carriers within a conductor is less than centimeters per minute, and the "electrical friction" is extremely high. If charges ever flowed as fast as water can flow in pipes, the electric current would be immense, and the conductors would become incandescently hot and perhaps vaporize. To model the resistance and the charge-velocity of metals, perhaps a pipe packed with sponge, or a narrow straw filled with syrup, would be a better analogy than a large-diameter water pipe.
Quantum Mechanics: Solid conductors and insulators contain charges at more than one discrete level of atomic orbit energy, while the water in one region of a pipe can only have a single value of pressure. For this reason there is no hydraulic explanation for such things as a battery's charge pumping ability, a diode's depletion layer and voltage drop, solar cell functions, Peltier effect, etc., however equivalent devices can be designed which exhibit similar responses, although some of the mechanisms would only serve to regulate the flow curves rather than to contribute to the component's primary function.
In order for the model to be useful, the reader or student must have a substantial understanding of the model (hydraulic) system's principles. It also requires that the principles can be transferred to the target (electrical) system. Hydraulic systems are deceptively simple: the phenomenon of pump cavitation is a known, complex problem that few people outside of the fluid power or irrigation industries would understand. For those who do, the hydraulic analogy is amusing, as no "cavitation" equivalent exists in electrical engineering. The hydraulic analogy can give a mistaken sense of understanding that will be exposed once a detailed description of electrical circuit theory is required.
One must also consider the difficulties in trying to make an analogy match reality completely. The above "electrical friction" example, where the hydraulic analog is a pipe filled with sponge material, illustrates the problem: the model must be increased in complexity beyond any realistic scenario.
RETRACTED: Physical interpretation of the fringe shift measured on Michelson interferometer in optical mediaThat Demjanov paper was not retracted by Demjanov, it was removed by the Journal. Hence it was not retracted, & they lied. So, u are supporting censorship, & a lie. And cheering it on.
V.V. Demjanov
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960109016375 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960109016375)
I also followed the cornflakes and found echo chamber upon echo chamber of 'krapp' where 1000s of "I rekon"s and "It feels" amplify concepts like "ExH slab". Aetherist is skilled with words after existing in such places for so long, but when confronted with the possibility that electons might have to exceed the speed of light to hug a threaded conductor...Quote... i would be forced to abandon electons & invoke my roo-tons, which are photons that hop along the surface.ie, from crest to crest (a point I missed while taking them too 'seriously'). Just making stuff up, on the fly - not even trying any more....Hence i think that we might have a hard time trying to see semi-confined photons (electons) hugging a wire.An active admission it might be non-falsifiable and therefore worthy of endless echoes in a fantasy place of no relevance to industry or science. Knowing full well it won't work forever here.QuoteSTR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp. They are not rational, indisputable and well-formed. They are an insult. They are dogma.They are also correct, to the best of our knowledge. We know SR and GR are theories, and to many people are horribly unintuitive, this fact isn't a problem for science.QuoteThe aether will return -- it never left.Feel-good sound bite of the echo chamber, repeating it here won't increase its chance of echoing, which you know.
You would have known the risks of going outside your comfort zone. Might be time to admit you came here seeking experimental reality not to convince us of anything, but yourself.
I think u are being unfair to Veritasium. The more i look at his youtube the more i am impressed with how much work Derek has put into it. He genuinely relies on the words of a number of top scientists & engineers. In particular Prof Geraint Lewis. I found Geraint Lewis's original sketch for what later became the basis for the Veritasium Question.In effect Veritasium believes in Heaviside's energy current, alltho i suspect that Veritasium duznt actually know much about Heaviside, Veritasium probably reckons that it is the Poynting field by another name.Earlier on in this thread, I'm pretty sure that the main objection to the Vertiassium video was that only a single perspective was presented in the form of the Poynting theorem. Firstly, it's a pop-science video, it's not a research article, the aim was to present, to a very broad demographic (encompassing all from graphic designers to engineers), that there is more to the transfer of electrical power than the "electron-marble duality" (high-school physics teaching model). I think it served its job very well (just look at that viewer count).
I don't have a particular beef with Poynting's theorem, I deal mostly with separate electric and magnetic fields mostly, they explain the nuances of misbehaving circuits better to me than their cross product does. Just a side note there.I wonder what a proof of electons hugging a wire would look like. At present we don’t have a proof that electrons orbit a nucleus. Or that electrons drift inside a wire. Or that electrons even exist.Very true. I don't have any proof that there's an invisible leprechaun that lives in my butter dish which comes out and sings happy birthday to the cheese when he knows I cannot hear him... hang on, I just need to check something.
My previous use of the term "rational, indisputable and well-formed" was a little improper, it is a big ask of anything to be all those, rational alone would be acceptable.
Removal of Demjanov paper (from above link):Yes. The claims made by Demjanov cant be supported.
"This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor.
Reason: The article was accepted before the review process was complete.
Further review has revealed that the theoretical and experimental claims made by the author cannot be supported and the article should not have been published."
[...]
Forum members around here seem to be unaware that it is almost impossible to prove something, especially a subatomic something. But it is of course possible to disprove something. Anyhow, it is easy for me to say that there is no proof for electrons & photons, because there will always be good alternative theories that fit the facts. Many scientists don’t believe in electrons & photons. Or, putting it another way, if u designed a page full of yes/no questions re electrons (or photons), the chances are that no 2 scientists in the whole world would tick the same boxes exactly.
[...]
Thanx for the ref to Mills. I will read it when i have more time.[...]Forum members around here seem to be unaware that it is almost impossible to prove something, especially a subatomic something. But it is of course possible to disprove something. Anyhow, it is easy for me to say that there is no proof for electrons & photons, because there will always be good alternative theories that fit the facts. Many scientists don’t believe in electrons & photons. Or, putting it another way, if u designed a page full of yes/no questions re electrons (or photons), the chances are that no 2 scientists in the whole world would tick the same boxes exactly.[...]Have you read much of philosophy? I personally found John Stuart Mill's 'Inductive and Ratiocinative Logic' to have a nice treatment of what you're struggling with there, it's a rather old book but there's pdf's knocking around and some reprints over the last couple of decades. The general concept of "what is a name?" can be a bit of a mind-bend for some students, but ultimately may free your thinking a bit.
What you may be seeing as a complete disagreement between theories and interpretations may be more closely related to the role and attributes of the said particle in each theory rather than a disagreement in what 'it' actually is. If you were to ask immediate questions such as "is an electron a beach-ball?", "is an electron a singular irreducible fundamental particle?", "is an electron a particle composed of a combination of quarks?" etc... I could believe you'd get different answers. If you were to ask questions about what characteristics each person would use to detect "an electron", how they would discriminate between it and any other particle, and how these characteristics change with other factors (velocity, temperature etc)... maybe you'd start to see a little more convergence in answers... I'm almost interested enough to consider posing that questionnaire.
Say the results of the questionnaire come in and there's some disagrement, just for fun, we decide to take a subset of the characteristics which were most well agreed with... would those results agree with the drift model?
For those interested in a serious discussion of a topic that one person here finds "silly", here is a description of how special relativity and distance contraction gives the magnetic field due to a current in a conductor:Thanx for that link. I will have a read & i will comment as soon as i can. I guess that no-one else is going to.
https://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/mrr/mrrtalk.html
I first encountered this analysis in E M Purcell's freshman textbook "Electricity and Magnetism", in the Berkeley Series of introductory physics texts. It is hard to fathom that this textbook (subsidized by the NSF) could be purchased for less than $10 USD in 1967. The author of the article cited above found Purcell's discussion a bit difficult for an elementary text, and attempts to elucidate it.
Einstein died when I was only five years old, but I did attend a lecturer by Purcell in the mid-1970s and found him to be very understandable.
Totally plugging my own stuff here, but here's a post I wrote nearly 10 years ago on the topic of seeing magnetism as a consequence of electric field + relativity: https://www.rs20.net/w/2012/08/how-do-magnets-work-magnetism-electrostatics-relativity/ (https://www.rs20.net/w/2012/08/how-do-magnets-work-magnetism-electrostatics-relativity/)I think that a major problem with relativistic magnetism around a wire is that if the wire had a dia of say 0.1 mm, then a length with 1 mm, then a length with 10 mm, the areas would have the ratio 1 to 100 to 10,000, in which case the drift speeds would be in that ratio (for the same amperage), in which case the length contractions would be in the ratios 100 to 10 to 1, in which case the electrostatic forces near each of the 3 lengths would be in thems ratios. While the conventional calc of the theoretical magnetic force demands the ratios 1 to 1 to 1.
That's cool.I reckon one strike & my new (electon) electricity is out. It has to tick every box.
What if an experiment were to give a result vastly closer to zero change in speed than the predicted slowdown due to surface hugging of the macroscopic threadform?
Would you consider a medium frequency (say 100MHz or 1 GHz) result for say the central conductor in a coax threaded vs 'smooth'?
Would you accept that increased loss is different from increased delay?
Not saying I have the intention or equipment, just wondering how you would handle a confounding result if it were to eventuate.
Similar for the painted antenna.
Delays sound simple to me. If screw threads didn’t have a delay or a delay that was not 100% predictable then i would be forced to abandon electons & invoke my roo-tons, which are photons that hop along the surface.
Which reminds me, William Beaty at one time invoked a leapfrogging em field, that leaped out of a wire (where the speed of the em was only 10 m/s), into the insulation (where the speed was 2c/3), & landing back in the wire. Hence he might be happy with my roo-tons (but might prefer to call them frogtons). I could meet him halfway, hoptons.
Losses i don’t understand, sounds complicated.
Effect of frequency sounds complicated, over my head.
Co-axial cables might be over my head too.
Painting a rod would be interesting.
We could paint longi stripes, & see what happens (to the speed of electricity). Adding one at a time, until coverage is 100%.
We could paint transverse stripes, ie one at a time, until the coverage was 100%.
We could have very thin paint, eg less than 1000 nm thick, to find the critical thickness (where the enamel is no longer 100% effective).
Painting a threaded rod would be interesting. A double whammy of slowing.
But, getting back to coaxial cables. Tony Wakefield did an experiment using a coaxial cable as a capacitor. This discharged at a half of the predicted voltage (ie a half of the voltage predicted by old electricity) taking double the predicted time (ie double the time predicted by old electricity). But as we all know the half voltage & doubled time accords exactly with my new (electon) electricity, where a half of the electons (in a capacitor) are going each way at any one time (ie before the discharge switch is closed). I think he used 18 m of coax, a 9 V battery, a mercury reed switch, & a 350 MHz scope.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm (http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm)
Erik Margan repeated Wakefield's X.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf (http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf)
I think that old electricity say that discharge follows a nice curve.That's cool.I reckon one strike & my new (electon) electricity is out. It has to tick every box.
What if an experiment were to give a result vastly closer to zero change in speed than the predicted slowdown due to surface hugging of the macroscopic threadform?
Would you consider a medium frequency (say 100MHz or 1 GHz) result for say the central conductor in a coax threaded vs 'smooth'?
Would you accept that increased loss is different from increased delay?
Not saying I have the intention or equipment, just wondering how you would handle a confounding result if it were to eventuate.
Similar for the painted antenna.
Delays sound simple to me. If screw threads didn’t have a delay or a delay that was not 100% predictable then i would be forced to abandon electons & invoke my roo-tons, which are photons that hop along the surface.
Which reminds me, William Beaty at one time invoked a leapfrogging em field, that leaped out of a wire (where the speed of the em was only 10 m/s), into the insulation (where the speed was 2c/3), & landing back in the wire. Hence he might be happy with my roo-tons (but might prefer to call them frogtons). I could meet him halfway, hoptons.
Losses i don’t understand, sounds complicated.
Effect of frequency sounds complicated, over my head.
Co-axial cables might be over my head too.
Painting a rod would be interesting.
We could paint longi stripes, & see what happens (to the speed of electricity). Adding one at a time, until coverage is 100%.
We could paint transverse stripes, ie one at a time, until the coverage was 100%.
We could have very thin paint, eg less than 1000 nm thick, to find the critical thickness (where the enamel is no longer 100% effective).
Painting a threaded rod would be interesting. A double whammy of slowing.
But, getting back to coaxial cables. Tony Wakefield did an experiment using a coaxial cable as a capacitor. This discharged at a half of the predicted voltage (ie a half of the voltage predicted by old electricity) taking double the predicted time (ie double the time predicted by old electricity). But as we all know the half voltage & doubled time accords exactly with my new (electon) electricity, where a half of the electons (in a capacitor) are going each way at any one time (ie before the discharge switch is closed). I think he used 18 m of coax, a 9 V battery, a mercury reed switch, & a 350 MHz scope.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm (http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm)
Erik Margan repeated Wakefield's X.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf (http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf)
Is this the example where "old electricity" doesn't predict the discharge rate of the capacitor correctly?
That Demjanov paper was not retracted by Demjanov, it was removed by the Journal. Hence it was not retracted, & they lied. So, u are supporting censorship, & a lie. And cheering it on.Yet I was able to download it, and read it, so not censored. They merely offer their apologies for letting it slip through, without which we would not be discussing it. The journal did aetheriests (or whatever they are called) a service, you complain about the taking away of a part of something given in error, where's the lie?
Leapfrogging electons were the first electons that i thought of in Dec 2021. Shortly after, i realized that simple hugging must be the answer, no hopping. If the screw-thread X does not show the extra delay due to the simple extra distance then that would falsify my electons. And i don’t see how roo-tons could come to the rescue. Roo-tons would fail just as Beaty's silly leapfrogging em radiation must fail to rescue old (electron) electricity from the elephant in the room.Ok but leapfrogging is due to someone else you said. If the "X" fails to support your electon theory then on one-strike rules you will be forced to invoke your roo-tons, you said. Why? If roo-tons would also likely fail as you now claim then that is effectively a prehumous admission of failure for your revised theory. You set up a false dilemma, by denying any possibility to revise your theory, by speculatively revising your theory into a form that would also fail. But that doesn't prevent you from seizing an opportunity. You have previously used the device which I expect you would again invoke upon failure of the experiment (which your rational core might have determined is quite likely): "I don’t agree that roo-tons explain this null result. But perhaps they could. Blah blah de blah ...". You have actively sought out this situation which has doomed you to fail then come to your own transparently ridiculous rescue, yet you chose a forum where you know you can get called up on this issue after all these years. Welcome.
Forum members around here seem to be unaware that it is almost impossible to prove something, especially a subatomic something. But it is of course possible to disprove something. Anyhow, it is easy for me to say that there is no proof for electrons & photons, because there will always be good alternative theories that fit the facts. Many scientists don’t believe in electrons & photons. Or, putting it another way, if u designed a page full of yes/no questions re electrons (or photons), the chances are that no 2 scientists in the whole world would tick the same boxes exactly.It is impossible to disprove anything. It is merely a quicker path to the same false certainty one gets from 'proof' through absence of evidence - tipping the balance of probability quicker. There is no certainty, only belief. A composite of conscious hope and subconscious fear. Any belief I have in electrons and photons is therefore optional. I am not against alternative theories. Your comment about the quiz is probably true.
Forum members seem to be unaware that Einstein contradicted Einstein. His ideas changed right up to his death. Einstein would disagree with much of modern (supposedly Einsteinian) science. And modern science disagrees with much of Einstein.That may all be true, or at least not wildly untrue. But I was thrilled by your roo-tons. Does any of this particularly matter?
Einstein would be thrilled by my electons.
We have facts & we have hot air. I came here & i have tried to point the way to replace hot air with facts.And it's working. Refer to your rational core.
Can any members here use old electricity to explain the traces for the AlphaPhoenix X pt1 & (later) pt2?Once again, this explanation is in this thread way back - the answer is yes. The Maxwell simulation (or even all of them) replicates the features seen in the measurement I think better than expected given the problems with 'X' technique. The only thing I found 'interesting' is the "subtle lift", in both. I didn't quite go to town on the scope screenshot to the degree you have, but I did pore over it for a time not to treat it as some kind of smorgasbord of Dunning-Krugeresque intrigue but because I use scopes and know what to look for. You are ignoring the fact pointed out in one of my first replies to you that the result of the measurement matches the Maxwellian simulator's output, confirming the theory for that particular case, which is what you question, resulting in the answer "yes" which is a simple word with a stable meaning and unlikely to be confusing unlike this unnecessarily long sentence which you have no problem understanding. Ask your rational core, it asked the question.
When someone does the screw-thread X, will old (electron) electricity explain that?Yes.
My new (electon) electricity might explain (we will see).It won't. You will sidestep it as described above, which you know full well because you have it planned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_cloud_densitometry
Will you please explain how "new electricity" leads to the conclusion that a capacitor discharging into a transmission line leads to a step-like voltage?The main thing here is that old (electron) electricity can't explain the discharge, ie the half voltage for double the time.
I am still not happy with lumped element TL models. And i admit that they can replicate the initial 0.2 V that AlphaPhoenix (Brian) got in his white trace for V across his bulb.That Demjanov paper was not retracted by Demjanov, it was removed by the Journal. Hence it was not retracted, & they lied. So, u are supporting censorship, & a lie. And cheering it on.Yet I was able to download it, and read it, so not censored. They merely offer their apologies for letting it slip through, without which we would not be discussing it. The journal did aetheriests (or whatever they are called) a service, you complain about the taking away of a part of something given in error, where's the lie?
I see your rational core bubbling up and causing these confusing surface vacillations in your logic. You sought evidence, it's your choice and I am merely observing an evolution towards imaginative rationalism. I don't want or expect you to abandon your ideas, but that does not preclude your journey to evidence-based thinking you clearly seek. Far be it from me to judge, but bravo.Leapfrogging electons were the first electons that i thought of in Dec 2021. Shortly after, i realized that simple hugging must be the answer, no hopping. If the screw-thread X does not show the extra delay due to the simple extra distance then that would falsify my electons. And i don’t see how roo-tons could come to the rescue. Roo-tons would fail just as Beaty's silly leapfrogging em radiation must fail to rescue old (electron) electricity from the elephant in the room.Ok but leapfrogging is due to someone else you said. If the "X" fails to support your electon theory then on one-strike rules you will be forced to invoke your roo-tons, you said. Why? If roo-tons would also likely fail as you now claim then that is effectively a prehumous admission of failure for your revised theory. You set up a false dilemma, by denying any possibility to revise your theory, by speculatively revising your theory into a form that would also fail. But that doesn't prevent you from seizing an opportunity. You have previously used the device which I expect you would again invoke upon failure of the experiment (which your rational core might have determined is quite likely): "I don’t agree that roo-tons explain this null result. But perhaps they could. Blah blah de blah ...". You have actively sought out this situation which has doomed you to fail then come to your own transparently ridiculous rescue, yet you chose a forum where you know you can get called up on this issue after all these years. Welcome.Forum members around here seem to be unaware that it is almost impossible to prove something, especially a subatomic something. But it is of course possible to disprove something. Anyhow, it is easy for me to say that there is no proof for electrons & photons, because there will always be good alternative theories that fit the facts. Many scientists don’t believe in electrons & photons. Or, putting it another way, if u designed a page full of yes/no questions re electrons (or photons), the chances are that no 2 scientists in the whole world would tick the same boxes exactly.It is impossible to disprove anything. It is merely a quicker path to the same false certainty one gets from 'proof' through absence of evidence - tipping the balance of probability quicker. There is no certainty, only belief. A composite of conscious hope and subconscious fear. Any belief I have in electrons and photons is therefore optional. I am not against alternative theories. Your comment about the quiz is probably true.Forum members seem to be unaware that Einstein contradicted Einstein. His ideas changed right up to his death. Einstein would disagree with much of modern (supposedly Einsteinian) science. And modern science disagrees with much of Einstein. Einstein would be thrilled by my electons.That may all be true, or at least not wildly untrue. But I was thrilled by your roo-tons. Does any of this particularly matter?We have facts & we have hot air. I came here & i have tried to point the way to replace hot air with facts.And it's working. Refer to your rational core.Can any members here use old electricity to explain the traces for the AlphaPhoenix X pt1 & (later) pt2?Once again, this explanation is in this thread way back - the answer is yes. The Maxwell simulation (or even all of them) replicates the features seen in the measurement I think better than expected given the problems with 'X' technique. The only thing I found 'interesting' is the "subtle lift", in both. I didn't quite go to town on the scope screenshot to the degree you have, but I did pore over it for a time not to treat it as some kind of smorgasbord of Dunning-Krugeresque intrigue but because I use scopes and know what to look for. You are ignoring the fact pointed out in one of my first replies to you that the result of the measurement matches the Maxwellian simulator's output, confirming the theory for that particular case, which is what you question, resulting in the answer "yes" which is a simple word with a stable meaning and unlikely to be confusing unlike this unnecessarily long sentence which you have no problem understanding. Ask your rational core, it asked the question.
When someone does the screw-thread X, will old (electron) electricity explain that?Yes. But you already suspect it might - that's why you are here and asking the question.
Can u or Howardlong or someone around here to the test?My new (electon) electricity might explain (we will see).It won't. You will sidestep it as described above, which you know full well because you have it planned.
But that's not the point. Nor are your reasons for being here, really.
Given that it is impossible to disprove anything, what if despite all your pushing and tests which (say) leave your theory in tatters, it turns out to be correct in large part ~100 years from now? We just didn't test it right. All this would undoubtedly have happened, leaving a mark on history weirder than Tesla's, but how could it in any way affect the validity of a theory years from now?
I've already explained a page back how the test is of a transmission line not a capacitor, the source material calls it a capacitor but that is wrong. The test is not of a capacitor. Is there any way you could accept it's not a capacitor even if the source calls it one?Will you please explain how "new electricity" leads to the conclusion that a capacitor discharging into a transmission line leads to a step-like voltage?The main thing here is that old (electron) electricity can't explain the discharge, ie the half voltage for double the time.
Can new electricity answer the following question? What is the equation for the voltage across the capacitor, as a function of time, as it discharges through the resistor?Will you please explain how "new electricity" leads to the conclusion that a capacitor discharging into a transmission line leads to a step-like voltage?The main thing here is that old (electron) electricity can't explain the discharge, ie the half voltage for double the time.
The second thing here is that it might be possible to come up with lots of theories about what electricity is or isn’t, & for most of these to satisfactorily explain the discharge (ie to tick that box). I could come up with other theories that tick that box, but would they tick all of the boxes. My new (electon) electricity i think ticks all of the boxes (so far).
But old (electron) electricity duznt tick the capacitor discharge box, as far as i can tell. But u or someone else might indeed be able to explain a way that drifting electrons tick the box. If so then i would not be able to use that box to falsify old (electron) electricity. But that would then leave me with all of the other boxes that falsify old (electron) electricity. And i only need one box. One strike & old (electron) electricity is out.
Now to answer your question. New (electon) electricity says that in a charged capacitor the negative plate is full of (covered by)(saturated with) electons propagating in every direction, as is a short wire connected to the negative plate. On the short wire half of the electons are going one way & half are going the other way. When electons get to the end of the short wire they do a u-turn (in reality they go straight ahead as usual)(it is the surface of the wire that does a u-turn). When the short wire is connected to a new non-charged long wire the electons on the short wire that are already heading towards the long wire will instead of doing a u-turn will enter onto the long wire. Some of the electons going the "wrong way" on the short wire will have to go all the way to the end of that circuit, ie to the furthest end of the negative plate, & do a u-turn, & head back & enter the long wire.
So, the time taken for the last electon to leave the capacitor & enter the long wire is double the average time. The average time is the time taken for an electon to travel from the farthest point on the negative plate to the nearest point on the long wire.
That is the simple version of the electon discharge from the negative plate of a capacitor.
The positive plate is different. I think that it has no electons. It has an induced positive charge, ie due to the repulsion of electrons due to the negative charge on the negative plate (ie due to the negatively charged electons on the negative plate). I need to have a think about how the positive plate might discharge, & how that would affect current in the long wire. The discharge involves the flow of electrons on the surface, & this will be very slow, ie much slower than the speed of light. This will produce i think a long slow weak discharge, in addition to the almost instantaneous electon discharge mentioned above. I need to have a think.
I might be overplaying the importance of the short wire. If the capacitor holds say 100 times the number of electons on the short wire then the length of the short wire might not make much difference to the time of the (main) discharge, ie the geometry of the capacitor itself would be paramount.
Here is a link to what Harry Ricker says. Harry has written lots of good articles.
https://beyondmainstream.org/the-wakefield-experiments-background-and-motivation/
In the end, the real underlying misconception is that electricity, as we usually define it, is not energy. :popcorn:
Mapping (imaging) electron density has been done for a long time using x-ray diffraction (crystallography) and different methods of electron microscopy.
Strictly, this is a map of the probability spatial distribution of electrons in, say, a large molecule.
I looked at the "Electronics World" paper by Ivor Catt and applied old-school transmission-line theory.(1) I don’t see how u can split the electricity into 2 half currents, ie 2 half voltages. I can see that on one side of the switch we have +4V & on the other side of the switch we have -4V. But when the switch is closed we immediately have 8V.
The setup
An 18 m long 75 Ohm transmission line. The reed switch is located at z=0m and the open end of the transmission line is at z=-18m. The transmission line is pre-charged to 8V. The reed switch is open-ended at t=0s. I chose a propagation speed of c=2.55e8 m/s.
What transmission line theory tells usI attach figures for comparison with the results in Catt's paper. You do the comparison. A video showing the waves is available at
- The voltage wave is the sum of a wave travelling in the positive z direction (indicated by v+) and a wave travelling in the negative z direction (indicated by v-).
- The reflection coefficient at the open end is equal to 1. The reflection coefficient at the reed switch is 0.
- Prior to t=0s, the voltage across the entire length (z=-18m to z=0m) of the transmission line is equal to 8V. There is no current in the transmission line. We can use this information to calculate v+ and v- for t<0s. It turns out that both are constant and equal to 4V.
- Closing the reed switch at t=0s initiates the transient. At z=0, v+ enters the 75 Ohm resistor, where it is terminated. v- is reflected from the open end of the transmission line and becomes part of v+
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-GM0PFwJr4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-GM0PFwJr4)
The error in Catt's paper is that he views the transmission line as a capacitor, which it most certainly is not.
A more detailed explain and the mathematical derivations will follow.
There is nothing strange about this setup. I remember doing experiments like this when I was an undergraduate student and using transmission line theory to explain the measurements.
Note that Catt's paper was published in the April 2013 issue.
Can new electricity answer the following question? What is the equation for the voltage across the capacitor, as a function of time, as it discharges through the resistor?I don’t know what the old (electron) electricity equation(s) is for discharge of a capacitor. But the new (electon) electricity equation(s) would be almost identical, except that it would have to show the correct steady half voltage for the correct double the distance, ie for double the time (at least it would for the case of zero reflexions).
(1) I don’t see how u can split the electricity into 2 half currents, ie 2 half voltages. I can see that on one side of the switch we have +4V & on the other side of the switch we have -4V. But when the switch is closed we immediately have 8V.
Looking simply at drifting electrons producing a wave, there will be an 8V wave going right (to the terminating resistor), this will be a depletion wave, ie that wire (which includes the outer sheath of the coax) is electron rich, & the conduction electrons will begin to spread out.
And, there will be an 8V wave going left (along the core wire of the 18m long coax), this will be an enrichment wave, ie the core wire is electron poor, & the electrons will begin flow into it & begin to bunch up.
If the core wire was neutral, ie with 00V, then in that case there would be a 4V wave going right & a 4V wave going left. But it aint neutral, it has +4V.
(2) Nextly i could explain why it is an impossibility for an electron wave to reflect at a dead end of a wire. Or, putting it another way, why such a reflexion would not add to the gradual addition of electrons into that wire, ie it would not add to the gradual bunching up of electrons in that wire. But not today, i might explain later.
(3) Here is my main objection. U chose the propagation speed of light, but in a part of your explanation u invoke an infinite speed of light for one of your 4V waves. U have this wave starting to wave at t=0 s, at the end of the coax, which is 18m from the switch.
(4) I noticed a few things, as an interesting aside, not necessarily a criticism of your explanation. And u might address some of these things in your detailed explanation later. I noticed that u did not mention drifting electrons (& what parts they played), surface charge (ie surface electrons)(& surface charge distribution), Poynting, & whether electrical energy is in or on or near the wires.
(5) Re a capacitor not being a transmission line. Perhaps so, in a way. But a transmission line is a capacitor. Perhaps it depends on whether ends are open or shorted. Perhaps it depends on the kind of source producing the electricity (ie the charge)(eg a lead acid battery). Anyhow i don’t see how arguing about that stuff would help us today.
As I posted in my first reply on page 42, lumped TL models don't replicate the 0.2V, they predict higher, because they are an incomplete subset of conventional theory not intended for antennas. You are right to not like them in this particular application - they are not intended to be accurate for the job.
<big snip>I am still not happy with lumped element TL models. And i admit that they can replicate the initial 0.2 V that AlphaPhoenix (Brian) got in his white trace for V across his bulb.Can any members here use old electricity to explain the traces for the AlphaPhoenix X pt1 & (later) pt2?Once again, this explanation is in this thread way back - the answer is yes. The Maxwell simulation (or even all of them) replicates the features seen in the measurement I think better than expected given the problems with 'X' technique. The only thing I found 'interesting' is the "subtle lift", in both. I didn't quite go to town on the scope screenshot to the degree you have, but I did pore over it for a time not to treat it as some kind of smorgasbord of Dunning-Krugeresque intrigue but because I use scopes and know what to look for. You are ignoring the fact pointed out in one of my first replies to you that the result of the measurement matches the Maxwellian simulator's output, confirming the theory for that particular case, which is what you question, resulting in the answer "yes" which is a simple word with a stable meaning and unlikely to be confusing unlike this unnecessarily long sentence which you have no problem understanding. Ask your rational core, it asked the question.
But i should have made it clear that i was referring to his green trace for the voltage across the resistor near his positive terminal.Yes, that is what I meant too. I can see why you have a problem with it now, and needed more detail...
<snipperoo>
If the scope were truly isolated (or ground lifted, depending on where EMC caps go) then the green trace should rise sharply more like the yellow.and
I explained some of the problems with AlphaPhoenix's result many pages back, one of the main ones which distorts the send waveform I think is common mode coupling. I explained what I think it should look like, if it is measured with a better technique. Others did too, and went into quite some detail.
From an abandoned post a few days ago: The voltage on a capacitor you might use (ie, a real one you can buy) rises linearly when a constant current (coulombs per second) is injected into it, and falls when that charge is removed. The rate at which the voltage rises is predicted by the capacitance value, it can vary for non-quality capacitors (a well known set of problems) but is generally stable and almost exact for good ones. Not 100% out. There isn't a "charging time" independent of what I just described.Margan explains the stepped charging of a capacitor on page 14 of his paper. I think i am happy with his explanation of steps.
So there is no stair step change in voltage. There is no steady half voltage. There is no distance. There is no double the time. There are no "reflexions". This is all complete nonsense.
There also no polarity effects except electrolytic capacitors which have been formed to a particular polarity - many can be reformed (carefully) and used in reverse. There are no differences between positive and negative beyond the sign.
There is no "very small extra voltage happening for a very long time" in a vacuum capacitor and the small amount that occurs in usual capacitors is due to dielectric absorption, ie the insulator taking a 'set'. That goes away if the insulating material is removed.
I will attempt to address your misconceptions in the note I am writing.There will be stepped reflexions of current & voltage. I have never worked on that kind of stuff.
In the meantime, let me set a challenge: Let's change the termination resistor in Catt's paper from 75 Ohm to 47 Ohm. How, according to "new electricity", will the measured pulses look if we do that?
Shown on page 42 & 43 of Forrest Bishop's paper re Reforming Electromagnetic Units…
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org//pdf//abstracts/abstracts_6554.pdf (http://www.naturalphilosophy.org//pdf//abstracts/abstracts_6554.pdf)
The John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society (CNPS) provides an open forum for the study, debate, and presentation of serious scientific ideas, theories, philosophies, and experiments that are not commonly accepted in mainstream science.
...
U mentioned that i reckoned that the discharge of a capacitor must have a very weak additional long term discharge current due to the redistribution of the induced surface charge (electrons) on the positive plate.
And u said that i said that i reckoned that there will be a corresponding very weak additional long term charge current, ie a mirror image of the discharge.
Yes & No.
No i never said that.
And yes, i do believe that there is a mirror image effect during charging.
If the speed of surface electrons is say c/10,000 then their charge/discharge will be very weak compared to the c/1 speed of electons. But i am not sure how far the surface electrons need to move. If they move from the surface of the wire or plate to just under the surface then that distance might be only 1.0 nm. Or they might have to move 1.0 nm along the surface. I don’t think that any electrons have to go all of the way to the battery. Still thinking.
Can new electricity answer the following question? What is the equation for the voltage across the capacitor, as a function of time, as it discharges through the resistor?I don’t know what the old (electron) electricity equation(s) is for discharge of a capacitor. But the new (electon) electricity equation(s) would be almost identical, except that it would have to show the correct steady half voltage for the correct double the distance, ie for double the time (at least it would for the case of zero reflexions).
And it would need an additional equation for the additional voltage from electons leaving the length of the wire from the capacitor to the resistor. This extra voltage would be for a doubled time, ie electons have to go the wrong way along that wire & later return along that wire, hence a doubled distance & a doubled time. For a giant capacitor & a short or thin wire this voltage might be insignificant.
And it would need an additional equation for the very small extra voltage happening for a very long time due to surface electrons gradually slowly entering the positive plate. But this voltage might be insignificant.
From an abandoned post a few days ago: The voltage on a capacitor you might use (ie, a real one you can buy) rises linearly when a constant current (coulombs per second) is injected into it, and falls when that charge is removed. The rate at which the voltage rises is predicted by the capacitance value, it can vary for non-quality capacitors (a well known set of problems) but is generally stable and almost exact for good ones. Not 100% out. There isn't a "charging time" independent of what I just described.
So there is no stair step change in voltage. There is no steady half voltage. There is no distance. There is no double the time. There are no "reflexions". This is all complete nonsense.
There also no polarity effects except electrolytic capacitors which have been formed to a particular polarity - many can be reformed (carefully) and used in reverse. There are no differences between positive and negative beyond the sign.
There is no "very small extra voltage happening for a very long time" in a vacuum capacitor and the small amount that occurs in usual capacitors is due to dielectric absorption, ie the insulator taking a 'set'. That goes away if the insulating material is removed.
You misquote me, emphasis mine:Aha, i see the problem. In red -- when i said surface electrons slowly entering the positive plate, this entering was a part of the overall system discharging, not charging....
U mentioned that i reckoned that the discharge of a capacitor must have a very weak additional long term discharge current due to the redistribution of the induced surface charge (electrons) on the positive plate.
And u said that i said that i reckoned that there will be a corresponding very weak additional long term charge current, ie a mirror image of the discharge.
Yes & No.
No i never said that.
And yes, i do believe that there is a mirror image effect during charging.
If the speed of surface electrons is say c/10,000 then their charge/discharge will be very weak compared to the c/1 speed of electons. But i am not sure how far the surface electrons need to move. If they move from the surface of the wire or plate to just under the surface then that distance might be only 1.0 nm. Or they might have to move 1.0 nm along the surface. I don’t think that any electrons have to go all of the way to the battery. Still thinking.
You said (in full for context, again emphasis mine):Can new electricity answer the following question? What is the equation for the voltage across the capacitor, as a function of time, as it discharges through the resistor?I don’t know what the old (electron) electricity equation(s) is for discharge of a capacitor. But the new (electon) electricity equation(s) would be almost identical, except that it would have to show the correct steady half voltage for the correct double the distance, ie for double the time (at least it would for the case of zero reflexions).
And it would need an additional equation for the additional voltage from electons leaving the length of the wire from the capacitor to the resistor. This extra voltage would be for a doubled time, ie electons have to go the wrong way along that wire & later return along that wire, hence a doubled distance & a doubled time. For a giant capacitor & a short or thin wire this voltage might be insignificant.
And it would need an additional equation for the very small extra voltage happening for a very long time due to surface electrons gradually slowly entering the positive plate. But this voltage might be insignificant.
I then said (also in full for context, now emphasising):From an abandoned post a few days ago: The voltage on a capacitor you might use (ie, a real one you can buy) rises linearly when a constant current (coulombs per second) is injected into it, and falls when that charge is removed. The rate at which the voltage rises is predicted by the capacitance value, it can vary for non-quality capacitors (a well known set of problems) but is generally stable and almost exact for good ones. Not 100% out. There isn't a "charging time" independent of what I just described.
So there is no stair step change in voltage. There is no steady half voltage. There is no distance. There is no double the time. There are no "reflexions". This is all complete nonsense.
There also no polarity effects except electrolytic capacitors which have been formed to a particular polarity - many can be reformed (carefully) and used in reverse. There are no differences between positive and negative beyond the sign.
There is no "very small extra voltage happening for a very long time" in a vacuum capacitor and the small amount that occurs in usual capacitors is due to dielectric absorption, ie the insulator taking a 'set'. That goes away if the insulating material is removed.
You'll see I didn't say you reckoned anything. I merely quoted your words to show you how it is totally wrong in the context you used it. Your thoughts are irrelevant to the facts in this instance (where you are wrong). I didn't comment on what you think, only your wrong claims, using some of your exact words for clarity. I took no mental leap of assumption (like I did with your roo-tons, claiming that they were part of a planned deception scheme on your part - is that what you're upset with?).
You introduced the concept of a slow charge effect. We were both talking about a long-term charge retention and discharge mechanism, where the capacitor maintains a small voltage for longer than expected while discharging.
You are now starting to believe I have said things I didn't say. It seems to me you might be both externally and internally grasping at straws to ignore your "rational core". How can I know how you think if I am merely under your skin? To use your own device, I'm not saying I am your rational core, but what if I were?
Of course if you want to define capacitors to be transmission lines in either practical or theoretical effect (or both), then by your new definition then of course you go right ahead and show stair step changes in voltage, distance and that whole first line of nonsense. But I (or is it you?) think you should use the term "capacitor (transmission line)" to avoid ambiguity over your definition.
Interesting. Here is my opinion re the AlphaPhoenix X pt1. Keeping in mind that i don’t know what a scope smells like. And i am allergic to electrons. In my opinion Brian has 1 hit & say 7 strikes.<big snip>As I posted in my first reply on page 42, lumped TL models don't replicate the 0.2V, they predict higher, because they are an incomplete subset of conventional theory not intended for antennas. You are right to not like them in this particular application - they are not intended to be accurate for the job.I am still not happy with lumped element TL models. And i admit that they can replicate the initial 0.2 V that AlphaPhoenix (Brian) got in his white trace for V across his bulb.Can any members here use old electricity to explain the traces for the AlphaPhoenix X pt1 & (later) pt2?Once again, this explanation is in this thread way back - the answer is yes. The Maxwell simulation (or even all of them) replicates the features seen in the measurement I think better than expected given the problems with 'X' technique. The only thing I found 'interesting' is the "subtle lift", in both. I didn't quite go to town on the scope screenshot to the degree you have, but I did pore over it for a time not to treat it as some kind of smorgasbord of Dunning-Krugeresque intrigue but because I use scopes and know what to look for. You are ignoring the fact pointed out in one of my first replies to you that the result of the measurement matches the Maxwellian simulator's output, confirming the theory for that particular case, which is what you question, resulting in the answer "yes" which is a simple word with a stable meaning and unlikely to be confusing unlike this unnecessarily long sentence which you have no problem understanding. Ask your rational core, it asked the question.
What does match experiment quite consistently including shape of the pulses, is the collection of field solver simulations based on Maxwell's theory. You ran through them in your second post, and they show conventional electricity theory matching measurement for the white trace.QuoteBut i should have made it clear that i was referring to his green trace for the voltage across the resistor near his positive terminal. <snipperoo>Yes, that is what I meant too. I can see why you have a problem with it now, and needed more detail...If the scope were truly isolated (or ground lifted, depending on where EMC caps go) then the green trace should rise sharply more like the yellow.andI explained some of the problems with AlphaPhoenix's result many pages back, one of the main ones which distorts the send waveform I think is common mode coupling. I explained what I think it should look like, if it is measured with a better technique. Others did too, and went into quite some detail.At 7:27 in the video is a diagram of the setup. The probe "reference GND" is the ground clip of the scope. This is tying one side of the pulse generator to Earth, loosely via extension cords and perhaps an inverter from the cars (described in discussions here at the time). The green probe, which is on the other side of the resistor, can thus not see the step directly from the step generator, because it is shorted to ground at the send end (by the ground clip). In essence it can only see voltage due to current getting around the circuit the long way, and a slow change of the GND voltage (which we can't directly see, because there is no probe measuring the voltage between this scope's GND and Earth under the desk).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vrhk5OjBP8&t=447s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vrhk5OjBP8&t=447s)
This is not the way it's meant to be, but surprisingly the experiment still works. It's not necessarily an error if the person doing the test knows that taking this shortcut will still work. Again, I agree the green trace is "wrong", and this does represent the current in that resistor, and hence the current sent into that leg of the 'apparatus'. The other leg should be taking the balance, so it should be seeing nearly all the initial pulse missing from the green side (because that is shorted to ground).
From the clean white trace I can infer that the differential send current is probably fairly rectangular. But subtract the green trace and add the generator step, and that's going to make for a pretty messy voltage on the far side of the unprobed resistor, possibly best not to think about because it is guaranteed to confuse.
The situation would be the same but inverted traces (voltages) if the polarity of the generator is changed - other than that there is no difference and I likely would not test to confirm if I were doing the experiment.
BTW all this isn't so much from theory, as from experience. It just helps explain what is seen. The result is in the white trace, and matches simulation as you already know and I can now see you never really had a problem with. I rarely think about theory when doing engineering stuff, but I sometimes calculate things, and sometimes put it in a circuit simulator if I have really turned my brain inside out. By "Trevor's theorem" I try not to think through tricky situations to arrive at an answer, especially if it is about something that is inverted a number of times - he says you're most likely to get that out by one so would be better off flipping a coin, so save yourself the bother and guess, test, and then swap it round if it's wrong (sort of thing). The important thing is that anyone can be wrong at any time so don't put too much trust in thoughts. Or scopes. In either case trying to bulldoze through a problem with your mind is asking for trouble. It's not about intelligence, but experience in the biz.
Also small apology that I didn't say "subtle lift" originally, or if I did I edited that to "some sort of frequency dependent tilt". This is the white trace before the first reflection arrives. I'm not very interested in why, just noticed it (it appears in the simulations too).
Hell, i might get a Nobel medallion.
Your theory is useless unless it can predict values of voltage and current.I will attempt to address your misconceptions in the note I am writing.There will be stepped reflexions of current & voltage. I have never worked on that kind of stuff.
In the meantime, let me set a challenge: Let's change the termination resistor in Catt's paper from 75 Ohm to 47 Ohm. How, according to "new electricity", will the measured pulses look if we do that?
But i see that Wakefield already has some traces for 75 Ohm coax with a 40 Ohm termination.
Shown on page 42 & 43 of Forrest Bishop's paper re Reforming Electromagnetic Units…
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org//pdf//abstracts/abstracts_6554.pdf (http://www.naturalphilosophy.org//pdf//abstracts/abstracts_6554.pdf)
One thing i can explain, that i think no-one else could explain.
See how the bottom trace jumps up a few V too high, & then falls down to the correct 4V.
That jump is due to the 40 Ohm resistor being saturated with my electons. When the switch is closed electons in that short wire near the switch already heading for the switch will instead of doing their usual u-turn at the open switch they will propagate through the closed switch & onto the core wire of the coax, followed by electons from the resistor. The short wire was saturated with electons too, but the resistor holds a lot more electons per m length than the wire. Hence the brief spike of over-voltage.
U can see the same spike of over-voltage in some of the other traces, but there it is a negative spike of under-voltage i suppose u could call it.
But i have to have a think about what happens to electons inside resistors. Are they annihilated. Do they looz energy. Do they convert to infrared photons.
Anyhow, if there are lots of voids or porous bits or interface surfaces then there must be lots of electons on thems surfaces, & the electons would be doing lots of u-turns.
And they would be jostling lots of surface electrons, which would jostle atoms, & produce heating & resistance & would we know produce a voltage drop.
Its the voltage drop that has me worried. I am glad that SandyCox did not ask me re how exactly do electons produce a voltage drop across a resistor. Still thinking.
Your theory is useless unless it can predict values of voltage and current.My electons explain what happens in the various stages of transients.
Your theory is useless unless it can predict values of voltage and current.My electons explain what happens in the various stages of transients.
And if fully developed my theory will give numbers for transients.
Old electricity can't even give good numbers for steady state, eg the half voltage double time for discharge of a capacitor (which my electons explain in the simplest possible way).
We are still waiting for your explanation of the infinite speed of your half wave.(1) I don’t see how u can split the electricity into 2 half currents, ie 2 half voltages. I can see that on one side of the switch we have +4V & on the other side of the switch we have -4V. But when the switch is closed we immediately have 8V.I will attempt to address your misconceptions in the note I am writing.
Looking simply at drifting electrons producing a wave, there will be an 8V wave going right (to the terminating resistor), this will be a depletion wave, ie that wire (which includes the outer sheath of the coax) is electron rich, & the conduction electrons will begin to spread out.
And, there will be an 8V wave going left (along the core wire of the 18m long coax), this will be an enrichment wave, ie the core wire is electron poor, & the electrons will begin flow into it & begin to bunch up.
If the core wire was neutral, ie with 00V, then in that case there would be a 4V wave going right & a 4V wave going left. But it aint neutral, it has +4V.
(2) Nextly i could explain why it is an impossibility for an electron wave to reflect at a dead end of a wire. Or, putting it another way, why such a reflexion would not add to the gradual addition of electrons into that wire, ie it would not add to the gradual bunching up of electrons in that wire. But not today, i might explain later.
(3) Here is my main objection. U chose the propagation speed of light, but in a part of your explanation u invoke an infinite speed of light for one of your 4V waves. U have this wave starting to wave at t=0 s, at the end of the coax, which is 18m from the switch.
(4) I noticed a few things, as an interesting aside, not necessarily a criticism of your explanation. And u might address some of these things in your detailed explanation later. I noticed that u did not mention drifting electrons (& what parts they played), surface charge (ie surface electrons)(& surface charge distribution), Poynting, & whether electrical energy is in or on or near the wires.
(5) Re a capacitor not being a transmission line. Perhaps so, in a way. But a transmission line is a capacitor. Perhaps it depends on whether ends are open or shorted. Perhaps it depends on the kind of source producing the electricity (ie the charge)(eg a lead acid battery). Anyhow i don’t see how arguing about that stuff would help us today.
In the meantime, let me set a challenge: Let's change the termination resistor in Catt's paper from 75Ohm to 47Ohm. How, according to "new electricity", will the measured pulses look if we do that?
What happens when you have less than 1m distance between the wires? 0.1m / c? Nothing can travel faster than light?Do a search for Howardlong on this thread. He measured for 24mm, about 80 ps i think it was, which is exactly 24mm/c.
24mm/80ps = 3e8m/s :palm:Yes 1000 mm in 3.3 ns is the same as 1 mm in 3.3 ps which is the same as 24 mm in 80 ps.
So what's your point? The speed of light = The speed of light?24mm/80ps = 3e8m/s :palm:Yes 1000 mm in 3.3 ns is the same as 1 mm in 3.3 ps which is the same as 24 mm in 80 ps.
And the speed of light here is the speed of light in air. The little bit of poly on the pair of wires (ladder antenna cable) would only add say 1 mm at 2c/3, not worth mentioning.
Actually i did measure it to be 85 ps rather than Howard's 79 ps.
Agh sorry for the dumb question, thanks all for explaining :DYes, I think the 1/c was to show that the answer is the speed of light whatever the spacing, rather than a fixed 3.3ns for 1m. Or physicists dropping the distance unit because the amount is 1 and 1/c is a correct answer anyway. Engineers would never do this because 1/c is a useless number and they use units as a mental crutch to make sure they got even the most basic equation right. Physicists don't make mistakes, but if they did it wouldn't matter. (rhetorical :popcorn: because no one replies when it's true)
[...]
No bites on the laserpointer thing yet.
24mm/80ps = 3e8m/s :palm:Yes 1000 mm in 3.3 ns is the same as 1 mm in 3.3 ps which is the same as 24 mm in 80 ps.
And the speed of light here is the speed of light in air. The little bit of poly on the pair of wires (ladder antenna cable) would only add say 1 mm at 2c/3, not worth mentioning.
Actually i did measure it to be 85 ps rather than Howard's 79 ps.
[snip]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity
"...between -3×10-15 and +7×10-16 times the speed of light"
I dont know how good his 20 GHz scope is. As u can see i got my 85 ps by drawing intersecting lines. It might be all ok to better than 5%, but really u would have to do dozens of tests using different setups & gaps etc etc etc to get a feel for what was doing what.Do you have any coments on the measurement uncertainty in that number?24mm/80ps = 3e8m/s :palm:Yes 1000 mm in 3.3 ns is the same as 1 mm in 3.3 ps which is the same as 24 mm in 80 ps.
And the speed of light here is the speed of light in air. The little bit of poly on the pair of wires (ladder antenna cable) would only add say 1 mm at 2c/3, not worth mentioning.
Actually i did measure it to be 85 ps rather than Howard's 79 ps.
The point is that Veritasium's 1/c is the speed of light through air from his switch to his bulb. But u were still locked into a slightly different problem re the speed of electricity along an insulated wire.So what's your point? The speed of light = The speed of light?24mm/80ps = 3e8m/s :palm:Yes 1000 mm in 3.3 ns is the same as 1 mm in 3.3 ps which is the same as 24 mm in 80 ps.
And the speed of light here is the speed of light in air. The little bit of poly on the pair of wires (ladder antenna cable) would only add say 1 mm at 2c/3, not worth mentioning.
Actually i did measure it to be 85 ps rather than Howard's 79 ps.
[...]I dont know how good his 20 GHz scope is. As u can see i got my 85 ps by drawing intersecting lines. It might be all ok to better than 5%, but really u would have to do dozens of tests using different setups & gaps etc etc etc to get a feel for what was doing what.
Do you have any coments on the measurement uncertainty in that number?
Do you have any coments on the measurement uncertainty in that number?I dont know how good his 20 GHz scope is. As u can see i got my 85 ps by drawing intersecting lines. It might be all ok to better than 5%, but really u would have to do dozens of tests using different setups & gaps etc etc etc to get a feel for what was doing what.I would love to get my amateur hands on a 20 GHz scope. I did contact my local university, but no reply yet.
And you're confident that there's no classical EM explanation for what's contained in those scope traces?The old (electron drift inside a wire) electricity can't explain how electricity is so fast along a wire.
I was thinking on the lines of what experiments you could do to examine the effects of surface finish on the speed of propagation along a wire. Would you anticipate any noticeable effects for a copper wire with varying degrees of surface roughness, including nickel plated, tin plated, and kapton insulated? Would any effects be related to any established material properties?
[...]
No bites on the laserpointer thing yet.
OK let's go there... The beam would curve, like the water coming out of a rapidly swung garden hose... the speed never changes!
If a laser beam is swept quickly across a distant object, the spot of light can move faster than c, although the initial movement of the spot is delayed because of the time it takes light to get to the distant object at the speed c. However, the only physical entities that are moving are the laser and its emitted light, which travels at the speed c from the laser to the various positions of the spot. Similarly, a shadow projected onto a distant object can be made to move faster than c, after a delay in time.[43] In neither case does any matter, energy, or information travel faster than light.[44]
Its mainly baloney. LIGO is rubbish. As we will all find out shortly, after they bring some new sites into being (India Australia etc).[snip]Wait... what?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity
"...between -3×10-15 and +7×10-16 times the speed of light"
I skimmed the page you linked to. It offers an extensive history of the subject and lists quite a few different speeds as predicted by different scientists, but, in the end, the consensus seems to be that speed of gravity = c.
But that's old physics. It includes relativity, etc, but it's still old in the context of this thread. It's exciting to be a part of history in the making. :-DD
[snip]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity
"...between -3×10-15 and +7×10-16 times the speed of light"
Wait... what?
I skimmed the page you linked to. It offers an extensive history of the subject and lists quite a few different speeds as predicted by different scientists, but, in the end, the consensus seems to be that speed of gravity = c.
But that's old physics. It includes relativity, etc, but it's still old in the context of this thread. It's exciting to be a part of history in the making. :-DD
Dont forget light propagates at c throo the aether.Have to get up pretty early on a Sunday morning to catch people out here![...]No bites on the laserpointer thing yet.OK let's go there... The beam would curve, like the water coming out of a rapidly swung garden hose... the speed never changes!
My idea was an incompetent restatement of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_lightQuoteIf a laser beam is swept quickly across a distant object, the spot of light can move faster than c, although the initial movement of the spot is delayed because of the time it takes light to get to the distant object at the speed c. However, the only physical entities that are moving are the laser and its emitted light, which travels at the speed c from the laser to the various positions of the spot. Similarly, a shadow projected onto a distant object can be made to move faster than c, after a delay in time.[43] In neither case does any matter, energy, or information travel faster than light.[44]I was wondering how many people can't separate the idea of light travelling in a straight line as an effectively instantaneous phenomenon, with light having a speed.
...Uh? What does it propagate as then?
There is no such thing as a gravity wave.
Gravity propagates at at least 20 billion c ...
There is no such thing as a GW....There is no such thing as a gravity wave.Uh? What does it propagate as then?
Gravity propagates at at least 20 billion c ...
Negative reality wave? Leprechaun kinesin?
According to Wikipedia:Name 10 controversial scientific topics & i will make u look like a kindergarten kid in every one of them.
Some cranks claim vast knowledge of any relevant literature, while others claim that familiarity with previous work is entirely unnecessary.
In addition, the overwhelming majority of cranks:
seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone shows that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,
compare themselves with luminaries in their chosen field (often Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Leonhard Euler, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein or Georg Cantor),[citation needed] implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is not good reason for it to be dismissed,
claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically backed up by conspiracy theories invoking intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known,
appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.
Cranks who contradict some mainstream opinion in some highly technical field, (e.g. mathematics, cryptography, physics) may:
exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
misunderstand or not use standard notation and terminology,
ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.
That is, cranks tend to ignore any previous insights which have been proven by experience to facilitate discussion and analysis of the topic of their cranky claims; indeed, they often assert that these innovations obscure rather than clarify the situation.[6]
[...]And you're confident that there's no classical EM explanation for what's contained in those scope traces?The old (electron drift inside a wire) electricity can't explain how electricity is so fast along a wire.
And the Poynting Field version can't explain how electricity is slowed by a thin coat of insulation on a wire.
[...]
Threaded steel rod costs about $1 per ft so $100 for 100 ft. Galvanised might be best. And compare with plain galvanised (another $100 i suppose).[...]Except classical theory does both of those things, as long as they are adequately represented in the analysis. You may very often see that in student exercises and lecture examples that wires are assumed to be free of insulation - otherwise, the amount of algebra would balloon way beyond what might be useful as a worked example. That level of analysis was way beyond the scope of the Veritassium video etc.And you're confident that there's no classical EM explanation for what's contained in those scope traces?The old (electron drift inside a wire) electricity can't explain how electricity is so fast along a wire.
And the Poynting Field version can't explain how electricity is slowed by a thin coat of insulation on a wire.[...]
Surface finish would be a problem for all materials, I guess maybe you're right in trying to force a defined pattern.
If I were to construct a 1m long coaxial line from M3 brass studding and 15mm copper plumbing pipe: the tube polished inside and out as too would be the threads. If I short one end to the tube and drive the other, I can measure the frequency response. Classical theory would predict some highs and lows to the impedance at well defined frequencies, related to the geometry etc, packing the air-gap with a known insulator would change the response in a predictable way.
For a simple air-gapped line, would you expect there to be a significant change in the resonant frequencies compared with classical predictions?
I am tempted to fork out say $400 for a 300 MHz scope from china.Ebay, local forum buy/sell ( https://www.eevblog.com/forum/buysellwanted/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/buysellwanted/) )?
[...]
Dont forget light propagates at c throo the aether.
Actually Einstein said that light is slowed by the presence of mass. Which everyone ignores. So, light always propagates at less than c, koz there is nowhere in the universe that is not near mass.
[...]
If there are no gravity waves, what did LIGO and the other gravitational wave observatories observe and why did it travel seemingly at c?I have spent a long time reading about LIGO. Lots of good scientists have written heaps saying that it is rubbish. One thing that LIGO keeps quiet is that their signal depends on the supposed fact that their glass lasers resist length contraction, whereas their mirrors, or i mean the distance tween their hanging mirrors, duznt resist contraction.
Threaded steel rod costs about $1 per ft so $100 for 100 ft. Galvanised might be best. And compare with plain galvanised (another $100 i suppose).
I dont know about frequency stuff. DC would be a must.
Hollow pipe or tube would be interesting but i would put it on the bottom of my list.
I am tempted to fork out say $400 for a 300 MHz scope from china.
I bet Tony Wakefield would loan me his 350 MHz scope but he is over 2 hrs away from me.
I would have thort that a dozen 8ft threaded steel rods simply connected end to end in the form of a circle to get back within probe distance at the scope would do.Threaded steel rod costs about $1 per ft so $100 for 100 ft. Galvanised might be best. And compare with plain galvanised (another $100 i suppose).Making the experiment co-axial would reduce the influence of external 'stuff', equipment wires etc, and provides a well defined ground return path through the outer tube (could go up to 54mm diameter if 15mm is too close) - even better if you can inject and measure signals through the same port. Brass isn't ferro-magnetic and has better defined electrical properties than construction steel, a galv'd finish would be a nightmare for any easily predictable surface finish. A 1m length is far easier to make straight (without insulator supports) by adding a little tension... 100' would be very difficult to set up in a repeatable manner. With a threaded rod forming the middle conductor of a coaxial line we then have an experiment that would be easily analysed from both a classical and 'new' theory.
I dont know about frequency stuff. DC would be a must.
Hollow pipe or tube would be interesting but i would put it on the bottom of my list.
I am tempted to fork out say $400 for a 300 MHz scope from china.
I bet Tony Wakefield would loan me his 350 MHz scope but he is over 2 hrs away from me.
I had a look at my english version of some of his papers but couldnt find the paragraph.[...]Dont forget light propagates at c throo the aether.When did Einstein say that? Experimental evidence has shown that speed of light is constant with relative distance to massive objects, but time and space dilation happens.
Actually Einstein said that light is slowed by the presence of mass. Which everyone ignores. So, light always propagates at less than c, koz there is nowhere in the universe that is not near mass.[...]
Psychological tension, as in a kind of nervousness? I don't get it. What slows this radiation down to a known speed? Or is it particles, travelling at this 20E9*3E8 m^2/s^2? That seems to be incompatible with the idea of an aether under constant tension.There is no such thing as a GW....There is no such thing as a gravity wave.Uh? What does it propagate as then?
Gravity propagates at at least 20 billion c ...
Negative reality wave? Leprechaun kinesin?
It is a tension of the aether. Aether transmits such tension tween mass/matter at at least 20 billion c m/s. But it serves little purpose to call that tension a wave. The tension radiates continuously from each/every photon, to infinity, for ever. No, hold on, it radiates to the limit of our local cosmic cell, & throo other adjacent cells, but eventually fizzles out. However our universe is indeed infinite & eternal.
Re my mention of photons, everything in the universe that we see & feel is made of photons, or is a part of each photon (ie the em radiation, so called)(which radiates from each photon).
There are 4 classes of photon. Free photons (light), semi-confined photons (electons), confined photons (electron etc).
The 4th kind is neutrinos, which are paired photons sharing the same helical axis.
The speed of gravity is at least 20 billion c. There is no known upper speed, ie no reason for one -- what we have is a fairly logical lower speed, based i think mainly on the stability of planetary etc orbits.Psychological tension, as in a kind of nervousness? I don't get it. What slows this radiation down to a known speed? Or is it particles, travelling at this 20E9*3E8 m^2/s^2? That seems to be incompatible with the idea of an aether under constant tension.There is no such thing as a GW....There is no such thing as a gravity wave.Uh? What does it propagate as then?
Gravity propagates at at least 20 billion c ...
Negative reality wave? Leprechaun kinesin?
It is a tension of the aether. Aether transmits such tension tween mass/matter at at least 20 billion c m/s. But it serves little purpose to call that tension a wave. The tension radiates continuously from each/every photon, to infinity, for ever. No, hold on, it radiates to the limit of our local cosmic cell, & throo other adjacent cells, but eventually fizzles out. However our universe is indeed infinite & eternal.
Re my mention of photons, everything in the universe that we see & feel is made of photons, or is a part of each photon (ie the em radiation, so called)(which radiates from each photon).
There are 4 classes of photon. Free photons (light), semi-confined photons (electons), confined photons (electron etc).
The 4th kind is neutrinos, which are paired photons sharing the same helical axis.
[...]
I would have thort that a dozen 8ft threaded steel rods simply connected end to end in the form of a circle to get back within probe distance at the scope would do.
Then same thing with plain rod. Both would be galvanised. The roughness of the gal would be the same on both.
If one had a fast scope one could use just one length of threaded rod. Then it would be good to gradually grind away the thread & see how much dispersion happens. Until there is no thread & no dispersion.
I suppose that the rods would need to be suspended or supported somehow so no shorts.[...]
I would have thort that a dozen 8ft threaded steel rods simply connected end to end in the form of a circle to get back within probe distance at the scope would do.
Then same thing with plain rod. Both would be galvanised. The roughness of the gal would be the same on both.
If one had a fast scope one could use just one length of threaded rod. Then it would be good to gradually grind away the thread & see how much dispersion happens. Until there is no thread & no dispersion.
Having the receive and transmit ends of the rod would allow the fields from one to couple with the other, the (much shorter than circumference of the circle) length of the scope leads would also add a means of direct coupling between transmit and receive end. So, perhaps you take measures to limit their effect, but why intentionally construct an experiment knowing full well that the effect you intend to measure will be swamped by similar effects of a different mechanism? Why not remove the effects by design?
Galvanised finish is not a well controlled process, the surface is very "complex", maybe over 100 feet it will average out to a 'mean' effect, but that would be relying on a linear effect - it won't be linear. Gradually grinding away the thread (assuming you're not re-galvanising each time)... same problem, it isn't a very controlled process, affecting lots of things at once.
How would you control the effects of 'ground' with your circular experiment? Would there be something continuous and metalic beneath?
I suppose that the rods would need to be suspended or supported somehow so no shorts.
And well away from ground.
But, electricity is primarily due to electons that propagate at the speed of light. And induction happens at the speed of light. But as long as there was a clear signal that can be timed, any noise & crosstalk & coupling & radio would are unlikely to be a problem (unless u are like alphaphoenix & have a heavy steel frame under your table top experiment) .
Like adx says, dont worry too much, just do it.
[...]
Dont forget light propagates at c throo the aether.
Actually Einstein said that light is slowed by the presence of mass. Which everyone ignores. So, light always propagates at less than c, koz there is nowhere in the universe that is not near mass.
[...]
When did Einstein say that? Experimental evidence has shown that speed of light is constant with relative distance to massive objects, but time and space dilation happens.
Since the electon is a "surface hugging photon" it will follow the thread of rod. This thread forms a spiral. So the finer the thread, the longer the electon will take.I think that electons propagate in straight lines.
If the bands were across then there would not be much dispersion.I suppose that the rods would need to be suspended or supported somehow so no shorts. And well away from ground. But, electricity is primarily due to electons that propagate at the speed of light. And induction happens at the speed of light. But as long as there was a clear signal that can be timed, any noise & crosstalk & coupling & radio would are unlikely to be a problem (unless u are like alphaphoenix & have a heavy steel frame under your table top experiment) . Like adx says, dont worry too much, just do it.Except if you're looking at 'dispersion', you're not simply looking for a simple signal arrival time. If the signal were made up of many photons taking many paths, the result would be a spread, you would need to study much more than a time delay and would need to resolve a fair amount of detail.
So... another test, if I had an air-gap between a conductor and insulator, your electrons would still be able to travel as if unaffected by the insulation... because there's an air-gap? What about if I had a wire with bands of insulation spaced periodically along its length, I could form bunches of electricity because it travels much faster in the uninsulated sections and get congested in the insulated?
Experimental evidence shows that light has a constant speed through the aether.Aetherist has to focus on Einstein because[...]Dont forget light propagates at c throo the aether.When did Einstein say that? Experimental evidence has shown that speed of light is constant with relative distance to massive objects, but time and space dilation happens.
Actually Einstein said that light is slowed by the presence of mass. Which everyone ignores. So, light always propagates at less than c, koz there is nowhere in the universe that is not near mass.[...]
1) it's a hallmark of crackpots to attack Einstein (see previous articles on this) and use his evolving opinions to highlight some kind of contradiction or hypocrisy (as if Einstein didn't learn new things between 1905 and 1916 or even 1950...)
2) it makes relativity seem like the mad ravings of a crackpot like themselves. "If Einstein could be wrong, I could be right!!!"
It is a deliberative attempt to ignore the contributions of the whole scientific community to devising, refining, and perfecting relativity.
Let's not forget that Einstein wrote that in 1905, relativity was "ripe for discovery" (if he didn't find it, someone else was going to) and the following individuals contributed to the formulation (list not even exhaustive):
Max Planck
Hermann Minkowski
Arnold Sommerfeld
Max Born
Paul Ehrenfest
Wilhelm Wien
Wolfgang Pauli
Pascual Jordan
Paul Dirac
The last one is important because the Dirac equation, a relativistic formulation of quantum mechanics, predicted antimatter.
And of course, the whole body of physics that's been done since the 1950s which has predicted a whole host of phenomena implemented into engineering technology.
I wonder if aetherist will start talking about phlogiston, Lamarckianism, and miasma.
Experimental evidence shows that light has a constant speed through the aether.
And, light has a speed of c+V or c-V depending on whether the aetherwind is a headwind or a tailwind
It is nearly impossible to have a conversation about Einsteinian Relativity because Einsteinists can't agree amongst themselves about anything about Einsteinian Relativity.
I have read about Einsteinian stuff for 11 years. U can't tell me anything i don’t already know about relativities.
I can tell that u don’t know much about Mr & Mrs Einstein.
I can tell that u don’t know much about the relativities of Voigt & Cohn & Larmor & Lorentz & Poincare, & Einstein.
And all of them are rubbish. Larmor's ticking dilation of atoms is okish. Lorentz's (FitzGerald's actually) length contraction is on the right track, but wrong.
Heaviside had a bit to do with relativity. His friend Searle might be called the father of length contraction actually.
[...]
One problem with speed is that all metals have corrosion which must slow the electons (i mean the oxide, not the roughness). But if the threaded bar & plain bar are the same material then that might not be a big worry.
[...]
Yes i steer clear from any quantum stuff. Hence i dont understand it. However i think that it uses aether. I am ok with models that give good numbers. But i cant argue re Q stuff. Does it use any kind of relativity? Does it use E=mcc?
Experimental evidence shows that light has a constant speed through the aether.
And, light has a speed of c+V or c-V depending on whether the aetherwind is a headwind or a tailwind
It is nearly impossible to have a conversation about Einsteinian Relativity because Einsteinists can't agree amongst themselves about anything about Einsteinian Relativity.
I have read about Einsteinian stuff for 11 years. U can't tell me anything i don’t already know about relativities.
I can tell that u don’t know much about Mr & Mrs Einstein.
I can tell that u don’t know much about the relativities of Voigt & Cohn & Larmor & Lorentz & Poincare, & Einstein.
And all of them are rubbish. Larmor's ticking dilation of atoms is okish. Lorentz's (FitzGerald's actually) length contraction is on the right track, but wrong.
Heaviside had a bit to do with relativity. His friend Searle might be called the father of length contraction actually.
See. Your stuck in the 1920s, at best.
Dirac predicted antimatter from relativistic theory. Can you?
Feynman predicted the fine structure constant from relativistic QED. Can you?
Physics has moved on from Einstein - but you need him to be wrong, so you can be right... even though physics is well beyond whatever Einstein thought. That's why I listed all the people who came AFTER him to refine the theory up to Dirac's Equation (and even Dirac himself got left behind when QED got published).
Who gives a shit about Einstein? Truly? He died in 1955. QED was published in 1948 and awarded the Nobel Prize in 1965.
And at some point we'll stop giving a shit about QED as QCD or whatever more fundamental theory takes hold.
The people who accelerate particles close to the speed of light at Fermilab and CERN have no use for c+v or c-v formulations and they never report observing them.
You should send them a strongly worded letter. :-DD
Seriously, there are Nobels waiting here. A 2 page paper getting a Nobel. We would share the money. And SandyCox would be happy to nominate us.[...]
One problem with speed is that all metals have corrosion which must slow the electons (i mean the oxide, not the roughness). But if the threaded bar & plain bar are the same material then that might not be a big worry.
[...]
Not all metals corrode at the same rate so some may even remain mostly oxide free for the duration of a test, a reasonably well controlled layer of oxide could even be incrimentally grown onto a test rod. Differrent oxides would have different properties, iron oxide is renowned for making things go slowly, so obviously thats the first candidate. Green copper oxide is a pretty fast colour, though not as fast as chrome oxide. Nickel is a wildcard.
Finally, I think I'm understanding this theory.
Yes i steer clear from any quantum stuff. Hence i dont understand it. However i think that it uses aether. I am ok with models that give good numbers. But i cant argue re Q stuff. Does it use any kind of relativity? Does it use E=mcc?
But Einsteinian stuff in the modern super accurate era, & computer era, is failing.
I am not sure how aetherwind might affect CERN. If they did observe aetherwind they would of course never report it. They would invent some kind of excuse. In fact they are so clever that they would have no trouble finding a way to use that excuse to once again prove Einstein. Why defend when u can attack. Oh, wait, if forgot, they could score 3 home runs with the one hit, they could throw in a Nobel nomination. Whether they were awarded the Nobel would be another matter, i mean there are so many faux-discoveries out there, its like having umpteen gangs trying to rob the same bank on the same day.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
We are presently in the Einsteinian Dark Age of science -- but the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return -- it never left.
By the way, the behavior of conduction electrons in a solid metal wire is governed by quantum mechanics.So, Dirac reckoned that electricity in a wire was explained by the Jellium sea of electrons in matter.
A long time ago (1928), Dirac expanded quantum mechanics to include special relativistic conditions: see the "Dirac equation", which is the relativistic form of the original Schrödinger equation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation
One of my former co-workers, for purely political reasons, did not "believe in" biological evolution or quantum mechanics. I told him he would have to stop using solid-state electronics, which depends on quantum mechanics to explain its operation.
Yes i steer clear from any quantum stuff. Hence i dont understand it. However i think that it uses aether. I am ok with models that give good numbers. But i cant argue re Q stuff. Does it use any kind of relativity? Does it use E=mcc?You... you don't know anything about 'quantum stuff' and yet you want to sit there and write gobbledeegook about photons and electrons? Have you never heard of the Dirac Equation until just now?!?!
Yes... yes quantum physics does use E = mc^2... that's the basis of nuclear fission/fusion. For such a self-proclaimed genius I am astounded at your apparently profound ignorance of something high school students learn.E=mcc has never been proven, ie the correct equation might be E=mcc/2. We don’t know.
Yes, but i don’t know about a century long, LIGO has been going for only say 30 years. The CMBR krapp for say 35 years.QuoteBut Einsteinian stuff in the modern super accurate era, & computer era, is failing.
I am not sure how aetherwind might affect CERN. If they did observe aetherwind they would of course never report it. They would invent some kind of excuse. In fact they are so clever that they would have no trouble finding a way to use that excuse to once again prove Einstein. Why defend when u can attack. Oh, wait, if forgot, they could score 3 home runs with the one hit, they could throw in a Nobel nomination. Whether they were awarded the Nobel would be another matter, i mean there are so many faux-discoveries out there, its like having umpteen gangs trying to rob the same bank on the same day.
And like all cranks - your ultimate bastion is to accuse numerous independent international laboratories of a century long conspiracy. >:DQuoteSTR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.:-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD
We are presently in the Einsteinian Dark Age of science -- but the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return -- it never left.
This reminds me of the Catholic Church's rejection of Copernican astronomy (later, of course, improved by Galileo and Kepler) because they did not want to believe in a non-geocentric Solar System.Most proofs (so called) need numbers & units.
However, Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium was allowed in Jesuit libraries because it gave better numbers than Ptolemy's Almagest.
The "operation of something" is measured and described by numbers, not hypothetical angels dancing on the head of a pin. This is the purpose of experimental proof.
I am not sure how aetherwind might affect CERN. If they did observe aetherwind they would of course never report it.FFS :palm: So anything that doesn't support your claims is yet more clear and undeniable proof that the whole scientific world conspiring against your claims in a diabolical effort to suppress them. Good to know.
Why defend when u can attack.Says the guy who's been shitting on Einstein for most of the thread.
E=mcc has never been proven, ie the correct equation might be E=mcc/2. We don’t know.
And E=mcc has never been needed to build a fission bomb.
Yes, but i don’t know about a century long, LIGO has been going for only say 30 years. The CMBR krapp for say 35 years.
I am not sure how aetherwind might affect CERN. If they did observe aetherwind they would of course never report it.FFS :palm: So anything that doesn't support your claims is yet more clear and undeniable proof that the whole scientific world conspiring against your claims in a diabolical effort to suppress them. Good to know.Why defend when u can attack.Says the guy who's been shitting on Einstein for most of the thread.
The fundamental experimental evidence for the equivalence of rest mass and energy commonly written in an equation (without hand waving) E = mc2 can be found in comparing the masses of the nuclei before and after a fission reaction, where the difference goes into the energy release. The measurements are not off by a factor of 2.I am not allergic to E=mcc. I am allergic to the Einstein derivation.
see https://www.dummies.com/article/academics-the-arts/science/physics/nuclear-fission-basics-200956 (https://www.dummies.com/article/academics-the-arts/science/physics/nuclear-fission-basics-200956)
Careful measurements of atomic mass predate experimental fission. See "History" section of
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Atomic_mass (https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Atomic_mass)
Einstein shit on aetherwind. It all comes back to the aetherwind, the suppression of aetherwind. Shankland was Einstein's hitman here, in 1955 (a few months before Einstein died).I am not sure how aetherwind might affect CERN. If they did observe aetherwind they would of course never report it.FFS :palm: So anything that doesn't support your claims is yet more clear and undeniable proof that the whole scientific world conspiring against your claims in a diabolical effort to suppress them. Good to know.Why defend when u can attack.Says the guy who's been shitting on Einstein for most of the thread.
QM uses spacetime. Enough said.E=mcc has never been proven, ie the correct equation might be E=mcc/2. We don’t know.Once again demonstrating your total and absolute ignorance of any of the stuff you're babbling about.
And E=mcc has never been needed to build a fission bomb.
First, E = mc^2 has been experimentally demonstrated in Pair Production in particle accelerators. And it's a pretty routine calculation in nuclear energy plant output (how much fuel is required to produce energy).
Second, you are, again, totally ignorant of the history of fission:
http://www.greatachievements.org/?id=3693 (http://www.greatachievements.org/?id=3693)
https://www.ans.org/news/article-938/lise-meitners-fantastic-explanation-nuclear-fission/ (https://www.ans.org/news/article-938/lise-meitners-fantastic-explanation-nuclear-fission/)QuoteYes, but i don’t know about a century long, LIGO has been going for only say 30 years. The CMBR krapp for say 35 years.I can't keep up with your insane conspiracies and whether you think the 'Einsteinian dark age' began in 1905, 1930, 1950, or 1980 or whatever.
Whatever you think, you're consistently demonstrating utter unfamiliarity with even basic tenets of the physics at play here.
The fact that you think relativity and quantum mechanics are separate disciplines with no relation to one another is another egregious misstep so far.
QM uses spacetime. Enough said.
The Dark Age of Science i think began with Einstein's STR. It got worse year by year, eg he got a Nobel in 1928 or something. Although it didn’t really begin until after he died, ie when experiments & measurements became much more accurate. And the Dark Age of Science will die when experiments & measurements get super accurate.
The establishment still scoffed at relativity in 1921, so the 1922 prize awarded to Einstein was for his explanation of the photoelectric effect.More likely Lenard's explanation. Stolen by Mrs Einstein. And the equations here too were probably hers not his.
This effect was one of the famous experimental results that could not be explained by classical physics.
His explanation involved photons, electrons, and equations. The equations still explain the quantitative aspects of the photoelectric effect.
The history of science is interesting, but should not be confused with the body of physical theory now in use. During the inter-war period, there was a lot of controversy and polite (usually) discussion between the leading natural philosophers of the day, involving both actual experimental evidence and thought-experiments. Einstein's point of view was opposed to probabilistic explanations ("God does not play dice"). Usually, the adult in the room during these arguments was Neils Bohr. (Bohr's original explanation of atomic energy levels motivated further theoretical development by Heisenberg, Schroedinger, and others, and is no longer used in its original form.) Thus, science progresses.
I am not very religious, but I share Einstein's credo: "Raffiniert ist der Herr Gott, aber boshaft ist er nicht."
I think i am starting to see. So, free photons & electrons are QM wave-functions, & electricity involves a jellium sea of wave-functions that drift along in a wire.QM uses spacetime. Enough said.Ahh. This explains why you admit your cluelessness about QM. You should leave photons and electrons alone though... basically all of electricity.QuoteThe Dark Age of Science i think began with Einstein's STR. It got worse year by year, eg he got a Nobel in 1928 or something. Although it didn’t really begin until after he died, ie when experiments & measurements became much more accurate. And the Dark Age of Science will die when experiments & measurements get super accurate.Please... stop... I can't take this level of comedy. :-DD
... I discovered electons, & i explained electricity in/on a wire. ...
I am not sure how aetherwind might affect CERN. If they did observe aetherwind they would of course never report it. They would invent some kind of excuse. In fact they are so clever that they would have no trouble finding a way to use that excuse to once again prove Einstein.
According to Einsteinists (such as the scientists getting paid every second Thursday at CERN) we can destroy the earth if a grain of sand gets close enuff to the speed of light, because a grain of sand would then have almost infinite energy. For example 0.999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999c might destroy the Earth, according to them, & according to young Alby. Ridiculous.I am not sure how aetherwind might affect CERN. If they did observe aetherwind they would of course never report it. They would invent some kind of excuse. In fact they are so clever that they would have no trouble finding a way to use that excuse to once again prove Einstein.This has got to be my favorite flavor of conspiracy theory: that a bunch of scientists all agree to the same lie. Obviously, you don't know any scientists. All they want to do is be the first to find something new. (Just like you, except you're not a scientist.) There's no way you could keep each of them from secretly publishing their own paper and getting all of the glory. The premise is laughable.
This thread has gone so far south that it fell off the border of flat earth.Physicists sometimes mention pure energy. What is pure energy?
https://www.facebook.com/There-Are-No-Electrons-Electronics-for-Earthlings-by-Kenn-Amdahl-112434572156821/ (https://www.facebook.com/There-Are-No-Electrons-Electronics-for-Earthlings-by-Kenn-Amdahl-112434572156821/)... I discovered electons, & i explained electricity in/on a wire. ...Wow. This reminds me of a book I read (part of) years ago when I was spending time in a Barnes & Noble many years ago: There Are No Electrons: Electronics for Earthlings, by Kenn Amdahl. I think I'm going to order it and give it a re-read.
This thread has gone so far south that it fell off the border of flat earth.Physicists sometimes mention pure energy. What is pure energy?
[...]
Spacetime, time dilation, STR & GTR, the bigbang, dark matter, gravity waves, gravity waves that propagated at the speed of light, cosmic microwave background radiation, constant speed of light, pure energy, E=mcc, singularity blackholes, dark energy, expansion of the universe, Higgs, gluons, gravitons etc -- all are rubbish.OK, one last try.This thread has gone so far south that it fell off the border of flat earth.Physicists sometimes mention pure energy. What is pure energy?[...]
Like all of the invisible scales of the world, pure energy is a philosophical concept. Pure energy has properties and attributes, but the difficulty in its concept is that it is defined by an absense of all the properties that separate any more specific form of energy from oneanother, and retains only those that make it 'energy'.
The word 'particle' can be quite misleading since it connotes certain properties by association with 'dust particles' etc. Rather than "an electron is...", think "an electron has properties of...". Theories such as QM, QED etc serve to complete the sentense "an electron behaves...". Disagreement between theories does not necesarily invalidate them, not unless they directly contradict oneanother in a specific situation.
The consequence of saying that an electron itself has sub-particles is a trickier subject. It is really just short-hand for "predicted by the standard model are a number of further elementary building blocks which satisfy a number of rules, from those rules a number of experiments have been defined and the results of experiments have confirmed the attributes and the defined model according to which they can interract" - it is just much fewer words to say "an electron is".
Now, space-time! Its existance is undenyable... it just is... it is a mathematical construct much like a coordinate system, it exists only on paper. The way in which numbers and calculations on paper relate to nature/reality/etc is a bit more of a touchy subject. It can appear that when modelling physical phenomina in 'n' dimensions that there is a direct implication that there are indeed 'n' physical dimemsnsions - maybe there are, maybe not, but neither is mandated by the algebra. The structure of the algebra, metric signature etc define how it relates to reality... that is still not concretely defined in a universal single throery and that lack of definition does open it to wild speculation. LIGO for instance, success or failure in detecting gravity waves is a moot point, there are important conclusions to be drawn from either case. There are no conspiracies in any of the big experiments, but there is a difference between the scientific and "press release" motives behind experiments.
Oh ok, there is no known speed, because it is empirical. My bad. Possibly arose because of the original assertion that gravity propagates at a speed, and the assumption of a theory.The speed of gravity is at least 20 billion c. There is no known upper speed, ie no reason for one -- what we have is a fairly logical lower speed, based i think mainly on the stability of planetary etc orbits.Psychological tension, as in a kind of nervousness? I don't get it. What slows this radiation down to a known speed? Or is it particles, travelling at this 20E9*3E8 m^2/s^2? That seems to be incompatible with the idea of an aether under constant tension.There is no such thing as a GW....There is no such thing as a gravity wave.Uh? What does it propagate as then?
Gravity propagates at at least 20 billion c ...
Negative reality wave? Leprechaun kinesin?
It is a tension of the aether. Aether transmits such tension tween mass/matter at at least 20 billion c m/s. But it serves little purpose to call that tension a wave. The tension radiates continuously from each/every photon, to infinity, for ever. No, hold on, it radiates to the limit of our local cosmic cell, & throo other adjacent cells, but eventually fizzles out. However our universe is indeed infinite & eternal.
Re my mention of photons, everything in the universe that we see & feel is made of photons, or is a part of each photon (ie the em radiation, so called)(which radiates from each photon).
There are 4 classes of photon. Free photons (light), semi-confined photons (electons), confined photons (electron etc).
The 4th kind is neutrinos, which are paired photons sharing the same helical axis.
Aether has no mass, but what it does is it transfers force tween stuff that has mass, eg stars. Which in effect supports Mach's idea that gravity is due to the mass of the universe.
I am happy to talk about gravity, & aether, koz the aetherwind will be found to have an influence in lots of things that happen in a laboratory, including electricity.
That's never going to happen. Your theory is nonsense! It's garbage! Let it go and do something meaningful with your time!Seriously, there are Nobels waiting here. A 2 page paper getting a Nobel. We would share the money. And SandyCox would be happy to nominate us.[...]
One problem with speed is that all metals have corrosion which must slow the electons (i mean the oxide, not the roughness). But if the threaded bar & plain bar are the same material then that might not be a big worry.
[...]
Not all metals corrode at the same rate so some may even remain mostly oxide free for the duration of a test, a reasonably well controlled layer of oxide could even be incrimentally grown onto a test rod. Differrent oxides would have different properties, iron oxide is renowned for making things go slowly, so obviously thats the first candidate. Green copper oxide is a pretty fast colour, though not as fast as chrome oxide. Nickel is a wildcard.
Finally, I think I'm understanding this theory.
[...]
Spacetime, time dilation, STR & GTR, the bigbang, dark matter, gravity waves, gravity waves that propagated at the speed of light, cosmic microwave background radiation, constant speed of light, pure energy, E=mcc, singularity blackholes, dark energy, expansion of the universe, Higgs, gluons, gravitons etc -- all are rubbish.
[...]
Since the electon is a "surface hugging photon" it will follow the thread of rod. This thread forms a spiral. So the finer the thread, the longer the electon will take.Aha, the ole (yet novel) solid core delay line. A nice close clearance to the shield conductor for some confirmation which might be inconvenient for those who wish to conspire for a null result. Such as me. I am prepared to close my mind to new theories if I can find a way of nullifying them through experiment. Which is the opposite of what I'm saying here.
The fundamental experimental evidence for the equivalence of rest mass and energy commonly written in an equation (without hand waving) E = mc2 can be found in comparing the masses of the nuclei before and after a fission reaction, where the difference goes into the energy release. The measurements are not off by a factor of 2.I am not allergic to E=mcc. I am allergic to the Einstein derivation.
see https://www.dummies.com/article/academics-the-arts/science/physics/nuclear-fission-basics-200956 (https://www.dummies.com/article/academics-the-arts/science/physics/nuclear-fission-basics-200956)
Careful measurements of atomic mass predate experimental fission. See "History" section of
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Atomic_mass (https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Atomic_mass)
But if tests lean towards E=mcc rather than E=mcc/2 then i am happy with that. There is a slight chance of having a circular argument on both sides of the equation, but i can accept that that can be ruled out with good tests. But the Einstein derivation is a circular argument, as shown by Ives.
The real problem is of course that no-one knows what E=mcc really means. Einstein changed his mind on this as the years went by, as of course u will be aware. But skoolkids are still taught that mass increases with speed.
...Aether theory is strange. And you never stop to question it with a critical mind? I thought the 2c claim at least showed you're thinking about something original(ish), but sounds like you're just slurping from the cup of your particular school of thought's convention to me.
Aether theory says that relative velocity can be almost 2c (ie we can go at almost 1c in opposite directions). Aetherists say that the energy of a grain of sand is E=mVV/2. And, V can be almost 2c. So, E can be 2mcc. Which would have a smallish finite value (not a nearly infinite value).
A 2.1 mm grain of sand weighing 13 mg, with a relative speed of 2c, would have a KE of 2.34*10^12 J.
This is equivalent to 1 kg moving at c/139. Earth is safe(ish), at least today. Thanx to aetherists (no thanx to CERN).
It is equivalent to 28 atomic bombs (ea being 20,000 tonnes of TNT).
Dividing mcc by gamma is equivalent to (smells like) invoking mass increase. Its also equivalent to other things.If you are going to disagree with a standard equation, you should quote it correctly instead of attacking a straw man.The fundamental experimental evidence for the equivalence of rest mass and energy commonly written in an equation (without hand waving) E = mc2 can be found in comparing the masses of the nuclei before and after a fission reaction, where the difference goes into the energy release. The measurements are not off by a factor of 2.I am not allergic to E=mcc. I am allergic to the Einstein derivation.
see https://www.dummies.com/article/academics-the-arts/science/physics/nuclear-fission-basics-200956 (https://www.dummies.com/article/academics-the-arts/science/physics/nuclear-fission-basics-200956)
Careful measurements of atomic mass predate experimental fission. See "History" section of
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Atomic_mass (https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Atomic_mass)
But if tests lean towards E=mcc rather than E=mcc/2 then i am happy with that. There is a slight chance of having a circular argument on both sides of the equation, but i can accept that that can be ruled out with good tests. But the Einstein derivation is a circular argument, as shown by Ives. The real problem is of course that no-one knows what E=mcc really means. Einstein changed his mind on this as the years went by, as of course u will be aware. But skoolkids are still taught that mass increases with speed.
In special relativity, the equation for the energy of a mass in motion is
E = (moc2) / [1 - (v2/c2)]1/2
When the velocity is 0, this reduces to the famous E = moc2 .
The rest mass mo is the mass of the object at rest, and is invariant.
At low velocity, v << c, freshman mathematics shows that the equation is a close approximation to
E = (moc2) + (mov2/2)
where the first term is the mass-energy and the second term is the classical (non-relativistic) kinetic energy.
I keep referring to aether theory & aetherists, but actually i usually use my own version of aether theory, ie my own version of neoLorentz Relativity. My version is far more advanced, ie closer to the truth.... Aether theory says that relative velocity can be almost 2c (ie we can go at almost 1c in opposite directions). Aetherists say that the energy of a grain of sand is E=mVV/2. And, V can be almost 2c. So, E can be 2mcc. Which would have a smallish finite value (not a nearly infinite value).Aether theory is strange. And you never stop to question it with a critical mind? I thought the 2c claim at least showed you're thinking about something original(ish), but sounds like you're just slurping from the cup of your particular school of thought's convention to me.
A 2.1 mm grain of sand weighing 13 mg, with a relative speed of 2c, would have a KE of 2.34*10^12 J.
This is equivalent to 1 kg moving at c/139. Earth is safe(ish), at least today. Thanx to aetherists (no thanx to CERN).
It is equivalent to 28 atomic bombs (ea being 20,000 tonnes of TNT).
1/ What limits the grain's energy to this hard limit as theorised? It can be pushed up to the speed of light (or twice), then all attempts to push it fail - it can exert no more force in that direction. It can simply travel no faster and no force (like, say, a photon) can travel fast enough to push it, an attempt to push it sideways would have to slow it down in the direction of travel. You seem to have no problem mulling over it getting almost to 2c, so approaching this limit appears to be no problem.The grain can't go as fast as light in/through the aether. But if another identical grain is going at almost c in the opposite direction then their relative speed is almost 2c. And the kinetic energy of the collision would be mcc/2 plus mcc/2 which is mcc. This is in a static observer's frame. But from any one grain's point of view the closing speed is 2c, hence the kinetic energy of the other grain will be m2c2c/2 which is 2mcc.
2/ How does the particle know it is travelling above 1c relative to some other object? Your grain of sand is travelling at 2c towards the Earth, on the assumption the Earth could be travelling at 1c towards it. You have given the KE of the grain of sand.
This thread has gone so far south that it fell off the border of flat earth.
I mention all of that stuff & Einstein's stuff here koz basically all of it is based on there being no aether& no aetherwind. And aetherwind affects electricity. For example the answer to the Veritasium gedanken might be (e ) none of the above. Koz depending on the direction of the aetherwind blowing through his circuit his supposed correct answer (d) which is 1/c, becomes 1/(c+V) for a tailwind blowing from the switch to the bulb, to 1/(c-V) for a headwind.[...]Spacetime, time dilation, STR & GTR, the bigbang, dark matter, gravity waves, gravity waves that propagated at the speed of light, cosmic microwave background radiation, constant speed of light, pure energy, E=mcc, singularity blackholes, dark energy, expansion of the universe, Higgs, gluons, gravitons etc -- all are rubbish.[...]Except... you're wrong. All of those matters you listed have experimental evidence and they all have an axiomatic basis. They have all stood up to peer review and independent validation. That is quite literally the definition of "not rubbish".
Your theory of electrons doesn't have any basis beyond your belief, absolutely zero experimental evidence, it cannot form predictions and it self contradicts. At least with those fringe-physics theories that break causality there is an amusing arithmetic blunder to find: but what you present here is just sad and it is quite literally the definition of "rubbish".
...
If the aetherwind blowing through Earth is 500 km/s, which is c/600, then Veritasium's delay could be 1/(599c/600) or it could be 1/(601c/600). A difference of say -1/600 or +1/600, which is say a span of 1/300.
Hence the delay of 3,333 ps for Veristasium's em radiation crossing his say 1000 mm can be 16 ps less or 16 ps more.
In which case the delay could be 3,317 ps or 3,350 ps.
That's not impossible to measure. If you could arrange a reflection+timer apparatus to rotate into and out of the wind, then say for wind from N to S:
- apparatus N-S delay = 1/(599/600)+1/(601/600) = 2.000005556
- apparatus E-W delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
- apparatus S-N delay = 1/(601/600)+1/(599/600) = 2.000005556
- apparatus W-E delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?
[...]
Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?
Lots of measurements of the aetherwind were done in the oldendays & in the modern era using free photons (light). And at least two experiments have been done in the modern era using electricity, ie using my electons (semi-confined photons)....If the aetherwind blowing through Earth is 500 km/s, which is c/600, then Veritasium's delay could be 1/(599c/600) or it could be 1/(601c/600). A difference of say -1/600 or +1/600, which is say a span of 1/300.That's not impossible to measure. If you could arrange a reflection+timer apparatus to rotate into and out of the wind, then say for wind from N to S:
Hence the delay of 3,333 ps for Veristasium's em radiation crossing his say 1000 mm can be 16 ps less or 16 ps more.
In which case the delay could be 3,317 ps or 3,350 ps.
- apparatus N-S delay = 1/(599/600)+1/(601/600) = 2.000005556
- apparatus E-W delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
- apparatus S-N delay = 1/(601/600)+1/(599/600) = 2.000005556
- apparatus W-E delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?
Prof Reg Cahill disagrees.That's not impossible to measure. If you could arrange a reflection+timer apparatus to rotate into and out of the wind, then say for wind from N to S:They have. Experimentalists since the 1880s tried desperately and with insanely sensitive equipment to try to find this aetherwind... and nada.Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?
- apparatus N-S delay = 1/(599/600)+1/(601/600) = 2.000005556
- apparatus E-W delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
- apparatus S-N delay = 1/(601/600)+1/(599/600) = 2.000005556
- apparatus W-E delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment)
Prof Reg Cahill disagrees.That's not impossible to measure. If you could arrange a reflection+timer apparatus to rotate into and out of the wind, then say for wind from N to S:They have. Experimentalists since the 1880s tried desperately and with insanely sensitive equipment to try to find this aetherwind... and nada.Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?
- apparatus N-S delay = 1/(599/600)+1/(601/600) = 2.000005556
- apparatus E-W delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
- apparatus S-N delay = 1/(601/600)+1/(599/600) = 2.000005556
- apparatus W-E delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment)
http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf (http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf)
Science advances one funeral at a time.Prof Reg Cahill disagrees.That's not impossible to measure. If you could arrange a reflection+timer apparatus to rotate into and out of the wind, then say for wind from N to S:They have. Experimentalists since the 1880s tried desperately and with insanely sensitive equipment to try to find this aetherwind... and nada.Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?
- apparatus N-S delay = 1/(599/600)+1/(601/600) = 2.000005556
- apparatus E-W delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
- apparatus S-N delay = 1/(601/600)+1/(599/600) = 2.000005556
- apparatus W-E delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment)
http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf (http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf)
Science does not progress on the opinions of one person (or even the opinions of many). Science relies on rational conclusions drawn from well designed experiments. If multiple parties could verify any single experiment in a manner that suggests an 'aether' with consistant properties there'd be no discussion... aether would exist. At present, nobody can do that, experiments disagree and there is even an outright avoidance to repeating experiments consistanty: therefore aether does not exist with the properties you describe.
I'd guess you could latch on to the emerging possibility of an aether that explains some quantum entanglement studies... but that isn't the same aether you describe. So, specifically, your aether does not exist.
So, again, yes, some theories turn out to be wrong, some can neither be proven nor disproven and some are correct. Maybe we have it all wrong and maybe the foundations of human reasoning are wrong - but science is not what you think it is. Philosophy and maths begin with a set of axioms, rules and theorems from which aparently more complex topics are derived - science can be viewed as the study of how those apply to 'nature'. You can harbour whatever thoughts and opinions you like, as can any person, and you can believe them to be true, but on what grounds should any person to whom you tell them consider believing them?
Without any strong, peer reviewed and consistant experimental data, I personally couldn't accept your theory. I have, however, seen good data that correlates well with special relativity, on what grounds should I reject one over the other there?
And there's my problem. Without commenting too much on the truth or intentions, coming at it from both sides are attempts to confirm a particular set of beliefs though canon and a chain of trust.Prof Reg Cahill disagrees.That's not impossible to measure. If you could arrange a reflection+timer apparatus to rotate into and out of the wind, then say for wind from N to S:They have. Experimentalists since the 1880s tried desperately and with insanely sensitive equipment to try to find this aetherwind... and nada.Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?
- apparatus N-S delay = 1/(599/600)+1/(601/600) = 2.000005556
- apparatus E-W delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
- apparatus S-N delay = 1/(601/600)+1/(599/600) = 2.000005556
- apparatus W-E delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment)
http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf (http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf)
You weren't able to spot the blatantly obvious mistake in Catt's paper. I assume that you are also unable to identify the mistakes in all these "papers".Which mistake. I think u mean Cahill's paper. What mistakes in the other papers.
When can we expect equations that describe "new electric"?
I think we have been talking about 2 kinds of experiments.And there's my problem. Without commenting too much on the truth or intentions, coming at it from both sides are attempts to confirm a particular set of beliefs though canon and a chain of trust.Prof Reg Cahill disagrees.That's not impossible to measure. If you could arrange a reflection+timer apparatus to rotate into and out of the wind, then say for wind from N to S:They have. Experimentalists since the 1880s tried desperately and with insanely sensitive equipment to try to find this aetherwind... and nada.Didn't they do this? Even a low-tech timer with a repeatability of 1ppm would show this up?
- apparatus N-S delay = 1/(599/600)+1/(601/600) = 2.000005556
- apparatus E-W delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
- apparatus S-N delay = 1/(601/600)+1/(599/600) = 2.000005556
- apparatus W-E delay = 1/(600/600)+1/(600/600) = 2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment)
http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf (http://mountainman.com.au/process_physics/hps13.pdf)
I'm not saying either is wrong or that there is anything unreasonable about the approach, and in the past I have whiled away time I probably should have spent on something more productive, reading about the Michelson–Morley experiment and pondering on the theoretical practicalities of moving and synchronising clocks. But that's not what I asked.
I posed an experimental test which should be able to confirm or deny a theory asserted as fact, in a straightforward manner without having to overly worry about experimental design and falsifiability etc. It's a bit like using a pre-validated sky colour tester to answer whether the sky is blue. It comes up black, and you know what is probably going on (never with complete certainty), but you can be fairly certain the sky isn't blue. My test is not far off a restatement of the claim, without additional baggage, or needing to worry about the precise vagaries of aether theories old and new. It's technically easy, not dungeon-size, fast, and although the expected 2-way slowdown disappears much quicker than the claimed difference in aether speed, timing is immensely good these days and can delve into the (non)existence of aetherwinds much slower than claimed (which is a pretty adamant claim, and doesn't permit things like length contraction in the time calculation).
If it fails to detect the effect claimed, then we start delving into whether the clocks and distances might change in accordance with some other theory which would produce a null 2-way slowdown. But then we're into shaky territory where we can expect the situation to collapse into farce once more, like it did with the Michelson–Morley experiment, for the same reasons it did, and for that theory to be indistinguishable from Einstein's relativistic aether. Which is not to prove it, but it will do your cause no good, if that should transpire. It doesn't do you any harm, it just says Mr and Mrs Einstein get to keep their original, non-3D-printed medal, because they got there first.
So I suggest we don't go there, and only answer what is easy to do on a bench top with 7 digit frequency counter and some bearings.
But I suggest we don't go there aither (oops understandable typo) because this is the sort of thing engineers do all day and don't see a thing. So in the end I'm just asking some questions, really around that point.
[...]
Science advances one funeral at a time.
Aether has been proven. STR has been disproven.
None of Einstein's stuff has ever been peer reviewed, at least not at the time of publishing.
Let's try one last time:You weren't able to spot the blatantly obvious mistake in Catt's paper. I assume that you are also unable to identify the mistakes in all these "papers".Which mistake. I think u mean Cahill's paper. What mistakes in the other papers.
When can we expect equations that describe "new electric"?
I have read all of them & i dont remember any mistakes, but it was a long time ago.
Equations have given us Higgs gluons gravitons etc. These only exist in mathland.
Electons are not mathland.
You weren't able to spot the blatantly obvious mistake in Catt's paper. I assume that you are also unable to identify the mistakes in all these "papers".Which mistake. I think u mean Cahill's paper. What mistakes in the other papers.
When can we expect equations that describe "new electric"?
I have read all of them & i dont remember any mistakes, but it was a long time ago.
Equations have given us Higgs gluons gravitons etc. These only exist in mathland.
Electons are not mathland.
<snip stuff getting long just keeping for the link above>
An electron is just as much a mathematical object as any other (detected) particle. Experimental evidence has shown that an entity or phenomina matching the characteristics of a Higgs exists just as much as an entity or phenomina matching the characteristics an electron exists. There remains a lot that we do not know about either. I'm sorry if you feel that just because you cannot see/feel/touch any of those particles that they may not exist and yes it relies on a lot of trust to believe the reports are true and incorrupt. Science is not easy, live with it.
Your north-south & east-west & south-north & west-east & back to north-south kind of electrical X can work. I forgot that Reg Cahill has already done lots of such Xs using coax. And he got an aetherwind signal.<snip stuff getting long just keeping for the link above>So my experiment wouldn't work it seems. There is an unanticipated (by me, and your numeric claims) side-wind effect which cancels or mostly cancels the headwind slowing tailwind speeding. It really sounds to me like you simply don't understand what I said, when you mention "average speed", which is the same whichever way my apparatus is pointing (that just doesn't sound right).
And there is now suddenly a correction to your given delay figures for length contraction (which I know you described earlier, so was inconsistent with your calcs, but is another strike against your calcs - I admit an inaptitude with numbers myself so perhaps the mistake is mine).
Can you see how this is rolling straight down from Lorentz land to come to unavoidable rest in Einstein land, like I said?
Because of its various adjustments and tweaks to minimise the otherwise easily measurable (my experiment isn't very clever and is just the first thing that came to mind after seeing your numbers), your theory is progressively removing all measurable effects from the aether's grip.
I'm not extremely against your theory, I just think if you don't think up something new real soon, you have unavoidably already landed very close to special relativity.
I like your twin media idea, but because thin insulation makes no difference to the speed of electricity down a wire, it's not going to achieve much, unfortunately.
Your screw thread idea was actually someone else's here. Nobody seems keen to say, but that will also fail because it also will have no effect on speed (unless it's my "solid core delay line" from earlier to mix cats and pigeons, dangerously).
It's good you provided a much clearer description of things like ticking dilation, but the above is a problem of facts, which end up rolling down from Newton Mountain through Maxwell Pass and Heaviside Steppe, on to Lorentz Hill then come to rest in Einstein Flat. That doesn't mean there are no other paths or further jouneys (which there are), just we have a lot mapped out for us, and how far off the beaten track you want to travel is up to the explorer. Just beware trying to beat a path into the sea.
An electron is just as much a mathematical object as any other (detected) particle. Experimental evidence has shown that an entity or phenomina matching the characteristics of a Higgs exists just as much as an entity or phenomina matching the characteristics an electron exists. [...]
I agree with much of what you said - though I would add that cloud chamber experiments offer something more than mathematics to ascribe some sense of physical reality to these particles. We can see the traces of these particles and we can see them deflect in the presence of magnetic fields. [...]
[...]Science advances one funeral at a time.I can accept an inferred peer review from the enormous quantity of work over the years on the development of STR.
Aether has been proven. STR has been disproven.
None of Einstein's stuff has ever been peer reviewed, at least not at the time of publishing.
What definition of 'proven' and 'disproven' are you using? I assumed that the definition I go by was reasonably universal, but I may be wrong. The dictionary definition probably uses the word 'truth' but thats a bit connotative of 'absolute truth'; 'verified' or 'showing agreement with experimental data' is closer to what I'm considering proof here. In the stricter sense, proof would be a 'demonstration through rational argument of an agreement with a concrete truth', but, lets just stick some some valid evidence for the moment.I think that i am happy to go along with -- A theory can be proven wrong, but it can't be proven correct. An X can confirm, but it can't prove.
A fully charged DC transmission line, having 2 parallel closely space wires, acts exactly like a capacitor.Let's try one last time:You weren't able to spot the blatantly obvious mistake in Catt's paper. I assume that you are also unable to identify the mistakes in all these "papers".Which mistake. I think u mean Cahill's paper. What mistakes in the other papers.
When can we expect equations that describe "new electric"?
I have read all of them & i dont remember any mistakes, but it was a long time ago.
Equations have given us Higgs gluons gravitons etc. These only exist in mathland.
Electons are not mathland.
He confused a transmission line with a capacitor.
And no the two are not the same!
Electons live in crazy land.
[...]
Who was it here that mentioned that science is a consensus. That mightbeso, but if it is then that is a criticism of science. Koz it should only take one fact, one scientist, to sink a flawed theory.
However, Einsteinists are good at stopping that one scientist from publishing.
I dont understand. U are actually making my point. Of course i like peer review. It is Einsteinists who stop peer review, & they do this by stopping publication of the critical paper.[...]Who was it here that mentioned that science is a consensus. That mightbeso, but if it is then that is a criticism of science. Koz it should only take one fact, one scientist, to sink a flawed theory.By example: I have a huge quantity of data that shows a diurnal variation in background radiation counts all recorded at an almost exact location, measured with maybe 100 different detectors over the course of several years. I personally attributed it to thermal drift in the detection circuit. Hypothetically, I could publish it and claim it shows an aetherwind that is affecting the propagation of electrons or whatever in the detector head. To claim that of the data would invalidate many theories... surely you agree that peer review is a good thing in preventing me from doing that, even if I really believed it?
However, Einsteinists are good at stopping that one scientist from publishing.
[...]
I dont understand. U are actually making my point. Of course i like peer review. It is Einsteinists who stop peer review, & they do this by stopping publication of the critical paper.
None of Einstein's papers have been in a peer reviewed journal.[...]I dont understand. U are actually making my point. Of course i like peer review. It is Einsteinists who stop peer review, & they do this by stopping publication of the critical paper.Any/Most/(Ones i glanced at) papers and reports you've presented have not been from peer reviewed journals and have frequently cited other non-peer reviewed sources as their primary evidence? To me that shows an undue amount of trust in non-peer-reviewed sources. Peer review serves to prevent poorly designed experiments and impropper/irrational conclusions from reaching publication... and yes, peer review is itself peer reviewed and the rationality of conclusions is an absolute and non-subjective measure.
I did actually know of the Shnoll effect, it was definitely not a significant contribution to my data and nor was it wasnt aetherwind dependent.
Einstein's four seminal papers from 1905 in Annalen der Physik were peer-reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief Max Planck and the Co-Editor Wilhelm Wien, both scientists of some reknown who later won Nobel Prizes.Opening the mail, & checking to see if it came to the correct address, is not peer review.
It is true that Einstein later was highly critical of the process of peer review, when his draft paper was shown to other specialists before publication.
Modern peer review became popular in the mid 20th century. Wikipedia's article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review discusses the process, history, and controversies about scholarly peer review.
Science papers that mention aether are automatically dumped into the waste paper bucket today (or returned) by office assistants who have never done much science, the papers dont reach the editors.
No, the screw-thread X idea was my idea. I did however think of it after the question of roughness of the surface of a wire was mentioned. And i already knew about roughness affecting the speed of electricity anyhow.Ok I had that detail wrong - apologies for that. Your statement is also short of the truth. I was going to say I thought it was penfold but chose not to check a thing in the interests of sleep. Here is the original text to focus in on this point:
...[...]The reason i don’t like drift is that it can't explain how electricity propagates at the speed of light, ......
Would a surface current also not imply a rather significant increase in resistance for conductors with a particularly rough or serrated surface?
I agree re serrations. New electricity could be tested by using a say wire with a serrated surface.
I don’t think that serration would have much effect on resistance, it would mainly affect distance, ie time.
A threaded surface might say double the effective length of the wire (or rod or pipe). The extra time for propagation would show. And i am confident that this test would be fatal for old electricity.
Howardlong could do the test(s), using his 20 GHz scope, using say 12" of threaded steel rod, versus 12" of plain rod.
Hmmmm -- a threaded pipe might be a problem, ie threaded outside, smooth inside. Electons could sneak throo the central short-cut.
But a pipe might introduce some other aspects that might give us some new info. Dunno.
But a lowly patent officer came up with time dilation. And started the present Dark Age of science.Science papers that mention aether are automatically dumped into the waste paper bucket today (or returned) by office assistants who have never done much science, the papers dont reach the editors.You might be right. The US Patent Office will not consider any patent that claims to have invented perpetual motion. There's a reason for that...
Pierre Marie Robitaille -- for explaining that the CMBR is false.
Ah yes u are correct Penfold thort of serrations -- ok we were going to share the Nobel anyhow, if he did the X.No, the screw-thread X idea was my idea. I did however think of it after the question of roughness of the surface of a wire was mentioned. And i already knew about roughness affecting the speed of electricity anyhow.Ok I had that detail wrong - apologies for that. Your statement is also short of the truth. I was going to say I thought it was penfold but chose not to check a thing in the interests of sleep. Here is the original text to focus in on this point:Serrations weren't (your idea), threads were (and only add practicality but the helix does not affect your principle as you later seemed to confirm), and so was your surprising suggestion that it would affect the propagation time, and even more surprising suggestion of a directly falsifiable test....I agree re serrations. New electricity could be tested by using a say wire with a serrated surface.Quoteauthor=aetherist link=topic=299756.msg3997681#msg3997681 date=1644456911][...]The reason i don’t like drift is that it can't explain how electricity propagates at the speed of light, ......Would a surface current also not imply a rather significant increase in resistance for conductors with a particularly rough or serrated surface?
I don’t think that serration would have much effect on resistance, it would mainly affect distance, ie time.
A threaded surface might say double the effective length of the wire (or rod or pipe). The extra time for propagation would show. And i am confident that this test would be fatal for old electricity.
Howardlong could do the test(s), using his 20 GHz scope, using say 12" of threaded steel rod, versus 12" of plain rod.
Hmmmm -- a threaded pipe might be a problem, ie threaded outside, smooth inside. Electons could sneak throo the central short-cut.
But a pipe might introduce some other aspects that might give us some new info. Dunno.
To be perfectly honest I thought you were latching onto this idea purely because it hadn't already been tested out in plain view, giving your then-new theory about electons a life they were otherwise destined not to have, driven by pathological confirmation bias. That is why I said that when later discussing the test, and was reluctant to suggest a way forward beyond some possible ground rules. I didn't say "just test it" or whatever you recently claimed I said, my expectation of the null result I've alluded to a few times leads me to suspect with near certainty that you would find a need to change those rules or discredit the test. Your roo-tons arose from that discussion, and although I agree you had no desire to invoke them, a thread-hopping scenario was ripe for the plucking if you ever got your theory too hopelessly trapped. If you weren't at least partly aware of what you are doing then I would simply look upon it as a full-blown delusion and I guess steer clear entirely - but it's not, is it? I know you know that.
My simple point is, science can't work that way in general, it might in your head, but people in general are as unable to swallow it as you are unable to swallow a confounding result. It's a sliding scale of course, with some people so rigidly accepting of a set of scientific principles that they abandon all creativity. Very few to none of them here though, they all seem to be more interested in the madness that resides outside of all our heads, rather than within. Ie, the theories.
U stick with doktor Dave. I will stick with Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille.Pierre Marie Robitaille -- for explaining that the CMBR is false.Ooo he's a fun one. The CMBR isn't false - just Pierre's laughable inability to even understand what it is. He's kinda like you in that regard: blatantly ignorant of even the basic tenets of the physics at play.
This video explains why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi_mQ0sKOfo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi_mQ0sKOfo)
U stick with doktor Dave. I will stick with Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille.
Dave aint a professor. And he aint a Dr. And u obviously have not looked at Dr R's youtube(s).
U stick with doktor Dave. I will stick with Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille.
Oh I know you would. Professor Dave even predicted all the reasons why you would (he's got a list of all the boxes at 46:03 in his video that you happily check off for yourself).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWr39Q9vBgo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWr39Q9vBgo)
Dave aint a professor. And he aint a Dr. And u obviously have not looked at Dr R's youtube(s).
Do u reckon that the James Webb will confirm the bigbang?Dave aint a professor. And he aint a Dr. And u obviously have not looked at Dr R's youtube(s).I have and I split a gut laughing at his claims that the CMBR originates with the Earth's oceans. There is a reason that Pierre sticks to Youtube to preach because his claims wouldn't survive anywhere else. I don't really need Professor Dave (other than the entertaining video) because I already know what the CMBR theory is about (it originates from the Recombination Era).
Pierre thinks the theory originates from mere moments after the BB. Which, as I said a few posts ago, means he has absolutely no concept of what the CMBR even is. He's so inept at understanding the basic science that he doesn't even know where to begin in attacking it.
It's been said a few times I think but people (a) aren't entirely sure (b) don't want to get into an argument (c) don't want to be told they are crazy just because they experienced something or have some knowledge (d) expect their statement to be totally misinterpreted if they are not painfully clear. My apologies for d especially (although it happened, in which case apologies for not immediately correcting that too). But you seem so set in your absolute expectation.What????? When did u decide that insulation on wire duznt affect the speed of electricity on the wire?<snip stuff getting long just keeping for the link above>I like your twin media idea, but because thin insulation makes no difference to the speed of electricity down a wire, it's not going to achieve much, unfortunately.
Re antennas -- my guess is that a transmitting dipole antenna painted with enamel would have to be 50% longer (to give the same frequency).I think no. This could be tested with a nanoVNA, balun, and some wire on strings. It is not a test I really want to do. Perhaps a bit head in the sand, but I'm old enough to rest on my assumptions and beliefs despite knowing that is how the rot sets in. (Note I said no not so.)
Partial quotes:Yes, interesting. It appears that antennas are another box that my electons tick.It's been said a few times I think but people (a) aren't entirely sure (b) don't want to get into an argument (c) don't want to be told they are crazy just because they experienced something or have some knowledge (d) expect their statement to be totally misinterpreted if they are not painfully clear. My apologies for d especially (although it happened, in which case apologies for not immediately correcting that too). But you seem so set in your absolute expectation.What????? When did u decide that insulation on wire duznt affect the speed of electricity on the wire?<snip stuff getting long just keeping for the link above>I like your twin media idea, but because thin insulation makes no difference to the speed of electricity down a wire, it's not going to achieve much, unfortunately.
But for example:Your contention would mean that rain for example would detune an antenna by an enormous amount. It does detune by some, but small %. It depends on how much field is in the dielectric, a thin layer like 100 microns won't be significant (I said no difference, I fell that needed to be said to get the point through). I checked on the web for aluminium's natural oxide film but that is 4nm (a lot thinner than I expected).Re antennas -- my guess is that a transmitting dipole antenna painted with enamel would have to be 50% longer (to give the same frequency).I think no. This could be tested with a nanoVNA, balun, and some wire on strings. It is not a test I really want to do. Perhaps a bit head in the sand, but I'm old enough to rest on my assumptions and beliefs despite knowing that is how the rot sets in. (Note I said no not so.)
Best to simply put a link:
http://karinya.net/g3txq/hexbeam/rain/ (http://karinya.net/g3txq/hexbeam/rain/)
This doesn't confirm everything I am saying to the letter, I don't want it to. But the gist is clear.
The Herouni antenna excludes the signal from the oceans, & it tells us that the signal from the sky is zero, zilch, nix, nada, nought, nothing.Dave aint a professor. And he aint a Dr. And u obviously have not looked at Dr R's youtube(s).I have and I split a gut laughing at his claims that the CMBR originates with the Earth's oceans. There is a reason that Pierre sticks to Youtube to preach because his claims wouldn't survive anywhere else. I don't really need Professor Dave (other than the entertaining video) because I already know what the CMBR theory is about (it originates from the Recombination Era).
Pierre thinks the theory originates from mere moments after the BB. Which, as I said a few posts ago, means he has absolutely no concept of what the CMBR even is. He's so inept at understanding the basic science that he doesn't even know where to begin in attacking it.
[...]
The Herouni antenna excludes the signal from the oceans, & it tells us that the signal from the sky is zero, zilch, nix, nada, nought, nothing.
<>
Yes, interesting. It appears that antennas are another box that my electons tick.
No. It doesn't. Their dynamic behavior is totally different. You can see this by comparing the two-port representations of the capacitor and transmission line:A fully charged DC transmission line, having 2 parallel closely space wires, acts exactly like a capacitor.Let's try one last time:You weren't able to spot the blatantly obvious mistake in Catt's paper. I assume that you are also unable to identify the mistakes in all these "papers".Which mistake. I think u mean Cahill's paper. What mistakes in the other papers.
When can we expect equations that describe "new electric"?
I have read all of them & i dont remember any mistakes, but it was a long time ago.
Equations have given us Higgs gluons gravitons etc. These only exist in mathland.
Electons are not mathland.
He confused a transmission line with a capacitor.
And no the two are not the same!
Electons live in crazy land.
Especially if it is a coax.
Thats not what i see. I see a top scientist writing a top paper showing that the CMBR does not exist, & i see that no-one responded, & i see that he had invited comments from 10 leading laboratories, & none responded. U are inferring that some might have seen some possible errors but could not bother to report or reply.[...]Seeing how you said ealier that the internet, wiki, youtube etc is changing the face of research. Yes it is, in one regard it is fantastic, it is possible to share research and data accross the world, data visualisation and analysis aren't quite the epic tasks they used to be and all this can be shared with accedemics alike, and the general public. There are some good open access and low pay-wall journals. But the problem with sharing data so fast and openly, most noteably with CERN, is that it is possible to draw some very premature and incorrect conclusions - remember the faster than light particles at CERN circa 2010? It immediately hit the papers that faster than light particles were detected - esentially they were, but only because the time synchronisation had failed between detector stations.
The Herouni antenna excludes the signal from the oceans, & it tells us that the signal from the sky is zero, zilch, nix, nada, nought, nothing.<>
So, one one hand it is good that so many people are getting involved and taking an interest, but it is actually very damaging also to the fringe-physics theories themselves, it pushes them into their own dark age... ironically. I don't even use the term fringe-physics in a derogatory sense, we have shadow governments, peer review and fringe-festivals as a counter-point to tradiation and main-stream for a reason. But the more background noise, the less of it actually gets considered and honestly critiqued - the result being that most people stand-by theories without a proper discourse and the harsher the ridicule of 'cranks'.
So, where that video you presented draws a conclusion of "there must be no experimental errors because no accedemics replied" is not necesarily a good conclusion at all, there are many reasons an accedemic won't respond to unsolicited requests for review.
I have never heard of two-port stuff. I am half interested in whether Catt stuff is not in accord.No. It doesn't. Their dynamic behavior is totally different. You can see this by comparing the two-port representations of the capacitor and transmission line:A fully charged DC transmission line, having 2 parallel closely space wires, acts exactly like a capacitor.Let's try one last time:You weren't able to spot the blatantly obvious mistake in Catt's paper. I assume that you are also unable to identify the mistakes in all these "papers".Which mistake. I think u mean Cahill's paper. What mistakes in the other papers.
When can we expect equations that describe "new electric"?
I have read all of them & i dont remember any mistakes, but it was a long time ago.
Equations have given us Higgs gluons gravitons etc. These only exist in mathland.
Electons are not mathland.
He confused a transmission line with a capacitor.
And no the two are not the same!
Electons live in crazy land.
Especially if it is a coax.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-port_network
(And no. It's not my problem if you do not have the mathematical skills to understand two-port representations in the s domain. It just confirms that you are totally out of your depth.)
Catt measures the dynamic behavior of a transmission line in his paper. He then compares it to dynamic behavior of a capacitor and foolishly concludes that the theory is wrong.
Your theory is unable to produce numbers. What use does it have?
[...]
Thats not what i see. I see a top scientist writing a top paper showing that the CMBR does not exist, & i see that no-one responded, & i see that he had invited comments from 10 leading peer groups, & none responded. U are inferring that some might have seen some possible errors but could not bother to report or reply.
[...]
I had a look at thems antenna articles, re rain & water & wet antennas. I couldn’t understand any of it. I couldn’t even work out whether they were transmitting or receiving or both. They talked about water foam of 1 water to 10 air. They mentioned 0.5 mm of water cover. Big drops every inch or two. They mentioned a 30% change (in the right direction).Yes, interesting. It appears that antennas are another box that my electons tick.Maybe, in a qualitative sense (I swore off commenting on your electon theory a few pages ago, because it does no good to have me guessing).
But there is some way to go in a quantitative sense; your 50% prediction in antenna length difference changed to 1% (difference per article), and your delay numbers in my aether test apparatus needed a tweak down by a factor of 1000 after I showed this would be easily testable also. I've shown at least a couple of ways the threaded rod experiment will show delay despite asserting it won't (certainly not ~50% more), this isn't a contradiction but comes down to splitting hairs over definitions (like whether 2 orders of magnitude is significant - to each their own). It's early days, your theory is still evolving, no one can expect it to be perfect at this stage.
And I think that's about all I can say.
The bottom line is that Penzias & Wilson got the 1978 Nobel for accidentally finding an anomalous 3K, with their hornX, & they were credited with finding the CMBR, when in fact they never claimed that their signal was from the cosmos (in their paper). It was others (astronomers) that made that claim. Dr Robitaille says that the more logical explanation for their 3K was an Earthly source (eg the Atlantic Ocean 3 miles from their horn, & 140 ft below their horn). Their horn had zero shading/shrouding for the effects of diffraction from/of any signal coming horizontally (from the Atlantic).[...] Thats not what i see. I see a top scientist writing a top paper showing that the CMBR does not exist, & i see that no-one responded, & i see that he had invited comments from 10 leading peer groups, & none responded. U are inferring that some might have seen some possible errors but could not bother to report or reply. [...]That wasn't my intent. From the academics' side, that paper would have been one of many unsolicited papers received that day, it probably got ignored. You've met a professional academic, right? the kind that would sooner return a simple email with spelling corrections and ask for resubmission whilst moaning about how little time they have (before actually considering a technical response to it) and proceed to argue the toss between brands of chalk. I'm not surprised they didn't respond.
The correct conclusion is not that "there were no problems", but that "nobody identified problems"; why should the benefit of the doubt go to the person who got ignored and not to the more established body of work?
Surely, you understand the basics of a structured argument and are choosing to ignore it? For instance, "I didn't see the postman today" could result in the conclusion that "the postman is invisible", but that wouldn't be rational or complete - further tests might reveal that I was just asleep when he walked past. It is a similar absurdity as saying being asleep makes people invisible as it is to say not receiving a response prooves a theory.
I had a look at thems antenna articles, re rain & water & wet antennas. I couldn’t understand any of it. I couldn’t even work out whether they were transmitting or receiving or both. They talked about water foam of 1 water to 10 air. They mentioned 0.5 mm of water cover. Big drops every inch or two. They mentioned a 30% change (in the right direction).Yes, interesting. It appears that antennas are another box that my electons tick.Maybe, in a qualitative sense (I swore off commenting on your electon theory a few pages ago, because it does no good to have me guessing).
But there is some way to go in a quantitative sense; your 50% prediction in antenna length difference changed to 1% (difference per article), and your delay numbers in my aether test apparatus needed a tweak down by a factor of 1000 after I showed this would be easily testable also. I've shown at least a couple of ways the threaded rod experiment will show delay despite asserting it won't (certainly not ~50% more), this isn't a contradiction but comes down to splitting hairs over definitions (like whether 2 orders of magnitude is significant - to each their own). It's early days, your theory is still evolving, no one can expect it to be perfect at this stage.
And I think that's about all I can say.
I don’t know how electons would explain any of that. They said that some antennas were badly affected by rain, & some were almost useless. They even said that rain affected an insulated antenna. How the hell did they get that?
Much of their stuff was based on models, not actual measurements. In fact none was base on measurement. Say no more.
https://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/wetantenas.pdf (https://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/wetantenas.pdf)
The bottom line is that Penzias & Wilson got the 1978 Nobel for accidentally finding an anomalous 3K, with their hornX, & they were credited with finding the CMBR, when in fact they never claimed that their signal was from the cosmos (in their paper). [...]
Then along comes Herouni, who finds an anomalous 0.0K (ie cosmic signal is zero K), with his unique telescope, which has double shading/shrouding for diffraction from the horizontal,[...]
I had a look at thems antenna articles, re rain & water & wet antennas. I couldn’t understand any of it. I couldn’t even work out whether they were transmitting or receiving or both. They talked about water foam of 1 water to 10 air. They mentioned 0.5 mm of water cover. Big drops every inch or two. They mentioned a 30% change (in the right direction).
I don’t know how electons would explain any of that. They said that some antennas were badly affected by rain, & some were almost useless. They even said that rain affected an insulated antenna. How the hell did they get that?
Much of their stuff was based on models, not actual measurements. In fact none was base on measurement. Say no more.
https://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/wetantenas.pdf (https://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/wetantenas.pdf)
Do u reckon that the James Webb will confirm the bigbang?
Or kill it?
If it kills the BB -- then would that mean that the CMBR satellites etc are merely space junk?
The Herouni antenna excludes the signal from the oceans, & it tells us that the signal from the sky is zero, zilch, nix, nada, nought, nothing.
Penzias & Wilson designed a horn that couldnt keep pigeons out, much less horizontal diffraction.The bottom line is that Penzias & Wilson got the 1978 Nobel for accidentally finding an anomalous 3K, with their hornX, & they were credited with finding the CMBR, when in fact they never claimed that their signal was from the cosmos (in their paper). [...]Then along comes Herouni, who finds an anomalous 0.0K (ie cosmic signal is zero K), with his unique telescope, which has double shading/shrouding for diffraction from the horizontal,[...]What difference does it make whether they attributed the results, themselves, directly to CMBR or not? The award was for the design and development of the experiment and their rational approach to it. Perhaps they accepted that they themselves were not qualified in the field of cosmology to justify a claim of CMBR - allowing un-biased free-thinking within the scientific community by those who were qualified to form such a conclusion? Perhaps. Just maybe that is what the prize recognises above all else.
Herouni: no verifiable claims, no respectable conclusions, theoretical work was shoddy and the antenna was famous for its technical faults.
There is always a difference tween a transmitting antenna & a receiving antenna. It is usually 100 km or 1000 km or more. If there is very little difference, say 1 km, then the antennas can be old cans of Bud Light (355 mL).I had a look at thems antenna articles, re rain & water & wet antennas. I couldn’t understand any of it. I couldn’t even work out whether they were transmitting or receiving or both. They talked about water foam of 1 water to 10 air. They mentioned 0.5 mm of water cover. Big drops every inch or two. They mentioned a 30% change (in the right direction).There is no fundamental difference between a transmitting and receiving antenna. That's why they don't have to say whether it's a transmitting or receiving antenna. And no. If you cant see why this is the case it's not because the theory is wrong. It's because you are ignorant.
I don’t know how electons would explain any of that. They said that some antennas were badly affected by rain, & some were almost useless. They even said that rain affected an insulated antenna. How the hell did they get that?
Much of their stuff was based on models, not actual measurements. In fact none was base on measurement. Say no more.
https://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/wetantenas.pdf (https://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/wetantenas.pdf)
Engineers analyse antennas by solving Maxwell's equations, either theoretically or numerically. These solutions tell us that rain has an effect on an insulated antenna. Rain changes the electromagnetic environment on and around the antenna.I am very interested in exactly why an insulated antenna acts differently when wet.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. You are wasting your time on scientific conspiracy theories that are based on ignorance and misconceptions. (Like Catt's paper.) Why don't you rather spend time to familiarize yourself with the theory of Electromagnetics?I don’t think that antenna designers or users have conspired to cover up Einsteinian problems.
While I was still in grad school in the 1970s, I attended a lecture about the following experiment (new results at the time):Good stuff.
https://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/u2/
The cool thing described in that lecture about the experimental setup was that it required cutting holes in the stressed skin of a U2 spy plane, which required getting retired Lockheed engineers back to do the mechanical analysis.
Flying at very high altitude with two different frequency antennae, it was able to map the anisotropy of the background radiation, far above the pigeons and oceans.
As discussed very briefly on that page, the experiment was repeated in the southern hemisphere with the same results.
About the same time, I also attended a lecture by one of the two (Penzias or Wilson) about their ground-based experiment, complete with cleaning out the pigeon droppings, but 50 years later I don't remember which of them presented the lecture.
<<Just saving for the link>>
LOLOLU dont seem to understand that if the CMBR proves the aetherwind then that undermines Einsteinian stuff which undermines bigbang stuff which undermines CMBR which brings us back where we started.
"CMBR is rubbish and doesn't exist according to an uncorroborated Soviet antenna and the opinions of a medical radiologist"
"Of course CMBR proves the aetherwind."
I really ought to be doing other things but I can't help myself. :-DD
No, the anisotropy is of the radiation itself, and concerns its origin.Nope. Any anisotropy supports aetherwind.
The dipole anisotropy, first figure in the page cited, concerns the motion of the terrestial observation with respect to the rest frame of the cosmic radiation, presumably indicating where the original bang occurred with respect to our galaxy, etc. It corresponds nicely to the Earth's annual orbital motion.
Further measurements have demonstrated other features of the anisotropy, less magnitude than the primary dipole distribution.
U dont seem to understand that if the CMBR proves the aetherwind then that undermines Einsteinian stuff which undermines bigbang stuff which undermines CMBR which brings us back where we started.
The Soviets also sank the CMBR stuff done by theusofa WMAP & COBEfamiliesteams. Theusofa teams got Nobels, but the Soviets didnt.
The Soviets launched the first such satellite in 1983 -- Relikt-1. Later they launched Relikt-2.
These showed that the later calibrations by theusofa were rubbish, because it was discovered that Relikt-1 suffered due to a large signal from Earth, & this had to be overcome by Relikt-2 by using a different orbit etc.
"Any anisotropy supports aetherwind"Ok, i suppose that i have to agree that anisotropy duznt necessarily support aetherwind.
That statement is logically absurd. You could describe a specific hypothetical anisotropy that you claim would be caused by an aetherwind, and then someone else could easily postulate an anisotropy contrary to that.
Be more careful about absolute terms such as "any", "all", "none", etc.
Relikt-1 confirmed CMBR and Relikt-2 never launched. WTF are you talking about?
Yes i think u are correct. Relikt-2 never launched. The shortcomings of Relikt-1 had been used in the design of Relikt-2 but it never launched. Yes i was being lazy & relying mainly on old memories, dangerous.U dont seem to understand that if the CMBR proves the aetherwind then that undermines Einsteinian stuff which undermines bigbang stuff which undermines CMBR which brings us back where we started.You don't seem to understand how logic works. >:DQuoteThe Soviets also sank the CMBR stuff done by theusofa WMAP & COBERelikt-1 confirmed CMBR and Relikt-2 never launched. WTF are you talking about?familiesteams. Theusofa teams got Nobels, but the Soviets didnt.
The Soviets launched the first such satellite in 1983 -- Relikt-1. Later they launched Relikt-2.QuoteThese showed that the later calibrations by theusofa were rubbish, because it was discovered that Relikt-1 suffered due to a large signal from Earth, & this had to be overcome by Relikt-2 by using a different orbit etc.You're just all over the place. Do you have a source that says Relikt-2 launched? If so, where is the data?
The Soviet paper on the subject found their measurements in Relikt-1 to be in agreement with those of COBE.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992MNRAS.258...71K/abstract
Ok ok i have to apologise for Relikt-2 not launching. I think that it was koz theusofa had more $$$ to throw at the time. The bust up of the USSR might have had an effect.Relikt-1 confirmed CMBR and Relikt-2 never launched. WTF are you talking about?The whole failure to launch was faked. The absence of sensor data was actually recorded during an engineered quiet period while it was up in space, specially timed to look like it had not launched. The lack of graticules on the film supposedly taken from ground were erased from shots taken in space, and the forlorn looks on the faces of scientists were actually from actors paid to look sad, while the real scientists partied on vodka with NASA conspirators via video link. Photos of Relikt-2 on the ground are actually of Relikt-1 while the former was in outer space. When the experiments returned to Earth, tapes were rewound to different points and vacuum tubes were filled with air to cover up evidence of space.
There is always a difference tween a transmitting antenna & a receiving antenna. It is usually 100 km or 1000 km or more. If there is very little difference, say 1 km, then the antennas can be old cans of Bud Light (355 mL).I had a look at thems antenna articles, re rain & water & wet antennas. I couldn’t understand any of it. I couldn’t even work out whether they were transmitting or receiving or both. They talked about water foam of 1 water to 10 air. They mentioned 0.5 mm of water cover. Big drops every inch or two. They mentioned a 30% change (in the right direction).There is no fundamental difference between a transmitting and receiving antenna. That's why they don't have to say whether it's a transmitting or receiving antenna. And no. If you cant see why this is the case it's not because the theory is wrong. It's because you are ignorant.
I don’t know how electons would explain any of that. They said that some antennas were badly affected by rain, & some were almost useless. They even said that rain affected an insulated antenna. How the hell did they get that?
Much of their stuff was based on models, not actual measurements. In fact none was base on measurement. Say no more.
https://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/wetantenas.pdf (https://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/wetantenas.pdf)
U say it makes no difference whether it is a transmitting antenna or a receiving antenna. I do see 4 differences.
IS IS……………… The transmitting antenna is affected by rain. The receiving antenna is affected by rain.
IS AINT……….… The transmitting antenna is affected by rain. The receiving antenna is not affected.
AINT IS……….…. The transmitting antenna is not affected. The receiving antenna is affected.
AINT AINT……... The transmitting antenna is not affected. The receiving antenna is not affected.Engineers analyse antennas by solving Maxwell's equations, either theoretically or numerically. These solutions tell us that rain has an effect on an insulated antenna. Rain changes the electromagnetic environment on and around the antenna.I am very interested in exactly why an insulated antenna acts differently when wet.
I would be even more interested in any measurements that confirmed that why.You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. You are wasting your time on scientific conspiracy theories that are based on ignorance and misconceptions. (Like Catt's paper.) Why don't you rather spend time to familiarize yourself with the theory of Electromagnetics?I don’t think that antenna designers or users have conspired to cover up Einsteinian problems.
I am looking for antenna instances where drifting electrons give a better explanation than my electons.
And where my electons give a better explanation.
And where both work ok.
And where both don’t work.
And i suspect that these instances might be more apparent if we introduce insulation on the wires.
And perhaps wet antennas can tell us something worthwhile.
Antenna designers & users have no idea what i am talking about, ie my electons.
And antenna designers & users have no idea that their precious radio waves are not photons.
And that photons are not radio waves.
But ignorance & misconceptions do not appear to have resulted in them wasting their time. But mightbe it has.
They might be thrilled to hear of my electons. And my explanation for radio waves.
Funny. At a family reunion some years ago i had a nice argument with one of my relatives re electricity & re radio waves. He has written a number of books re design & wiring of radio stuff. Anyhow i heard that he got cleaned up by a runaway trailer whilst cleaning the roadside with his club, & that he has brain damage. I doubt that i will have a chance to ask him what he thinks about my electons.
I would be even more interested in any measurements that confirmed that why.Then get a VNA and do those measurements. You can get good ones for a few thousand USD. Or you can use something like the nanoVNA, though I'm not sure of the parameters.
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say. I'm not fluent in gibberish.There is always a difference tween a transmitting antenna & a receiving antenna. It is usually 100 km or 1000 km or more. If there is very little difference, say 1 km, then the antennas can be old cans of Bud Light (355 mL).I had a look at thems antenna articles, re rain & water & wet antennas. I couldn’t understand any of it. I couldn’t even work out whether they were transmitting or receiving or both. They talked about water foam of 1 water to 10 air. They mentioned 0.5 mm of water cover. Big drops every inch or two. They mentioned a 30% change (in the right direction).There is no fundamental difference between a transmitting and receiving antenna. That's why they don't have to say whether it's a transmitting or receiving antenna. And no. If you cant see why this is the case it's not because the theory is wrong. It's because you are ignorant.
I don’t know how electons would explain any of that. They said that some antennas were badly affected by rain, & some were almost useless. They even said that rain affected an insulated antenna. How the hell did they get that?
Much of their stuff was based on models, not actual measurements. In fact none was base on measurement. Say no more.
https://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/wetantenas.pdf (https://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/Misc/wetantenas.pdf)
U say it makes no difference whether it is a transmitting antenna or a receiving antenna. I do see 4 differences.
IS IS……………… The transmitting antenna is affected by rain. The receiving antenna is affected by rain.
IS AINT……….… The transmitting antenna is affected by rain. The receiving antenna is not affected.
AINT IS……….…. The transmitting antenna is not affected. The receiving antenna is affected.
AINT AINT……... The transmitting antenna is not affected. The receiving antenna is not affected.Engineers analyse antennas by solving Maxwell's equations, either theoretically or numerically. These solutions tell us that rain has an effect on an insulated antenna. Rain changes the electromagnetic environment on and around the antenna.I am very interested in exactly why an insulated antenna acts differently when wet.
I would be even more interested in any measurements that confirmed that why.You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. You are wasting your time on scientific conspiracy theories that are based on ignorance and misconceptions. (Like Catt's paper.) Why don't you rather spend time to familiarize yourself with the theory of Electromagnetics?I don’t think that antenna designers or users have conspired to cover up Einsteinian problems.
I am looking for antenna instances where drifting electrons give a better explanation than my electons.
And where my electons give a better explanation.
And where both work ok.
And where both don’t work.
And i suspect that these instances might be more apparent if we introduce insulation on the wires.
And perhaps wet antennas can tell us something worthwhile.
Antenna designers & users have no idea what i am talking about, ie my electons.
And antenna designers & users have no idea that their precious radio waves are not photons.
And that photons are not radio waves.
But ignorance & misconceptions do not appear to have resulted in them wasting their time. But mightbe it has.
They might be thrilled to hear of my electons. And my explanation for radio waves.
Funny. At a family reunion some years ago i had a nice argument with one of my relatives re electricity & re radio waves. He has written a number of books re design & wiring of radio stuff. Anyhow i heard that he got cleaned up by a runaway trailer whilst cleaning the roadside with his club, & that he has brain damage. I doubt that i will have a chance to ask him what he thinks about my electons.
What does your new theory say about a dipole antenna. What does its radiation pattern look like? For a transmitting and receiving dipole?
Can you point us to some of the books your relative wrote. What exactly happened to him?I emailed Tony Wakefield (he has been mentioned in this thread), he is a ham & lives in Melbourne too & might know of Diamond & his books.
I dont know the difference tween a VNA & an oscilloscope. But i would keep clear of radio antenna stuff i think -- too complicated. However Veritasium's gedanken & AlphaPhoenix's X involve a kind of radio effect.I would be even more interested in any measurements that confirmed that why.Then get a VNA and do those measurements. You can get good ones for a few thousand USD. Or you can use something like the nanoVNA, though I'm not sure of the parameters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ76aomTnTA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ76aomTnTA)Feynman has never said anything useful or interesting to me & my science, but i havnt spent much time on him.
Feynman has never said anything useful or interesting to me & my science, but i havnt spent much time on him.
Much of what he says in the youtube supports me.
He reckons that the sun shines from Einstein's bum, hence that lowers Feynman to the category of someone who is unlikely to teach me anything worthwhile.
And i believe that i can learn something from anyone, but Feynman might be an exception.
I dont know what he thought about aether.
However he might have liked my electons.
I had a look. Omigosh. I didnt realize just how stupid Feynman was. In less than 60 sec i see that he thort that Einstein believed in mass increase with speed. No.Feynman has never said anything useful or interesting to me & my science, but i havnt spent much time on him.Of course. Because you're allergic to learning.
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/ (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/)QuoteMuch of what he says in the youtube supports me.Lol."I don't know what he says. It isn't interesting. But it supports me."
Gawd you are an endless source of completely unaware self-parody. :-DDQuoteHe reckons that the sun shines from Einstein's bum, hence that lowers Feynman to the category of someone who is unlikely to teach me anything worthwhile.Indeed. You should stay far away from Feynman lest you learn something useful. >:D
And i believe that i can learn something from anyone, but Feynman might be an exception.QuoteI dont know what he thought about aether.Lucky for you, he wrote down what he thought about aether. But I wouldn't open this link if I were you - you might break out in an allergic rash:
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html)QuoteHowever he might have liked my electons.Nah. He said in the video I posted what he would've thought about you. You're just another crank asking the safecracker if they tried combination 20-30-40.
I was hoping you might've watched his remarks and maybe, just maybe, might've understood why academics ignore you. But nope. Ah well.
I had a look. Omigosh. I didnt realize just how stupid Feynman was. In less than 60 sec i see that he thort that Einstein believed in mass increase with speed. No.
He reckoned that the MMXs were null. No.
He believed in time dilation. Wrong.
I will read the rest later. What a dill.
Good news, Tony Wakefield emailed me back with the following info.What does your new theory say about a dipole antenna. What does its radiation pattern look like? For a transmitting and receiving dipole?I think that an insulated dipole or a wet dipole would in effect have a shorter L. And i suspect that that would lower its effective frequencies. This might lower the antenna's happy frequency by the ratio of the speed of light in air to the speed of light in water or to the speed of light in plastic.
I am not sure whether "happy frequency" is a valid technical term, but it should be. We might have the Happiness of an antenna (units needed here). The inverse could be called Haplessness.
adx said that insulation on an antenna affected its power by only a few %, not the 0.67 to 1.00 ratio that my electons suggest. But, adx should have been referring to the ratios of the happy frequencies, not the ratio of the powers.Can you point us to some of the books your relative wrote. What exactly happened to him?I emailed Tony Wakefield (he has been mentioned in this thread), he is a ham & lives in Melbourne too & might know of Diamond & his books.
Diamond was with his club cleaning rubbish from the center median of a dual highway in Melbourne when a say builder's trailer came off & hit him, he didn’t see it coming, he was in hospital for months, had brain damage, was in the same ward as my wife (his cousin) who died of brain cancer, & they didn’t know that the other was there. I don’t know how he is nowadays. I remember him telling me that his favorit person was Faraday. I think i argued with him that electricity was not due to electron drift, & i might have argued with him that radio waves were not photons, & i might have mentioned the aetherwind affecting the speed of radio waves, it was about 6 years ago, i didn’t yet have my new (electon) electricity theory back then.
I dont know the difference tween a VNA & an oscilloscope. But i would keep clear of radio antenna stuff i think -- too complicated.
I had a look. Omigosh. I didnt realize just how stupid Feynman was.
I will read the rest later. What a dill.
I ask u am i a genius or what.:palm: How often do you jerk off to the sound of your own voice? Are you doing it right now?
[...]
I had a look. Omigosh. I didnt realize just how stupid Feynman was. In less than 60 sec i see that he thort that Einstein believed in mass increase with speed. No.
[...]
I ask u am i a genius or what.
<better snip that longness>
...
But there's more. I have also worked out how kum rain plus insulation has an effect.
Tony's email gave me a clue. He said that large drops have the effect of putting charge on the antenna, which creates noise.
Well, this tells me that the wetness on the outside of an insulated antenna creates a capacitor. The water has a charge, probably a negative charge.
And, worse, the insulation itself acts as a multiplier for the capacitance, as per a standard capacitor.
Thats why the 0.5 mm of water outside the plastic acts like it acts. And, thats why the thicker the plastic the larger the effect.
I am having a great day today.
I hope adx reads this.
Here are some of [Feynman's] better sayings. Most of his sayings did not impress me at all.
[...]
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
[...]
Better wipe the chunks off that mic, have a member of the audience squirt me down with a water bottle, and rest against a speaker in the vain unthinking hope no one noticed as I battle inexplicable blursts of feedback to say this......But there's more. I have also worked out how kum rain plus insulation has an effect.Yes (except for the charge). But what you've just stumbled on is how capacitance to 'space' slows the speed of the wavefront along an antenna element. The same would happen in a wire, and is the only or main reason you can think of that it slows to 2c/3 or whatever you use, when a dielectric surrounds it. So the falsification you so desperately sought to avoid, is now a result (and behavior) that you can use. Can you see how it would have been wrong to apply the one strike and it's out principle to your theory? The paint test you proposed would have failed, it was never going to mean anything. Can you see how it might be worth drawing on conventional theory, now that it is more of a match, than trying to destroy it all?
Tony's email gave me a clue. He said that large drops have the effect of putting charge on the antenna, which creates noise.
Well, this tells me that the wetness on the outside of an insulated antenna creates a capacitor. The water has a charge, probably a negative charge.
And, worse, the insulation itself acts as a multiplier for the capacitance, as per a standard capacitor.
Thats why the 0.5 mm of water outside the plastic acts like it acts. And, thats why the thicker the plastic the larger the effect. I am having a great day today. I hope adx reads this.
Anyway, I need to get some other stuff done.
Oh I see now, "electon" is your name for your pet theory. Nice. How about protons? There are energy levels inside the nucleus, shifting those around causes gamma rays. Are they photons?Gamma rays are i think always photons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_isomer
And doing a TDR of a threaded rod vs a smooth rod should be easy, I have some 1S2 3.9GHz plugins... none of which work, really. :-DD
The easiest to understand experimental evidence for time dilation in the real world involved flying "atomic clocks" in opposite directions on jetliners back in 1971.A G Kelly tells us that Hafele & Keating disproved time dilation.
Perhaps you heard about it? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/airtim.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/airtim.html)
Note that both gravitational (general relativity) and the larger kinematic (special relativity) effects are quantitatively important in the predictions that agree nicely with the experimental results.
<better snip that longness>Unfortunately I think I can understand it (I have oft wondered if it's like the way drunk people at parties appear drunk and silly when you're sober, but completely normal if you're not - I can only assume it also applies for madness).
The lack of difference between a transmitting antenna and a receiving antenna occurs in full duplex operation. In that instance the same antenna in the same location and at the same time transmits and receives something which isn't its own signal. Because an antenna is indistinguishable from itself in this situation, despite the fact it is doing 2 different things at once, it can't be said it is different from itself. Most cellphones are full duplex (transmit and receive at the same time), AFAIK it is only 2G GSM and so-called "TDMA" that operate in a TDMA mode (nodes do alternate transmit and receive separated in time). Single-antenna radar is an example of where the transmitting antenna and a receiving antenna are different, even though they are the same; at one point in time it transmits, later on it receives. There is no physical change needed for this difference to manifest - the antenna is otherwise the same, and shares the same resonance frequency and stuff (in this sense by same I mean not different). If the same type of antenna is transmitting in one location and receiving in another, then yes the difference is some number of km or other arbitrary distance (also of course another difference exists, being that the antennas are different ones because they are not the same antenna). But the exact same differences exist between 2 such antennas that are both transmitting, or both receiving, or just sitting there doing something like nothing, or collecting rain drops, bird drops, who knows.
But in that latter combination (Tx something=nothing, Rx something=nothing), old cans of Bud Light will perform admirably at any distance (whether modified to be cantennae or not). Similar to if I wanted to take part in a speed typing competition but chose to abstain as the winning strategum, then I could cut the lids off, cram my hands in there (carefully), and achieve the same wpm of 0 (or perhaps 1, depending on the size of the backspace key, and whether and where I emptied them first) as trying to do my clattery-mashey-shortey best. But I see your point, in that you are talking about Tx and Rx being involved in the same communication, and thus part of an interdependent system where we are trying to tease apart effects which can occur on transmission and reception and even some sort of intermediate field / X-ton tennis fixture / aetheirc medium.
On the other hand (either, as both have cans), whenever I made the same kind of silly pedantic arguments thinking I was being clever, it never worked out well because it left me looking like a nut. Refer to this post if you’re not already reading it now for a good example.
Still, it's possibly the most sense you have made so far, because it shows you are thinking from first principles and a crystal of logic is forming, even if it redissolves.
Of your rain options, the correct ones by conventional theory and knowledge are "IS IS" and "AINT AINT". I'd say in equal proportion, because evidence can't determine what counts as subjectively significant affect (but some people turn to counting Google hits for this data). Conventional theory and measurement does not know of IS/AINT and AINT/IS. Which is why SandyCox said there is no fundamental difference between a transmitting and receiving antenna. That rules out 2 of 4 differences, leaving 2 differences which are the same, in turn leaving 1 difference, which can't be different from itself, so there are really 0 differences. Which is why SandyCox said there is no fundamental difference between a transmitting and receiving antenna. Logic 101 (I reversed the order of the digits to make it more mysterious and "mine").
I learnt what gibbers are though.
No, I didn't say "that insulation on an antenna affected its power by only a few %", I was talking about the (happy) frequency you wished I had referred to. In that wetantennas article, something like the peak in Q changes from (for DL6WU 12 vs DL6WU 12 (wet)) 153MHz to 150.5MHz which is a 1.6% drop in frequency. So I was "referring to the ratios of the happy frequencies, not the ratio of the powers". I thought by using the word "detune" after you had spoken of "frequency", might lend you to understand something along the lines of tuning a radio across the dial, rather than putting a Tesla on a dyno to eke out the last bit of power from the aftermarket turbo you had fitted. I forgot about RCB (rampant confirmation bias).
Um bored now. That would be a mic drop but I already lost it about the same time I spewed down my own shirt and fell into the front row of the crowd. It's been a terrible show.
Your source does not state that Hafele & Keating "disproved time dilation"--it alleges that the rig had larger experimental errors than stated in their paper.Kelly says that all in all the clocks were not good enough to show anything definite. He did point out that the tests showed zero time dilation, & i reckon that zero means "disproof".
Here is a much later discussion that includes the corrections from time dilation that are needed in GPS, with tighter errors than back in 1971.
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Book%3A_General_Relativity_(Crowell)/01%3A_Geometric_Theory_of_Spacetime/1.02%3A__Experimental_Tests_of_the_Nature_of_Time
It also discusses the other examples, such as muon lifetime, that might not be as easy to understand.
Time dilation is not "silly".
Here is a summary of further work on the time dilation experiment: from https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/a-g-kelly-and-his-criticism-of-relativity.371910/ (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/a-g-kelly-and-his-criticism-of-relativity.371910/)Thanx for thems links. I will have a read & get back, but will take time.
"No. Certain internet kooks, including someone named A.G. Kelly, have produced reanalyses of the Hafele-Keating data[Hafele 1972] in an attempt to disprove relativity. This is just silly, because the experiment was reproduced four years later to much better precision,[Reisse 1976,Williams 1976] and again in a 25th-anniversary reenactment. The GPS system depends on general relativity, so any time you use a GPS receiver, you're reproducing relativistic time dilations of the type seen by Hafele and Keating.[Ashby 2003]
Hafele and Keating, "Around the world atomic clocks:predicted relativistic time gains," Science 177 (1972) 166.
Hafele and Keating, "Around the world atomic clocks:observed relativistic time gains". Science 177 (1972) 168.
R.A. Reisse, "The Effects of Gravitational Potential on Atomic Clocks as Observed With a Laser Pulse Time Transfer System," University of Maryland Ph.D. dissertation (May, 1976).
R.E. Williams, "A Direct Measurement of the Relativistic Effects of Gravitational Potential on the Rates of Atomic Clocks Flown in an Aircraft," University of Maryland Ph.D. dissertation (May, 1976).
C. Alley, "Proper Time Experiments in Gravitational Fields with Atomic Clocks, Aircraft, and Laser Light Pulses," in Quantum Optics, Experimental Gravity, and Measurement Theory, eds. Pierre Meystre and Marlan O. Scully, Proceedings Conf. Bad Windsheim 1981, Plenum Press, New York, 1983, ISBN 0-306-41354-X, pp. 363–427. This is available online and gives a summary of Reisse and Williams' dissertations.
Ashby, "Relativity in the Global Positioning System," http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2003-1 (http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2003-1) "
As is typical with scientific progress, an initial interesting experimental result is retried in later years with better equipment to see if it stands up.
So do photons have a mass anyway? :popcorn:Yes photons have mass. Everything has mass (except gravity), koz everything is made of photons, photons are the fundamental building block of the universe.
This paper could give some insights: https://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Coulomb%20Ref/Photonmasslimits.pdf (https://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Coulomb%20Ref/Photonmasslimits.pdf)
... I was expecting a 33% reduction in happy frequency not 3%. I would like to find out why not 33%. ...
That is a large collection of unproven statements, contrary to real evidence.Warning. Everyone around here has to be nice to me or i wont thank u in my Nobel speech.
Photons have zero mass. Therefore, they must travel at the speed of light, while massive particles must travel at lower speeds.
Originally, neutrinos were thought to have zero mass, but more recent evidence shows that their mass is very small (0.1 eV, vs. 511,000 eV for the electron).
There was a scare in 2011 (Opera experiment), where neutrino velocity larger than c was reported, but in 2012 the original experimenters found hardware problems that affected the time calibration of the experiment, and new data showed velocity < c. The detailed history of this is very interesting; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly
The extremely small size of the nucleus compared with the overall extent of the atom was demonstrated by Rutherford (who called it "the fly in the cathedral") in 1911, scattering alpha particles by a gold foil.
Nuclear dimensions are measured in fm, while atomic dimensions are measured in fractions of a nm. (Ratios of 106:1 are large.)
"EM radiation is not made of photons, but is radiated by photons, it is a part of photons." sounds like a religious dogma that could have been propagated by the Council of Chalcedon.
Real data trump feelings of "ickyness".
This paper could give some insights: https://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Coulomb%20Ref/Photonmasslimits.pdf (https://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Coulomb%20Ref/Photonmasslimits.pdf)Mass is the property of annihilating aether. And photons annihilate aether. Everything (except gravity) annihilates aether.
I will probably miss your Nobel prize lecture--it's a risk I am willing to take.Yes, miles less than my 0.05 eV. And there's is an upper bound.
By the way, I knew two Nobel laureates, who have since passed away. They were awarded their prizes after I graduated, so I don't take any credit for it.
Not only were they wise and knowledgeable, they were both "nature's gentlemen" in their relations with others.
The experimental evidence for the photon mass, according to the paper above, is an upper limit < 10-22 of the electron mass, or < 5 x 10-17 eV/c2.
The point i was trying to make re IS/AINT & AINT/IS is that a wet antenna can cause problems, but that these problems are worse if the transmitting antenna is wet & the receiving antenna is dry (IS/AINT) & if the transmitting antenna is dry & the receiving antenna is wet (AINT/IS).
It was a peripheral side issue, of no great moment re my electons, nor re the Veritasium gedanken. I only brought it up koz someone said that wetness or insulation acted on both the transmitting antenna & the receiving antenna, & i showed that there were four combinations not two, & that two of these were not a "both" scenario.
By the way, Rutherford used alpha particles emitted from a radium source, with a kinetic energy of approximately 4.6 MeV. Since the rest mass of an alpha particle (helium nucleus) is about 3.7 GeV/c2, 800 times higher, the kinematics of his experiment are non-relativistic (kinetic energy much less than rest mass), so classical mechanics and Coulomb forces suffice to describe the results, including the famous back-scattering that shows the small dimensions of the scattering center (nucleus), compared with the "plum pudding" model (negative electrons embedded in a cloud of positive charge) postulated by Thomson.I dont remember ever looking into that stuff, but i should. I suppose that an equivalent % backscatter could be got if the plumpuddings were small & had lots of space tween puddings. Anyhow all of that is well over my head.
Do you have any PCB design guidelines using your theory that could be useful?No i had to google to find out what a PCB was a few weeks ago. And now i am an expert.
By the way, Rutherford used alpha particles emitted from a radium source, with a kinetic energy of approximately 4.6 MeV. Since the rest mass of an alpha particle (helium nucleus) is about 3.7 GeV/c2, 800 times higher, the kinematics of his experiment are non-relativistic (kinetic energy much less than rest mass), so classical mechanics and Coulomb forces suffice to describe the results, including the famous back-scattering that shows the small dimensions of the scattering center (nucleus), compared with the "plum pudding" model (negative electrons embedded in a cloud of positive charge) postulated by Thomson.I dont remember ever looking into that stuff, but i should. I suppose that an equivalent % backscatter could be got if the plumpuddings were small & had lots of space tween puddings. Anyhow all of that is well over my head.
Over the years i usually only spent time on stuff if it looked like it affected my precious aether. A sort of aether profiling.
Or today i guess i can add electon profiling.
The equivalent backscatter is met only by an arrangement with similar properties of a Bohr model. An aether that could support enough of a force between 'externally neutral' plum-puddings, enough to hold matter together, wouldn't be susceptible to aetherwind. Maybe that explains why conventional science has disproven aetherwind on so many counts.By the way, Rutherford used alpha particles emitted from a radium source, with a kinetic energy of approximately 4.6 MeV. Since the rest mass of an alpha particle (helium nucleus) is about 3.7 GeV/c2, 800 times higher, the kinematics of his experiment are non-relativistic (kinetic energy much less than rest mass), so classical mechanics and Coulomb forces suffice to describe the results, including the famous back-scattering that shows the small dimensions of the scattering center (nucleus), compared with the "plum pudding" model (negative electrons embedded in a cloud of positive charge) postulated by Thomson.I dont remember ever looking into that stuff, but i should. I suppose that an equivalent % backscatter could be got if the plumpuddings were small & had lots of space tween puddings. Anyhow all of that is well over my head.
Over the years i usually only spent time on stuff if it looked like it affected my precious aether. A sort of aether profiling.
Or today i guess i can add electon profiling.
Interestingly with atomic structure, the 'new electricity' cannot explain the electron microscopy results of an energised circuit. I'm still intrigued by your process of 'profiling' or cherry-picking results that confirm your theory, without a quantified version of your theory, how is it possible to make a fair comparison between 'fringe' and 'conventional' physics?
With the maths, why not start with a high-dimension quasi-space-time algebra and develop from there, you can still have a 3D+time system within that structure and if that's genuinely all that's needed, the higher dimensions will just vanish through normalisation and in your choice of metric. Start with something simple like the motion of an electron beam in E and B fields and progress from there. At least from that point, you can begin to set constraints due to observations and effects without 'forcing': i.e. not mandating that because an electron is affected by an E-field that it produces one. Your concept will remain forever useless unless you can somehow find a practical use for it.I am ok with free electrons & with electron beams, but electons wont have much to do with that, except of course that electons must be involved in the electricity behind the scenes.
[...]
How can we make efficient progress with advanced solar energy, advanced battery storage, fusion, etc, if designers try to invoke the old electricity made by drifting internal electrons, when electricity is actually primarily due to electons hugging the surfaces at the speed of light, & secondarily due to free (conduction) electrons flowing (comparatively slowly) on surfaces (mainly due to the influence of electons). Drifting electrons might be true, but the electricity will be insignificant.
I am happy with electron beams, i said that my electons dont play a central role, i didnt say electrons.[...]
How can we make efficient progress with advanced solar energy, advanced battery storage, fusion, etc, if designers try to invoke the old electricity made by drifting internal electrons, when electricity is actually primarily due to electons hugging the surfaces at the speed of light, & secondarily due to free (conduction) electrons flowing (comparatively slowly) on surfaces (mainly due to the influence of electons). Drifting electrons might be true, but the electricity will be insignificant.
What is your current intention to prevent designers from invoking old electricity? Designers, generally, at least need some means of predicting the behaviour. At present, it is possible to design something using 'old electricity' that will perform exceedingly close to the models and predictions (within predicted uncertainly).
If aetherwind appears in aetherwind tests and doesn't in every other test, then surely, the simple option is to just stop doing aetherwind tests, aetherwind is then no-longer a problem - if it showed up in non-aetherwind tests, then yes, it would highlight a weakness of the models... but it doesn't. As you just said, it appears only in aetherwind tests.
Hypothetically then, if electrons do not play a part in electron microscopy, then we do definately have some form of cathode-ray, both it and its effects are observeable with the right low-pressure gas. Decreasing the gas pressure further removes the visible trace that shows the path of the cathode-ray but its effects remain otherwise observeable. The cathode-ray is found to have an electric and magnetic field associated with it, it can transport finite quanta of charge to an object that can be observed to only have the properties of electric field when static and those 'charged' objects when in motion have magnetic field. This is pure observation and not totally out of reach for an amateur. It can be seen that the process of 'charging' which happens when the beam imparts the property we call charge to an object, that the beam is deflected by the buildup of charge. Charge can be transferred to an object in a beam of electrons when in free-fall, so wires non essential. You would have to start imparting inteligence to these 'new electrons' for them to be able to know whether or not they are in motion, within a crystal lattice, free-space, aether, whether the aetherwind is blowing and whether or not they are near another 'new electron'.
So, centrifuging of aether, now that is just stupid. I'll let you re-think that one, if you need a hint... remember that you are trying to discredit special relativity.
Do you have any PCB design guidelines using your theory that could be useful?No i had to google to find out what a PCB was a few weeks ago. And now i am an expert.
This paper could give some insights: https://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Coulomb%20Ref/Photonmasslimits.pdf (https://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Coulomb%20Ref/Photonmasslimits.pdf)Mass is the property of annihilating aether. And photons annihilate aether. Everything (except gravity) annihilates aether.
They mention that if a photon had mass then it could not move at the speed of light. What the.
So, you're happy with electron beams. Beams of particles that embody all the reasons why your theory fails, the fact that an entity that is observable as a quanta of charge and conveyor of momentum which behaves exactly like the conventional model predicts. The beam which has been demonstrated to penetrate beneath the surface of material whilst retaining all properties of electrons and simultaneously those of current carriers, additionally proving the drift model of conduction? The same beam if driven to higher energies behaves according to Einsteinian relativity. How can you possibly be happy with electron beams? no part of your theory would allow them to exist.I am ok with old (deep electron drift) electricity, but i say that it is insignificant, compared to my new (surface hugging electon) electricity, which includes my new (surface electron flow) electricity.
Skimmed the book by Krafft and I must say, he was a very clever person, but quite why he felt the need to continue writing his book after the phrase "Nuclear physicists will probably say that the writer is merely belabouring a man of straw--an extinct species, and the physicists of today are no longer dealing with planetary electrons." remains a mystery.
Good to see here that we have some good measurable properties of aether. Time dilation near a spinning disc. Would a 15cm diameter disc at 90,000 rpm produce any noticeable effects?
Mass is the property of annihilating aether. And photons annihilate aether. Everything (except gravity) annihilates aether.What is aether? And whatever it is, why would gravity be an exception?
My theory is very foreign to standard science, koz it is based on skoolkid logic.They mention that if a photon had mass then it could not move at the speed of light. What the.Yes, that's a pretty basic principle rooted in the very definition of the speed of light as we define it, and that is supposed to be a constant.
You seem to have a completely alternative theory, but it's unclear (at least to me) what it exactly is.
Quartz crystals and older Accutron-type metal tuning forks are physical artifacts whose frequency is not a fundamental constant of nature, but depends on their dimensions.Yes, fork frequency depends on dimensions etc. And dimensions etc are affected by length contraction due to aetherwind. Thusly we have ticking dilation. There is no such thing as time dilation.
Cesium beam clocks and other "atomic clocks" exploit frequencies that are natural features of atomic energy levels, etc.
"The second is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency ∆Cs, the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium 133 atom, to be 9 192 631 770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is equal to s–1" from BIPM.
(I used to joke with my archaeology student friends that we physicists avoided artifacts, while they tried to find them. The usage above is closer to the archaeology definition.)
(3) On page 31 Krafft says.......
... due to the bent trajectory of the veering aether.
(4) Podkletnov, on youtube & in papers ...
Smoke-movement ….... Tobacco smoke was whisked axially upwards (ok).
DePalma too mentioned a loss of time, near a spinning wheel i think.
(5) It would i think be an easy University project to test for time dilation effects near the axle of a spinning disc. ... Ticking should slow at the north end (wind=V+v) & fast at the south end (wind=V-v) compared to ticking elsewhere in the lab (wind=V).
... I believe that the quartz crystal suffers length contraction & that this then affects the ticking ...
Modern better watches now use a solid crystal, & are much more accurate, but might not be as sensitive to LC, ie an old fashioned tuning fork crystal might give better (bigger) results.
... But in the case of a laboratory on Earth that escape velocity would need to be the sum of all escape velocities, ie including the Sun & Earth & Moon etc. Not the nett escape velocity. We need to use the total because photaeno-drag is due to the total photaeno flux fighting for the use of the aether, & this flux is additive.
...
I wonder whether it really was tobacco smoke.(3) On page 31 Krafft says....... ... due to the bent trajectory of the veering aether.The main experimental prerequisite seems to be having eaten a whole box of LSD or something before venturing into the lab.
(4) Podkletnov, on youtube & in papers ...
Smoke-movement ….... Tobacco smoke was whisked axially upwards (ok).
DePalma too mentioned a loss of time, near a spinning wheel i think.
(5) It would i think be an easy University project to test for time dilation effects near the axle of a spinning disc. ... Ticking should slow at the north end (wind=V+v) & fast at the south end (wind=V-v) compared to ticking elsewhere in the lab (wind=V).
... I believe that the quartz crystal suffers length contraction & that this then affects the ticking ...
Modern better watches now use a solid crystal, & are much more accurate, but might not be as sensitive to LC, ie an old fashioned tuning fork crystal might give better (bigger) results.
... But in the case of a laboratory on Earth that escape velocity would need to be the sum of all escape velocities, ie including the Sun & Earth & Moon etc. Not the nett escape velocity. We need to use the total because photaeno-drag is due to the total photaeno flux fighting for the use of the aether, & this flux is additive. ...
[...]
I am ok with old (deep electron drift) electricity, but i say that it is insignificant, compared to my new (surface hugging electon) electricity, which includes my new (surface electron flow) electricity.
The problem with electron drift electricity is that the speed of light in Cu is about 10 m/s, ie c/30,000,000, badly below c/1. And, it duznt explain how the speed of electricity in an insulated wire is 2c/3.
Electron beams are ok, they are compatible with my elections.
[...]
How do drifting electrons give c/1 for bare wire, & 2c/3 for insulated wire?[...]
I am ok with old (deep electron drift) electricity, but i say that it is insignificant, compared to my new (surface hugging electon) electricity, which includes my new (surface electron flow) electricity.
The problem with electron drift electricity is that the speed of light in Cu is about 10 m/s, ie c/30,000,000, badly below c/1. And, it duznt explain how the speed of electricity in an insulated wire is 2c/3.
Electron beams are ok, they are compatible with my elections.
[...]
Is that all this 'theory' is resting on? Because, no, you're wrong, conventional EM theory predicts the speed of "electricity" in wires very well. In terms of voltage, current, dissipated energy and stored energy, conventional electricity explains it all, and the velocities at which they propagate, and it does it very well. Is that seriously the basis of your theory?
I'm actually disappointed, we were just getting to the good bit and we hadn't even got to causality where the real fun begins.
How do drifting electrons give c/1 for bare wire, & 2c/3 for insulated wire?[...]
I am ok with old (deep electron drift) electricity, but i say that it is insignificant, compared to my new (surface hugging electon) electricity, which includes my new (surface electron flow) electricity.
The problem with electron drift electricity is that the speed of light in Cu is about 10 m/s, ie c/30,000,000, badly below c/1. And, it duznt explain how the speed of electricity in an insulated wire is 2c/3.
Electron beams are ok, they are compatible with my elections.
[...]
Is that all this 'theory' is resting on? Because, no, you're wrong, conventional EM theory predicts the speed of "electricity" in wires very well. In terms of voltage, current, dissipated energy and stored energy, conventional electricity explains it all, and the velocities at which they propagate, and it does it very well. Is that seriously the basis of your theory?
I'm actually disappointed, we were just getting to the good bit and we hadn't even got to causality where the real fun begins.
No, but i doubt that anyone knows what permittivity means.How do drifting electrons give c/1 for bare wire, & 2c/3 for insulated wire?[...]
I am ok with old (deep electron drift) electricity, but i say that it is insignificant, compared to my new (surface hugging electon) electricity, which includes my new (surface electron flow) electricity.
The problem with electron drift electricity is that the speed of light in Cu is about 10 m/s, ie c/30,000,000, badly below c/1. And, it duznt explain how the speed of electricity in an insulated wire is 2c/3.
Electron beams are ok, they are compatible with my elections.
[...]
Is that all this 'theory' is resting on? Because, no, you're wrong, conventional EM theory predicts the speed of "electricity" in wires very well. In terms of voltage, current, dissipated energy and stored energy, conventional electricity explains it all, and the velocities at which they propagate, and it does it very well. Is that seriously the basis of your theory?
I'm actually disappointed, we were just getting to the good bit and we hadn't even got to causality where the real fun begins.
Do you know what "permittivity" means?
"I don’t know much about atomic clocks. Some i think have a quartz crystal as a part of their circuitry. So i am not sure whether they are truly atomic."Early atomic clocks had a quartz crystal in their circuitry.
Atomic clocks rely on the energy levels of atoms, so that a transition corresponds (by elementary quantum mechanics) to a frequency, as in the definition I quoted.
If you don't understand that, how can you talk about the difference between quartz and atom-beam clocks?
I thought the concept of aether (that I was more used to seeing spelled ether) was long abandoned, but apparently not. Even seems to be a whole "community" of people around that idea.It was never abandoned. Anyone can google re the history of that. I suggest -- Demjanov, Reg Cahill, Michelson, Miller, Munera, Marmet. But then it might result in 10 years of interesting follow-up study.
I had wondered about the 'other sort' of tobacco - but it was too obvious to account for all the experimental effects.If ever there is any successful follow-up of Podkletnov's spinning disc experiments re anti-gravity & re ticking dilation then the serendipitious rising smoke episode would become very famous.
Then "Tobacco smoke was whisked axially upwards" hinted at far-reaching (for days after) experimental consequences of quadru-bottle triple-distilled double-shot single-malt, but even that volume of aethernol can't support the sheer magnitude of the reported experimental (d)effects.
No, the only poison of choice which suits the dire weirdness of this thread is that of John Lilly and NASA's dolphin sex house:
https://boingboing.net/2021/02/22/the-dolphin-house-a-documentary-on-john-lilly-and-margaret-howes-attempts-to-communicate-with-dolphins.html
Science.
Early atomic clocks had a quartz crystal in their circuitry.Atomic clocks do have a quartz, but it's in a loop, always being adjusted by the 'reference' physical phenomena. Basically any effect the shifting of the frequency of the quartz or the surrounding circuitry would have is compensated by the physical phenomena.
Are u sure that there are some moderner versions that dont have quartz?
Anyhow, if an atomic clock has quartz, then there is a chance that the aetherwind can have a similar ticking dilation effect as for a plain quartz clock.
In that case the length contraction effect on atomic clocks might have little to do with the quartz.Early atomic clocks had a quartz crystal in their circuitry.Atomic clocks do have a quartz, but it's in a loop, always being adjusted by the 'reference' physical phenomena. Basically any effect the shifting of the frequency of the quartz or the surrounding circuitry would have is compensated by the physical phenomena.
Are u sure that there are some moderner versions that dont have quartz?
Anyhow, if an atomic clock has quartz, then there is a chance that the aetherwind can have a similar ticking dilation effect as for a plain quartz clock.
Before you start arguing that aether-based gremlins are affecting the 'reference' physical phenomena as well, well, they would have to affect a wide variety of different phenomena in the exact same way. Atomic clocks are based of of several principles. You may wish to take a look at them.
Quote[...]No, but i doubt that anyone knows what permittivity means.
Do you know what "permittivity" means?
Firstly u would have to know what permittivity is.
In other words u would have to know what causes permittivity. Obviously it has to do with the aether.
[...]
Before we get bogged down with "what permittivity means", what does "electricity" mean?Quote[...]Do you know what "permittivity" means?No, but i doubt that anyone knows what permittivity means. Firstly u would have to know what permittivity is. In other words u would have to know what causes permittivity. Obviously it has to do with the aether.[...]
"Electricity" is a bit of a strange concept, to say that "the electricity flows at a rate" is a weak statement. In terms of observable quantities, electric field, magnetic field, and current, constitute "electricity", they are all inter-related. It is also the meeting point of several interpretations of nature, where electrons must be considered both as discrete particles and a continuous flux (J component of Maxwell), on a nano-scale some effects described by quantum theories are evident, and at the larger scale observations follow a mostly Maxwellian behaviour. In either case, there are defined relationships between all the quantities that agree with all those theories. Just some involve properties that don't have an effect at other scales and some properties that are otherwise embodied by the model and are apparently ignored and higher or lower levels.
Electronicians typically refer to the propagation of a signal when quantifying a rate of propagation. The signal would typically be a voltage, but measurement of that voltage is, at least, difficult to do without drawing some current, that current is a burden and requires that to simply measure a voltage, some current must flow. So, in anything other than an abstract thought experiment, measurement instruments cannot be an after-thought and must be part of "the experiment" (the physical collection of stuff that we intend to analyse). Modern test equipment is less burdensome, but you have to think about how their connections and the effect that will have on the measurement, oscilloscopes with "earthed" ground clips are a prime example.
Most common voltage and current measurement instruments have a "resistance" at the input, which immediately puts a known relationship between the voltage and current, there is a unique relationship between I,V,R (under most circumstances, knowing any two gives the third, a common interpretation of Ohm's law) - additionally, we have a law whereby the thermal/Ohmic losses have been observed to follow a unique relationship between P,I,V P,I,R and P,V,R. Poynting showed that the relationship between electric and magnetic fields AND ohmic losses was a theorem of the Maxwell equations when assumed axiomatic. So... the flow of power is a good candidate.
Poynting is inescapable, the conclusion in this thread has been that when it is appropriately calculated and all facets of the "experiment" are considered, it is indeed true and valid... which is good because it has been proven as a unique theorem relating the flows of ohmic, stored and E-cross-B interpretations of energy. The hardest (my opinion only in rigger, existence is indisputable) evidence of drift velocity has been its agreement with special relativity interpretations of magnetism and the more global observations of special relativity - but it agrees also with non-relativistic analysis (just maybe the mean path length, velocity, collision time etc don't get a unique solution there). The relationship between the momentum of electrons and how the fields behave around them is a key part of the delay in energy transfer and the evolution of fields between steady-state conditions.
The propagation of a voltage along a wire, what are we observing? The E-field, the current, the B-field or power (E-cross-H, I*V, V^2/R etc)? In terms of time, there may be dispersive effects and generally, the signal entering will not be exactly what we put in, so what properties of the signals define the time? If we measure the energy we have input'ed to the system and the energy we get out, we see an interesting property. There will be a time where there has been no energy output'ed and some energy input'ed, if we wait a while and stop inputting to the system, there will still be some energy output'ed with none input'ed. From that, we infer that energy is stored in the system and that is well validated by measurements. Comparison of the profile of energy input and energy output from a zoomed-out perspective will just look shifted in time (ignoring losses etc for the moment) so we can infer that there is a delay between energy entering and leaving at two points. That is all well predicted by Maxwell's equations. The properties of dielectric mediums are embodied in the permittivity term and have a calculatable and measurable effect on the system.
So, you want to view the E-cross-H, S, field as constituted by photons? Sure, why not, but what properties are we installing in these S-tons (new name to show I'm talking about E-cross-H)? The Poynting S-field would do some interesting dynamic things like dive in and out of the surface when electrons change momentum, more like dolphins than kangaroos. But what evidence is there to say that field behaves more like a lot of quanta than a continuous field?
I guess the idea of a circulating "photon" comes from reciprocity with a circulating electron producing something photon like... any comments?I wonder what electricity would be like if it were due to drifting electrons. The speed of propagation of the electricity would be the speed of the wavefront of the electron to electron bumping, say 10 m/s for DC. Computers would take 57 years to do something that should take 1 second. Free surface electrons might flow at c/1000, instead of the 0.1 mm/s of the drifting electrons. But the idea of electons hugging wires comes from the need for electricity to propagate at c/1 on bare wire & 2c/3 on insulated wire.
[...]
But there are more versions of electricity than there are electronicians.
[...]
Indeed that slowing is moreso on the nearside to the wire, which is why the electon wants to bend in to the wire, which results in the electon following the wire, which i call hugging.
[...]
Yes the administrators have been kind.[...]But there are more versions of electricity than there are electronicians.[...]As the lengths of these posts is climbing, I'm going to struggle even more to relevantly comment without misinterpreting, and all this sitting on the fence is hurting my behind... I'm gonna have to call it a day after this. I've enjoyed the debate, but it has been a long away off-topic for long enough and the powers that be have been more than generous by allowing it to continue - I hope that's because there is a glimmer of value, somewhere deep. Last post from me... I promise.
Indeed that slowing is moreso on the nearside to the wire, which is why the electon wants to bend in to the wire, which results in the electon following the wire, which i call hugging. [...]
I cherry-picked the two points in the quote above, because, yes, I'm sure I commented earlier that electronics, electricity, EM etc does bring together some rather distinct areas of physics with different interpretations of what's going on. The take-away from that really shouldn't be that they necessarily disagree, but theories and models have differing applications, as a practitioner of electronarianism, calculating the power delivered from a battery to a bulb, I will not be evaluating 10^32 wave-functions or calculating fields unless I need to, Poynting says that Kirchoff agrees with Ohm, so I'm happy. If the timing is critical to the ns, yeah, I'll solve for fields, and I'll charge my client accordingly and justify it because of the pesky imaginary terms in Poynting. Neither solution invalidates the other, I am just accepting the approximation and ignorance of the transients of one for its immense efficiency, likewise, with a lumped transmission line, it is immensely more numerically efficient when compared with a full Maxwell solution - doesn't apply to all applications but it is my choice to make the trade-off between accuracy and speed - if measurement and observation disagree enough, I'll rethink... hence the original theme of this thread, a lumped model plus an appreciation of minimum speed-of-light delay is a far more practical method to approach the experiment, Poynting produces a universally valid answer but may require 10^10 more multiplications. (SandyCox vs official statement of Poynting not discounted)
The second point was really where I struggled, a diagram would have been nice because I can't follow what's hugging what and whether hugging is essential and when it's allowed to make a jump. There is a conventional physics problem with the photon chasing its own tail and why it isn't a stable existence IIRC... is it the observed magnetic moment and quantum spin? But yeah, I can't keep track of all those words, it's pushing the limits of the thread and my reluctance to type-set maths and the contents of my brain too far.
On the plus side, I do see where you're coming from with the screw thread concept better now, (did I mention that it sounded interesting because I can't imagine what the B field would look like... I meant to, maybe forgot)... I think it would look very interesting with regard to electon flow but wouldn't discredit a Maxwell/Poynting solution.
Thanks for the debate, you've out-worded me!
Its mainly baloney. LIGO is rubbish. As we will all find out shortly, after they bring some new sites into being (India Australia etc).[snip]Wait... what?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity)
"...between -3×10-15 and +7×10-16 times the speed of light"
I skimmed the page you linked to. It offers an extensive history of the subject and lists quite a few different speeds as predicted by different scientists, but, in the end, the consensus seems to be that speed of gravity = c.
But that's old physics. It includes relativity, etc, but it's still old in the context of this thread. It's exciting to be a part of history in the making. :-DD
There is no such thing as a gravity wave.
Gravity propagates at at least 20 billion c, not at c, nothing about gravity has a speed of c.
Even Einstein did no believe in quadrupolar GWs, or, at least, he believed that if they existed then they could not carry or transmit energy.
... The relationship between the momentum of electrons and how the fields behave around them is a key part of the delay in energy transfer and the evolution of fields between steady-state conditions.
...
... an object is influenced directly only by its immediate surroundings ...
... something in the space between those points must mediate the action ...
... something, such as a wave or particle, must travel through the space between the two points ...
Some latch onto aethers, others to fields, as if they are real (some experimental evidence suggests that they are). Some go along with what the current fashionable consensus might be, others might be happy enough with the knowledge that something like the magnet force 'just is' and see no more mystery in it travelling through empty space than a particle going through an empty region. After all - there is no proof an object is not influenced only by its immediate surroundings (some evidence they are), there is no reason to suppose that anything in between the points is needed to mediate anything where there is no cause and effect there, and no proof that anything actually travels through the space.
So that gets back to the magnets. If I move one, we now know (or can justifiably assume to know) that the potential action appears to travel at the speed of light. This statement alone perfectly defines a spherical shell of potential action expanding at the speed of light. Forgetting about the mechanics of BxH for the moment, that qualitatively defines the wavefront travelling through space - hence what I said about "we are watching the fabric of time itself in action".
Heh, dolphins. Thought I better descend from madness to reply, while things have taken a distinct (and unexpected) turn toward the sane, but only time to rhetorically deal with one point for today:... The relationship between the momentum of electrons and how the fields behave around them is a key part of the delay in energy transfer and the evolution of fields between steady-state conditions.That's the bit that (as aetherist says) seems the most synthetic of conventional theory to me, as if vacuum permittivity is a made up constant to generate the speed of light in mathland. Does this momentum produce the delay (which implies if it were different then the speed of light could be higher, like is possible of sound), or is this momentum a roundabout manifestation of the effectively infinite speed of light? The observation that light cannot have a longitudinal mode (for massless photons) suggests to me that it is the latter. And the apparent wave behaviour of EM is a result of time istelf. Or is time.
...
[...]
"Early atomic clocks had a quartz crystal in their circuitry.I would not rule out that length contraction due to aetherwind can affect the ticking of a quartz crystal or a quartz tuning fork.
Are u sure that there are some moderner versions that dont have quartz?
Anyhow, if an atomic clock has quartz, then there is a chance that the aetherwind can have a similar ticking dilation effect as for a plain quartz clock."
Yes, atomic clocks contain control circuitry that includes quartz crystals, copper conductors for electron current, capacitors with displacement current coursing through them, semiconductors that exploit quantum mechanics, and other results of 20th-century electronic engineering from physical principles.
What makes them "atomic" is that the frequency from which the time outputs are derived is that of a specific transition between atomic energy levels (in the microwave range) of cesium, analogous to the two yellow wavelengths found in transitions between levels in sodium atoms. The control circuitry locks the various internal generators to that transition frequency, independent of physical dimensions of the apparatus.
This interesting article from the Hewlett-Packard fan club shows the original -hp- 5060A configured for traveling. Later in the article, the 5060A is posed next to larger laboratory units.
https://www.hpmemoryproject.org/news/flying_clock/celebration_01.htm (https://www.hpmemoryproject.org/news/flying_clock/celebration_01.htm)
The 5060 series was introduced in 1964, and the cesium clocks are now a mature technology. You can find further details on the web, should you care to see what you are talking about.
The 1977 popular article cited in that reference, https://www.hpmemoryproject.org/timeline/alan_bagley/measure_77-04.htm (https://www.hpmemoryproject.org/timeline/alan_bagley/measure_77-04.htm) discusses the details of a later time dilation experiment using specially ruggedized versions of the basic instrument to avoid potential practical problems (vibration, etc.) in the original 1971 experiment.
The final cesium clock model from -hp-/Agilent/Keysight, the 5071A, was spun off to Symmetricom (now Microsemi) in 2005. https://www.microsemi.com/product-directory/clocks-frequency-references/3832-cesium-frequency-references (https://www.microsemi.com/product-directory/clocks-frequency-references/3832-cesium-frequency-references) It is still available, yet expensive. You can find used 5060A units on eBay.
That may be your impression of atomic structure, but the "clocks" are based on the energy levels of the different orbitals, otherwise known as spectroscopy.The self-adjustment via a control would overcome ticking dilation from other parts of the clock, but of course we would still be left with the ticking dilation of the control itself.
Electrons whizzing around in planar orbits is an outdated concept, found only on graphics.
Again, the reason why time is the basic dimension that can be measured to an incredible accuracy and repeatability is the existence of these well-defined energy levels and their corresponding frequencies.
In current practice, the meter was re-defined by postulating the speed of light, since it can now be measured to better resolution than the previous wavelength standards. We now, therefore, "measure" the meter using the defined value of the speed of light and measuring a time interval: very roughly, this means that the foot is now a light-nanosecond.
Note that even if your aetherwind affected dimensions of the circuitry in the control system of a caesium clock, the circuitry adjusts itself to agree with the physical frequency of the atomic transition. Similarly, vibration, stray magnetism, humidity, and temperature could cause the synchronization to fail, but they don't affect the atomic physics at the center of the system.
<^ link>This whole post was a lot more solid than I was expecting (or perhaps used to), and I have to agree with a lot of it, or even most of it. Minus the guesswork - for me a lot of the theory is too far away from observed reality (or too reliant on offensively dubious (to me) experimental observations) to fit into my brain - but that's just me, and I am light on the meaning of conventional theory as it is. So I am reasonably happy with what you said here.
I wonder what electricity would be like if it were due to drifting electrons. The speed of propagation of the electricity would be the speed of the wavefront of the electron to electron bumping, say 10 m/s for DC. Computers would take 57 years to do something that should take 1 second. Free surface electrons might flow at c/1000, instead of the 0.1 mm/s of the drifting electrons. But the idea of electons hugging wires comes from the need for electricity to propagate at c/1 on bare wire & 2c/3 on insulated wire.
A year ago i made an Excel of electrons bumping electrons, where each electron influenced 3 electrons ahead. But i had a look at my effort recently & i couldn’t follow my methodology.<^ link>This whole post was a lot more solid than I was expecting (or perhaps used to), and I have to agree with a lot of it, or even most of it. Minus the guesswork - for me a lot of the theory is too far away from observed reality (or too reliant on offensively dubious (to me) experimental observations) to fit into my brain - but that's just me, and I am light on the meaning of conventional theory as it is. So I am reasonably happy with what you said here.QuoteI wonder what electricity would be like if it were due to drifting electrons. The speed of propagation of the electricity would be the speed of the wavefront of the electron to electron bumping, say 10 m/s for DC. Computers would take 57 years to do something that should take 1 second. Free surface electrons might flow at c/1000, instead of the 0.1 mm/s of the drifting electrons. But the idea of electons hugging wires comes from the need for electricity to propagate at c/1 on bare wire & 2c/3 on insulated wire.A point I had meant to make about that, was that no existing theory works this way. Consider a barrel of charge contained in a CCB (charge confinement barrel, electrons, protons, electons, whatever). If the barrels are 1m apart, then pushing one, pushes on the other at the speed of light. It doesn't matter if the barrels are connected by a piece of wire. The electron to electron bumping in effect acts over the metre not angstroms.
"The self-adjustment via a control would overcome ticking dilation from other parts of the clock, but of course we would still be left with the ticking dilation of the control itself."For sure the new definitions must be a hell of an improvement in lots of way. I am not saying that i understand them. And i am very impressed with modern science. I love it. Can't wait for JamesWebb to moider the bigbang.
Could you re-phrase that statement so that it makes some sense?
The reason why the definition of the meter was changed was that with cesium atom clocks, the repeatability of the "second" is better than the old repeatability of the speed of light measurements based on the wavelength definition of the meter.
Have you ever seen a description of the way in which the speed of light was measured by simultaneous measurements of the temporal frequency and spatial wavelength of a "dye-stabilized" laser beam? It was a very clever straightforward measurement, applying a microwave frequency to an electro-optical amplitude modulator that produces a "carrier" center frequency and two "sideband" frequencies, in the same manner of an AM radio system.
You adjust the microwave frequency (with a servo) to get an interferometer to lock up on all three frequencies, then measure the characteristic length of the interferometer with a tape measure to determine the integers that define the relationship between the frequencies. No handwaving required, just arithmetic. See: https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html
[...]
A year ago i made an Excel of electrons bumping electrons, where each electron influenced 3 electrons ahead. But i had a look at my effort recently & i couldn’t follow my methodology.
[...]
I think I'd be interested in those too, whether I would do them justice in practical application of time spent learning,
[...]
I use Excel to do my calculations to help me to avoid equations. Using lots of small iterations (using say Newton's F=ma) using Excel is a substitute for my lack of calculus, especially re integration.[...]A year ago i made an Excel of electrons bumping electrons, where each electron influenced 3 electrons ahead. But i had a look at my effort recently & i couldn’t follow my methodology.[...]Before I forget also, a couple of book recommendations to round off. The first one, probably not entirely relevant, "An Introduction to Mathematical Logic", lots of authors have written books with that title and function, the one on my shelf is by Richard E. Hodel and it "isn't bad", not without its critiques, but relates to what I've mentioned a little about the arbitrariness of numbers (squiggles on paper) and the strength they are given when related to numbers of chickens, lengths made of numbers of stacked wavelengths... you'd get a more explicit explanation from one of metric spaces, but that would get very abstract very fast.
The second one, on geometric algebra, a generalisation of vectors that allows both vector spaces and space-time-like spaces to exist. "Geometric Algebra for Physicists" by Doran and Lasenby is an exceptional treatment of that, it is neither completely abstract nor does it try to force "visualisation of it" (perhaps one of the reasons GA/Clifford/Quaternion representations of Maxwell failed early on), it just presents it as a tool and one that is far more powerful than euclidean vectors. GA isn't necessarily 'easier' than conventional vectors, but they're not difficult for standard 3D stuff and expanding beyond whilst not constraining to space-time and clearly seeing the implications of going space-time or non-space-time. The first few chapters (I think) should be appreciatable if not studyable by someone who can grasp at least complex numbers and geometric concepts of lines, planes and cubes etc.
Both books are quite expensive to buy but pdfs are available... somewhere, and Doran's doctoral thesis on GA for physicists and engineers is freely available... I'll drop a reference link if I remember.
[...]
And i have used Excel to look into the behavior of my electons, compared to old (electron) electricity.
Plus as i said i used Excel to look into 3 electrons bumping 3 electrons to help find the speed of old (electron) electricity.
I made my own Excel programs for calculating say Coulomb force etc. But nowadays there are plenty of online calculators for almost everything.
[...]
Some latch onto aethers, others to fields, as if they are real (some experimental evidence suggests that they are). Some go along with what the current fashionable consensus might be, others might be happy enough with the knowledge that something like the magnet force 'just is' and see no more mystery in it travelling through empty space than a particle going through an empty region. After all - there is no proof an object is not influenced only by its immediate surroundings (some evidence they are), there is no reason to suppose that anything in between the points is needed to mediate anything where there is no cause and effect there, and no proof that anything actually travels through the space.
So that gets back to the magnets. If I move one, we now know (or can justifiably assume to know) that the potential action appears to travel at the speed of light. This statement alone perfectly defines a spherical shell of potential action expanding at the speed of light. Forgetting about the mechanics of BxH for the moment, that qualitatively defines the wavefront travelling through space - hence what I said about "we are watching the fabric of time itself in action".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8)
Ok I think I accept Feynman's answer, that we can keep asking "why" ad nauseam after hearing "they do". But his appeal is not to something deep and mysterious, instead to something so shallow and readily apparent that it gets taken for granted.
I brought up my observation(s) in this same light - a simplistic view mixed with up to date knowledge. Yet without getting the details correct (or needing to, being the point) or cherry-picking anything beyond a speed, or even thinking, I have come up with a picture that looks the same as a full Maxwell simulation on screen (ie, animator vs field solver).
To that I ask "why"? Did I cherry-pick the only thing that matters? I'm talking (in my earlier post) about the H field and its momentum, the slowing.
And this is also the reason relativity and quantum mechanics are so often attacked by crackpots as the article I posted many pages ago goes into. The predictions of these theories are so far afield from our everyday experience that one could have a visceral reaction to accepting it... until one really dives into the experiments and mathematics that predict the phenomena (and having to ignore all the devices we use whose operation was engineered from the physics). Then, as Feynman says in his other video on pseudoscience I posted, you can't just tear down the extant theory without putting SOMETHING ELSE there to replace it that has the same predictive power as the extant theory. This is why GR superseded Newtonian Gravity, of course - GR predicts everything NG does while also being able to accurately predict the observed perihelion of Mercury.GTR does not predict Mercury's orbit. Firstly it was a postdiction, after a few years of trying (where Einstein finally got his recipe right). Secondly we are not sure what the size of the anomaly is. Thirdly we are not sure of the Newtonian component. Fourthly modern computer analysis shows that GTR duznt even give Mercury a proper orbit, Mercury flies off in a short time.
It's also why I have some small contempt for people who say they want to overturn all of physics without even a passing understanding of multivariable vector calculus.Stephen Crothers explains that GTR invokes pseudo-vectors, & that Einstein lacks an understanding of vectors.
You can make a picture that explains one aspect of the phenomena but the power of Maxwell's Eqs is that it is predictive of ALL (in the classical limit) electromagnetic phenomena.I thought that Einstein got the idea for his 1905 paper on STR because the standard explanation failed as to why if a magnet was passed through a loop of wire then the wire got an electric current & vice versa.
I found this useful lecture: https://itp.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/pf-faq/homopolar.pdf (https://itp.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/pf-faq/homopolar.pdf)I saw nothing in that paper that explained how there is a voltage when the disc & a disc magnet are spinning locked together as one, when the relative motion is zero.
Quoting the paper: "It is surprising that the so-called Faraday paradox is still a source of confusion although the “electrody-
namics of moving bodies” is well understood with Einstein’s famous special-relativity paper. Here, I
try to give an explanation by avoiding the use of the integral form of Maxwell’s equation, which seems
to be the main source of the confusion."
Instead of ad hominem attacks on dead scientists, I suggest you read the 7-page paper.
What is your reference with experimental data that shows a voltage when the disc and disc magnet move together?I added a youtube to my previous reply. There are lots of similar youtubes re this paradox. With aether it is indeed a paradox. Without aether it is a catastrophe.
Faraday's homopolar generator is shown in this 1884 drawing: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Faraday_disk_generator.jpg Note the rotating disc and fixed magnet.
This article (which you need to go to a library for) explains the "paradox". https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6404/ab2345
Every historical or explanatory reference I can find to Faraday's generator shows a rotating disc and a stationary magnet.
GTR does not predict Mercury's orbit. Firstly it was a postdiction, after a few years of trying (where Einstein finally got his recipe right). Secondly we are not sure what the size of the anomaly is. Thirdly we are not sure of the Newtonian component. Fourthly modern computer analysis shows that GTR duznt even give Mercury a proper orbit, Mercury flies off in a short time.
Stephen Crothers explains that GTR invokes pseudo-vectors, & that Einstein lacks an understanding of vectors.
I thought that Einstein got the idea for his 1905 paper on STR because the standard explanation failed as to why if a magnet was passed through a loop of wire then the wire got an electric current & vice versa.
However Einsteinists are happy to ignore that Einstein's STR fails to explain Faraday's homopolar disc generator, re the voltage produced by spinning discs & spinning magnets. More than that, STR contradicts those experiments. In other words the experiments prove that STR is wrong, at least re that aspect of electricity.
Faraday's homopolar disc generator is however easily explained by the existence of the aether.
I don’t invoke aetherwind to explain the Faraday Disc Paradox, i invoke aether.GTR does not predict Mercury's orbit. Firstly it was a postdiction, after a few years of trying (where Einstein finally got his recipe right). Secondly we are not sure what the size of the anomaly is. Thirdly we are not sure of the Newtonian component. Fourthly modern computer analysis shows that GTR duznt even give Mercury a proper orbit, Mercury flies off in a short time.url=https://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p10/gr/PrecessionperihelionMercury.htm]https://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p10/gr/PrecessionperihelionMercury.htm[/url]
And if anyone really cares to see the derivation of the mathematics:
https://www.math.toronto.edu/~colliand/426_03/Papers03/C_Pollock.pdf (https://www.math.toronto.edu/~colliand/426_03/Papers03/C_Pollock.pdf)QuoteStephen Crothers explains that GTR invokes pseudo-vectors, & that Einstein lacks an understanding of vectors.HAHAHAHAHAHA. You're seriously going to cite Stephen Crothers at me? HAHAHAHA.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stephen_J._Crothers (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stephen_J._Crothers)QuoteI thought that Einstein got the idea for his 1905 paper on STR because the standard explanation failed as to why if a magnet was passed through a loop of wire then the wire got an electric current & vice versa.That was a motivating idea... but he also wrote,
"Examples of this sort [the moving conductor problem], together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest."
-- Albert Einstein, 1905QuoteHowever Einsteinists are happy to ignore that Einstein's STR fails to explain Faraday's homopolar disc generator, re the voltage produced by spinning discs & spinning magnets. More than that, STR contradicts those experiments. In other words the experiments prove that STR is wrong, at least re that aspect of electricity.Ahh I should've expected the Faraday Disc Generator to get a mention at some point. Are you just checking off the boxes on all the crackpot theories you can cram into one thread (seriously, I am still reeling to see Stephen Crothers get a shoutout).
Faraday's homopolar disc generator is however easily explained by the existence of the aether.
As for the disc generator, I admit I don't fully understand the correct solution. Feynman alluded to it in his lectures (again, allergy warning) but left it as an exercise for the reader (in the grand tradition of physics professors):
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_17.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_17.html)
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_13.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_13.html)
Fortunately, Panofsky and Philips give a more in-depth treatment of the problem as well as an in-depth treatment of the relationship between electromagnetism and relativity. And the answer is... of course special relativity isn't sufficient to explain the phenomena because we aren't discussing inertial reference frames (p.337-339) - you need to use general relativity:
https://dokumen.tips/documents/panofsky-and-philips-classical-electricity-and-magnetism-2nd-edpdf.html?page=349 (https://dokumen.tips/documents/panofsky-and-philips-classical-electricity-and-magnetism-2nd-edpdf.html?page=349)
I am aware that there are some authors who think SR is sufficient to explain the Faraday generator but I am more persuaded by the arguments of Panofsky and Philips that the requirements for SR are not met in the problem. Maybe there is an interpretation of SR that allows it to work - for me, I'm satisfied that GR explains it.
What I am not persuaded by is screaming 'AETHERWIND!' when it has no measurable properties, no predictive properties, and nothing but pseudoscientific gobbledygook.
You remind me of those poor sea creatures who starve to death on a full stomach - because they've been eating plastic. I'll grant you that you've read and exposed yourself to lots of... stuff... but I fear that for as full as your mind's stomach is there is tremendous intellectual starvation going on.
As for the disc generator, I admit I don't fully understand the correct solution. Feynman alluded to it in his lectures (again, allergy warning) but left it as an exercise for the reader (in the grand tradition of physics professors):I see that Feynman loves the STR explanation of magnetic attraction to a wire. But as i have explained a number of times on this thread the equations say for the force tween parallel wires relate to the amps in the wire(s), & they ignore the diameters. But, for say 1.0 Amp, if the ave drift vel is say 1 m/s, then if the wire is 1/10th the dia then the ave vel of the drifting electrons in the wire is say 100 m/s, & if the wire is 10 times the dia then the ave vel is 0.01 m/s, in which case the relativistic calc of the force will i think be in the ratio 10:1:0.1, whereas Ampere's Law tells us the ratio is 1:1:1.
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_17.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_17.html)
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_13.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_13.html)
I don’t invoke aetherwind to explain the Faraday Disc Paradox, i invoke aether.
Yes, there are lots of youtubes re the FDP, & the later ones start to twig that the probes have their own V.QuoteI don’t invoke aetherwind to explain the Faraday Disc Paradox, i invoke aether.
I don't see how that explains it either. In the experiment videos you posted the only constant is the pickup moving across the disk. When the disk rotates and the magnet doesn't there is a voltage, but the pickup is moving relative to the disk. When the disk is stationary and the magnet rotates there is no voltage, and the pickup is also stationary relative to the disk. When the disk and magnet are stationary but the pickup is waggled back and forth, there is a voltage.
Clearly, from that experiment the magnet is superfluous and the interaction of the pickup with the disk is what is causing the voltage (somehow). Is aether the lubricant? Can't see how it can be anything else since whether it (aether) is moving relative to the disk or pickup is irrelevant.
I see that Feynman loves the STR explanation of magnetic attraction to a wire. But as i have explained a number of times on this thread the equations say for the force tween parallel wires relate to the amps in the wire(s), & they ignore the diameters. But, for say 1.0 Amp, if the ave drift vel is say 1 m/s, then if the wire is 1/10th the dia then the ave vel of the drifting electrons in the wire is say 100 m/s, & if the wire is 10 times the dia then the ave vel is 0.01 m/s, in which case the relativistic calc of the force will i think be in the ratio 10:1:0.1, whereas Ampere's Law tells us the ratio is 1:1:1.
Well spotted. But the ratio of total force is still in error.I see that Feynman loves the STR explanation of magnetic attraction to a wire. But as i have explained a number of times on this thread the equations say for the force tween parallel wires relate to the amps in the wire(s), & they ignore the diameters. But, for say 1.0 Amp, if the ave drift vel is say 1 m/s, then if the wire is 1/10th the dia then the ave vel of the drifting electrons in the wire is say 100 m/s, & if the wire is 10 times the dia then the ave vel is 0.01 m/s, in which case the relativistic calc of the force will i think be in the ratio 10:1:0.1, whereas Ampere's Law tells us the ratio is 1:1:1.I did notice that, and simply agreed with it (in general with other stuff), which may have falsely given the impression that I supported it, or even think it is correct. (By agreeing, I simply was prospounding the view that no idea is a bad idea, no matter how bad they seem until the latter is proven. And by "prospounding" I mean that I felt like making up a word that has an apparent meaning, but no actual meaning, and hold out a hope that one day the meaning will return.)
I'm only guessing, because I haven't done the math/s, but: A wire carrying 1A through a 1(mm^2) area will have 10% as much charge in a short volume as a wire of 10(mm^2). If the full 100% charge moves at 10% of the speed for the same 1A, then the contraction and stuff is 10% (for 10% force when considering a 1(mm^2) area of it). But there are 9 other parallel flows parallel to it, bringing the total force to 100%.
The math/s, the mistakes, and the moral of the story:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231009511_Lorentz_contraction_and_current-carrying_wires (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231009511_Lorentz_contraction_and_current-carrying_wires)
QuoteStephen Crothers explains that GTR invokes pseudo-vectors, & that Einstein lacks an understanding of vectors.
HAHAHAHAHAHA. You're seriously going to cite Stephen Crothers at me? HAHAHAHA.
Physical examples of pseudovectors include torque, angular velocity, angular momentum, magnetic field, and magnetic dipole moment.
prof Dave appears to have lots of good stuff in his youtube site. He has 1.85 million subscribers & 158 million views.Man, it is striking to see how the argument of these crackpots obey the same pattern. He thinks that pseudovectors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudovector) are something someone who doesn't understand of vectors "invokes".QuoteStephen Crothers explains that GTR invokes pseudo-vectors, & that Einstein lacks an understanding of vectors.HAHAHAHAHAHA. You're seriously going to cite Stephen Crothers at me? HAHAHAHA.
From wikipedia:QuotePhysical examples of pseudovectors include torque, angular velocity, angular momentum, magnetic field, and magnetic dipole moment.It's the same thing with the KVLiars, who think that "invoking" the concept of non-conservative fields to explain why KVL doesn't hold for a circuit immersed in a varying magnetic field means that energy is not conserved and therefore Walter Lewin doesn't understand how magnetic induction works.
And thank you for the eye-opening videos from Professor Dave Explains about the debunking of those pseudo-science con artists' claims. They show that misleading the audience has become a lucrative business for incompetent people with a hidden agenda.
And clearly Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille's debunking wins 100 to zero.
I havnt studied the KVL Lewin saga. But from what i have seen it appears to me that Lewin is wrong, & Mehdi & Co are correct.
Seeing as I'm passing... I shudder to think of how I've portrayed myself in this thread, naturally, I'm open-minded and supportive of ideas and beliefs, whether scientific, religious or alt-science, sometimes it takes a little more effort than others but I think I'd appear similar to a vegan demanding a grilled aubergine at a fox-hunt - my objection to either life-choice is non-existent(-ish) but I would be saying "...read the room, dear" and slowly reach an internal divide by zero exception.
...
I don’t invoke aetherwind to explain the Faraday Disc Paradox, i invoke aether.
I see that Feynman waves away the catastrophe by simply saying that a magnetic field can't move. Here he is agreeing that a magnetic field is static in the aether.
I doubt that Einsteinist's can explain away their catastrophe for the Faraday Disc Paradox by invoking GTR. However Einsteinists have an almost limitless menu of fudges twists tricks etc. The youtube i linked mentions about 6 different motions of the discs & probes. I doubt that GTR can explain even one of them.
But lets eliminate GTR by changing the spinning discs to non-spinning discs. We remove the axles. Now instead of spinning the discs we simply move them up or down either individually or together or in opposite directions, hence we have the same number of 6 different motions, & we will see the same kinds of voltages, & there is no possibility of GTR playing a role here in any way.
I havnt studied the KVL Lewin saga. But from what i have seen it appears to me that Lewin is wrong, & Mehdi & Co are correct.
Yes the aether is always blowing hence there is always an aetherwind. But sometimes i simply mention the aether, but i am fully aware that an in depth analysis if it gets that far will probably involve the aetherwind.I don’t invoke aetherwind to explain the Faraday Disc Paradox, i invoke aether.Oh right, of course, how silly of me. The aether is static when you need it to be and blowing when you need it to be. Who needs consistency in a theory when you're making it up as you go along without a shred of mathematics?
Those words were Feynman's.QuoteI see that Feynman waves away the catastrophe by simply saying that a magnetic field can't move. Here he is agreeing that a magnetic field is static in the aether.The material is probably too advanced if that was your takeaway.
QuoteI doubt that Einsteinist's can explain away their catastrophe for the Faraday Disc Paradox by invoking GTR. However Einsteinists have an almost limitless menu of fudges twists tricks etc. The youtube i linked mentions about 6 different motions of the discs & probes. I doubt that GTR can explain even one of them.Are you sure? Have you done this experiment? Do you have any idea what the difference is between a rotating non-inertial reference frame and an inertial reference frame?
But lets eliminate GTR by changing the spinning discs to non-spinning discs. We remove the axles. Now instead of spinning the discs we simply move them up or down either individually or together or in opposite directions, hence we have the same number of 6 different motions, & we will see the same kinds of voltages, & there is no possibility of GTR playing a role here in any way.
I'm going to jump ahead to something else you said to someone else because it's relevant,QuoteI havnt studied the KVL Lewin saga. But from what i have seen it appears to me that Lewin is wrong, & Mehdi & Co are correct.Not that I wish to dredge up the pseudoscience of Mehdi and Co. in this thread - but it is not surprising you don't understand relativity in the Faraday Disc and also agree with Mehdi and Co.
I say this because what's tricky about the Faraday Disc is that it is a rotating field - i.e. it is a non-conservative field so it also exhibits path-dependency.
Now I admit I stated this is a GR phenomena and referred you to Panofsky & Philips who themselves would refer you to Schiff so maybe you want more details. For that - I'd suggest this paper but the mathematics are ghastly and if you're weak in calculus this will just make your eyes bleed:
"Charged Particles and the Electro-Magnetic Field in Non-Inertial Frames of Minkowski Spacetime: II. Applications: Rotating Frames, Sagnac Effect, Faraday Rotation, Wrap-up Effect"
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.0215.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.0215.pdf)
If this is too hard (let's be real, it is very hard), then try these introductory texts on the trickiness of rotating reference frames:
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Book%3A_Special_Relativity_(Crowell)/08%3A_Rotation/8.01%3A_Rotating_Frames_of_Reference (https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Book%3A_Special_Relativity_(Crowell)/08%3A_Rotation/8.01%3A_Rotating_Frames_of_Reference)
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Supplemental_Modules_(Relativity)/Miscellaneous_Relativity_Topics/GENERAL_RELATIVITY_-_a_primer (https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Supplemental_Modules_(Relativity)/Miscellaneous_Relativity_Topics/GENERAL_RELATIVITY_-_a_primer)
And honestly, before getting all worked up about the Faraday Disc, which is an immensely complex problem, the solution to the disc is wrapped up in the same solution that the two links above are really driving at - solving the Ehrenfest Paradox (the solution to which motivated the creation of General Relativity).The aether solution to the Faraday Disc Paradox is simple (it aint an immensely complex problem). Except of course we don’t know what the aether is, & we don’t know what magnetism is (& we don’t know much about anything).
There has been quite a bit of literature written on the electrodynamics of rotating reference frames. This isn't even the tip of the tip of the iceberg:A part of that iceberg is Cohn's electrodynamics, which preceded Einstein's, Einstein even used Cohn's heading, & then Einstein did not mention Cohn in his index.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0031891464901065?via%3Dihub (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0031891464901065?via%3Dihub)
And I'm not terribly interested in parsing your interpretation of Biot-Savart and Ampere. I'm much more persuaded by the fact that we can start with Lorentz transformations and Gauss' Law and use relativity to derive Ampere's Law mathematically:I don’t know why Einsteinist's keep invoking the Lorentz transformations, when they should be invoking the Einstein transformations. The two are different in that the terms have different meanings. I suspect that in the early days Einstein was aware that using the Lorentz name added wt to Einstein's silly STR.
https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/em/el4.pdf (https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/em/el4.pdf)
@bsfeechannel - if you're reading this, then the links above are utterly fascinating to me as the circular train clock synchronization scenario reminds me of line integration around a circulating magnetic field adding up to non-zero EMF as predicted by Faraday's Law. The synchronization of the clocks is also non-zero. In the second link, even though Clocks 1 and 2 are both on they disk, both rotating at the same rate, they do not read the same times after circumventing different closed paths. It gives me a lot of amazing things to ponder about the physical meaning of line integration.I can save u a lot of trouble. The time anywhere on the disc is the same. The only time that exists is the present instant, & this is universal. The ticking of clocks however is affected by motion etc. But ticking is not time.
Those words were Feynman's.
Electric and magnetic forces are part of one physical phenomenon—the electromagnetic interactions of particles. The separation of this interaction into electric and magnetic parts depends very much on the reference frame chosen for the description. But a complete electromagnetic description is invariant; electricity and magnetism taken together are consistent with Einstein’s relativity.
Since electric and magnetic fields appear in different mixtures if we change our frame of reference, we must be careful about how we look at the fields E and B. For instance, if we think of “lines” of E or B, we must not attach too much reality to them. The lines may disappear if we try to observe them from a different coordinate system. For example, in system S′ there are electric field lines, which we do not find “moving past us with velocity v in system S.” In system S there are no electric field lines at all! Therefore it makes no sense to say something like: When I move a magnet, it takes its field with it, so the lines of B are also moved. There is no way to make sense, in general, out of the idea of “the speed of a moving field line.” The fields are our way of describing what goes on at a point in space. In particular, E and B tell us about the forces that will act on a moving particle. The question “What is the force on a charge from a moving magnetic field?” doesn’t mean anything precise. The force is given by the values of E and B at the charge, and the formula (13.1) is not to be altered if the source of E or B is moving (it is the values of E and B that will be altered by the motion). Our mathematical description deals only with the fields as a function of x, y, z, and t with respect to some inertial frame.
We will later be speaking of “a wave of electric and magnetic fields travelling through space,” as, for instance, a light wave. But that is like speaking of a wave travelling on a string. We don’t then mean that some part of the string is moving in the direction of the wave, we mean that the displacement of the string appears first at one place and later at another. Similarly, in an electromagnetic wave, the wave travels; but the magnitude of the fields change. So in the future when we—or someone else—speaks of a “moving” field, you should think of it as just a handy, short way of describing a changing field in some circumstances.
There is in a sense no difference tween a rotating non-inertial reference frame & an inertial reference frame, in that both are irrelevant to a magnetic field.
The aether solution to the Faraday Disc Paradox is simple (it aint an immensely complex problem). Except of course we don’t know what the aether is, & we don’t know what magnetism is (& we don’t know much about anything).
The Ehrenfest Paradox is interesting. I think that it deserves to be called a paradox, but the solution is simple. A spinning disc will suffer a shrinkage of the atoms & molecules along its circumference due to relativistic length contraction, whilst its radius is not much affected. Hence the disc can suffer radial cracks (which solves the paradox)(no GTR needed)(GTR solved a problem that did not exist). However, centrifugal forces would destroy a disc before the peripheral speed got to say c/50,000.
I don’t know why Einsteinist's keep invoking the Lorentz transformations, when they should be invoking the Einstein transformations. The two are different in that the terms have different meanings. I suspect that in the early days Einstein was aware that using the Lorentz name added wt to Einstein's silly STR.
But if u are referring to the relativistic explanation for the magnetic field near an electric wire then i have already shown in this thread that that explanation is wrong/impossible.
For those who want to learn just enough about it so they can solve problems, that is all there is to the theory of relativity—it just changes Newton’s laws by introducing a correction factor to the mass. From the formula itself it is easy to see that this mass increase is very small in ordinary circumstances. If the velocity is even as great as that of a satellite, which goes around the earth at 5 mi/sec, then v/c=5/186,000: putting this value into the formula shows that the correction to the mass is only one part in two to three billion, which is nearly impossible to observe. Actually, the correctness of the formula has been amply confirmed by the observation of many kinds of particles, moving at speeds ranging up to practically the speed of light. However, because the effect is ordinarily so small, it seems remarkable that it was discovered theoretically before it was discovered experimentally. Empirically, at a sufficiently high velocity, the effect is very large, but it was not discovered that way. Therefore it is interesting to see how a law that involved so delicate a modification (at the time when it was first discovered) was brought to light by a combination of experiments and physical reasoning. Contributions to the discovery were made by a number of people, the final result of whose work was Einstein’s discovery.
I can save u a lot of trouble. The time anywhere on the disc is the same. The only time that exists is the present instant, & this is universal. The ticking of clocks however is affected by motion etc. But ticking is not time.
Here is what i said….Those words were Feynman's.This isn't what he said at all - or at least without citing page and reference I don't know what you're talking about. Feynman did write this,Quote from: Feynman 13-6Electric and magnetic forces are part of one physical phenomenon—the electromagnetic interactions of particles. The separation of this interaction into electric and magnetic parts depends very much on the reference frame chosen for the description. But a complete electromagnetic description is invariant; electricity and magnetism taken together are consistent with Einstein’s relativity.Emphasis mine. And what he's talking about there is an introduction to quantum field theory.
Since electric and magnetic fields appear in different mixtures if we change our frame of reference, we must be careful about how we look at the fields E and B. For instance, if we think of “lines” of E or B, we must not attach too much reality to them. The lines may disappear if we try to observe them from a different coordinate system. For example, in system S′ there are electric field lines, which we do not find “moving past us with velocity v in system S.” In system S there are no electric field lines at all! Therefore it makes no sense to say something like: When I move a magnet, it takes its field with it, so the lines of B are also moved. There is no way to make sense, in general, out of the idea of “the speed of a moving field line.” The fields are our way of describing what goes on at a point in space. In particular, E and B tell us about the forces that will act on a moving particle. The question “What is the force on a charge from a moving magnetic field?” doesn’t mean anything precise. The force is given by the values of E and B at the charge, and the formula (13.1) is not to be altered if the source of E or B is moving (it is the values of E and B that will be altered by the motion). Our mathematical description deals only with the fields as a function of x, y, z, and t with respect to some inertial frame.
We will later be speaking of “a wave of electric and magnetic fields travelling through space,” as, for instance, a light wave. But that is like speaking of a wave travelling on a string. We don’t then mean that some part of the string is moving in the direction of the wave, we mean that the displacement of the string appears first at one place and later at another. Similarly, in an electromagnetic wave, the wave travels; but the magnitude of the fields change. So in the future when we—or someone else—speaks of a “moving” field, you should think of it as just a handy, short way of describing a changing field in some circumstances.
I see that Feynman waves away the catastrophe by simply saying that a magnetic field can't move. Here he is agreeing that a magnetic field is static in the aether.However, today i can't find those words in the two links that u gave for the two Feynman articles. So i withdraw my comment that Feynman said that a magnetic field can't move.
QuoteThere is in a sense no difference tween a rotating non-inertial reference frame & an inertial reference frame, in that both are irrelevant to a magnetic field.Apparently you also flunked Newtonian mechanics. Understanding non-inertial reference frames is DEEPLY important to understanding how magnetism works in all the situations we may encounter it. There is an analogy between the Coriolis Effect and magnetism (see links below). Of course Special Relativity and General Relativity don't make sense to you - you don't get when the postulates of Special Relativity are applicable. By defining inertial frames, we also have to define non-inertial frames.
Why is the magnetic force similar to a Coriolis force?
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.3624.pdf (https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.3624.pdf)
Coriolis and Magnetic Forces: The Gyrocompass and Magnetic Compass as Analogues
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/21/068/21068614.pdf (https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/21/068/21068614.pdf)
Skipping the stuff where you just repeat nonsense about STR being rubbish...
The solution is so simple that u missed it. The solution is that the magnetic field is fixed in the aether. When the magnetic disc spins it leaves its magnetic field behind.QuoteThe aether solution to the Faraday Disc Paradox is simple (it aint an immensely complex problem). Except of course we don’t know what the aether is, & we don’t know what magnetism is (& we don’t know much about anything).You haven't actually proposed anything about what that 'solution' is. Again, pseudoscience.
I'm glad to know you have a solution that you don't know what it is or how to explain it. :-DD
I know you're not learning anything but I hope whoever is reading this is.
No. The paradox is Einsteinists can't understand how a log gets radial cracks when it dries. The reason is that there is more shrinkage in the circumferential dimension than the shrinkage in the radial direction. The relativistic shrinkage for a spinning log is similar, there is more shrinkage of the circumferential dimension, actually the relativistic shrinkage in the radial direction is zero here. Both effects are real. Both must result in radial cracks (if severe enuff). So now i have explained it twice, using almost the same wording each time. I have explained the answer to the paradox. There was/is no need for a GTR explanation. If relativity destroys Euclidean geometry (it always duz) then so be it. I believe in relativistic length contraction. But not in STR length contraction. Actually i don’t believe in Lorentzian length contraction.QuoteThe Ehrenfest Paradox is interesting. I think that it deserves to be called a paradox, but the solution is simple. A spinning disc will suffer a shrinkage of the atoms & molecules along its circumference due to relativistic length contraction, whilst its radius is not much affected. Hence the disc can suffer radial cracks (which solves the paradox)(no GTR needed)(GTR solved a problem that did not exist). However, centrifugal forces would destroy a disc before the peripheral speed got to say c/50,000.Oh... my... God... you can't even articulate what the paradox is. Hint: the paradox arises from idealized geometry and rigid bodies. It's not just the disc that gets destroyed - it's Euclidean geometry... which leads directly to General Relativity. And in that world rotating discs are just fine but your brain gets destroyed. >:D
The Lorentz Transformations are not the same as the STR transformations. The terms mean different things. Einstein's V is the relative velocity. Lorentz's V is the aetherwind.QuoteI don’t know why Einsteinist's keep invoking the Lorentz transformations, when they should be invoking the Einstein transformations. The two are different in that the terms have different meanings. I suspect that in the early days Einstein was aware that using the Lorentz name added wt to Einstein's silly STR.Because one can start with the principle of relativity and derive the Lorentz Transformations. Again - this is part of the predictive power of relativity. From first principles, theoretical predictions led to the observation of real phenomena. Feynman made note of this,
But if u are referring to the relativistic explanation for the magnetic field near an electric wire then i have already shown in this thread that that explanation is wrong/impossible.
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html)
For those who want to learn just enough about it so they can solve problems, that is all there is to the theory of relativity—it just changes Newton’s laws by introducing a correction factor to the mass. From the formula itself it is easy to see that this mass increase is very small in ordinary circumstances. If the velocity is even as great as that of a satellite, which goes around the earth at 5 mi/sec, then v/c=5/186,000: putting this value into the formula shows that the correction to the mass is only one part in two to three billion, which is nearly impossible to observe. Actually, the correctness of the formula has been amply confirmed by the observation of many kinds of particles, moving at speeds ranging up to practically the speed of light. However, because the effect is ordinarily so small, it seems remarkable that it was discovered theoretically before it was discovered experimentally. Empirically, at a sufficiently high velocity, the effect is very large, but it was not discovered that way. Therefore it is interesting to see how a law that involved so delicate a modification (at the time when it was first discovered) was brought to light by a combination of experiments and physical reasoning. Contributions to the discovery were made by a number of people, the final result of whose work was Einstein’s discovery.Einstein's attitude to E=mcc varied over the years. In later years he did not like the idea that mass increases with speed. In aether theory an object has an absolute mass. However, i don’t rule out that an object can have an apparent mass, & that this can depend on velocity (which has to do with length contraction of our measuring rods with velocity, & ticking dilation of our clocks with velocity).
It's the combination of theoretical prediction leading to experimental verification that makes relativity so persuasive and powerful. It is why everyone who does real physics is an "Einsteinist" as you derisively say. Because it gets results. And where engineers need it... it works, beautifully. And as a mechanism for tying together so many phenomena it is elegant in its statements but complex in its application.It elegantly gives us dozens of particles that exist in Einsteinian mathland only.
Whereas whatever aether theory you're peddling has no predictive power, no explanatory power, no consistency, no observability, and thus no usage in engineering. It's not even consistent with the other crackpots you admire which is one of the interesting things about crackpots - none of them agree with each other but they are ALL certain the rest of the world is in a conspiracy against them as you said in this thread many pages ago.I think that lasers can benefit from aetherwind. At present science wonders why lasers are so inconsistent, & play up so much. We have laser drift, & we need laser stabilisation, etc. Aetherists know that the background aetherwind blows through a lab at 500 km/s, & the direction changes during a sidereal day. The aetherwind adds to the speed of light, or it gives a crosswind effect etc. The aetherwind produces length contraction of the laser glass. The aetherwind produces angle contraction of the glass ends. What works well in the northern hemisphere might not work so well in the southern hemisphere.
Coming back to it - is there a device I can build that needs aether theory to work? Does your aetherwind affect the outcomes of any experiments? Can anyone use it to build something no one else has predicted? No modern independent experiment in our Solar System where aetherwind might be important has ever needed it.
And probably the greatest tragedy here is how much time you've wasted on it when you could've learned some vector calculus. It's quite a shame really - if anything represents the ultimate evolution of an 'aether' theory it's the formulation of curved spacetime as described by General Relativity and quantum fields as described by Quantum Electrodynamics and some physicists do take that viewpoint that the term 'aether' gets a bad rap given what it's 19th century failure grew into. (I'm personally fine burying the 'aether' term because it's less confusing. For example, even though Newtonian Optics has similarities to QED, we don't use terms like "corpuscles" to describe light... we call them photons...)Aether has never failed anything anytime. Every properly designed experiment has found aetherwind.
But, to you, STR, GTR and QFT is all rubbish... ah well... I guess you won't be playing nice in the sandbox. :-//STR & GTR are certainly rubbish. I don’t know much about QFT. There might be some areas where QFT is not compatible with aether theory. I think that QFT invokes a weird kind of aether, which produces virtual particles that fill any hole anywhere anytime. They are so magical that it’s a shame to even try to invent a theory at all. No matter how silly the theory their shmoo particles will fill any holes. And if u feel hungry u can eat the shmoos. I heard that Dirac even used his own equations to wipe his bum, his equations were so good.
I will stick to my aether, & u can stick to your Einsteinian stuff, stuff that has the distinction of being proven wrong before it was invented.QuoteI can save u a lot of trouble. The time anywhere on the disc is the same. The only time that exists is the present instant, & this is universal. The ticking of clocks however is affected by motion etc. But ticking is not time.We already know you live in another universe. No need to remind us.
I'm going to try to respond less to this thread because I have actual post-graduate homework to do but I suppose I should say thank you for giving me the opportunity to sharpen my 'Einsteinian' propaganda and hopefully share some useful knowledge to the silent observers in this thread.
You can have the last word for now because I know you must have it in order to repeat your religious devotion to an obsolete 19th century theory. Long-live phlogiston! >:D
Yes the aether is always blowing hence there is always an aetherwind. But sometimes i simply mention the aether, but i am fully aware that an in depth analysis if it gets that far will probably involve the aetherwind.I don’t invoke aetherwind to explain the Faraday Disc Paradox, i invoke aether.Oh right, of course, how silly of me. The aether is static when you need it to be and blowing when you need it to be. Who needs consistency in a theory when you're making it up as you go along without a shred of mathematics?
QuoteI doubt that Einsteinist's can explain away their catastrophe for the Faraday Disc Paradox by invoking GTR. However Einsteinists have an almost limitless menu of fudges twists tricks etc. The youtube i linked mentions about 6 different motions of the discs & probes. I doubt that GTR can explain even one of them.Are you sure? Have you done this experiment? Do you have any idea what the difference is between a rotating non-inertial reference frame and an inertial reference frame?
But lets eliminate GTR by changing the spinning discs to non-spinning discs. We remove the axles. Now instead of spinning the discs we simply move them up or down either individually or together or in opposite directions, hence we have the same number of 6 different motions, & we will see the same kinds of voltages, & there is no possibility of GTR playing a role here in any way.
I'm going to jump ahead to something else you said to someone else because it's relevant,QuoteI havnt studied the KVL Lewin saga. But from what i have seen it appears to me that Lewin is wrong, & Mehdi & Co are correct.Not that I wish to dredge up the pseudoscience of Mehdi and Co. in this thread - but it is not surprising you don't understand relativity in the Faraday Disc and also agree with Mehdi and Co.
I say this because what's tricky about the Faraday Disc is that it is a rotating field - i.e. it is a non-conservative field so it also exhibits path-dependency.
Now I admit I stated this is a GR phenomena and referred you to Panofsky & Philips who themselves would refer you to Schiff so maybe you want more details. For that - I'd suggest this paper but the mathematics are ghastly and if you're weak in calculus this will just make your eyes bleed:
"Charged Particles and the Electro-Magnetic Field in Non-Inertial Frames of Minkowski Spacetime: II. Applications: Rotating Frames, Sagnac Effect, Faraday Rotation, Wrap-up Effect"
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.0215.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.0215.pdf)
If this is too hard (let's be real, it is very hard), then try these introductory texts on the trickiness of rotating reference frames:
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Book%3A_Special_Relativity_(Crowell)/08%3A_Rotation/8.01%3A_Rotating_Frames_of_Reference (https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Book%3A_Special_Relativity_(Crowell)/08%3A_Rotation/8.01%3A_Rotating_Frames_of_Reference)
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Supplemental_Modules_(Relativity)/Miscellaneous_Relativity_Topics/GENERAL_RELATIVITY_-_a_primer (https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Supplemental_Modules_(Relativity)/Miscellaneous_Relativity_Topics/GENERAL_RELATIVITY_-_a_primer)
And honestly, before getting all worked up about the Faraday Disc, which is an immensely complex problem, the solution to the disc is wrapped up in the same solution that the two links above are really driving at - solving the Ehrenfest Paradox (the solution to which motivated the creation of General Relativity).The aether solution to the Faraday Disc Paradox is simple (it aint an immensely complex problem). Except of course we don’t know what the aether is, & we don’t know what magnetism is (& we don’t know much about anything).
There has been quite a bit of literature written on the electrodynamics of rotating reference frames. This isn't even the tip of the tip of the iceberg:A part of that iceberg is Cohn's electrodynamics, which preceded Einstein's, Einstein even used Cohn's heading, & then Einstein did not mention Cohn in his index.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0031891464901065?via%3Dihub (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0031891464901065?via%3Dihub)
And I'm not terribly interested in parsing your interpretation of Biot-Savart and Ampere. I'm much more persuaded by the fact that we can start with Lorentz transformations and Gauss' Law and use relativity to derive Ampere's Law mathematically:I don’t know why Einsteinist's keep invoking the Lorentz transformations, when they should be invoking the Einstein transformations. The two are different in that the terms have different meanings. I suspect that in the early days Einstein was aware that using the Lorentz name added wt to Einstein's silly STR.
https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/em/el4.pdf (https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/em/el4.pdf)
@bsfeechannel - if you're reading this, then the links above are utterly fascinating to me as the circular train clock synchronization scenario reminds me of line integration around a circulating magnetic field adding up to non-zero EMF as predicted by Faraday's Law. The synchronization of the clocks is also non-zero. In the second link, even though Clocks 1 and 2 are both on they disk, both rotating at the same rate, they do not read the same times after circumventing different closed paths. It gives me a lot of amazing things to ponder about the physical meaning of line integration.I can save u a lot of trouble. The time anywhere on the disc is the same. The only time that exists is the present instant, & this is universal. The ticking of clocks however is affected by motion etc. But ticking is not time.
STR is rubbish, Minkowski spacetime is rubbish.
That's quite fun. Even the string theory is not as funky as this, and it's already pretty twisted (no pun intended).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmoo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmoo_plot
Hi Stephen.prof Dave appears to have lots of good stuff in his youtube site. He has 1.85 million subscribers & 158 million views.Man, it is striking to see how the argument of these crackpots obey the same pattern. He thinks that pseudovectors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudovector) are something someone who doesn't understand of vectors "invokes".QuoteStephen Crothers explains that GTR invokes pseudo-vectors, & that Einstein lacks an understanding of vectors.HAHAHAHAHAHA. You're seriously going to cite Stephen Crothers at me? HAHAHAHA.
From wikipedia:QuotePhysical examples of pseudovectors include torque, angular velocity, angular momentum, magnetic field, and magnetic dipole moment.It's the same thing with the KVLiars, who think that "invoking" the concept of non-conservative fields to explain why KVL doesn't hold for a circuit immersed in a varying magnetic field means that energy is not conserved and therefore Walter Lewin doesn't understand how magnetic induction works.
And thank you for the eye-opening videos from Professor Dave Explains about the debunking of those pseudo-science con artists' claims. They show that misleading the audience has become a lucrative business for incompetent people with a hidden agenda.
Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille has 37k subscribers & 1.7 million views.
prof Dave got 512k views for his debunking footage. Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille got 49k views for his debunking of prof Dave's debunking. And clearly Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille's debunking wins 100 to zero. prof Dave can be seen to be very ignorant in the CMBR area.
I have emailed Crothers to ask him if the wiki pseudo vectors are in the same category as the Einstein (GTR) pseudo vectors.
Einstein’s Pseudotensor- a Meaningless Concoction of Mathematical Symbols Stephen J. Crothers 23 January 2020
Abstract: In an attempt to make his General Theory of Relativity comply with the usual conservation of energy and momentum for a closed system which a vast array of experiments has ascertained, Mr. A. Einstein constructed, ad hoc, his pseudotensor. That it is not a tensor is outside the very mathematical structure of his theory. Beyond that, it violates the rules of pure mathematics. It is therefore a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols.
https://vixra.org/pdf/2001.0499v1.pdf (https://vixra.org/pdf/2001.0499v1.pdf)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudovector (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudovector)
I havnt studied the KVL Lewin saga. But from what i have seen it appears to me that Lewin is wrong, & Mehdi & Co are correct.
I dont remember what eev-Dave said.
The probes can deceive.
This probe problem shows up in the Faraday Disc Paradox too.
The short answer is no.
Well spotted. But the ratio of total force is still in error.
Einstein's GTR & his field equations are wrong koz his postulates are wrong.The short answer is no.Of course the answer is no. Einstein is wrong according to the new definition of pseudovector. The same thing in Mehdi's claims, where Lewin is wrong according to the new definition of voltage. And Kirchhoff, who is wrong according to Robitaille's new definition of the law of thermal radiation.
While these clowns redefine the definitions to suit their misconceptions they're laughing at you (and probably taking your money).
Einstein's GTR & his field equations are wrong koz his postulates are wrong.
Einstein's GTR & his field equations are wrong koz his postulates are wrong.
Yes. He chose the wrong wrong postulates.
Einstein's prediction for the double Newtonian bending of light passing the Sun was impressive, but this was a lucky guess, & there are at least 3 reasons why the prediction was wrong or used postulates that were not properly explained. I will explain the main wrong.Einstein's GTR & his field equations are wrong koz his postulates are wrong.
Yes. He chose the wrong wrong postulates.
The essential component of physics crackpottery is to focus on character assassination of Einstein - to misdirect so that the casual reader thinks physics stopped in 1905 or 1916 or even 1955.
Meanwhile, physicists are using general relativity and the field equations to accurately predict the appearance of supernova from gravitational lensing (only appropriate that this thread ought to loop back to Veritasium... somehow).
So, the beam of light crossing the elevator consists of horizontal arrows. For an inside observer the beam appears to bend down (the elevator is accelerating up), but the arrows nonetheless remain horizontal (for the inside observer)(& for the outside observer).
his 1.75 arcsec was a brave prediction, however it was little more than a lucky guess
I usually think of a photon as being a cylinder. I know that some fellows don’t like to give a photon a size or shape, so let's describe photons as being (massless) arrows. Hence a beam of light is a straight line of (massless) arrows (for an outside observer)(in deep outer space here).
If we look at individual photons in the beam crossing the elevator then every photon (arrow) must remain parallel to its initial alignment at all times. After all, that there beam appears dead straight for an outside observer, at all times.
Some might wonder why I waste time with nonsense. I see it like analyzing perpetual motion machines. Someone presents you a perpetual motion machine - we know it's wrong, but how is it wrong? It's easy to spend lots of time wandering in Simanek's Museum of Unworkable Devices but it'll help sharpen your ability to spot cons, frauds, and crackpots: https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm (https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm)I don’t know how u got onto perpetual motion machines.
But this latest one...To the inside observer the beam appears to bend down, but the individual photons (arrows) remain horizontal.QuoteSo, the beam of light crossing the elevator consists of horizontal arrows. For an inside observer the beam appears to bend down (the elevator is accelerating up), but the arrows nonetheless remain horizontal (for the inside observer)(& for the outside observer).There isn't even a coherent description of the elevator thought-experiment here to debunk... the light bends and is straight for the same observer? LoL. So this one doesn't even merit any additional time wasting.
Now I do want to draw attention to this utterly laughable claim,Quotehis 1.75 arcsec was a brave prediction, however it was little more than a lucky guessLoL... ahh yes - Einstein can only be right because he guessed.
I admit the mathematics of Einstein's original paper or any graduate level mathematical textbook of the subject is dense and very, very hard. This is why I am grateful for Epstein and Hewitt's efforts to make this stuff a little less impenetrable (their textbook on Conceptual Physics was mine in high school).Einstein's derivation was based on the inclination of a wavefront of a ray of light passing say the Sun.
The mathematical derivation of the predicted diffraction here is a little tedious but its not inscrutable for anyone who understands integral calculus:
https://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i2_en (https://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i2_en)
Which is the same result Einstein derived in the 1916 paper and in many other subsequent texts on the subject (McVittie, General Relativity and Cosmology, p241). !
To anyone who doesn't understand integral calculus, I suppose this is all just luck to predict *exactly* the right value later observed by experiments. But gee, we seem to get lucky a lot when we use math.I understand the postulates of integral calculus, but i don’t understand the math & equations.
My photon (arrow) analogy applies to a solitary photon & to photons in a ray & to photons in a beam & to photons in a laser beam.I usually think of a photon as being a cylinder. I know that some fellows don’t like to give a photon a size or shape, so let's describe photons as being (massless) arrows. Hence a beam of light is a straight line of (massless) arrows (for an outside observer)(in deep outer space here).Interesting, so what distinguishes your version of light from a laser?
If we look at individual photons in the beam crossing the elevator then every photon (arrow) must remain parallel to its initial alignment at all times. After all, that there beam appears dead straight for an outside observer, at all times.
But then Einstein introduces a hidden postulate, he assumes that the leaning wavefront automatically means that the traject of the parent ray of light bends. No. It might bend, or it might not. Einstein treats the wavefront as if it is refracted when meeting an inclined pane of say glass. But Einstein fails to explain this assumption, ie this postulate. And he fails to provide a reason why the traject might bend.
I wonder how Einstein would have explained the bending (curving) of a single solitary photon passing the Sun. He would have no ray to play with. No wavefront to play with.
I understand the postulates of integral calculus, but i don’t understand the math & equations.
If my aetheric bending (0.87 arcsec) is true, & if Einstein's bending (1.75 arcsec) is true, then the total bending should be 2.62 arcsec, which is 0.87 arcsec too great. If the aetheric bending is correct then the Einsteinian bending should be only 0.87 arcsec. I assume that slowing gives 0.87 arcsec, plus my aetheric 0.87 arcsec gives 1.75 arcsec. If i am correct then this leads me to say that Einstein was lucky, he got the correct answer using wrong reasoning.
[...] I understand the postulates of integral calculus, but i don’t understand the math & equations.
[...]
Einstein used the escape velocity in his equation for the slowing of light near mass. He inserted that V into his equation for his gamma in his equation for length contraction,[...]
But this latest one...To the inside observer the beam appears to bend down, but the individual photons (arrows) remain horizontal.QuoteSo, the beam of light crossing the elevator consists of horizontal arrows. For an inside observer the beam appears to bend down (the elevator is accelerating up), but the arrows nonetheless remain horizontal (for the inside observer)(& for the outside observer).There isn't even a coherent description of the elevator thought-experiment here to debunk... the light bends and is straight for the same observer? LoL. So this one doesn't even merit any additional time wasting.
To the outside observer all photons (arrows) have a horizontal traject all the time, & all photons (arrows) remain horizontal all the time.
But then Einstein introduces a hidden postulate, he assumes that the leaning wavefront automatically means that the traject of the parent ray of light bends. No. It might bend, or it might not. Einstein treats the wavefront as if it is refracted when meeting an inclined pane of say glass. But Einstein fails to explain this assumption, ie this postulate. And he fails to provide a reason why the traject might bend.... the postulate is the principle of equivalence - that an accelerating reference frame is equivalent to a gravitational frame.
Of course you're confused - you have the postulates of the thought-experiment completely backwards.
Yes i am aware that according to Einstein light duznt bend near the Sun, it is spacetime that bends.QuoteI wonder how Einstein would have explained the bending (curving) of a single solitary photon passing the Sun. He would have no ray to play with. No wavefront to play with.The wave-front helps us visualize the net effect mathematically (as Epstein showed in the link I posted), but, and here is where your brain is going to explode...
The photon is not bending... it is the SPACETIME that it travels through that is bending.
You apparently have this picture of GR that space is flat and objects are getting knocked around. That's not the picture at all - the actual space is warping. That's what makes it so profound, kinda crazy too, I admit, but it works and the equations predict over and over experimentally accurate results.
And it really ought not to be so surprising or crazy though. For example, a triangle drawn on the surface of the Earth does not have angles that add up to 180 degrees. Our universe is not Euclidean. Space curves.
And you will be doomed to never understanding this because you don't accept/understand Minkowski (nor mass-energy equivalence based on a few pages ago). Which is sad because it's really the ultimate evolution of anything like an 'aether.' You just have to surrender absolute reference frames.
I thort that that might get a laugh.QuoteI understand the postulates of integral calculus, but i don’t understand the math & equations.Not the same thing. I wish I could've tried that excuse on my math teachers - I might've gotten better grades. :-DD
I am still working on my aetheric bending of light. I have a number of aetheric candidates that can give me the extra 0.87 arcsec that i need.QuoteIf my aetheric bending (0.87 arcsec) is true, & if Einstein's bending (1.75 arcsec) is true, then the total bending should be 2.62 arcsec, which is 0.87 arcsec too great. If the aetheric bending is correct then the Einsteinian bending should be only 0.87 arcsec. I assume that slowing gives 0.87 arcsec, plus my aetheric 0.87 arcsec gives 1.75 arcsec. If i am correct then this leads me to say that Einstein was lucky, he got the correct answer using wrong reasoning.Or maybe... just maybe... your aetheric bending is "krapp," general relativity is all we need, and all your efforts on this are wasted...
Nah, this is going to be your next post...
[...] I understand the postulates of integral calculus, but i don’t understand the math & equations.[...]Reading between the lines there, I assume that all this analysis you quote on Einstein's theory being incorrect is not your own? Any chance you could point me in the direction of something written mathematically that explains the breakdown in this specific case? Unfortunately, Crothers' "critiques" are just too fundamentally flawed.
Einstein used the escape velocity in his equation for the slowing of light near mass. He inserted that V into his equation for his gamma in his equation for length contraction,[...]
But this latest one...To the inside observer the beam appears to bend down, but the individual photons (arrows) remain horizontal.QuoteSo, the beam of light crossing the elevator consists of horizontal arrows. For an inside observer the beam appears to bend down (the elevator is accelerating up), but the arrows nonetheless remain horizontal (for the inside observer)(& for the outside observer).There isn't even a coherent description of the elevator thought-experiment here to debunk... the light bends and is straight for the same observer? LoL. So this one doesn't even merit any additional time wasting.
To the outside observer all photons (arrows) have a horizontal traject all the time, & all photons (arrows) remain horizontal all the time.
Why are the photons now arrows and what properties of the photons are the arrows showing? By what mechanism does either the inside or outside observer, observe those arrows?I use arrows for photons to show the angles of the photons, ie the photons (arrows) remain horizontal at all times, but the apparent trajectory (for the inside observer) of the photons (ie of say their center points) has a downwardly curve.
Einsteinist's added (tried to add) equivalence to Einstein's elevator gedanken in later years, to try to resurrect Einstein's canonical gedanken, but they failed, which i wont go into today. I am talking about the original gedanken, not the pathetic failed modern faux-elevator gedanken version.
Yes i am aware that according to Einstein light duznt bend near the Sun, it is spacetime that bends.
I am still working on my aetheric bending of light. I have a number of aetheric candidates that can give me the extra 0.87 arcsec that i need.
But that would need the Einsteinian bending due to the nearness of mass to be 0.00 arcsec. It might indeed be 0.00 arcsec, if the Huyghen refraction in mass duznt apply to Einstein refraction near mass.
The elevator gedanken for equivalence was a different gedanken. It helped Einstein to develop his 1915 GTR. His bending of light elevator gedanken dates back some years before that.Einsteinist's added (tried to add) equivalence to Einstein's elevator gedanken in later years, to try to resurrect Einstein's canonical gedanken, but they failed, which i wont go into today. I am talking about the original gedanken, not the pathetic failed modern faux-elevator gedanken version.
So am I. And Einstein himself told us about the original thought-experiment and his realization of the equivalence between gravitational frames and accelerated frames.
https://web.archive.org/web/20151222085312/http://inpac.ucsd.edu/students/courses/winter2012/physics2d/einsteinonrelativity.pdf (https://web.archive.org/web/20151222085312/http://inpac.ucsd.edu/students/courses/winter2012/physics2d/einsteinonrelativity.pdf)
It seems apparent you don't understand any description of the elevator experiment.
Show me where Einstein's theory accounts for the horizontality of the arrow.QuoteYes i am aware that according to Einstein light duznt bend near the Sun, it is spacetime that bends.Then why are you asking idiotic questions about what general relativity says about a single photon in a gravitational field like it's some big 'gotcha' question if you're so aware of it? The answer is right there in the theory. |O
No, i have a candidate for the extra 0.87 arcsec. It is that a photon has mass, in which case besides the photon getting a ride in the aether accelerating into the Sun, the photon also at the same time falls through the aether, due to its mass, like a particle, both giving 0.87 arcsec, adding to 1.75 arcsec. This is the aetheric theory that i came up with years ago, but then i decided that Einstein's slowing of light near mass (which is true) would explain the bending, but today i am starting to think that Einstein's invoking of Huyghens refraction (for light in mass) is not valid (for light near mass). Refraction in mass gives fringes (the starlight has different colours on the side nearer the Sun & on the side farther from the Sun)(a sort of rainbow effect), but Einstein's refraction near mass does not have such fringes (according to Shapiro).QuoteI am still working on my aetheric bending of light. I have a number of aetheric candidates that can give me the extra 0.87 arcsec that i need.I'd wish you luck with proving that but the amount of luck you'd need would probably collapse into a black hole singularity.
But that would need the Einsteinian bending due to the nearness of mass to be 0.00 arcsec. It might indeed be 0.00 arcsec, if the Huyghen refraction in mass duznt apply to Einstein refraction near mass.
Why are the photons now arrows and what properties of the photons are the arrows showing? By what mechanism does either the inside or outside observer, observe those arrows?I use arrows for photons to show the angles of the photons, ie the photons (arrows) remain horizontal at all times, but the apparent trajectory (for the inside observer) of the photons (ie of say their center points) has a downwardly curve.
[...]
Modern Einsteinist's invoke a [...]
I imagine a photon as having a central helix. Here below is some wordage that i wrote a while ago. Today i might have to add a few words re my (recent) electons, ie electricity, ie photons that are hugging a conductor. A photon is not a wave, & it is not a particle, it is a quasi-particle. Photons, being the fundamental building block, make particles (eg electrons).Where in relation to the photon's position does the arrow locate? What determines the direction of the arrow? There's a wave vector and 'something' tangental to the path we could call velocity... is it one of those?Why are the photons now arrows and what properties of the photons are the arrows showing? By what mechanism does either the inside or outside observer, observe those arrows?I use arrows for photons to show the angles of the photons, ie the photons (arrows) remain horizontal at all times, but the apparent trajectory (for the inside observer) of the photons (ie of say their center points) has a downwardly curve. [...]
The apparent trajectory, velocity/path, is something that can be related back to the observer by observing a reflection of the beam, repeating the thought experiment enough times for enough points to resolve a trajectory.
Side note: {But would the mirror necesarily need to be coplanar with any surface of the lift (translated: elevator)? and would it need to be moving with the same velocity profile as the lift?}
Would the apparent discrepancy between elevator-time and photon's time result in an apparent change in wave-vector direction?Modern Einsteinist's invoke a [...]I don't think I've ever met one (an Einsteinist) in person, I've no doubt there are some who exclusively follow the theories of Einstein. Actually, I don't think I "follow" any particular interpretation, professionally I use a reasonably fixed set of models and equations because they are well-validated within the environment in which they are used. In any other cases, rather than follow, I went off my on my own path kinda-sorta in the direction that somebody was gesturing, I think he was Poynting.
[...]
I would like to add a comment re my Excel confirmation of Einstein's bending of light passing the Sun.
My Excel is the only (as far as i know) proper confirmation of Einstein's bending in history.
It is based on Einstein's postulates.
The equations derived from Einstein's postulates are not a first rate confirmation, in that they rely on maths, ie they introduce other postulates (of a mathematical kind).
The equations are a second rate confirmation.
If u have not got the time to carry out thousands of calculations, following the light, inch by inch, & then add, then u will need to use the usual (second rate) short cut of deriving an equation.
My Excel is a first rate confirmation. Just saying (hero).
Photaenos propagate outwards throo the aether at perhaps 5c in the near field (approx 2 m) & perhaps c in the far field (wolfgang g gasser).
https://www.electronicspoint.com/forums/threads/experimental-evidence-for-v-c-in-case-of-coulomb-interaction.168813/ (https://www.electronicspoint.com/forums/threads/experimental-evidence-for-v-c-in-case-of-coulomb-interaction.168813/)
There is some kind of standard theory re radio waves being faster than c in the near field, but i don’t understand it.Photaenos propagate outwards throo the aether at perhaps 5c in the near field (approx 2 m) & perhaps c in the far field (wolfgang g gasser).We were taught 3c 'nearnuff', decades ago, at university. It was an interesting observation on near vs far field propagation, and how simplistic thoughts of things propagating through space can lead one astray.
https://www.electronicspoint.com/forums/threads/experimental-evidence-for-v-c-in-case-of-coulomb-interaction.168813/ (https://www.electronicspoint.com/forums/threads/experimental-evidence-for-v-c-in-case-of-coulomb-interaction.168813/)
If u message me your email i will send the excel. It is 25Meg so i might have to send in 2 parts.[...]I would like to add a comment re my Excel confirmation of Einstein's bending of light passing the Sun.You are mixing and matching concepts from your theory in there with the previous thought experiment, so it doesn't disprove anything there, it just says that the two are not compatible.
My Excel is the only (as far as i know) proper confirmation of Einstein's bending in history.
It is based on Einstein's postulates.
The equations derived from Einstein's postulates are not a first rate confirmation, in that they rely on maths, ie they introduce other postulates (of a mathematical kind).
The equations are a second rate confirmation.
If u have not got the time to carry out thousands of calculations, following the light, inch by inch, & then add, then u will need to use the usual (second rate) short cut of deriving an equation.
My Excel is a first rate confirmation. Just saying (hero).
I'm curious though as to what difference an iterative integration should have when compared with an analytical one if the expressions exist in excel, and the iteration is done in excel then I don't see why an analytical solution couldn't produce the exact result, i.e. minimum rounding error.
Would you consider sharing the spreadsheet? I'm intrigued if nothing else, doesn't matter if it's undocumented or messy, I can guarantee I've worked with far worse and deliberately obfuscated spreadsheets.
So have you proven the existence of aether with some Excel sheets?Every proper aether experiment has confirmed that we have an aetherwind on Earth, especially Demjanov in 1968-72.
...
The postulates do indeed give good numbers (confirmed by Hipparcos satellite), & might be good models, but whether the postulates are good science is of course a different question. And i say that there is no such thing as spacetime, hence the science is wrong or partly wrong. The full answer for bending near the Sun has to include the aetherwind.
The aetherwind has been proven by many kinds of experiments. And the aetherwind inflow to the Sun gives 0.87 arcsec, based on a postulate that the aetherwind moves as per the escape velocity, & on a postulate that photons propagate at c in the aether (which means that photons drift with the aether)(like a plane in the wind)(which in effect means that aether inflow into the Sun gives the same bending as gotten by a falling particle)(if the particle started with the speed of light)....The postulates do indeed give good numbers (confirmed by Hipparcos satellite), & might be good models, but whether the postulates are good science is of course a different question. And i say that there is no such thing as spacetime, hence the science is wrong or partly wrong. The full answer for bending near the Sun has to include the aetherwind.I accept that as a logically consistent 'postulate' in itself. But you have summarised what I thought you were saying a few posts back, where you say half the bending is not consistent with aetherwind, therefore - well you've described it as quoted above. You are using an assertion that the aetherwind exists as a kind of evidence to support that same assertion.
It's not wrong (because it's technically meaningless beyond being an unproven postulate), but is an odd way of stating something you think, without clarifying what you mean by that circular argument.
So have you proven the existence of aether with some Excel sheets?Every proper aether experiment has confirmed that we have an aetherwind on Earth, especially Demjanov in 1968-72.
Yes. Even the modern vacuum mode Xs often pick up a weak signal, even tho the signal is supposed to be zero for vacuum mode.Are you sure about that? :)So have you proven the existence of aether with some Excel sheets?Every proper aether experiment has confirmed that we have an aetherwind on Earth, especially Demjanov in 1968-72.
I see what you mean. You are saying aetherwind experiments have conclusively proven not only its existence, but have quantified its behaviour to the point you can draw an inarguable conclusion on how the light must behave in that circumstance (passing by the sun). Any other result would overturn an accepted physical law that has been so well tested that it is unrealistic to argue against. Therefore the weaker theory (general relativity) must be somehow wrong, and any support it gets from experimental results can only reasonably be seen as happy accidents (for it).The oldendays MMX aetherists did indeed think that the best MMXs would be in vacuum. They did their MMXs in air whilst acknowledging that air was a third rate MMX. Some did their MMXs in helium, reckoning that that was second rate, but better than air. It was not until 1968 that the correct calibration was derived for MMXs, by Demjanov, & this showed that the fringeshift in vacuum was zero. However the correct calibration remained a secret until it was again derived in about 2001 by Reg Cahill. Demjanov wrote some English papers starting in about 2005. Then in 2017 i came along & explained that MMXs in vacuum could possibly detect a weak 3rd order signal (or 4th order)(which starts to appear at about the 12th decimal), compared to the standard 2nd order signal for the standard MMX. And of course the amazing brilliant Demjanov MMX had (what i think he called a giant 1st order signal)(1000 times better than the usual 2nd order signals).
Except then you say (paraphrasing based on earlier posts) that vacuum experiments only show up effects of aetherwind that are perhaps 1000th of expectation, which supports aetherwind, but does not allow it to be detected anywhere near as easily as was once thought possible in a vacuum.
So what surrounds the sun. Glass?
Ok I think I accept Feynman's answer, that we can keep asking "why" ad nauseam after hearing "they do". But his appeal is not to something deep and mysterious, instead to something so shallow and readily apparent that it gets taken for granted.
I don't think that's quite what he is saying. He is saying that the underlying phenomena is so deep and mysterious that to truly understand it requires appealing to logic and analysis techniques that fall very far outside our ordinary, everyday intuition.
"Magnets are magnetic because they're made up of lots of little magnets." ;D
... until one really dives into the experiments and mathematics that predict the phenomena (and having to ignore all the devices we use whose operation was engineered from the physics). ...
You can make a picture that explains one aspect of the phenomena but the power of Maxwell's Eqs is that it is predictive of ALL (in the classical limit) electromagnetic phenomena.
... until one really dives into the experiments and mathematics that predict the phenomena (and having to ignore all the devices we use whose operation was engineered from the physics). ...
Generally agree, except the bit I put in italics. I have seen that argument pop up a few of times in the thread - that in essence electrical engineering and especially its advanced results (like iPhones) exist because of physics and academia. AFAIK the physics has usually lagged behind the industrial R&D, except in the early days when there was no commercial application, and a few notable examples (like radio, bad exapmle the iPhone then). Providing enormous support - but playing catch-up to empirical discoveries or very incomplete theories.
Energy, during the propagation of a ray of light, is not continuously distributed over steadily increasing spaces, but it consists of a finite number of energy quanta localised at points in space, moving without dividing and capable of being absorbed or generated only as entities.
In addition to once having Tesla on his payroll, Edison also hired physicist-engineers:
Charles Steinmetz (discoverer of magnetic hysteresis and inventor of complex phasor analysis and most 'practical' tools we take for granted, seriously, this guy was incredible)
Francis Upton (who has been called the Maxwell to Edison's Faraday, using physics to quantify Edison's experimental observations)
Arthur Kennelly (also a contributor to complex numbers in transient analysis)
John Ambrose Fleming (engineer who was personally instructed by Maxwell and made the equipment for the first transatlantic radio broadcast)
Heaviside also consulted on Edison's work in his publications in The Electrician.
The list goes on.
And I'm really, really doing a terrible injustice to the accomplishments of these accomplished mathematicians and physicists by summarizing them so thusly. My point is that Tesla is correct. Edison with his 'practical' mind didn't know jackshit about how any of the inventions produced in his lab actually worked. He had an army of incredible physicists to explain how any of it worked and they were all masters of Maxwell's theory. And they all utterly changed our world.
My point there is if humanity were somehow limited in its ability to produce high-level physicists and mathematicians (which isn't too much of a stretch if one considers how unlikely that seems in the first place), then we'd still have self-aligning gate CMOS, it just wouldn't be 2nm. There is really little standing in the way of that Apple M1 Ultra MCM, given enough 'tinkering' - it's practically how the semiconductor industry advances anyway. Radio would have been discovered by now. I can get by without Maxwell's equations, and although I'd make a pretty poor RF designer, I still know what I'm doing enough to make things work well enough.
Yes. Even the modern vacuum mode Xs often pick up a weak signal, even tho the signal is supposed to be zero for vacuum mode.Are you sure about that? :)So have you proven the existence of aether with some Excel sheets?Every proper aether experiment has confirmed that we have an aetherwind on Earth, especially Demjanov in 1968-72.
Energy Wave Theory (Equations), mainly by Yee. He has about 16 papers etc that explain. I haven’t seen any of that before. A quick comment.I wonder if you're "affiliated" with this website in any way (or if you at least "endorse" its content): https://energywavetheory.comYes. Even the modern vacuum mode Xs often pick up a weak signal, even tho the signal is supposed to be zero for vacuum mode.Are you sure about that? :)So have you proven the existence of aether with some Excel sheets?Every proper aether experiment has confirmed that we have an aetherwind on Earth, especially Demjanov in 1968-72.
Entering the 20th Century, there were several unexplained but demonstrated phenomena, including:STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
1. The "ultraviolet catastrophe" (q.v.) for black-body radiation, which motivated Planck's introduction of his famous constant.
2. The photoelectric effect. As mentioned above, not explained by Maxwell, but discussed by Einstein applying Planck's result.
3. The precession of Mercury's orbit. Once again, Einstein applied himself to this question.
4. The Michelson-Morley experiment, which some here have scoffed at.
5. Atomic structure. Classical statistical mechanics treated molecules as solid objects, but spectroscopy showed that there was structure. Bohr's early atomic model, using early quantum physics, was consistent with observed spectroscopy.
6. Radioactivity and x rays.
etc.
Note that the Maxwell equations survived this tumult, since they turned out to be consistent with Special Relativity.
A good summary of the fin de siècle history: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1207/1207.2016.pdf .
However, physics has progressed in the last 120 years, as later scientists built upon the early work, and some results were modified (especially in the field of quantum mechanics, which replaced the earlier quantum theories). The validity of scientific theory is not based on its history, but experimental verification.
So you say.Yes i see what u mean. Sorry.
My reply dealt only with the history that led up to this work, but you insist that everything that you find icky is (mis-spelled) crap.
Generally agree, except the bit I put in italics. I have seen that argument pop up a few of times in the thread - that in essence electrical engineering and especially its advanced results (like iPhones) exist because of physics and academia. AFAIK the physics has usually lagged behind the industrial R&D, except in the early days when there was no commercial application, and a few notable examples (like radio, bad exapmle the iPhone then). Providing enormous support - but playing catch-up to empirical discoveries or very incomplete theories.
My point there is if humanity were somehow limited in its ability to produce high-level physicists and mathematicians (which isn't too much of a stretch if one considers how unlikely that seems in the first place), then we'd still have self-aligning gate CMOS, it just wouldn't be 2nm. There is really little standing in the way of that Apple M1 Ultra MCM, given enough 'tinkering' - it's practically how the semiconductor industry advances anyway. Radio would have been discovered by now. I can get by without Maxwell's equations, and although I'd make a pretty poor RF designer, I still know what I'm doing enough to make things work well enough.
While I am considering a reply to Huronking's post, I have to strongly disagree with this, on principle (of being right).
To the MRI thing - hell yes. Even I could work it out. You place stuff in a magnetic field - almost any field will do. You apply pulses - and notice there is an RF signal back from the stuff that is not a simple reflection. You notice that different materials produce different but very stable frequencies, which vary with DC field strength. You wonder if a gradient might allow a physical map of stuff's density to be ascertained simply from that radio reception. So you make an artifact and try it - MRI is born (except it stands for magnet radio imaging, because the concept of nuclear magnetic resonances are unknown). (I'm not talking about everything in tech that might have lead up to that discovery to make it seem so trivial, but the principle behind the discovery itself, and the fact that it would progress very rapidly without the known theoretical basis.)
The story behind the transistor is much more empirical and stumbley than you make out, and seems to owe a great debt to Julius Edgar Lilienfeld's patent on the FET in 1925, when physical theories were less advanced. The transistor was pretty much a poster child for advanced hacking and the physics following experiment.
Blue LED? You walked right into that one ... "discovered in 1907 by the English experimenter H. J. Round" (Wikipedia). I was so intrigued when I discovered that a few years back, that I tried it, with some 120 grit SiC sandpaper. It worked. Not very well, and a kind of pale greeny-blue, but definitely a blue LED.
Your noted misconceptions about the development of the transistor do not alter the fact that it was still advanced hacking.
I'm just against the 'physics is the source of all engineering' claptrap, as if it's an unavoidable 1-way street.
Your noted misconceptions about the development of the transistor do not alter the fact that it was still advanced hacking.
What those guys did was what physicists do all the time. If you want to change its name to "advanced hacking", I have no problem with that.
A Nobel Prize in advanced hacking sounds way cooler than a Nobel Prize in physics, anyway.QuoteI'm just against the 'physics is the source of all engineering' claptrap, as if it's an unavoidable 1-way street.
OK. So name an engineering field that doesn't have its origin in--and/or whose current tenets weren't shaped by--science. Civil engineering, perhaps? Certainly not electronics. Electronics is drenched with physics and math.
For the benefit of those in the audience, can you clarify the point you're arguing?
It appears that you're attempting to argue that physicists are better at physics than engineers are at physics - I simultaneously hope and hope-not for that to be the case.
I think the main question is: how can I use your theory to reduce my electric (or is that electic) bill?
[...]
This is far from the truth. Physics is not only at the origin of modern engineering, but also still drives important advancements and even revolutions.
By the way, I do not believe that the 20th Century was the "dark age of science", based on my life during the second half of the century, my reading of the history of science, and my use of "modern physics" in practical situations.Einsteinian stuff came into play after Einstein died, ie due to advances in instruments, & computers, etc.
(1) My new (electon) electricity is due primarily to hugging electons (on the surface of wires).I think the main question is: how can I use your theory to reduce my electric (or is that electic) bill?Since electrons are apparently some kind of hugging photons - if I got it right - you could probably get free electricity by asking those photons to give free hugs.
Do you know what the term "Civil Engineering" actually means? see https://www.britannica.com/technology/civil-engineering (https://www.britannica.com/technology/civil-engineering)I failed to explain that aetherist is a retired Civil Engineer.
Originally, the discipline of building roads and bridges was named "Civil Engineering" to distinguish it from "Engineering", which meant military engineering, as in the "Engineer, hoist with his own petard" mentioned in Hamlet.
Ironically, many professionial civil engineers are now in the military, as in the US Army Corps of Engineers, who have jurisdiction over navigable waterways and other civilian infrastructure.
I see. It is the fault of civil engineering, who gave us Aetherist, who in turn revived the obsolete luminiferous aether. I await the new ichor.Relativity affects almost everything, including GPS. But Einsteinian Relativity is rubbish, there is no such thing as spacetime. The relativity that affects GPS is aetheric relativity, which is due to the aetherwind. However, there are different versions of aetheric relativity, my own is best. Aetheric relativity affects length contraction, & length contraction affects the ticking of clocks (all clocks).
Yes, relativity made a minor contribution to GPS, which has had a large impact on civil engineering (properly defined).
Also, Einstein's theory of stimulated emission (due to his interest in thermodynamics) led to the invention of the laser, which also aided civil engineering, even though he was not happy with quantum physics.
See https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200508/history.cfm (https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200508/history.cfm)
The twentieth century was something that happened to other people.
By the way, Heaviside is one of my favorites from that time in history.Heaviside was a genius. And i don’t understand his solution for cables. But Heaviside failed to see the failures of his E×H slab (slab koz there is no rolling E to H to E bullshit going on) of energy current that propagated in the air outside wires, ie tween wires (ie which accords with the Poynting Vector explanation for electricity beloved by Veritasium). Heaviside failed to see that….
1. There was a real problem. Transatlantic telegraph cables were absurdly slow.
2. "Everybody knew" that shunt capacitance and series inductance would slow down a signal.
3. Heaviside demonstrated that adding a proper combination of inductances along the cable (with its inherent capacitances) would improve things greatly.
4. While British authorities resisted this idea, Americans (working for AT&T) reduced Heaviside's loading coils to practice for trunk lines and the rest is history.
5. Most modern installations use coaxial transmission lines instead of lumped-constant designs.
Heaviside's solution for cables led further to the development of continuous transmission lines.Heaviside found it easy to avoid the elephant in his room re the insulation paradox re the speed of electrical information transmission koz in his coaxial cables the insulation filled the whole space tween the core & the sheath.
These are rather important things to understand in connection with speed of electrical information transmission.
There is a degree of 'leap-frogging' between experimentalists (sometimes this includes the engineers) and theoreticians. For example, we knew about the photoelectric effect before Einstein's paper on it. And some physicists (namely Planck) were already toying around with the idea of discrete quanta. But I'd make a strong argument that this singular statement by Einstein changed the world,QuoteEnergy, during the propagation of a ray of light, is not continuously distributed over steadily increasing spaces, but it consists of a finite number of energy quanta localised at points in space, moving without dividing and capable of being absorbed or generated only as entities.
Of course it wasn't immediately accepted - new experiments were needed to verify this interpretation. But, it predicted the effects of Compton Scattering. And this explanation of the photoelectric effect not only underpinned quantum mechanics (the basis for transistors) but also gave basis for the engineering of image sensors, phototelegraphy, etc etc.
Your example of the iPhone is not an example of an advancement in physics. No new laws or phenomena were discovered or predicted by its creation. Quite the contrary - the iPhone is a culmination of the application of many diverse phenomena well-established and predicted by physics.
What property of electons and aether give the same size bare wire made of different metals have different resistance?Good question.
[5a ] is a killer. Just when u were getting used to words like Newton cradle electron drift wire electric energy conduction voltage field etc, it suddenly foists on us an energy carrying em field. [5b] guided by the wire. Where is this field? In the wire? On the wire? Around the wire? Is this energy electric energy? Does the field carry the energy? Or is the energy in the field? In other words duz the field possess the energy or does it simply transmit it, or perhaps both?
I suppose that the simplest answer is that the irregularities in the thin skin of the wire is much the same as the irregularities deeper in the wire.
But why would electons (ie photons) be slowed by irregularities in the skin of the wire?
Problem 2. Does a photon passing through glass heat the glass? I think not (or perhaps it duz). But the photon is slowed by glass.
Problem 6. Electons are a surface dweller, hence u would think that doubling the dia of a wire would halve the resistance. If doubling the dia results in a ¼ resistance then electons are in trouble. For DC current.
On one hand yes, a basis. But what is a basis? Theoretical? Foundational? Occupational?
Selenium cells were in use 30 years before that, and in futuristic 'practical' applications like the photophone in the same year as Einstein's paper:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ernst_Ruhmer,_Technical_World_cover_(1905).jpg
These cells were also apparently in use as rooftop PV solar in 1884:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fritts
(Although I am a bit sceptical of the references because some claim it was thermopile based - Wikipedia isn't always right.)
It's a weak argument to say that the subsequent quantum theory gave basis for extant devices and applications - even if those applications later benefited enormously. Just because it was noticed and described, doesn't mean it works any different at any time. The theory becomes a guide for unchanging empirical behaviour, once people are on its scent. I don't accept that this 'scent' is academic theory, except in special cases where it is.
I accept the leap-frogging effect, I accept the greater advances, I even accept that a technology could stall at some point without the theory. But I can't accept that the latter is unavoidable, and I think that things like Wikipedia articles which begin and end on the equations are a disservice to the field(s)
The latter is what I meant. That the iPhone doesn't definitively owe its existence to predictions of physics and academic process, unless you want to take the position that any one link in the chain could be undone if it wasn't for some glorious crystal of theory (like Maxwell's equations, say, or something which 'makes' fets work especially at 5nm). People tend to push through those kinds of things if they can see a way past. Or if you want to say we wouldn't have the iPhone today, which is obvious.
I certainly don't want to say physics had no part or is dead. The only thing I want to target is this (I assume) taught notion that science begat physics begat engineering that doesn't seem to exist outside of academia and governmental ivory towers. The commercial world is completely indifferent to that, and simply assumes that physics is one of the parts of engineering.
Claims that "physics had to come before technology" can be made arbitrarily, eg fax machines might have stepper motor drivers, image sensor chips and even lasers. But when it's said that optical fax existed in the late 1800s, those claims need adjustment. They might still be correct, but it doesn't have much meaning.
Re Heaviside, he usually is called a physicist, but before that was recognised, he was shunned by just about any institution (but not person) that could exist. He was an electrician (possibly more in line with an electrical engineer today). Patenting the coaxial cable sounds awfully like engineering to me. So do eschewing some mathematical rigour, and getting into spats with an ignorant boss. And so on. My point being that this distinction can be imaginary (or perhaps arbitrary).
Denying physics would be completely silly, but I don't think that's what I'm saying. It's certainly not what I want to suggest or portray.
[...]
Probably the real "physicists versus engineers" debate is whether to use i or j for the complex number. And the answer is obviously j because what the heck do you call current then? [...]
I suppose that the simplest answer is that the irregularities in the thin skin of the wire is much the same as the irregularities deeper in the wire.That doesn't work if the surface is plated with a highly conductive metal, eg silver on steel. The resistance except at very high frequencies (skin effect) is that of the bulk steel wire.
But why would electons (ie photons) be slowed by irregularities in the skin of the wire?
Looking ahead for good excuses. If new (electon) electricity was very sensitive to temperature then that could explain the further doubling of resistance, to make it 1:4 instead of 1:2 (if indeed the 1:4 exists).Problem 6. Electons are a surface dweller, hence u would think that doubling the dia of a wire would halve the resistance. If doubling the dia results in a ¼ resistance then electons are in trouble. For DC current.Well spotted.
From the major manufacturer of copper-clad steel wire:The tables for ohms per mile show lower resistance for DC than for 60Hz.
https://www.copperweld.com/application/files/7115/3833/2605/Welded_Copper-covered_Steel_CCS_Strand_Electrical.pdf (https://www.copperweld.com/application/files/7115/3833/2605/Welded_Copper-covered_Steel_CCS_Strand_Electrical.pdf)
No because you can vary the temperature and test for that either whole or as individual metals. Also heat output (and resistance) can be measured without much rise in temperature, either by heatsinking the wire, or not putting much power in; resistance measured at 1mA say on a µV reading meter is very close to resistance measured at 1A. It won't get hot enough to double in resistance, which is far too hot to touch, or even molten, for most (all?) metals.Looking ahead for good excuses. If new (electon) electricity was very sensitive to temperature then that could explain the further doubling of resistance, to make it 1:4 instead of 1:2 (if indeed the 1:4 exists).Problem 6. Electons are a surface dweller, hence u would think that doubling the dia of a wire would halve the resistance. If doubling the dia results in a ¼ resistance then electons are in trouble. For DC current.Well spotted.
Skin-effect states that the AC resistance of a length of wire is always higher than the DC resistance, since there is less current density in the center of the wire at AC than at DC, where the current density is uniform.That a copper center gives 100% conductivity, but a steel center gives only 30% (for say t=r/10) is a worry for electons.
The manufacturer produces wires with a thin cladding of copper over a steel core that have nominal 30% or 40% of the conductivity of pure copper at DC.
No electons need apply.
Temp aint temp.No because you can vary the temperature and test for that either whole or as individual metals. Also heat output (and resistance) can be measured without much rise in temperature, either by heatsinking the wire, or not putting much power in; resistance measured at 1mA say on a µV reading meter is very close to resistance measured at 1A. It won't get hot enough to double in resistance, which is far too hot to touch, or even molten, for most (all?) metals.Looking ahead for good excuses. If new (electon) electricity was very sensitive to temperature then that could explain the further doubling of resistance, to make it 1:4 instead of 1:2 (if indeed the 1:4 exists).Problem 6. Electons are a surface dweller, hence u would think that doubling the dia of a wire would halve the resistance. If doubling the dia results in a ¼ resistance then electons are in trouble. For DC current.Well spotted.
But I was originally thinking that doesn't preclude some other physical effect, like the electons pairing with some internal electrons, so that their energy loss is proportional to the cross sectional area. But how does an electon lose energy? Not a proof, but the electron drift model is a vastly simpler (and more direct) way to explain resistance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity
In metals.
[000 ] Like balls in a Newton's cradle, electrons in a metal quickly transfer energy from one terminal to another, despite their own negligible movement.
[00 ] A metal consists of a lattice of atoms, each with an outer shell of electrons that freely dissociate from their parent atoms and travel through the lattice. This is also known as a positive ionic lattice.[10]
[0 ] This 'sea' of dissociable electrons allows the metal to conduct electric current.
[1 ] When an electrical potential difference (a voltage) is applied across the metal, the resulting electric field causes electrons to drift towards the positive terminal.
[2 ] The actual drift velocity of electrons is typically small, on the order of magnitude of meters per hour. However, due to the sheer number of moving electrons, even a slow drift velocity results in a large current density.[11]
[3 ] The mechanism is similar to transfer of momentum of balls in a Newton's cradle[12]
[4 ] but the rapid propagation of an electric energy along a wire is not due to the mechanical forces,
[5a ] but the propagation of an energy-carrying electromagnetic field [5b] guided by the wire.
[6 ] Most metals have electrical resistance. [7] In simpler models (non quantum mechanical models) this can be explained by replacing electrons and the crystal lattice by a wave-like structure. [8] When the electron wave travels through the lattice, the waves interfere, which causes resistance. [9] The more regular the lattice is, the less disturbance happens and thus the less resistance.
[10 ] The amount of resistance is thus mainly caused by two factors. [11] First, it is caused by the temperature and thus [12] amount of vibration of the crystal lattice. Higher temperatures cause bigger vibrations, [13] which act as irregularities in the lattice.
[14 ] Second, the purity of the metal is relevant as a mixture of different ions is also an irregularity.
[15 ] The small decrease in conductivity on melting of pure metals is due to the loss of long range crystalline order. [16] The short range order remains and strong correlation between positions of ions results in coherence between waves diffracted by adjacent ions.
[000 ] says that electrons transfer energy, via bumping.
[0 ] says that a metal can conduct electric current.
[1 ] says that electons drift koz of an electric voltage field.
[3 ] says the mechanism is similar to bumping. What mechanism? Voltage? Drift? Transfer of energy? Who knows!
[4 ] is confusing. It says that [4a] bumping does not propagate electric energy along a wire. Or, [4b] it says that bumping does not produce the rapid propagation seen of electric energy along a wire. Or [4c] perhaps both.
[5a ] is a killer. Just when u were getting used to words like Newton cradle electron drift wire electric energy conduction voltage field etc, it suddenly foists on us an energy carrying em field. [5b] guided by the wire. Where is this field? In the wire? On the wire? Around the wire? Is this energy electric energy? Does the field carry the energy? Or is the energy in the field? In other words duz the field possess the energy or does it simply transmit it, or perhaps both?
I would love to see a test for a steel clad copper wire. Old (electron) electricity might say that the conductivity for DC should be say 95% (if area of steel is say 10% of total area)(koz most of the drifting electrons would live in the Cu), whereas new (electon) electricity might say 15% (koz all of the electons would live on the Fe)(& based on Fe having 6.00 times the resistance of Cu).I'm tempted to do that. While trying to find ways to DIY re-plate soldering iron tips a couple of years ago, I tried the sillyest thing I could think of which was electroplating in some used de-rusting solution, and it seemed to work first time. But I've got other things to do, other replies...
Let's not forget that engineers and physicists have very different job descriptions.
That doesn't necesarily prelude a person of either primarily physics, primarily engineering, or primarily mathematics background from working either job function or using i, j, I, J, i, j, I or J as a complex unit or 'current-(density)' variable. The interesting question there would be: which scientific descoveries arrived from which practice of which principals by a practicioner of which background?
No, i am happy with all of my wordage.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivityNope. It saysn't. It just says that energy is transferred quickly with little movement.
In metals.
[000 ] Like balls in a Newton's cradle, electrons in a metal quickly transfer energy from one terminal to another, despite their own negligible movement.
[00 ] A metal consists of a lattice of atoms, each with an outer shell of electrons that freely dissociate from their parent atoms and travel through the lattice. This is also known as a positive ionic lattice.[10]
[0 ] This 'sea' of dissociable electrons allows the metal to conduct electric current.
[1 ] When an electrical potential difference (a voltage) is applied across the metal, the resulting electric field causes electrons to drift towards the positive terminal.
[2 ] The actual drift velocity of electrons is typically small, on the order of magnitude of meters per hour. However, due to the sheer number of moving electrons, even a slow drift velocity results in a large current density.[11]
[3 ] The mechanism is similar to transfer of momentum of balls in a Newton's cradle[12]
[4 ] but the rapid propagation of an electric energy along a wire is not due to the mechanical forces,
[5a ] but the propagation of an energy-carrying electromagnetic field [5b] guided by the wire.
[6 ] Most metals have electrical resistance. [7] In simpler models (non quantum mechanical models) this can be explained by replacing electrons and the crystal lattice by a wave-like structure. [8] When the electron wave travels through the lattice, the waves interfere, which causes resistance. [9] The more regular the lattice is, the less disturbance happens and thus the less resistance.
[10 ] The amount of resistance is thus mainly caused by two factors. [11] First, it is caused by the temperature and thus [12] amount of vibration of the crystal lattice. Higher temperatures cause bigger vibrations, [13] which act as irregularities in the lattice.
[14 ] Second, the purity of the metal is relevant as a mixture of different ions is also an irregularity.
[15 ] The small decrease in conductivity on melting of pure metals is due to the loss of long range crystalline order. [16] The short range order remains and strong correlation between positions of ions results in coherence between waves diffracted by adjacent ions.
[000 ] says that electrons transfer energy, via bumping.Quote[0 ] says that a metal can conduct electric current.It is confusing because Maxwell's demon whispered in your ear that electrons are bumping each other, when the "wiki" never said that. Quite the opposite, it is saying that (what would be equivalent to) the "bumping" is not mechanical.
[1 ] says that electons drift koz of an electric voltage field.
[3 ] says the mechanism is similar to bumping. What mechanism? Voltage? Drift? Transfer of energy? Who knows!
[4 ] is confusing. It says that [4a] bumping does not propagate electric energy along a wire. Or, [4b] it says that bumping does not produce the rapid propagation seen of electric energy along a wire. Or [4c] perhaps both.
Caveat analogiam, which in this text is only there to give you an intuitive understanding of how fast energy travels from one point to another with little actual movement.Quote[5a ] is a killer. Just when u were getting used to words like Newton cradle electron drift wire electric energy conduction voltage field etc, it suddenly foists on us an energy carrying em field. [5b] guided by the wire. Where is this field? In the wire? On the wire? Around the wire? Is this energy electric energy? Does the field carry the energy? Or is the energy in the field? In other words duz the field possess the energy or does it simply transmit it, or perhaps both?Electromagnetism is not for everyone. It seems.
[...]But u make it sound like wiki didnt mention the Newton's Cradle at all. Newton's Cradle is nothing but mechanical. They might not mention bumping, but they mention collision strike etc.
[...]
[...]
There will be a visible wavefront of moving discs. The speed of the wavefront will be much faster than the speed of disc1.
Actually the wavefront will move at almost the speed of light. But this will involve microscopic movement of the discs.
The larger movements/wavefront more obvious to the eye would be much slower than the speed of light.
And here we come back to the fact that the wavefront of drifting electrons in a copper wire must be much slower than the needed speed of light.
I am fairly sure that i/we have already looked at the catastrophe of old (electron) electricity, ie that drifting electrons can't possibly be responsible for the speed of electricity being nearly the speed of light.[...]But u make it sound like wiki didnt mention the Newton's Cradle at all. Newton's Cradle is nothing but mechanical. They might not mention bumping, but they mention collision strike etc.[...]There is the added complication of it being a 3-dimensional... and added complexity of the stationary lattice of positive ions. In the nano-meter and pico-meter scale, the inverse square law makes for almost unimaginable/unrelatable force to mass ratios and impossibly high numbers of involved particles (~10^28 for a small amount of copper). Naturally, to deal with the 'movement of electrons' as a field in a conventional sense, there's no real scope to find exact solutions as one could in a diabolical multi-body problem, there are thermal fluctuations and random lattice defects, so only a statistical representation is possible... luckily for such a huge number of particles, it averages out quite nicely. The other thing with the fixed lattice is that relatively minor variation in charge distribution produces a massive 'rectifying' force, and most likely below the amount caused by random thermal fluctuations.[...]There will be a visible wavefront of moving discs. The speed of the wavefront will be much faster than the speed of disc1.We know that fields exist outside the conductor, that the magnitudes of those fields and their vector product is proportional to energy flow. We know that the propagation speed of the E and B fields is affected by the presence of and transfer of momentum to electrons and dielectric properties that we call inductance and capacitance. We also know that the transfer of energy from one point in the circuit to another doesn't rely on a continuous uniform current density along the path of the wire... why must the speed of electrons match the speed of energy?
Actually the wavefront will move at almost the speed of light. But this will involve microscopic movement of the discs.
The larger movements/wavefront more obvious to the eye would be much slower than the speed of light.
And here we come back to the fact that the wavefront of drifting electrons in a copper wire must be much slower than the needed speed of light.
I didn’t say that the speed of electrons must match the speed of energy, but i did say that many days ago on this thread. I said that the speed of the wavefront can't be more than the speed of the electrons. If u think about it u can see that is true for every kind of wavefront caused by particles. If the particles are say bricks placed hard up to each other then that law changes so that it says that the speed of the wavefront cant be more than the speed of a part of each brick.
[...]
I am fairly sure that i/we have already looked at the catastrophe of old (electron) electricity, ie that drifting electrons can't possibly be responsible for the speed of electricity being nearly the speed of light.
If everyone agrees that drifting electrons don’t play a part in the speed of electricity then that removes that catastrophe (but it might of course create others).
But i am pretty sure that everyone can't agree that electron to electron bumping duznt play a part in the speed of electricity. Which puzzles me.
[...]
Tricky. I think that there is no proper wavefront here, at least not of the sound kind of wavefront.I didn’t say that the speed of electrons must match the speed of energy, but i did say that many days ago on this thread. I said that the speed of the wavefront can't be more than the speed of the electrons. If u think about it u can see that is true for every kind of wavefront caused by particles. If the particles are say bricks placed hard up to each other then that law changes so that it says that the speed of the wavefront cant be more than the speed of a part of each brick.Have a steel wire 100m long connected at the far end to a small brick. At t=0 start pulling the near end of the wire at 0.1m/s. (If you want, allow it to ramp up over 100ms to avoid infinite acceleration.) The wavefront travels along the wire at say 5km/s, so it starts moving the brick at t=~20ms and up to full speed at t=~120ms.
What particles in this system are moving at or more than 5km/s?
[...]I am fairly sure that i/we have already looked at the catastrophe of old (electron) electricity, ie that drifting electrons can't possibly be responsible for the speed of electricity being nearly the speed of light.Drifting electrons and bumping... I think I see your point now, with mean free paths ~10^-9 m, collision rates ~10^12 Hz should mean velocities circa 10^3 m/s: much slower than the e-field, therefore, bumping collisions don't convey momentum fast enough? And if they did they couldn't also transfer energy to the lattice in ohmic losses?
If everyone agrees that drifting electrons don’t play a part in the speed of electricity then that removes that catastrophe (but it might of course create others).
But i am pretty sure that everyone can't agree that electron to electron bumping duznt play a part in the speed of electricity. Which puzzles me.[...]
In a non-rigorous sense, the E-field (internal to the conductor) due to compression and rarefaction in an electron gas can travel fast... (I don't have the numbers to hand) and electric fields externally can also travel fast and can travel ahead of the electron wave-front, but also bare in mind that it's just a big set of differential equations so nothing is just happening without cause and consequence causing further consequence. The weakness in such a simplistic explanation is that it doesn't cover even a fraction of what's going on inside a metal and you very quickly need to either back-track into viewing the current as a smooth J component in Maxwell or proceed down the mystical path of quantum.
The only catastrophe here is your huge ignorance of electromagnetism. No big deal. Most people don't understand it anyway. But if you really want to understand it, you have to first get rid of all the analogies you are used to. Trust me.List of things we don’t understand.
I think that the speed of light in Cu is 10 m/s for DC, & say 3 m/s for AC. I don’t know what that means.
[...]
I did attempt to do an excel for the wavefront of electron to electron bumping along a Cu wire/pipeline, last year, but i didnt finish it.
List of things we understand.
Beer.
Football.
Money.
I didn’t use aether (i don’t know how aether could help)(unless the problem needed aetherwind).I think that the speed of light in Cu is 10 m/s for DC, & say 3 m/s for AC. I don’t know what that means.[...]I did attempt to do an excel for the wavefront of electron to electron bumping along a Cu wire/pipeline, last year, but i didnt finish it.Right, yes, I see your point. Interesting. Yeah... that's tricky. First off... avoid Wikipedia, the definitions and interpretations are a bit poor. I'd recommend H. E. Hall's Solid State Physics, and Mandl's Statistical Physics (hopefully there'll be some pdfs available)... they were, at least in the first editions, very evidence-based, don't depend on maths as an explanation, quite approachable... not a beginners guide to physics, but much more dependable than the same topics on Wikipedia. Better for definitions and where they arise from at least.
I can see how confined photons in an aether would produce a satisfactory explanation... without actually disputing observations and measurements... intriguing... maths time.
Is this the same IEEE that would not let Heaviside publish in their journal?.......…………But sure... you're just like Oliver Heaviside and electrons are photons. :-DD
Do you have a paper or any mathematics at all.
Have you ever even taken an Applied EM course? No gatekeeping to knowledge - but I see a profound lack of understanding of the terms and definitions.Muons were mentioned by TimFox in #1386. And by penfold in #1310.
Addendum on seeing your latest post:
And seeing your latest post - we have gone full crank. No length contraction/time dilation of moving charges, eh? I'd be fascinated to see how you explain the muon. :box:
The muon experiment is one such disproof, within the margin for error. Newman explains.
https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/1521 (https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/1521)
The Special Theory: Disproved by Flawed Experiment Measuring Muon Decay Times ©Alan Newman
................One of the most famous experiments [1] in history was hailed as strong evidence in favour of the Special Theory of Relativity (SRT), but this paper explains clearly how that experiment was mal-performed, thereby offering evidence against the theory rather than for.
Its funny/strange/suspicious. The experiment failed to use the correct thickness of Fe, to correctly compensate for the slowing due to the correct mass of the atmosphere tween the 2 sites used for the 2 measurements. And, the error in thickness of Fe resulted in the exact observations needed to confirm STR. Amazing, who would have guessed.
Muons were mentioned by TimFox in #1386. And by penfold in #1310.
The muon is wonderful. It is another fine example where Einsteinist's shoot themselves in the foot.
That’s the beautiful thing about Einsteinist's when they proudly crow about another proof of Einsteinian stuff. They love to assert that the new experiment proves or confirms STR or GTR to well within the margin for error. Not realizing that when aetherists show that the experiment has an error then that same experiment has to then be seen to be a disproof of STR or GTR.
The muon experiment is one such disproof, within the margin for error.
... but the moron who wrote the "paper" ...
[...]I didn’t use aether (i don’t know how aether could help)(unless the problem needed aetherwind).
I can see how confined photons in an aether would produce a satisfactory explanation... without actually disputing observations and measurements... intriguing... maths time.
And i didn’t use any kind of length contraction or ticking dilation.
[...]
I don’t understand the undergraduate muon Xs. But it appears to me that all of them (most of them) involve measurement of the lifetime of muons, the Xs do not involve the more complicated confirmation of time dilation.Muons were mentioned by TimFox in #1386. And by penfold in #1310.Yes - and you have no explanation for them.QuoteThe muon is wonderful. It is another fine example where Einsteinist's shoot themselves in the foot.I'm not wasting my time parsing for errors in a crank paper published on a crank website like 'General Science Journal' though I did derive no small amusement from perusing a few of the submissions there.
That’s the beautiful thing about Einsteinist's when they proudly crow about another proof of Einsteinian stuff. They love to assert that the new experiment proves or confirms STR or GTR to well within the margin for error. Not realizing that when aetherists show that the experiment has an error then that same experiment has to then be seen to be a disproof of STR or GTR.
The muon experiment is one such disproof, within the margin for error.
Rather, I'm going to focus on something else stupid that you're asserting here - that the experiments on muon decay were done once in the 1960s and that's it! I don't care about the 1960s experiment (other than for historical reasons) - because other people did the experiment and the measurements of muon decay and the relativistic calculations associated with it are something so trivial that physics undergraduate students do this experiment ALL THE TIME:
https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=phy_facpubs (https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=phy_facpubs)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0502103.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0502103.pdf)
https://www.physlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Muon_cali.pdf (https://www.physlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Muon_cali.pdf)
https://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~muheim/teaching/projects/muon-lifetime.pdf (https://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~muheim/teaching/projects/muon-lifetime.pdf)
https://www.ictp-saifr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Lab_MuonLifetime_2018.pdf (https://www.ictp-saifr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Lab_MuonLifetime_2018.pdf)
http://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Muon_lifetime.pdf (http://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Muon_lifetime.pdf)
The list goes on.
Let me repeat. This experiment is so trivial that undergraduate physics students do it all the time in universities all over the world. ::)
[...]
But, to Einsteinists, the muon decay lifetime experiment proves Einsteinian time dilation, the whole of Einsteinian time dilation, & nothing but Einsteinian time dilation.
[...]
I don’t understand the undergraduate muon Xs.
But it appears to me that all of them (most of them) involve measurement of the lifetime of muons, the Xs do not involve the more complicated confirmation of time dilation.
Let us solve a quick exercise to understand how the cosmic muons created high in the atmosphere could reach the Earth's surface, given their lifetime is so short. Consider a muon of 2 GeV, which is a typical energy, produced at an altitude of 15 km above the sea level. How far will it travel before decaying? Consider first a non-relativistic muon, and compare it to the relativistic case.
Questions to ponder
• What are cosmic rays primarily composed of? How are muons formed in the earth’s atmosphere?
Given the short muon decay time, why do so many make it to the earth’s surface?
The muon has a lifetime of τµ = 2.197 µs. According to classical
physics, what is the distance that a muon would travel at the speed
of light during its lifetime? Why do muons produced in the upper
atmosphere, say at 10 km, reach the sea level before they decay? What
is the speed β = v/c of a muon with an energy of 2 GeV? How far will
the muon travel before disintegrating?
I think that i am ok with the existence of muons (massive electrons), & (perhaps) with the measurement of their lifetimes (i think that their lifetimes depend on where they come to rest)(are some orbiting a nucleus?). But i am not ok with the standard Einsteinian time dilation explanation for the overly high number of muons hitting Earth.
Yes but the point that i was making was that an experiment confirms every theory that would give that result. And there are an infinite number of such theories, some not yet written.[...]But, to Einsteinists, the muon decay lifetime experiment proves Einsteinian time dilation, the whole of Einsteinian time dilation, & nothing but Einsteinian time dilation.[...]Then your beef is with the Einsteinists in that case. To everybody else, it provides validation that the model (incorporating effects described by STR) agrees with measured observations. The proof is gradually produced through repeat measurements and different experiments that gradually build up a case with decreasing doubt that there are other factors involved. No single experiment alone can prove or disprove, but the proof can be gradually formed through observation and well-formed mathematical models. A disproof takes a similar amount of effort in that the disproving experiment must also be able to prove itself through repeatability, demonstration of the well-formedness of the maths, etc.
Further on the proof or disproof. It isn't perfect, but if I type "1+4=" into my calculator 1000 times and get mostly 5s, some 8s, a 6, a few 4s, and one 0.998: can I use that as evidence that 1+4=8? does it prove that 1+4=5.005? If many people get similar results and we can rule out calculator mal-function, do we then change the definition of 1+4? or do we do further experiments to produce a model of finger slips on calculator keys? How do I rule out the effects of your-aether? In this case, we can actually invalidate the experiment quite quickly because I clearly made up the results and botched the statistics on purpose.
Yes but the point that i was making was that an experiment confirms every theory that would give that result. And there are an infinite number of such theories, some not yet written.
In the case of the muon time dilation experiments, all of them also confirm neoLorentz Relativity (which is an aether theory).
But Einsteinists seem to think that Einsteinian time dilation is the only ticking dilation in town.
That’s the beautiful thing about Einsteinist's when they proudly crow about another proof of Einsteinian stuff. They love to assert that the new experiment proves or confirms STR or GTR to well within the margin for error. Not realizing that when aetherists show that the experiment has an error then that same experiment has to then be seen to be a disproof of STR or GTR.
The muon experiment is one such disproof, within the margin for error.
The 1962 experiment was (as i said) fortunate that they used 6" less Fe cover than they should have (the Fe is meant to compensate for the mass of the atmosphere tween the 2 levels for the 2 tests). This was a peer review (i showed a link), albeit only a few years ago. It was possibly the only peer review that the 1962 X ever got. Anyhow the missing 6" of Fe resulted in Einsteinian time dilation being confirmed to within the margin for error. Funny that. Whereas with the 6" of Fe being properly in place the peer review said that the Einsteinian time dilation would have given an error of (i think) 50%.I don’t understand the undergraduate muon Xs.Color me shocked. ::)QuoteBut it appears to me that all of them (most of them) involve measurement of the lifetime of muons, the Xs do not involve the more complicated confirmation of time dilation.Can you read?
https://www.ictp-saifr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Lab_MuonLifetime_2018.pdf (https://www.ictp-saifr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Lab_MuonLifetime_2018.pdf)QuoteLet us solve a quick exercise to understand how the cosmic muons created high in the atmosphere could reach the Earth's surface, given their lifetime is so short. Consider a muon of 2 GeV, which is a typical energy, produced at an altitude of 15 km above the sea level. How far will it travel before decaying? Consider first a non-relativistic muon, and compare it to the relativistic case.http://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Muon_lifetime.pdf (http://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Muon_lifetime.pdf)QuoteQuestions to ponderhttps://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~muheim/teaching/projects/muon-lifetime.pdf (https://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~muheim/teaching/projects/muon-lifetime.pdf)
• What are cosmic rays primarily composed of? How are muons formed in the earth’s atmosphere?
Given the short muon decay time, why do so many make it to the earth’s surface?QuoteThe muon has a lifetime of τµ = 2.197 µs. According to classical physics, what is the distance that a muon would travel at the speed of light during its lifetime? Why do muons produced in the upper atmosphere, say at 10 km, reach the sea level before they decay? What is the speed β = v/c of a muon with an energy of 2 GeV? How far will the muon travel before disintegrating?These are classroom exercises for the students to explain why way more muons can hit the Earth's surface than would be expected under classical physics. That's how trivial this is and how ridiculous it is you and the other cranks waste time going after one experiment from the 1960s. This experiment is repeated every semester by juniors in classrooms all over the world.QuoteI think that i am ok with the existence of muons (massive electrons), & (perhaps) with the measurement of their lifetimes (i think that their lifetimes depend on where they come to rest)(are some orbiting a nucleus?). But i am not ok with the standard Einsteinian time dilation explanation for the overly high number of muons hitting Earth.Stay far away from a junior undergraduate physics laboratory then.
I said that the muon X disproved Einstein's STR. Meaning that it disproved Einstein's equation for his gamma.Yes but the point that i was making was that an experiment confirms every theory that would give that result. And there are an infinite number of such theories, some not yet written.Krapp. That is not the point you're making. You wrote this,
In the case of the muon time dilation experiments, all of them also confirm neoLorentz Relativity (which is an aether theory).
But Einsteinists seem to think that Einsteinian time dilation is the only ticking dilation in town.QuoteThat’s the beautiful thing about Einsteinist's when they proudly crow about another proof of Einsteinian stuff. They love to assert that the new experiment proves or confirms STR or GTR to well within the margin for error. Not realizing that when aetherists show that the experiment has an error then that same experiment has to then be seen to be a disproof of STR or GTR.So, when shown that the experiments are not only valid, but done EVERY SINGLE DAY all over the world (and you still have a self-admitted ignorance of how they're performed), and are in accordance with the predictions of STR, you are now switching to claiming they verify your pet theory you're making up from one post to the next... when mere hours ago you were CERTAIN the experiments were all bunk.
The muon experiment is one such disproof, within the margin for error.
Again, "krapp."
And no one ever, after 1962, repeated the muon lifetime experiment?The modern peer review of the 1962 muon X criticized the calculation of the effect of the slowing & loss of energy of muons arising from the mass of the atmosphere tween the altitudes of the 2 tests (1 on Mt Washington)(one near sea level), the density was i think underestimated, plus the gradation of the change of density with altitude was underestimated, resulting in an (accidental) shortfall of 6" of Fe being used to cover the detector.
Many early experiments for any theory needed improvement after criticism from other scientists, but no one thought to repeat this one?
Re the muon X (time dilation) being done every day, & re me being ignorant ovem, i thort that any such experiment had to be done in 2 parts, one at high altitude, & one at low altitude. Do undergrads ever take their equipment to the top of a hill?
The measured muon flux on a mountain relative to that measured at sea level can be compared to predictions from calculations that take into account the relativistic time dilation in the muon frame. Situations under which such an experiment can be successfully performed are explored with a day-long field trip to a nearby mountain. This experiment has been developed at Smith College as a module in the Five College cooperative undergraduate advanced laboratory course (other participating institutions are Amherst College, Mount Holyoke College, and the University of Massachusetts).
To make the experiment more portable, a compact muon detector consisting of a slab of plastic scintillator with a silicon photomultiplier was constructed and placed in a high-altitude balloon.
Since then, the muon measurements to demonstrate time dilation have become so common that they are assigned as advanced undergraduate lab experiments.I do not believe in time dilation. I do not believe in spacetime.
Here is an example from 1990, 28 years after the experiment you are criticizing. This paper is a detailed practical guide to performing the experiment during a day trip to a nearby mountain.
https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=phy_facpubs
Apparently, the authors of this 1990 paper (in V. Conclusion) anticipated your reaction:
"The concept of relativistic time dilation is both exciting and difficult for a student in the first modern physics course and this experiment helps to convert skeptics to believers."
Spoken like a true believer. Anything you find "icky" must be wrong, regardless of the experimental data.How do muon (time dilation) Xs rule out neoLorentz ticking dilation?
By the way, an efficient old-fashioned way to look for later experiments is to start with the original 1942 publication (before the 1962 experiment that became a film): B Rossi and D B Hall, Phys. Rev. 61 675-679.
Then enter it into a citation index, such as https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=phy_facpubs
From there, you will get a list of later papers that cited the one you started with.
How exactly do muon (time dilation) Xs rule out ticking dilation?Re the muon X (time dilation) being done every day, & re me being ignorant ovem, i thort that any such experiment had to be done in 2 parts, one at high altitude, & one at low altitude. Do undergrads ever take their equipment to the top of a hill?Uhh... yes? Like I said... THEY DO THIS EXPERIMENT ALL THE TIME. |O
https://scholarworks.smith.edu/phy_facpubs/41/QuoteThe measured muon flux on a mountain relative to that measured at sea level can be compared to predictions from calculations that take into account the relativistic time dilation in the muon frame. Situations under which such an experiment can be successfully performed are explored with a day-long field trip to a nearby mountain. This experiment has been developed at Smith College as a module in the Five College cooperative undergraduate advanced laboratory course (other participating institutions are Amherst College, Mount Holyoke College, and the University of Massachusetts).https://gustavus.edu/physics/concertFiles/media/Cosmic_Ray_Muon_Detection_Thesis.pdfQuoteTo make the experiment more portable, a compact muon detector consisting of a slab of plastic scintillator with a silicon photomultiplier was constructed and placed in a high-altitude balloon.But no, you're stuck in 1962, or 1905, or whatever. You think that my pointing out how utterly clueless you are is 'bullying' but the fact is that you have no idea what happens in a basic 3rd year physics education (even as I and others are spoonfeeding it to you) and you have no intellectual curiosity to even find out on your own. This is pathetic and sad. I'm not against ignorance in general, we all have things to learn all the time - but I am against cranks trolling threads with constant and persistently incoherent nonsense.
PS Looks like TimFox already found some of the same links I've found.
The observed decay rate of high-speed (relativistic) muons agrees with special-relativity time dilation.The observed decay rate of high-speed (relativistic) muons agrees with neoLorentz ticking dilation.
Aether is not required.
[...]
Yes but the point that i was making was that an experiment confirms every theory that would give that result. And there are an infinite number of such theories, some not yet written.
In the case of the muon time dilation experiments, all of them also confirm neoLorentz Relativity (which is an aether theory).
But Einsteinists seem to think that Einsteinian time dilation is the only ticking dilation in town.
I don’t know of any designs based on Einsteinian STR time dilation (or Einsteinian STR length contraction), nor based on neoLorentz (aetherwind) ticking dilation (nor neoLorentz (aetherwind) length contraction).[...]Yes but the point that i was making was that an experiment confirms every theory that would give that result. And there are an infinite number of such theories, some not yet written.Ok, you're still choosing to ignore the rational basis of science. Great, neo-Lorentz is the new ticking dilation in town... unfortunately the townspeople are in an uproar because they can't get consistent enough results to design anything with it... how do you intend to address that problem?
In the case of the muon time dilation experiments, all of them also confirm neoLorentz Relativity (which is an aether theory).
But Einsteinists seem to think that Einsteinian time dilation is the only ticking dilation in town.
[...]
Wait a mo. I am wrong. Einsteinian Relativity has been used to design all kinds of subatomic particles. Probly mainly koz they used (miss-used) E=mcc.
[...]
OK, you got me.It would be good if English spelling changed quickly to simplify spelling etc.
Is the misspelling just an affectation or is there some genuine reason for it? Normally one would use correct spelling and punctuation so that readers aren't confused about what's being said, and also because first impressions count for a lot, so giving the appearance of an uneducated yob doesn't exactly promote the idea that here is an intelligent and knowledgeable person.
You seem to be perfectly capable of using quite large words (albeit a fair number of those are apparently cut'n'pasted), so how come you feel the need to mangle even simple words?
In the meantime for sure i am waging a little war on English, but of course i dont want to overdo it, i suppose that koz & woz & probly etc might confuse readers from non-English speaking countries.
Would u like to return to the year 1600?
If it were not for the scientific godma of the Roman Catholic Church humans might have stood on the Moon in July 969, instead of July 1969.[...]Wait a mo. I am wrong. Einsteinian Relativity has been used to design all kinds of subatomic particles. Probly mainly koz they used (miss-used) E=mcc.[...]So... what's the point? The now newly renamed town, 'New Lorententzburg' formerly 'Einstein Mafisoaville' has not only had to change all of its welcome signs and road names, (much to the townspeople's distress), and have had to learn a new set of rules to give directions, only to find that that they end up in the same place and everything looks the same. One clever townsperson invented a pair of glasses the locals could wear, that that automatically translated all the new names... and life went on as normal. The town will always look the same,
In the oldendays dunkemhigh would have had me burnt at the stake for my devil talk.In the meantime for sure i am waging a little war on English, but of course i dont want to overdo it, i suppose that koz & woz & probly etc might confuse readers from non-English speaking countries.The townspeople of New Lorentzburg have also raised concerns over the new language, there's a running conspiracy theory that you are trying to prevent them from being able to read literature, learn for themselves, and that it makes it easier for you to censor their concerns.
Would u like to return to the year 1600?
The angst is growing as they are still waiting for the electricity system to be upgraded for 'new electrons'.
The modern peer review of the 1962 muon X criticized the calculation of the effect of the slowing & loss of energy of muons arising from the mass of the atmosphere tween the altitudes of the 2 tests
If it were not for the scientific godma of the Roman Catholic Church humans might have stood on the Moon in July 969, instead of July 1969.
Hence Einsteinists are not peers of neoLorentzists or of aetherists. It works both ways.The modern peer review of the 1962 muon X criticized the calculation of the effect of the slowing & loss of energy of muons arising from the mass of the atmosphere tween the altitudes of the 2 testsPeer review. What a cheeky devil. Scientists and pseudo-scientists are not peers.
If we stood on the Moon in 969, then today would in effect be like 3022.If it were not for the scientific godma of the Roman Catholic Church humans might have stood on the Moon in July 969, instead of July 1969.What's wrong with that? Standing on the moon is dangerous.
Humans are notoriously forgetful and complacent - one particularly impetuous and neglectful soul opens the door of Virgin's latest "Mary" spacecraft one fateful morning in 969, steps out onto the regolith, yawns and notices the water boiling off their tongue. 12 to 15 seconds later it's on the ground, mashing that face you just want to punch in that open mouth into the ground (at much reduced speed compared to Earth).
"Gas expelled from their bowels and stomachs caused simultaneous defecation, projectile vomiting and urination. They suffered massive seizures."
(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/survival-in-space-unprotected-possible (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/survival-in-space-unprotected-possible))
The stupidest human in the world (loose definition to that latter part) is retrieved by grappling lanyard, given oxygen at 1/10th Earth atm in the hopes of keeping them subdued, but not dead, which unfortunately is successful, even after deorbit jettison, reentry and headfirst landing in a Nevada desert right in front of a slow-scan TV crew (it's 969 after all), all because of that immensely thick skull. Massive lunar clean up costs trigger litigation which drags out for 1000 years due to space jurisdiction, and eventual release of the footage.
What we got instead was experimentation on animals.
[...]
If it were not for the scientific godma of the Roman Catholic Church humans might have stood on the Moon in July 969, instead of July 1969.
Einsteinian dogma might have a similar effect (but hopefully not 1000 years).
Old (electron) electricity dogma might have a similar effect.
Aether theory & new (electon) electricity theory might give us fusion power at an early date (i think never). Who knows.
OK, you got me.It would be good if English spelling changed quickly to simplify spelling etc.
Is the misspelling just an affectation or is there some genuine reason for it? Normally one would use correct spelling and punctuation so that readers aren't confused about what's being said, and also because first impressions count for a lot, so giving the appearance of an uneducated yob doesn't exactly promote the idea that here is an intelligent and knowledgeable person.
You seem to be perfectly capable of using quite large words (albeit a fair number of those are apparently cut'n'pasted), so how come you feel the need to mangle even simple words?
It would be good if spelling changed to accord with modern pronunciation.
It would be good if large words were shortened.
I am surprised that u have complained re my punctuation.
I wonder whether the www google era will hasten such changes to English or slow them.
In the meantime for sure i am waging a little war on English, but of course i dont want to overdo it, i suppose that koz & woz & probly etc might confuse readers from non-English speaking countries.
Would u like to return to the year 1600?
Hence Einsteinists are not peers of neoLorentzists or of aetherists. It works both ways.
Or it works the same way if one accepts that it is the Einsteinists that are the pseudo-scientists.
I have already explained that every MMX (1887-2016) has confirmed the existence of aetherwind. The best MMX being by Demjanov at Obninsk in 1968-72, but he did not publish in English until about 2005. In addition the aetherwind has been seen to affect the speed of electricity in a coaxial cable (DeWitte).[...]If it were not for the scientific godma of the Roman Catholic Church humans might have stood on the Moon in July 969, instead of July 1969.So with modern-science, which includes the work of Einstein, society has achieved something. Aetherists have done nothing... there is nothing sane which has been developed within a framework of what you might call aether-theory.
Einsteinian dogma might have a similar effect (but hopefully not 1000 years).
Old (electron) electricity dogma might have a similar effect.
Aether theory & new (electon) electricity theory might give us fusion power at an early date (i think never). Who knows.
But, sure, on the surface, it's all dogma, both modern science and religion involve lots of lessons where the students are told facts and expected to believe them -- the separation occurs when students of science are able to further study the rational basis of theories, perform experiments, make observations and interpret the results and are encouraged to think for themselves -- whereas religion is an irrational interpretation of an irrational text which is reliant on suppressing free-thought.
Your presentation of aether-theory is irrational and stems from irrational text -- it is dogma, the very definition of it. The reliance of aether-theory on malicious character assasination and your belief that there are such things as followers of Einstein is further evidence to that. You can change that though, if your-aether (not to be confused with urethra) is there to be found, find it, isolate it, test it. Learn some maths, develop the proofs, just do it.
P.S. The remaining citizens of New Lorentzburg are still waiting for the electriciy system upgrade to 'new electrons'. The 'new language' problem is losing significance, as many New-Lorentzburgites are choosing to move to a neighbouring town, Maxwellington (strictly two sub-towns of Maxwellington-Lightside and Maxwellington-Heaviside, both under the jurisdiction and locality of Quantum View) Quantum View is an interesting town, because just out-side of the (classical) city limits of Maxwellington, there's many more towns where people are alowed to think for themselves.
The townspeople of New Lorentzburg are still waiting for your opinion on the road-traffic incident that occured at the intersection of (the newly renamed) [cross-product West-Cruthers-Avenue-East and Up] and [cross-product I-Jay-Kay-NorthWest Boulevard and Down] (the citizens overwhelmingly prefered the pseudo-vector description), Driver A is claiming that the aetherwind must have changed, causing a red-shift in the green light and Driver B is claiming that all lights are red regardless of their colour, the observer claims the incident hadn't happened yet... the town is still in deadlock... the three remaining citizens still can't agree how to proceed at least.
Yes Michelson invented the interferometer & did the first such experiment to try to detect the speed of Earth through space in 1881, without much success -- too much vibration from nearby traffic & too much vibration from the axle of his slowly rotating gizmo. That X could be called a MX.There is a time and place to tilt at windmills, but I think that if you're trying to get across potentially complicated ideas then the fewer sharp corners that get in the way, the better. It's bad enough when you go on about MMX (I only recently, like in the past day or so, realised X means 'experiment'), but when simple infrastructural words are mangled each is like a bump in the road. The conscious mind should be entirely focused on the ideas, not the means by which the ideas are expressed (which should be handled by the subconscious), so every time you use something obscure you're mentally tripping up your reader and actively preventing them from giving your ideas their full attention.OK, you got me.It would be good if English spelling changed quickly to simplify spelling etc.
Is the misspelling just an affectation or is there some genuine reason for it? Normally one would use correct spelling and punctuation so that readers aren't confused about what's being said, and also because first impressions count for a lot, so giving the appearance of an uneducated yob doesn't exactly promote the idea that here is an intelligent and knowledgeable person.
You seem to be perfectly capable of using quite large words (albeit a fair number of those are apparently cut'n'pasted), so how come you feel the need to mangle even simple words?
It would be good if spelling changed to accord with modern pronunciation.
It would be good if large words were shortened.
I am surprised that u have complained re my punctuation.
I wonder whether the www google era will hasten such changes to English or slow them.
In the meantime for sure i am waging a little war on English, but of course i dont want to overdo it, i suppose that koz & woz & probly etc might confuse readers from non-English speaking countries.
Would u like to return to the year 1600?
Einstein never had any peer review for his published papers. But, in 1905, who would have been his peers? Patent clerks?Hence Einsteinists are not peers of neoLorentzists or of aetherists. It works both ways.That's why Professor Dave Explains rightfully exposes cranks as liars, con men, ill-intentioned people, not just innocent idiots.
You now agree that pseudo-scientists are not peers of scientists. This means that your claim that the muon experiment was peer reviewed to be proven wrong is a big LIE.
Good to know that you admit that.QuoteOr it works the same way if one accepts that it is the Einsteinists that are the pseudo-scientists.
Except that if Einstein's theories were wrong we wouldn't be having this conversation.
The truth is that his theories were proved right quotidianly and changed the lives of the common people, whereas your claims weren't demonstrated once and constitute just a bunch of incongruent, empty assertions.
So you are the pseudobear here.
I have already explained that every MMX (1887-2016) has confirmed the existence of aetherwind. The best MMX being by Demjanov at Obninsk in 1968-72, but he did not publish in English until about 2005. In addition the aetherwind has been seen to affect the speed of electricity in a coaxial cable (DeWitte).
Why do you say that black-hole singularities, consistent with Schwartzschild's calculations from the Einstein's then newly-published General Theory of Relativity are "fictional"?
I was just starting graduate school when Cygnus X-1 was discovered, and there have been many discovered since.
(My relativity teacher was Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, but 50 years later I now need to look things up to confirm what I learned then.)
Here is a list (which includes unproven candidates) that pops up immediately on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_black_holes
If you investigate each one on the list, you will find that some of them have not been firmly established.
Note that this includes binaries and triples. Most of these were discovered by astronomical methods before the recent detection of gravitational waves, so you needn't sneer at the waves.
As I pointed out earlier, when a first experiment is done on a given topic, many further experiments will follow, either to confirm the earlier results or, even better, to use improved equipment to get a more accurate result.Michelson was an interesting character. I haven’t attacked him, but i sort of will now.
Here is a popular description of a 2009 experiment based on Michelson and Morley's late 19th century work, using optical cavities, where the sensitivity is roughly 108 higher than the 1887 experiment.
https://physicsworld.com/a/michelson-morley-experiment-is-best-yet/
By the way, I never encountered Michelson's original experimental equipment (at now Case Western Reserve University in Ohio), but Michelson went from there to found the Physics department at my alma mater (University of Chicago), and some of his equipment was still in usable condition over 70 years later, and I used one of his small interferometers in a lab class. His instrument-making skills were amazing. My copy of his complete works is in storage, but I remember his article about how to measure the prototype meter (the Pt-Ir alloy rod in Paris) in terms of a mercury wavelength, despite the fact that the mercury lamp's coherence length is much shorter than 1 meter.
As a child, I saw the Bonanza TV episode (1962) with Michelson in Virginia City, Nevada, and assumed it was fictional, but the encyclopedia biography said that he was, in fact, there (after immigrating from Prussia, now Poland with his family) until he was appointed to the US Naval Academy.
If you must launch ad hominem attacks on great scientists, you should get your facts straight.
Peer review: I discussed this many pages earlier in Reply #1317. The two editors at Annalen der Physik, Planck and Wien, were as good as any other peers available at that time.
PS: here is the abstract of the 2009 German experiment, printed in Physical Review Letters (you will need to go to a library or purchase it to read the paper): https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.090401
Einstein's theories have not affected progress, except to retard it.
In 1929, Michelson started work on improving the accuracy of his speed of light measurements, but he died in 1931 before that work was complete.For sure vacuum is needed for the measurement of c. But, Einstein also inferred that the experiment had to be done well away from any mass, or as far away as possible, but this advice seems to be ignored.
The history of the speed of light measurements is an interesting topic in its own right, the work that Michelson started in 1927 was the first to use a reasonable vacuum (< 0.5 Torr).
When contemplating the invariance of the speed of light with respect to direction, etc., I submit that measurements in vacuo represent true physics.
An interesting use of the postulates in General Relativity: consider a sealed railway boxcar, with a helium balloon on the end of a string tied to the center of the floor, floating about half-way up the interior of the car.
We assume that the railroad is the good kind that Einstein used in his popular explanations, rather than the bumpy ones that I encounter.
Now, let the train accelerate from rest, at a constant acceleration rate, towards the east. In what direction, with respect to the interior of the car, does the balloon float?
[...]
Cahill explains that modern vacuum mode cavity Xs (there have been many) are a good test of (aetherwind) length contraction (& are otherwise of no use), but i doubt that any of the papers mention length contraction at all. When i say that they are otherwise of no use, Cahill was aware that in one or two of them they had a weak signal which confirmed the aetherwind (if properly explained)(& properly calibrated).
[...]
Einstein never had any peer review for his published papers.
professor Dave aint a Professor.
Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille did an expose on prof Dave that showed that Dave was a nincompoop re CMBR & re the Sun.
Einstein's theories have not affected progress, except to retard it.
Engineers had four decades to come up with the transistor after the invention of the triode, yet it was up to three physicists to understand how to control the current through a semiconductor slab by an external electric field.
QuoteI'm just against the 'physics is the source of all engineering' claptrap, as if it's an unavoidable 1-way street.
OK. So name an engineering field that doesn't have its origin in--and/or whose current tenets weren't shaped by--science. Civil engineering, perhaps? Certainly not electronics. Electronics is drenched with physics and math.
On one hand yes, a basis. But what is a basis? Theoretical? Foundational? Occupational?
That the phenomena observed is explicable and predictable. Engineers just use that phenomena to solve problems.
Your story about selenium is missing the preamble - ...
... While the first 1925 FET patent didn't get noticed, it's remarkable how clearly Lilienfeld defines its operation is based on nascent quantum theory,
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/035202468/publication/US1745175A?q=pn%3DUS1745175
"The basis of the invention resides apparently in the fact that the conducting layer at the particular point selected introduces a resistance varying with the electric field at so this point; and in this connection it may be assumed that the atoms (or molecules) of a conductor are of the nature of bipoles. In order for an electron, therefore, to travel in the electric field, the bipoles are obliged to become organized in this field substantially with their axes parallel or lying in the field of flow. - Any disturbance in this organization, as by heat inovement, magnetic field, electrostatic cross-field, etc., will serve to increase the resistance of the conductor; and in the instant case, the conductivity of the layer is influenced by the electric field. Owing to the fact that this layer is extremely thin the field is permitted to penetrate the entire volume thereof and thus will change the conductivity throughout the entire cross-section of this conducting portion."
I can only go off what I know about history. The unfortunate thing about history is that there is no "control" in the experiment of our history to tell whether something would or would not have happened without X-Y-Z.
What I do know is that MASSIVE technology advancements ALWAYS follow a PARADIGM SHIFT (term from my History of Science class) in theory.
And I'd say we got the ol' 1-2 punch from the paradigm shift from Maxwellian Theory (that made global, wireless communications and AC power possible) to Quantum Theory (that made transistors possible, enough said!).
I'm not certain we'd have the iPhone ever. There are a lot of 'wrong' ways to make an iPhone. It's much more likely we'd find all the wrong ways before the right ways without a governing theory to predict what to do in the next experiment... which is in the physics.
QuoteI certainly don't want to say physics had no part or is dead. The only thing I want to target is this (I assume) taught notion that science begat physics begat engineering that doesn't seem to exist outside of academia and governmental ivory towers. The commercial world is completely indifferent to that, and simply assumes that physics is one of the parts of engineering.
I work in both academia and the commercial world. The predecessor to ABET defined engineering as,
"The creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behavior under specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended function, economics of operation and safety to life and property."
Emphasis mine. So, if physics isn't foundational to what we do, what even is engineering??? :o
Perhaps it might be helpful if you elucidate on that question. ^-^
QuoteClaims that "physics had to come before technology" can be made arbitrarily, eg fax machines might have stepper motor drivers, image sensor chips and even lasers. But when it's said that optical fax existed in the late 1800s, those claims need adjustment. They might still be correct, but it doesn't have much meaning.
I'm not sure what you're saying here.
Probably the real "physicists versus engineers" debate is whether to use i or j for the complex number. And the answer is obviously j because what the heck do you call current then? :box:
[...]
As sort of an aside, I think I neglected the fundamental importance of experiment at school and university. I either just believed everything I was told, formed quiet reservations, or considered labs a redundant if interesting a waste of time (it seemed unreasonable for a lab to refute something that had been taught). Nowadays I question everything I am told and believe only evidence, and even that is a risk.
[...]
Probably the real "physicists versus engineers" debate is whether to use i or j for the complex number. And the answer is obviously j because what the heck do you call current then? :box:
You can probably guess my response even when you wrote that! Engineers don't use j (or i). Is there any place in engineering, anywhere, where sqrt(-1) has any physical relevance at all? The only place I've ever seen it doing something useful (beyond being an arcane convenience for mathematicians) is in a Feynman lecture where it quasi-continuously described a wave function inside and out of an energy well or something (I can't find it now).
And if you still don't believe me, I'll just refer you to C. Proteus Steinmetz who introduced complex numbers to electrical engineering in 1893 and, in doing so, massively revolutionized and simplified the solutions to engineering problems:Interesting.
https://kupdf.net/download/complex-quantities-and-their-use-in-electrical-engineering_5900f124dc0d60ae1f959ea1_pdf (https://kupdf.net/download/complex-quantities-and-their-use-in-electrical-engineering_5900f124dc0d60ae1f959ea1_pdf)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140105044817/http://zrno.fsb.hr/katedra/download/materijali/966.pdf (https://web.archive.org/web/20140105044817/http://zrno.fsb.hr/katedra/download/materijali/966.pdf)
And if you still don't believe me, I'll just refer you to C. Proteus Steinmetz who introduced complex numbers to electrical engineering in 1893 and, in doing so, massively revolutionized and simplified the solutions to engineering problems:Interesting.
https://kupdf.net/download/complex-quantities-and-their-use-in-electrical-engineering_5900f124dc0d60ae1f959ea1_pdf (https://kupdf.net/download/complex-quantities-and-their-use-in-electrical-engineering_5900f124dc0d60ae1f959ea1_pdf)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140105044817/http://zrno.fsb.hr/katedra/download/materijali/966.pdf (https://web.archive.org/web/20140105044817/http://zrno.fsb.hr/katedra/download/materijali/966.pdf)
Can anyone show me where Steinmetz believed that electricity is due to drifting electrons?
Can anyone show me where Steinmetz believed that the transient impedance was the same animal as resistance?
Steinmetz (stone mason) would have loved my new (electon) electricity, photons hugging a wire.
Both of us were born in Germany. And our names end in z. But my back aint bent.
Did Steinmetz believe in electrons?Oh you'll want to stay far away from Steinmetz. *lowers voice*And if you still don't believe me, I'll just refer you to C. Proteus Steinmetz who introduced complex numbers to electrical engineering in 1893 and, in doing so, massively revolutionized and simplified the solutions to engineering problems:Interesting.
https://kupdf.net/download/complex-quantities-and-their-use-in-electrical-engineering_5900f124dc0d60ae1f959ea1_pdf (https://kupdf.net/download/complex-quantities-and-their-use-in-electrical-engineering_5900f124dc0d60ae1f959ea1_pdf)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140105044817/http://zrno.fsb.hr/katedra/download/materijali/966.pdf (https://web.archive.org/web/20140105044817/http://zrno.fsb.hr/katedra/download/materijali/966.pdf)
Can anyone show me where Steinmetz believed that electricity is due to drifting electrons?
Can anyone show me where Steinmetz believed that the transient impedance was the same animal as resistance?
Steinmetz (stone mason) would have loved my new (electon) electricity, photons hugging a wire.
Both of us were born in Germany. And our names end in z. But my back aint bent.
Steinmetz was an 'Einsteinian.'
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Four_Lectures_on_Relativity_and_Space/MtTPAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Four_Lectures_on_Relativity_and_Space/MtTPAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover)
https://cdm16694.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/schmuse/id/15 (https://cdm16694.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/schmuse/id/15)
https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/albert-einstein-and-charles-steinmetz-1921-general-electric-company/BgEoPZI-5J12Zw (https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/albert-einstein-and-charles-steinmetz-1921-general-electric-company/BgEoPZI-5J12Zw)
PS
I should add that whatever Steinmetz's opinions about electrons is largely obsolete. He died in 1923, 1 year before Louis de Broglie proposed the wave-particle duality of matter and 6 years before it was experimentally proven. He also died before the Pauli Exclusion Principle was proven (which is an important principle for describing the properties of conductors).
The difference between science and pseudoscience is that the pseudoscientist is obsessed with cults of personality and whatever some-such-and-such 'big name' thought about something. Physics has moved on, even from the legendary genius of Steinmetz. This is 2022, not 1922.
And if you still don't believe me, I'll just refer you to C. Proteus Steinmetz who introduced complex numbers to electrical engineering in 1893 and, in doing so, massively revolutionized and simplified the solutions to engineering problems:Interesting.
https://kupdf.net/download/complex-quantities-and-their-use-in-electrical-engineering_5900f124dc0d60ae1f959ea1_pdf (https://kupdf.net/download/complex-quantities-and-their-use-in-electrical-engineering_5900f124dc0d60ae1f959ea1_pdf)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140105044817/http://zrno.fsb.hr/katedra/download/materijali/966.pdf (https://web.archive.org/web/20140105044817/http://zrno.fsb.hr/katedra/download/materijali/966.pdf)
Can anyone show me where Steinmetz believed that electricity is due to drifting electrons?
Can anyone show me where Steinmetz believed that the transient impedance was the same animal as resistance?
Steinmetz (stone mason) would have loved my new (electon) electricity, photons hugging a wire.
Both of us were born in Germany. And our names end in z. But my back aint bent.
I am ok with drifting electrons inside a wire, & i am ok with drifting electrons causing heating & resistance & energy loss.No, no, no... I thought we got to the "electricity" isn't due only to electrons, whether they drift, glide or skate point, yeah, it's also not only fields and there's a bit in the middle that we've not provided an answer to yet... doesn't mean an answer doesn't exist, just nobody has given it to you.And if you still don't believe me, I'll just refer you to C. Proteus Steinmetz who introduced complex numbers to electrical engineering in 1893 and, in doing so, massively revolutionized and simplified the solutions to engineering problems:Interesting.
https://kupdf.net/download/complex-quantities-and-their-use-in-electrical-engineering_5900f124dc0d60ae1f959ea1_pdf (https://kupdf.net/download/complex-quantities-and-their-use-in-electrical-engineering_5900f124dc0d60ae1f959ea1_pdf)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140105044817/http://zrno.fsb.hr/katedra/download/materijali/966.pdf (https://web.archive.org/web/20140105044817/http://zrno.fsb.hr/katedra/download/materijali/966.pdf)
Can anyone show me where Steinmetz believed that electricity is due to drifting electrons?
Can anyone show me where Steinmetz believed that the transient impedance was the same animal as resistance?
Steinmetz (stone mason) would have loved my new (electon) electricity, photons hugging a wire.
Both of us were born in Germany. And our names end in z. But my back aint bent.
Talking of Steinmetz... reminds me of magnetic losses... that's worth a look at with regard to electons, especially in soft-ferrite and iron powder type cores, EM properties of the bulk material, their heating under AC magnetic fields and temperature variations thereof do provide some results that fit very nicely within Drude type electron drift models... worth a look perhaps. It's not necesarily a fully closed proof of drift, but it narrows down the number of apparently free variables.
What did Steinmetz think of the electric energy being in the Poynting Field? I think Steinmetz agreed.
I have some of his writings. And i have his 4 lectures. I will have to have a read.What did Steinmetz think of the electric energy being in the Poynting Field? I think Steinmetz agreed.
That's a fair question to ask, but perhaps you can find something in Steinmetz' writings to back up your guess that "Steinmetz agreed", since you are treating him as an heroic source.
Did Steinmetz believe in electrons?
Did Steinmetz believe that electricity was due to drifting electrons inside a wire?
It appears that Steinmetz was an Einsteinist in that Steinmetz believed that the speed of light was a constant.
What would Steinmetz have thort about DeWitte finding that the speed of electricity is not a constant (coax cables)?
What would Steinmetz have thort about new (electon) electricity?
Can u show me where Steinmetz ever mentions the STR cause of magnetism around a current carrying wire.Did Steinmetz believe in electrons?Who cares? He died before he knew about the Pauli Exclusion Principle, the Dirac Equation, Wave-Particle Duality etc etc etc... Which means he did not know about electrons and photons to the extent we do now.
If he believed in electrons, great! But he didn't know what we know now.
If he didn't believe in electrons, that's okay too. It's not his fault he died before so much more was discovered about them.
Whatever he believed about electrons is incomplete and irrelevant to our current understanding. Although, from a historical point of view, if you read his lectures on relativity you'll see he was very close to describing a proto-idea of quantum field theory.
This is like asking if Newton believed in galaxies...QuoteDid Steinmetz believe that electricity was due to drifting electrons inside a wire?Who cares?QuoteIt appears that Steinmetz was an Einsteinist in that Steinmetz believed that the speed of light was a constant.LOL are you choosing to ignore the evidence of your own eyes? Steinmetz delivered 4 scathing lectures in which he went through all of special relativity and general relativity. He was into the whole thing, hardcore. I'm surprised you weren't aware of how thoroughly he shreds ether to pieces.QuoteWhat would Steinmetz have thort about DeWitte finding that the speed of electricity is not a constant (coax cables)?Steinmetz knew that dielectrics affect the speed of light - it's not light in a vacuum anymore...QuoteWhat would Steinmetz have thort about new (electon) electricity?Krapp. Next? :scared:
[...]
What did Steinmetz think of the electric energy being in the Poynting Field? I think Steinmetz agreed.
But, Steinmetz knew that the ave drift velocity of electrons varied with the dia of the wire squared.[...]What did Steinmetz think of the electric energy being in the Poynting Field? I think Steinmetz agreed.I don't think Steinmetz did any particular work which would have led to a contrary opinion, I suspect that he'd have spotted any deviations from Maxwell, of which Poynting is a theorem, and his years overlapped with the advent of the Drude model - I've no reason to suspect he would have disagreed with either.
Can u show me where Steinmetz ever mentions the STR cause of magnetism around a current carrying wire.
In his 4 lectures, can u show me where Steinmetz ever mentions the STR cause of magnetism around a current carrying wire.
I think that u can't.
So, in the only area where he should have some expertise (electricity & em radiation) & can comment on STR, he is mute.
The hypothesis of the ether has been finally disproven and abandoned. There is no such thing as the ether.Charles Steinmetz p.16
Can u show me where Steinmetz ever mentions the STR cause of magnetism around a current carrying wire.Oh, but yes I can. It's on p.20-21 of the lectures. He uses relativistic field theory to explain the emergence of electromagnetic interactions (notice his careful use of relative velocities) in a chapter called "Conclusions from Relativity Theory."
In his 4 lectures, can u show me where Steinmetz ever mentions the STR cause of magnetism around a current carrying wire.
I think that u can't.QuoteSo, in the only area where he should have some expertise (electricity & em radiation) & can comment on STR, he is mute.He's not mute - he's simplifying the explanation. If you read Steinmetz's introduction to the lectures he says explicitly that he seeks to only give a layman's explanation of special and general relativity theories... it's NOT his complete exegesis on the theories or all their consequences. Are you insane?
But lucky for me, I don't need to hang my hat on every word out of Steinmetz's mouth on lectures about relativity to an audience of mathematical laymen in the early 1920s. I have Edward Purcell, Chapter 5:
https://cdn.bc-pf.org/resources/physics/Theory/Purcell-electricity_and_magnetism_3rd_edition.pdf
Coming back to Steinmetz, he's obviously familiar with, and agrees with, Einstein's solution to the moving conductor problem (that electric fields in one moving frame of reference must give rise to magnetic fields in another frame of reference) because he's heaping praise on special relativity all throughout the text while ripping ether as a useless paradigm.
And he does mention electrons on p.8 of the lectures (and how they provide evidence for special relativity).
You really need to give up trying to co-opt Steinmetz for your crankery. I know why you latched onto him as soon as he got mentioned - because other cranks on the Internet have tried to co-opt Steinmetz. He won't help you - he was a filthy Einsteinist and he helped nail the coffin shut on the ether.QuoteThe hypothesis of the ether has been finally disproven and abandoned. There is no such thing as the ether.Charles Steinmetz p.16
Purcell ch5 is no better. He in effect confirms that STR infers that there is no limit to the hi-strength of a magnetic field around a current carrying wire if u make the wire thinner & thinner. And, no limit to the lo-strength if u make the wire thicker & thicker. All wires carrying the same say one Amp.
What to call it? Einstein's Magnetism Catastrophe – might do.
Einstein's MC can be added to Einstein's TC (Twins Catastrophe)(which i see that Steinmetz ignored in his 4 lectures).
I see that Steinmetz too called the MMX null, when in fact the MMX showed a 6 km/s aetherwind, corrected to 8 km/s by Munera (using the proper averages), corrected to about 380 km/s by Cahill (using the proper calibration).
In 1925-33 approx Miller & Morley repeated the Michelson & Morley MMX & found an aetherwind of about 240 km/s, later corrected to 400 km/s by Cahill using the proper calibration. But Steinmetz died in 1923 (either from shame re the Einsteinian Twins Catastrophe, or from anxiety re the Einsteinian Magnetic Catastrophe), hence he did not have the benefit of Miller's improved MMX.
Thus the conception of the ether; is one of those untenable hypotheses which have been made in the attempt to explain some difficulty. The more it is studied and conclusions drawn from it, the more contradictions we get, and the more unreasonable and untenable it becomes. It has been merely conservatism or lack of courage which has kept us from openly abandoning the ether; hypothesis. The belief in an ether; is in contradiction to the relativity theory, since this theory shows that there is no absolute position nor motion, but that all positions and motions are relative and equivalent.Charles P. Steinmetz p.16
Re Einstein's Magnetism Catastrophe. Einsteinist's always invoke an infinitely long wire. Did u ever wonder why it was infinitely long? Allow me to tell u. It was infinitely long koz a finitely long wire duznt work.
Consider using Ampère’s law to calculate the magnetic fields of a finite straight wire and of a circular loop of wire. Why is it not useful for these calculations? In these cases the integrals around the Ampèrian loop are very difficult because there is no symmetry, so this method would not be useful.OpenText BC
The attraction (or repulsion) tween 2 finite parallel wires can't increase with relative speed, koz STR length contraction lessens the spacings tween electrons or protons, but it can't add or subtract electrons or protons from the wire(s).
What to call this? Einstein's Catastrophe For Wires With Finite Length.
It means that finite lengths of wire can't have magnetism.
Purcell ch5 is no better. He in effect confirms that STR infers that there is no limit to the hi-strength of a magnetic field around a current carrying wire if u make the wire thinner & thinner. And, no limit to the lo-strength if u make the wire thicker & thicker. All wires carrying the same say one Amp.Uhh, no?
What to call it? Einstein's Magnetism Catastrophe – might do.
Is this it? Is this the culmination? That at the end of all this... you don't understand Ohm's Law or Ampere's Law or even the meaning of uniform current density?
Changing the thickness of the wire but maintaining the same current (meaning you had to change the strength of the E-field that created the current in order to keep it constant) won't change the magnetic field strength at some distance r away from the surface of the conductor. Not in relativity and not in Ampere's Law either.
[url]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magin.html#c1[/url] ([url]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magin.html#c1[/url])
You'll notice that Ampere's Law makes no statement about the thickness of wires versus magnetic field strength - just how far you are FROM THE CENTER of a Gaussian loop and how much current is enclosed by the Gaussian loop that the current penetrates through. Ampere's Law and Relativity are true whether wires are there or not! They're laws of nature. Magnetic fields exist in space even when wires aren't around....
It's unfortunate that Ampere's Law is always taught in the context of current-carrying wires. I can make currents in empty space with an electron gun and exactly define the magnetic field strengths around them depending on the density of the electron stream and their velocities - BTW this is how cathode-ray tube TV works. If special relativity were wrong, the images on old TVs could never be in focus:
[url]https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/tv-radar-guns-and-other-technology-linked-to-einsteins-theories-of-relativity[/url] ([url]https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/tv-radar-guns-and-other-technology-linked-to-einsteins-theories-of-relativity[/url])
Refer to example 5.4:
[url]https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-3/pages/5-3-time-dilation[/url] ([url]https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-3/pages/5-3-time-dilation[/url])
Anyways, I've digressed because there are just so many ways you're wrong about everything.
In Chapter 5 and later into Chapter 6 of Purcell, they used relativity to derive an identical expression of Ampere's Law starting with Gauss' Law and Coulomb's Law because they are already Lorentz invariant (which Purcell takes pains to explain). Consistent with experiment and consistent with mathematics. The only catastrophe here is you.QuoteEinstein's MC can be added to Einstein's TC (Twins Catastrophe)(which i see that Steinmetz ignored in his 4 lectures).LOL calm down. He was introducing relativity to people who had never heard of it before and didn't have a strong mathematical background. And there is nothing catastrophic about the twin paradox - it ain't even a paradox, really.QuoteI see that Steinmetz too called the MMX null, when in fact the MMX showed a 6 km/s aetherwind, corrected to 8 km/s by Munera (using the proper averages), corrected to about 380 km/s by Cahill (using the proper calibration).Yea, cause Michelson couldn't report etherwind within his own margin of error. We've been over this. :blah: :blah: :blah:QuoteIn 1925-33 approx Miller & Morley repeated the Michelson & Morley MMX & found an aetherwind of about 240 km/s, later corrected to 400 km/s by Cahill using the proper calibration. But Steinmetz died in 1923 (either from shame re the Einsteinian Twins Catastrophe, or from anxiety re the Einsteinian Magnetic Catastrophe), hence he did not have the benefit of Miller's improved MMX.
And now you're being a tool - this isn't funny. Steinmetz had health problems his whole life and he died far too young. I wish he had lived through the quantum revolution. He might've even lived to see the invention of the transistor under different circumstances.
But I am glad to see you've completely reversed course on co-opting Steinmetz for your lunacy while just hours earlier you were tentatively hoping he might back up your crankery. Steinmetz was no crank. In fact, he was a true scientist. He lived through the Ether Dark Ages, learned about relativity, realized what a brilliant and coherent theory it is, and said this about people who cling to ether,QuoteThus the conception of the ether; is one of those untenable hypotheses which have been made in the attempt to explain some difficulty. The more it is studied and conclusions drawn from it, the more contradictions we get, and the more unreasonable and untenable it becomes. It has been merely conservatism or lack of courage which has kept us from openly abandoning the ether; hypothesis. The belief in an ether; is in contradiction to the relativity theory, since this theory shows that there is no absolute position nor motion, but that all positions and motions are relative and equivalent.Charles P. Steinmetz p.16
Ya hear that? Steinmetz thinks you're a coward. >:DQuoteRe Einstein's Magnetism Catastrophe. Einsteinist's always invoke an infinitely long wire. Did u ever wonder why it was infinitely long? Allow me to tell u. It was infinitely long koz a finitely long wire duznt work.You're a civil engineer (apparently I guess from what you said pages ago) so I'll forgive this particular idiocy due to lack of physics/mathematics education on your part.
But Ampere's Law as conventionally written doesn't work directly with finite length wires either because there is no longer charge conservation. You have to account for the boundary conditions where discontinuity exists - this breaks the symmetry of the problem and makes the integrations harder. Not impossible - just harder:
[url]http://www.phys.uri.edu/gerhard/PHY204/tsl216.pdf[/url] ([url]http://www.phys.uri.edu/gerhard/PHY204/tsl216.pdf[/url])
[url]https://scholarworks.merrimack.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=phy_facpub[/url] ([url]https://scholarworks.merrimack.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=phy_facpub[/url])
[url]https://opentextbc.ca/universityphysicsv2openstax/chapter/amperes-law/[/url] ([url]https://opentextbc.ca/universityphysicsv2openstax/chapter/amperes-law/[/url])QuoteConsider using Ampère’s law to calculate the magnetic fields of a finite straight wire and of a circular loop of wire. Why is it not useful for these calculations? In these cases the integrals around the Ampèrian loop are very difficult because there is no symmetry, so this method would not be useful.This works the same way in relativity but the mathematics are, again, more complicated and outside the purview of Purcell's introductory text (too hard for you, I'm sorry).QuoteThe attraction (or repulsion) tween 2 finite parallel wires can't increase with relative speed, koz STR length contraction lessens the spacings tween electrons or protons, but it can't add or subtract electrons or protons from the wire(s).They do - you just don't know how to calculate them.
What to call this? Einstein's Catastrophe For Wires With Finite Length.
It means that finite lengths of wire can't have magnetism.
How do I know you can't? Try solving the homework problems in Purcell Chapter 5 or Chapter 6. Go ahead - try. I won't wait.
In the meantime, I have my own homework to do (and to grade).
Michelson found a signal. Miller used Michelson's gizmo & found a signal. Their margin for error was acceptable. The argument re margin for error boils down to how to treat the apparent noise. I have explained that the supposed noise identified by Roberts was in fact non-wanted signal, which Demjanov & me myself have explained. It was not error, it was signal, albeit non-wanted signal(s) (ie without a known calibration), & was quite correctly simply deducted by averaging out. Altho Michelson's method of averaging was too simple, as pointed out by Munera, who corrected Michelson's 6 km/s to 8 km/s. Michelson & Morley were looking for 30 km/s (ie Earth's orbital speed), & for some reason they called their result null, when it clearly wasn’t null. And Cahill in 2001 derived the correct calibration which corrected the 8 km/s to 340 km/s (i can't remember the exact number), whereas we now know that the aetherwind is today almost 500 km/s.
The STR magnetic field & the Ampere magnetic field can't have an identical expression.
And, the attempted invoking of STR is an attempt to use Lorentz variance, it is not based on Lorentz invariance.
I agree that an electron beam has an Amperage & a magnetic field. And it duznt need a dia for the wire.
But STR needs a dia koz the dia determines the ave drift velocity V, to insert into the standard equation for gamma for the supposed length contraction of the ave electron spacing.
If Einsteinist's find some way of invoking some kind of time dilation or somesuch to wave away the need for a dia due to some perverted form of Lorentz invariance then that would not surprise me.
I feel sorry re Steinmetz's poor health & early death at 58 in 1923. Had he lived i feel sure that he would have joined lots of other geniuses (eg Dingle & Silberstein)(& Einstein hizself) in realizing that STR & GTR were krapp, ie after earlier being possibly the No1 & No2 apostles of Einstein.
Einstein divorced STR, & i wonder whether he ever recanted re the STR cause of the magnetic field. He certainly recanted re relativistic mass (but in 1921 Steinmetz was in love with relativistic mass).
The Twins Catastrophe is not a paradox. Einstein couldn’t ever satisfactorily wave away the Twins Catastrophe. I think that the best that he could come up with is to invoke acceleration, & to invoke some kind of time dilation memory caused by an earlier acceleration (believe it or knot). In the modern era i see that there has been a fresh attempt to raise the catastrophe to the status of a paradox (lots of this stuff on youtube)(ugh).
Aether comes to the rescue in solving the Faraday Disc Paradox (Faraday, 1831). It is a paradox for aetherists, but is a catastrophe for non-aetherists. I wonder whether Steinmetz ever spent time on this. Steinmetz died in 1923.
Did Heaviside spend time on it? Heaviside died in 1923. Faraday died in 1867.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox#:~:text=The%20Faraday%20paradox%20or%20Faraday's,is%20a%20non%2Dzero%20EMF. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox#:~:text=The%20Faraday%20paradox%20or%20Faraday's,is%20a%20non%2Dzero%20EMF.)
It is a remarkable fact that the force on the moving test charge does not depend separately on the velocity or density of the charge carriers but only on the product, β0λ0 in our example, that determines the charge transport. If we have a certain current I, say 1 milliamp, it does not matter whether this current is composed of high-energy electrons moving with 99 percent of the speed of light, or of electrons in a metal executing nearly random thermal motions with a slight drift in one direction, or of charged ions in solution with positive ions moving one way, negatives the other. Or it could be any combination of these, as Exercise 5.30 will demonstrate. Furthermore, the force on the test charge is strictly proportional to the velocity of the test charge v. Finally, our derivation was in no way restricted to small velocities, either for the charge carriers in the wire or for the moving charge q. Equation (5.28) is exact, with no restrictions.
[...]
Steinmetz knew that by doubling the dia or by halving the dia then the magnetic field did not change.
But STR said that the magnetic field did change.
STR said that u could get a magnetic field 1000 times stronger by simply using a very thin wire.
...
Engineer and physicist are just job titles, there's nothing more to it, surely? ...
Hey,
I'm only going to respond to this tidbit below because you've written a lot, the discussion is getting kind of unwieldy, and I think we've both said what we want to say. But I don't wish to diminish the effort you put into writing your reply! I read it and consider my reply to it as "nod thoughtfully and smile." :D
Have you done any work in power engineering? The concept of 'reactive power' is immensely important and is mathematically described perfectly by the usage of sqrt(-1):
...
I don't know about RF, but I suspect they don't believe any of it, so won't think of j as real (bad choice of word) anyway. Similar to DSP - I close my eyes and j goes away.
My problem (and I'll bet many others will share in the confusion, if surveyed) is that the rapid and frequent appearance of j in all of this, lends someone to think that there is some deeper meaning to it: That sqrt(-1) has physical meaning. Especially with the match of "imaginary" power to its identically-named counterpart.
Lecturers just romp straight into it, as though it's a thing. A little warning could have gone a long way for me.
In RF, you will see Z = R + jX all the time in impedance calculations.
Paradoxical blinking stare.
I will have to have a think about it. But I stand by everything I said because I "feel" I am right - for now. Your post(s) is a perfect illustration of my point.
To Timfox, I didn't say RF engineers don't use j (actually I did a couple of posts back, but in different context), just that I suspect they don't believe it, having risen above it, to the point they realise sqrt(-1) has no physical relevance, with j being the unit vector that I say it is.
Or in professional multi hundred thousand dollar equipment.
[...]
Now this I absolutely agree with. The difficulties are in the pedagogy. sqrt(-1) is called an 'imaginary' number or a 'complex' variable but these names are strictly historical. We can blame Rene Descartes for coining the term 'imaginary' as a derogatory term to imply they are not useful numbers. Those names have no bearing on what the sqrt(-1) actually represents - and it IS a physical phenomena. It's no less 'real' than negative numbers are 'real...' or how some ancient mathematicians regarded zero as a meaningless number...
Like, what if I asked you to calculate the power supplied by a voltage source? But then you did everything right and discovered the value of the wattage is negative! Is that not a 'real' answer? Of course it is. All it means is that I tricked you in the problem statement - the voltage source is absorbing power instead of delivering power.
[...]
Blimey, and they couldn't even number the ports sequentially. The mere thousands of dollars ones probably leave the labels off.
[...]
Now this I absolutely agree with. The difficulties are in the pedagogy. sqrt(-1) is called an 'imaginary' number or a 'complex' variable but these names are strictly historical. We can blame Rene Descartes for coining the term 'imaginary' as a derogatory term to imply they are not useful numbers. Those names have no bearing on what the sqrt(-1) actually represents - and it IS a physical phenomena. It's no less 'real' than negative numbers are 'real...' or how some ancient mathematicians regarded zero as a meaningless number...
Like, what if I asked you to calculate the power supplied by a voltage source? But then you did everything right and discovered the value of the wattage is negative! Is that not a 'real' answer? Of course it is. All it means is that I tricked you in the problem statement - the voltage source is absorbing power instead of delivering power.
[...]
Nice try... maths just isn't that simple. It is kinda unrelated to negative and zero numbers: the algebra and arithmetic of real numbers and vectors as we know them today are defined, metric spaces, isomorphisms, and all that are properly axiomatically defined; the ancient interpretations were more from ill-formed and contentious philosophical bases which would lead to a disagreement. In contrast to that, the 'imaginary' unit, more generally, abstractly-describes translations between the mathematical representations of two 'real' quantities, e.g. phase angle... the imaginary unit is in itself not a physical quantity.
Would it have been doomed to also replicate "until then engineers could only produce boat anchors" had Bardeen not suggested surface states? Was he a 'proper' physicist, or an electrical engineer who went back to do some physics papers - or someone above classification, and the transistor was waiting for him and his particular set of interests?John Bardeen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bardeen) had a degree in electrical engineering, but he took all the graduate courses in physics and mathematics that had interested him, and he graduated in five years instead of the usual four.
And again, did physicists not have that same four decades to come up with the transistor?
When analysing that situation, the effect you want to confirm seems lost in the noise and bias, and only one thing shines through (apart from cleverness persistence and teamwork of course): The almighty dollar.
If this thread has shown us anything, it is that most electronics engineering is devoid of any direct use of physics and math,
bsfeechannel: Seen your post come in. Yes j appears in a couple of places, as an annotation. I was thinking of cheap ass VNAs and Smith charts when I made my claim.
[...]
This is veering really close to the question of "is mathematics physical?" and that's a big question! :D
I'm saying that the terminology associated with 'imaginary' numbers is something we inherited from ancient mathematicians who didn't really know what they were dealing with - we got over it with negative numbers and zero, but sqrt(-1) is still something to be struggled with by students. I don't actually blame the ancient mathematicians - it's just unfortunate their prejudices about how to philosophically interpret these definitions have cursed students of today who hear something like 'imaginary numbers' versus 'real numbers' and assume these labels, by themselves, have something to do with physicality. They don't, at least in my opinion. :)
In the case of electric circuits, we know the impedance of an inductor is Z = jwL and the impedance of a capacitor is Z = 1/jwC (thanks Steinmetz!)
Those impedances have physical effects and meaning on our circuits even though they have a weird looking j out in front. And while it is challenging to learn it's not so mysterious. As you said, it just means the incident current and incident voltage undergo a phase shift in time.
bsfeechannel: Seen your post come in. Yes j appears in a couple of places, as an annotation. I was thinking of cheap ass VNAs and Smith charts when I made my claim.
Let me get this straight. Because j doesn't appear explicitly on the VNA display, does it mean it is not there? Isn't the display representing a two-dimensional vector space? Aren't VNAs, VECTOR Network Analyzers?
Your point seems moot.
Yep. There's degrees, ratios, other numbers, the concept of a 2D vector space, but no j (a bit like expecting there to be a "y" on a plot of voltage vs current), and certainly no sqrt(-1).
Hang on, that's not a very big question, and the answer is relatively simple. Maths itself is not physical, or it is only as physical as any language in which you can express logic, it's conceptual.
That's not what I'm saying, and the fact you can't work out what I mean has been a surprising insight into the way the human mind works.
Yes, stop studying Cartesian coordinates and silly unit vector formulas. Forget about y. Ignore "functions".
Teach the oscilloscope display for what it is.
Prove my misconception. Explain what is the direct relevance of sqrt(-1) to engineering without reference to waffley texts.
I am having a good look at Purcell, re the STR explanation for magnetism near a wire with current.[...]Steinmetz knew that by doubling the dia or by halving the dia then the magnetic field did not change.Define "stronger". The field strength at the surface of wires of different diameters carrying the same current will be different, but the field at a common distance from the center's line of each wire will be the same. STR doesn't say anything to the contrary... I think your arithmetic is in error, at least the "reduction" to proportionalities much earlier on was in error, so I guess whatever led to it was too.
But STR said that the magnetic field did change.
STR said that u could get a magnetic field 1000 times stronger by simply using a very thin wire.
Hang on, that's not a very big question, and the answer is relatively simple. Maths itself is not physical, or it is only as physical as any language in which you can express logic, it's conceptual.Well, if the universe appears to behave consistently logical in certain circumstances, math can provide a convenient description of what is going on and even help to predict future discoveries.
bsfeechannel: Seen your post come in. Yes j appears in a couple of places, as an annotation. I was thinking of cheap ass VNAs and Smith charts when I made my claim.
Let me get this straight. Because j doesn't appear explicitly on the VNA display, does it mean it is not there? Isn't the display representing a two-dimensional vector space? Aren't VNAs, VECTOR Network Analyzers?
Your point seems moot.
That's not what I'm saying, and the fact you can't work out what I mean has been a surprising insight into the way the human mind works.
Yes. That's what you're saying, and that's what we are fighting against vigorously.
Actually no scratch that and I'll remain true to form; it is what I kind of mean ...
QuoteYes, stop studying Cartesian coordinates and silly unit vector formulas. Forget about y. Ignore "functions".
And what you'll have is not engineering anymore. We are totally against this kind of movement, because it only serves to create half-assed "engineers" who like to oppose any knowledgeable person that points out their misconceptions.
QuoteTeach the oscilloscope display for what it is.
The oscilloscope display is an application of the Cartesian coordenate system. And whoever invented the oscilloscope had that in mind. That's what it is. If you're taught differently, you were duped.
QuoteProve my misconception. Explain what is the direct relevance of sqrt(-1) to engineering without reference to waffley texts.
HuronKing has already done that on the previous page, showing how Steinmetz revolutionized the solution of AC systems with its approach. Engineering is not a simple subject. You can't simplify it beyond a certain point. If you don't want the "waffley texts", do not get near engineering. It's not for you.
bsfeechannel: Seen your post come in. Yes j appears in a couple of places, as an annotation. I was thinking of cheap ass VNAs and Smith charts when I made my claim.
Let me get this straight. Because j doesn't appear explicitly on the VNA display, does it mean it is not there? Isn't the display representing a two-dimensional vector space? Aren't VNAs, VECTOR Network Analyzers?
Your point seems moot.
The concept of something being "physical" or "real" is in the eye of the beholder.
If you don't believe in complex numbers then just don't use them. You will still be able to do a large part of Electrical and Electronic Engineering by solving the underlying differential equations in the time domain and use a lot of trigonometric identities which will become extremely tedious.
If you chuck out the complex number then you also chuck out Phasor analysis and the whole frequency-domain perspective. You will also loose the Nyquist stability criterion which relies on Cauchy's argument principle. How would you do antenna theory without residues and branch cuts? What about root-locus analysis and design?
I find it strange that you have problems with the Complex numbers but apparently accept the axiom of choice.
And i = j. It is just a difference in notation. Its unclear why we use i for the current shouldn't it be a?
[...]
This is veering really close to the question of "is mathematics physical?" and that's a big question! :D
Hang on, that's not a very big question, and the answer is relatively simple. Maths itself is not physical, or it is only as physical as any language in which you can express logic, it's conceptual. The links between that language and quantities defined within is also defined and there is an observable consistency between the results of additive processes in 'nature' and in the mathematical system etc... hence why one should always include units against any number with physical significance because that defines the process by which one takes the number on paper and stacks calibrated metre-rules end-on-end to reach a distance. It's all defined, we're safe.
Is there any place in engineering, anywhere, where sqrt(-1) has any physical relevance at all? The only place I've ever seen it doing something useful (beyond being an arcane convenience for mathematicians) is in a Feynman lecture where it quasi-continuously described a wave function inside and out of an energy well or something (I can't find it now).
Blimey, and they couldn't even number the ports sequentially. The mere thousands of dollars ones probably leave the labels off.
They're not oscilloscope channels.
Some people are of the opinion that only the natural numbers (excluding 0) have "physical meaning". (whatever "physical meaning" might be?)
Does 0 have physical meaning?
Do the negative numbers have physical meaning?
What about sqrt(2) which is an irrational number?
[...]
If you're suggesting that sqrt(-1) has no physical relevance because MATHEMATICS has no physical relevance... then yea... okay let's go with that, sqrt(-1) has no physical relevance because it's part of mathematics which inherently has no physical relevance.... it's kind of a tautology and one I don't find that terribly helpful for 1) engineering students or 2) actual engineers trying to devise logical frameworks to relate phenomena to a method of describing and predicting them.
[...]
Some people are of the opinion that only the natural numbers (excluding 0) have "physical meaning". (whatever "physical meaning" might be?)
Does 0 have physical meaning?
Do the negative numbers have physical meaning?
What about sqrt(2) which is an irrational number?
Extending the real numbers to an algebraic structure in which the square root of minus 1 exists is brilliant. Furthermore, all polynomials can be factored into monomials. How great is that?
The field of Complex numbers is not the same as the vector space of two-dimensional vectors over the real numbers. The multiplication is different. j isn't a unit since its square isn't equal to j. 1 is the unit of the Complex numbers.
In my opinion, trying to assign "physical meaning" to mathematical concepts only works for very simple problems. Just trust the Mathematics and look at what the theory tells you. Sometimes our intuition fails horribly. Trust the math.
[...]
If you're suggesting that sqrt(-1) has no physical relevance because MATHEMATICS has no physical relevance... then yea... okay let's go with that, sqrt(-1) has no physical relevance because it's part of mathematics which inherently has no physical relevance.... it's kind of a tautology and one I don't find that terribly helpful for 1) engineering students or 2) actual engineers trying to devise logical frameworks to relate phenomena to a method of describing and predicting them.
[...]
That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that only real numbers directly relate to the physical world because they are so defined. The imaginary unit we attach to reactance is an artifact from the mathematical analysis that is used to describe and represent it in terms of sine waves. I don't for a second dispute that from the real values of measured quantities a result in terms of an imaginary unit can be arrived at, be presented, and is useful (immensely so in linear circuits)... but it isn't a physical quantity, in that case, it is an interpretation of real physical measurements represented in such a way that is closer to the maths and the j is an operator rather than a quantity. I'm still not disputing your statement as far as the 'relevance' or usefulness of imaginary quantities... but it is stretching it a bit far to say that it is a physical quantity... a point you may have been missing from adx's side of the argument.
So as far as undergraduate teaching goes, it's a perfectly fair approach to present reactance as an imaginary quantity with physical relevance because spice and a VNA will tell you it is. But, just, it's not the end of the story, Fourier and Laplace aren't the only transforms, and the simplified view of complex reactance falls over in non-linear systems.
Numbers are 2-dimensional. Yes, it’s mind bending, just like decimals or long division would be mind-bending to an ancient Roman. (What do you mean there’s a number between 1 and 2?). It’s a strange, new way to think about math.
We asked “How do we turn 1 into -1 in two steps?” and found an answer: rotate it 90 degrees. It’s a strange, new way to think about math. But it’s useful. (By the way, this geometric interpretation of complex numbers didn’t arrive until decades after i was discovered).
That this subject has been hitherto surrounded by mysterious obscurity is to be attributed largely to an ill-adapted notation. If for example +1, -1, and √-1 had been called direct, inverse and lateral units, instead of positive, negative, and imaginary (or impossible) units, such an obscurity would have been out of the question.Carl Friedrich Gauss
[...]
And here is where my brain is melting down:
If these sinusoids are physical quantities, how is the j description of them not a physical quantity?
Or, in more specific terms, how is a sinusoidal voltage with time-shift physical but not that same voltage written in terms of j? ???
[...]
I'm going to be a little silly here, but if mathematics is just a language for describing physical things, then this is like saying words for 'rock' in English are 'real' words but words for 'rock' in French are 'imaginary' because I can't conceive of anyone who would might find it easier to speak French. Take that Descartes! ;D
It is just a mathematical nicety that complex numbers neatly represent 2d vectors, its not fundamental or especially general.
There's a very fine line between silliness and ignorance... I do hope you were on the right side, it just doesn't read like you were.
[...]
I stand by what I've said - does j have physical relevance? Yes. :)
My verbal description remains purely verbal and not at all physical, it just describes a physical object.
Maths is a descriptive language in which the natural phenomena are described, from those descriptions we can hypothesize, test, and refine new theories... the phenomena, including the big bang, relativity, quantum, etc all existed before humans and maths... yet that curiously happened. The language in which these descriptions are encoded - since it can be communicated verbally... is not exclusively physical.
This is all a bit silly - it started with a gentile troll about i vs j, then we're now back to arguments over half-arsed engineering.
Uh uh. We'll have the reality of the industrial engineer,
what you're complaining about is not misconceptions, but work.
So run with the reality, and stop assuming students need to "study" Cartesian coordinate systems (why?!) and teach the concepts.
All this mathematics and (dare I say it) physics, does no good.
I was going to let you have that one,
Once again, this is about sqrt(-1), not vectors. That expensive thing you showed is called a vector network analyser, not a really complex mathematical network analyser.
Complex numbers are just vectors in R², with the property: i² = -1. You can write i as the (0, 1) vector, and the multiplication as a generalization of the cross-product of two vectors. Actually, i² = -1 (or: (0, 1)x(0,1) = (-1, 0)) comes naturally from the generalized cross-product in R².
My verbal description remains purely verbal and not at all physical, it just describes a physical object.
Your DNA is a description of you. But it is a description that can replicate itself and even build an entire you. We can encode your DNA sequence using the letters ACGT. It'll describe you uniquely. It'll be purely verbal, but once decoded to assemble the actual nucleic acids it represents, it'll be an functional polymer.
So, is math the encoding of the "DNA" of the universe? That's what David Hilbert and his program aimed to ascertain until Kurt Gödel screwed it all up.QuoteMaths is a descriptive language in which the natural phenomena are described, from those descriptions we can hypothesize, test, and refine new theories... the phenomena, including the big bang, relativity, quantum, etc all existed before humans and maths... yet that curiously happened. The language in which these descriptions are encoded - since it can be communicated verbally... is not exclusively physical.
I would say math is perhaps language minus contradiction. Since it doesn't admit paradoxes, it is a convenient tool to describe things for which ambiguities would be inadmissible.
I like Al-Khwarizmi's (https://www.wilbourhall.org/pdfs/The_Algebra_of_Mohammed_Ben_Musa2.pdf) preface when he introduced algebra to the world in 850.
The fondness for science [...] has encouraged me to compose a short work on Calculating by Completion and Reduction [a.k.a algebra], confining it to what is easiest and most useful in arithmetic, such as men constantly require in cases of inheritance, legacies, partition, law suits, or trade, and in all their dealings with one another, or where the measuring of lands, the digging of canals, geometrical computation, and other objects of various sorts and kinds are concerned.
So that's what math is all about: making life easier and less ambiguous.
My verbal description remains purely verbal and not at all physical, it just describes a physical object.
Your DNA is a description of you. But it is a description that can replicate itself and even build an entire you. We can encode your DNA sequence using the letters ACGT. It'll describe you uniquely. It'll be purely verbal, but once decoded to assemble the actual nucleic acids it represents, it'll be an functional polymer.
So, is math the encoding of the "DNA" of the universe? That's what David Hilbert and his program aimed to ascertain until Kurt Gödel screwed it all up.
[...]
I would say math is perhaps language minus contradiction. Since it doesn't admit paradoxes, it is a convenient tool to describe things for which ambiguities would be inadmissible.
I like Al-Khwarizmi's (https://www.wilbourhall.org/pdfs/The_Algebra_of_Mohammed_Ben_Musa2.pdf) preface when he introduced algebra to the world in 850.
Complex numbers are just vectors in R², with the property: i² = -1. You can write i as the (0, 1) vector, and the multiplication as a generalization of the cross-product of two vectors. Actually, i² = -1 (or: (0, 1)x(0,1) = (-1, 0)) comes naturally from the generalized cross-product in R².
The concept of a cross product is only defined for three-dimensional vectors.
The complex numbers form a commutative ring, more specifically a field and a complete metric space. So calling it a vector space is confusing. It still is a vector space, but with more properties. So let's call it a field.
"Waffley texts" I meant anything that is used as or perhaps is an "argument from authority" fallacy (per Wikipedia), eg Steinmetz says so so it must be true. Steinmetz says it is a handy trick, so if I read that right, it is an answer to my question that sqrt(-1) has no direct / special / innate physical relevance (because it is a handy trick).
My issue with the 'physicality' of sqrt(-1) is that it is so meaningless in engineering and unrelated to its original reason for being, that it allows what is really two numbers to be called one, and that is all it is used for (and to conjure up sine waves).
The rest can wait.
Yes. But the cross product is only defined for three-dimensional vectors and the Complex numbers are two dimensional. Furthermore, the cross product of a vector with itself is zero. This is not what we want for the complex numbers.Complex numbers are just vectors in R², with the property: i² = -1. You can write i as the (0, 1) vector, and the multiplication as a generalization of the cross-product of two vectors. Actually, i² = -1 (or: (0, 1)x(0,1) = (-1, 0)) comes naturally from the generalized cross-product in R².
The concept of a cross product is only defined for three-dimensional vectors.
The complex numbers form a commutative ring, more specifically a field and a complete metric space. So calling it a vector space is confusing. It still is a vector space, but with more properties. So let's call it a field.
A cross-product of two vectors gives another vector as the product.
The scalar product (or inner product or dot product) of two vectors gives a scalar as the product.
First, my concern over sqrt(-1) in electrical engineering, penfold has it right: "and the j is an operator rather than a quantity ... it is stretching it a bit far to say that it is a physical quantity".
I don't think it is any sort of tautology to say mathematical concepts are not real, if one then goes on and asserts that some part has physical relevance. Not all engineers are naturals at maths and can easily identify where that link appears (ie goes from nothing to something without explanation). Some people here seem to be struggling with it too - perhaps from over-familiarity.
Does the 'value' sqrt(-1) have innate physical relevance for anything like phasors (or even quantum mechanical wavefunctions)? In other words, would these engineering uses suffer some fatal breakdown if they were replaced by two 'ordinary' numbers without some extra special property added? I genuinely didn't know as a student, although I slowly learned they are simply 'hack vectors' and more akin to polar to Cartesian conversion than some mysterious fact of mathematics. (But whether mathematics has more of a reality of its own is a different and much more interesting question.)
I too read the bit about Gauss suggesting "lateral" and thought that might have helped set the pedagogical direction for engineering uses, but I have no problem with the word "imaginary" or the reason it was originally used, especially if this lateralness is not truly innate (ie, an illusion).
"Waffley texts" I meant anything that is used as or perhaps is an "argument from authority" fallacy (per Wikipedia), eg Steinmetz says so so it must be true. Steinmetz says it is a handy trick, so if I read that right, it is an answer to my question that sqrt(-1) has no direct / special / innate physical relevance (because it is a handy trick).
My issue with the 'physicality' of sqrt(-1) is that it is so meaningless in engineering and unrelated to its original reason for being, that it allows what is really two numbers to be called one, and that is all it is used for (and to conjure up sine waves). I don't have an issue with negative numbers because they are not two numbers masquerading as one; the sign bit (unitary minus operator) has a genuine reason for being. I don't have an issue with vectors because they don't masquerade as one quantity. As penfold illuminated for me, a phasor is effectively a de-glorified scope screenshot or v vs t plot, for repetitive sinewaves - the entire signal. Complexians would call that "a number".
I've already posted what I think about zero etc, but I have no problem ascribing some potential physicality to all real numbers, because they embody the principles of proportionality (linearity), repeatability, measurement, divisibility etc - even noise. I have never seen the "beauty" in mathematics (I can't even begin to understand what that means), but I think A/D converters are wonderful things.
I think i is icky, because +-sqrt(-1) is wholly less useful than +-sqrt(+1), yet multiplying by either has the same type of effect (an arbitrary phase shift, eg 90 or 180 deg). Let us not forget that i is composed of the multiplicative identity and unitary minus. Hmm, it's getting late, better head off before I say something I'll agree with.
That's an interesting example, it is also an awful example.
Yeah... you may want to update your reading material, maths has changed a fair amount since then.
Would it have been doomed to also replicate "until then engineers could only produce boat anchors" had Bardeen not suggested surface states? Was he a 'proper' physicist, or an electrical engineer who went back to do some physics papers - or someone above classification, and the transistor was waiting for him and his particular set of interests?John Bardeen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bardeen) had a degree in electrical engineering, but he took all the graduate courses in physics and mathematics that had interested him, and he graduated in five years instead of the usual four.
After that he applied and was accepted to the graduate program in mathematics at Princeton University. Then as a graduate student, Bardeen studied mathematics and physics. Under physicist Eugene Wigner, he ended up writing his thesis on a problem in solid-state physics.
At Harvard University, he worked with to-be Nobel laureates in physics John Hasbrouck van Vleck and Percy Williams Bridgman on problems in cohesion and electrical conduction in metals, and also did some work on level density of nuclei. He received his Ph.D. in mathematical physics.
As you can see, Bardeen was a full fledged physicist and went on to win TWO Nobel Prizes in advanced hacking.QuoteAnd again, did physicists not have that same four decades to come up with the transistor?
Yes. And when the opportunity presented itself, they were prepared for the challenge. Engineers were not.
QuoteWhen analysing that situation, the effect you want to confirm seems lost in the noise and bias, and only one thing shines through (apart from cleverness persistence and teamwork of course): The almighty dollar.
No surprise, here. Science costs money. That's the whole point of the Nobel Prize.
QuoteIf this thread has shown us anything, it is that most electronics engineering is devoid of any direct use of physics and math,
This thread has shown that electronics engineering devoid of math and physics reduces to a bunch of stupid misconceptions and dogmas bordering pseudo-science.
My verbal description remains purely verbal and not at all physical, it just describes a physical object.
Your DNA is a description of you. But it is a description that can replicate itself and even build an entire you. We can encode your DNA sequence using the letters ACGT. It'll describe you uniquely. It'll be purely verbal, but once decoded to assemble the actual nucleic acids it represents, it'll be an functional polymer.
So, is math the encoding of the "DNA" of the universe? That's what David Hilbert and his program aimed to ascertain until Kurt Gödel screwed it all up.
That's illogical. If an alien were to read that, they would leave thinking the transistor was invented by a fully qualified electrical engineer, first and foremost. We know it's more complicated than that. I even suggested he was above classification.
Touché? It can. But this thread has also also shown us that electronics engineering overloaded with theory of math and physics reduces to a bunch of less stupid misconceptions and dogmas bordering on a religion.
At least pseudo-science has a chance of being falsifiable (and in some places it worked).
And you're arguing with fact: Most electronics engineering is devoid of any direct use of physics and math.
I might like that more than you but it doesn't change things.
Mathematics is too abstract for engineering, and its educators should be (and I assume are) more aware of that.
Mathematics is too abstract for engineering, and its educators should be (and I assume are) more aware of that."Abstractness" is in they eye of the beholder. My wife is a Mathematician and finds circuit analysis very abstract.
Mathematics is too abstract for engineering, and its educators should be (and I assume are) more aware of that."Abstractness" is in they eye of the beholder. My wife is a Mathematician and finds circuit analysis very abstract.
The harder I work at something, the less abstract it becomes. It looks like you missed a lot of the basic electronic engineering principles when you were a student. How did you manage to graduate?
[I just described my own experience.
Why do you assume anybody else should be like yourself? The more involved I got with circuit analysis, the more abstract it became. The very concept of a square box on paper representing a resistor that in reality has no end of different physical manifestations is something I never questioned until I began relating circuit descriptions to more genuine mathematical entities. To me now, it seems absurd that I never questioned just how insanely abstract a circuit diagram really is, but I guess we all have different views and backgrounds on it.
[...]
Abstraction is a good thing. It removes irrelevant information so that we can focus all our attention on the problem at hand.
But it is amazing to notice that she replaced the physical object with an abstraction.
[...]
And that's exactly how math works for engineering. Are you going to solve an AC circuit using sines and cosines? Or by trial and error? Knock yourself out. But if you use phasors, you'll get there effortlessly and in the end you get a treat. Any cat knows that.
I don't get what the problem is. Complex numbers are just a useful tool. Like most other tools we use. Their usefulness comes from the fact we get a lot more out of them than what defines them in the first place. If you think even the most mundane tool or model of reality we use is in fact more "real" than this, you're pretty deluded.
If you have a problem with complex numbers, you should have a look at quaternions. You can also look at epsilon numbers.
I find it interesting that some people would have no problem discussing hairy physics and convoluted quantum mechanics, yet find complex numbers "odd". :popcorn:
Seriously, how abstract is math compared to modern theoretical physics? The latter is actually pure maths for the most part.
And as bsfeechannel noted, there is no engineering without math anyway.
Removing x units has clear (but not universal) physical relevance (perhaps I should have said mathematical relevance) to engineering measurements. Yes it's a tool as defined, but easy to explain why.
Why does the algebraic 'what if' solution to x^2+1=0 have direct mathematical relevance to phasors?
[...]
Why does the algebraic 'what if' solution to x^2+1=0 have direct mathematical relevance to phasors?
First, my concern over sqrt(-1) in electrical engineering, penfold has it right: "and the j is an operator rather than a quantity ... it is stretching it a bit far to say that it is a physical quantity".
Did I say it was a physical quantity? Please show me (I've tried to find where I might've implied that but I don't see it). j is not an Ohm. But it is a representation of phase-shift in Ohms and a damn good one. Is that not physically relevant?
QuoteI don't think it is any sort of tautology to say mathematical concepts are not real, if one then goes on and asserts that some part has physical relevance. Not all engineers are naturals at maths and can easily identify where that link appears (ie goes from nothing to something without explanation). Some people here seem to be struggling with it too - perhaps from over-familiarity.
You might as well be arguing that multiplication has no 'physical relevance' to engineering because you could just add the numbers up... like, yes? What is your point? Should we count on our fingers and toes because applying math makes us feel dumb? ;)
I've said, many times, that engineers can and do get confused by this. And there are some engineers better at it than others. None of that is an excuse. There are way more problems I can solve quickly and efficiently with multiplication than I can with addition - even though multiplication is just an extension of addition.
I'm not citing waffle-y texts at you. I'm citing actual engineering practices. You can take them or leave them.
https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/power-triangle.html (https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/power-triangle.html)
The question then remains whether this fundamental nature of the number (and complex plane) has direct relevance to phase of sine waves, or whether phasor analysis merely purloins the property of the complex plane as a "handy trick"?
Yes, if it "adds" nothing practical or needs to be applied abstractly by some engineers who might then not know what they are doing as clearly.
The German mathematician Kronecker famously said "Natural numbers were created by God, everything else is the work of men."
In that context, "everything else" includes zero, negative integers, rational fractions, irrational numbers, etc., since "natural numbers" in mathematics means the set of positive (non-zero) integers.
https://www.cantorsparadise.com/kronecker-god-and-the-integers-28269735a638 (https://www.cantorsparadise.com/kronecker-god-and-the-integers-28269735a638)
The German mathematician Kronecker famously said "Natural numbers were created by God, everything else is the work of men."
In that context, "everything else" includes zero, negative integers, rational fractions, irrational numbers, etc., since "natural numbers" in mathematics means the set of positive (non-zero) integers.
https://www.cantorsparadise.com/kronecker-god-and-the-integers-28269735a638 (https://www.cantorsparadise.com/kronecker-god-and-the-integers-28269735a638)
Kronecker was a bit of dick and a loon. He made Cantor suffer for nothing...
Any of our views of what reality is is just a "handy trick".
The question then remains whether this fundamental nature of the number (and complex plane) has direct relevance to phase of sine waves, or whether phasor analysis merely purloins the property of the complex plane as a "handy trick"?
If it is only a "handy trick", it is already useful and worthy of our attention as engineers. We want shortcuts to solutions for our engineering problems.
Yes, if it "adds" nothing practical or needs to be applied abstractly by some engineers who might then not know what they are doing as clearly.
Of course it adds practicality, otherwise it wouldn't be taught. Not only that, it adds insight, which is essential for engineering.
Because you don't have to work with AC circuits, filters, control systems, or RF, and you see no use for it in your daily tasks, it doesn't mean that mathematical concepts like complex numbers should be abolished from engineering.
For working with ADCs, for example, a different set of theorems and math tricks are required.
I could conversely say that the Nyquist theorem is a waste of time, if I my job as an engineer didn't involve sampling analog signals. Or that the Viterbi algorithm, without which CDMA, GSM, WiFi, speech recognition and a whole bunch of other technologies wouldn't be possible, that I had to study while in engineering college, is rubbish if my job as engineer had nothing to do with telecom.
... The coexistence problem is modeled as a decentralized partially-observable Markov decision process (Dec-POMDP) and Bayesian inference is adopted for policy learning with nonparametric prior to accommodate the uncertainty of policy for different agents. A fairness measure is introduced in the reward function to encourage fair sharing between agents. Variational inference for posterior model approximation is considered to make the algorithm computationally efficient. ...
Only time for a partial reply for now:First, my concern over sqrt(-1) in electrical engineering, penfold has it right: "and the j is an operator rather than a quantity ... it is stretching it a bit far to say that it is a physical quantity".
Did I say it was a physical quantity? Please show me (I've tried to find where I might've implied that but I don't see it). j is not an Ohm. But it is a representation of phase-shift in Ohms and a damn good one. Is that not physically relevant?
Tricky semantics. What I and I assume penfold were referring to was somewhere between a physical unit and representation as a tool. You said sqrt(-1) "has immense physical significance, just as 'zero' and 'negative' have immense physical significance" which I took to be that middle meaning. Saying j is physically relevant is different from saying sqrt(-1) is, to me. The latter being a very abstract mathematical concept, but j being defined as a practical tool by Steinmetz (yes, with overlap). sqrt(-1) is the first whole positive imaginary number (if there is such a thing) hence a quantity (of sorts), j is a rotation operator as defined by SandyCox in (a, b)(c, d) = (ac-bd, ad+bc) (with j as b or d). They happen to be algebraically identical.
QuoteI don't think it is any sort of tautology to say mathematical concepts are not real, if one then goes on and asserts that some part has physical relevance. Not all engineers are naturals at maths and can easily identify where that link appears (ie goes from nothing to something without explanation). Some people here seem to be struggling with it too - perhaps from over-familiarity.
You might as well be arguing that multiplication has no 'physical relevance' to engineering because you could just add the numbers up... like, yes? What is your point? Should we count on our fingers and toes because applying math makes us feel dumb? ;)
Yes, if it "adds" nothing practical or needs to be applied abstractly by some engineers who might then not know what they are doing as clearly.
For something like sqrt(-1), I don't know where it gets real.
I'm not citing waffle-y texts at you. I'm citing actual engineering practices. You can take them or leave them.
https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/power-triangle.html (https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/power-triangle.html)
Although I've clarified more since, this is exactly what I don't have a problem with. j is defined only in the annotations on the diagrams as a 90 degree shift pictorially and as reactance. j doesn't appear in any of the body text or its formulae. The only hint as to what j might be (as a symbol) is mention of "which is the vector sum of the resistance and reactance".
This is what I mean by things like "to the point they realise sqrt(-1) has no physical relevance, with j being the unit vector that I say it is".
This is all a bit silly - it started with a gentile troll about i vs j, then we're now back to arguments over half-arsed engineering.
You reduced engineers to mere solder monkeys (no Cartesian coordinates, no vectors, no y, no functions).
(https://as2.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/02/25/61/47/1000_F_225614721_rw2oAr881osjDOylCbZQuv3We8ZXA7Or.jpg)
What do you expect?
https://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfVibrationsAndWavesH.J.Pain/page/n15/mode/2up
Exactly what is so complicated about:
…
x = ((PORTB & _BV(PB3) == _BV(PB3)); //x gets state of bit 3
It's hardly the most complicated C ever is it?!?
[...]
Why does the algebraic 'what if' solution to x^2+1=0 have direct mathematical relevance to phasors?
I had half-baked a response to that earlier actually (hopefully that doesn't get taken as evidence of non-causality), I was pondering my own initial reaction to complex numbers from high-school maths. I think that 'what if?' solution is typical of most people's first exposure to complex numbers, demonstrating that there are still "some roots" to an apparently 1d problem. I initially just accepted that it was 'nice' and plodded along.
By about first or second year EEE maths, when functions of a complex variable were introduced formally with power series (of a complex variable), residues, etc, it shed a little more light on things, at least to demonstrate that the function of x, for which we'd only ever assumed to be a function of a real value (and yet had complex roots... go figure) could actually be a function of a complex 'z=x+jy' which more naturally has a complex root, where f(z)=z2+1 is now a surface plot with height defined for values of x and y... only the height is complex but only goes completely to zero at +j and -j (i.e. y=+1,-1). If you were to draw cross-sections of the surface plot (as x2+1 is the cross-section at y=0) and the same function will look slightly different... you can even plot a cross-section at an angle where both x and y are varying... or any arbitrary function that links x and y in response to an arbitrary parameter (I'm too tired to wonder if that was relevant... could be Euler's formula with 'phase' as a parameter... really not sure where I'm heading with that).
That difference is only in your mind - at least as far as us engineers are actually concerned.
But here we are using vectors all the time. A vector has magnitude AND direction... and that direction property necessarily is subject to a property of rotation (because I need a reference direction for the concept of 'direction' to even make sense), which is connected directly to solutions of x^2+1 = 0.
QuoteI don't think it is any sort of tautology to say mathematical concepts are not real, if one then goes on and asserts that some part has physical relevance. Not all engineers are naturals at maths and can easily identify where that link appears (ie goes from nothing to something without explanation). Some people here seem to be struggling with it too - perhaps from over-familiarity.
You might as well be arguing that multiplication has no 'physical relevance' to engineering because you could just add the numbers up... like, yes? What is your point? Should we count on our fingers and toes because applying math makes us feel dumb? ;)QuoteYes, if it "adds" nothing practical or needs to be applied abstractly by some engineers who might then not know what they are doing as clearly.
Such an engineer wouldn't even know how to apply the abstraction. Honestly, they need to 'git gud.' If not, those engineers should be replaced with engineers who can solve it using the abstractions. I've provided copious amounts of examples of problems that were incredibly difficult or even sometimes completely inscrutable to solve without complex phasor analysis.
If someone wants to solve 100x100 by adding up 100 100 times... their billable hours will be higher than mine who can solve it in 2 seconds with my 'handy trick too-hard abstraction.' I know who the employer is going to hire. ::)
And if such an engineer is never going to apply to solve big addition problems that need multiplication because the abstraction is too hard... fine. Good for them. But they'll never land a man on the Moon counting on their fingers and toes. 8)
Get... Descartes... out.... of... your...head... Why won't you listen to Gauss?
And you straight up ignored the Keysight Impedance Measurement manual.
I give up. :-BROKE
But "what's to say" isn't a proof. And we are clear in our claim that 90° = sqrt(-1), or rotation is "connected directly to solutions of x^2+1 = 0" - it's an extraordinary claim, unscientific in its boldness coming from historical ideas of something no one ever really worked out (to my knowledge). (In this sense perhaps mathematics is to engineering what the pre-science medicine is to modern medicine - full of ideas (many good) but isn't science?)
It could be fundamental, or it could be we set ourselves up for a trick and believe this illusion means more than it does.
And that's possibly all I need to say on it without knowing more. I have learned why complex numbers have fundamental physical relevance, but also why they might not.
Bah, my answer to this part was to be a quote (I thought from Gauss) saying the true nature of the imaginary numbers remains elusive. Can't find it anywhere.
Anyway, you see from above why I think imaginary remains a good name. It stands as a warning that we (at least I) don't know for sure, and as humans we tend to get ideas into our heads and believe them without adequate evidence. I like to use qualified language in that case. I'm not saying Gauss was wrong, but I think there is a chance he was wrong.
For another example of absent imaginary, look at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-phase_and_quadrature_components (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-phase_and_quadrature_components)
(I and Q suggested by TimFox on page 67 - I had half-penned a reply)
Not one mention of complex or imaginary.
I'm happier with that approach, but it doesn't mean I think complex phasors are "wrong" (they never stopped working), and now I understand sqrt(-1) better I might even begin to like the idea.
QuoteDoes the 'value' sqrt(-1) have innate physical relevance for anything like phasors (or even quantum mechanical wavefunctions)? In other words, would these engineering uses suffer some fatal breakdown if they were replaced by two 'ordinary' numbers without some extra special property added? I genuinely didn't know as a student, although I slowly learned they are simply 'hack vectors' and more akin to polar to Cartesian conversion than some mysterious fact of mathematics. (But whether mathematics has more of a reality of its own is a different and much more interesting question.)
Complex numbers ARE ordinary numbers. In point of fact, what the heck IS an 'ordinary' number? That's not a formal definition. What is that?
QuoteI too read the bit about Gauss suggesting "lateral" and thought that might have helped set the pedagogical direction for engineering uses, but I have no problem with the word "imaginary" or the reason it was originally used, especially if this lateralness is not truly innate (ie, an illusion).
Lateral is an expression of the rotation of the quantity. It is as 'physical' as multiplication is 'physical' as the sine function is 'physical.'
Quote"Waffley texts" I meant anything that is used as or perhaps is an "argument from authority" fallacy (per Wikipedia), eg Steinmetz says so so it must be true. Steinmetz says it is a handy trick, so if I read that right, it is an answer to my question that sqrt(-1) has no direct / special / innate physical relevance (because it is a handy trick).
To hell with that. I never appeal to authority. The only reason I or anyone else gives a damn about Charles Steinmetz and Edith Clarke is that they taught engineers all over the world how to use complex numbers to solve problems that stumped EVERYONE ELSE in the engineering industry until they came along. The proof is in their work and the results their analysis produced - nothing else. I've linked their works and plenty of other things to learn about it. The rest is up to you.
But "what's to say" isn't a proof. And we are clear in our claim that 90° = sqrt(-1), or rotation is "connected directly to solutions of x^2+1 = 0" - it's an extraordinary claim, unscientific in its boldness coming from historical ideas of something no one ever really worked out (to my knowledge). (In this sense perhaps mathematics is to engineering what the pre-science medicine is to modern medicine - full of ideas (many good) but isn't science?)
Gauss and others worked it all out for us. In fact, some of the most brilliant minds in human history turned their attention towards this. It's the basis of the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra. It's not so mysterious, really.
QuoteIt could be fundamental, or it could be we set ourselves up for a trick and believe this illusion means more than it does.
I'm content that it's not an illusion since the mathematics has tremendous predictive power in physics and engineering.
QuoteAnd that's possibly all I need to say on it without knowing more. I have learned why complex numbers have fundamental physical relevance, but also why they might not.
This is progress. :D
QuoteBah, my answer to this part was to be a quote (I thought from Gauss) saying the true nature of the imaginary numbers remains elusive. Can't find it anywhere.
You're probably referring to the 'shadow of shadows' quote which should be weighted in its context. Gauss was tackling Euler's Identity in his doctoral dissertation to prove the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra.
Me: "Okay class, now that we've learned about real numbers, let's now learn about imaginary numbers."
Student: "Wait, why are we learning fake math?"
Me: "No, it's real math."
Student: "But you said it's imaginary."
Me: "Not really, the better name is complex numbers."
Student: "Oh God no! Why do we need to learn complicated math?"
Me: "It's not complicated. It's complex."
Student: "Yea! That's what I said. Math is stupid. You're making me learn complex imaginary math that I'll never use. Blegh."
Lulz - the suggested additional reading is Charles Steinmetz' Theory and Calculation of Electrical Apparatus where that icky j appears on page 2:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Theory_and_Calculations_of_Electrical_Ap/UjEKAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Theory_and_Calculations_of_Electrical_Ap/UjEKAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0)
Maybe take your investigations beyond Wikipedia? ::)
https://www.dsprelated.com/showarticle/192.php (https://www.dsprelated.com/showarticle/192.php)
I'm amused by this site also taking the great pains to explain how the j is unfortunately named and glossed over too quickly when it is taught. In any case, You can thank Euler for making sines and cosines equivalent to j rotations.
Well I guess I just don't believe. If someone like me insists on being an ignoramus who won't or can't understand (I can't be expected to tell the difference), and you are limited to 'appeal to authority adjacent' claims because there is no trivial proof, then in the absence of launching into full time study I can just remain skeptical. It's not a carload of students trying to get to the top of a hill (then not drive off it). I can still use I and Q, and I can pretend j doesn't mean anything beyond how it gets used.
The question is whether imaginary numbers deserve to be "an axis", or just happen to work that way because we think they should. Imaginary numbers are dreamed up from fanciful mathematical impossibilities (x^2 is non-physical for -ve x: we can't have negative length).
Hardly dents my argument (or really evidence) that some references and areas of engineering use phasors without sqrt(-1), or even j. I'm not saying j isn't widely used.
I saw that article when looking for guidance on imaginary numbers. Quite neat and a good explanation, but on sqrt(-1) is again 'appeal to authority adjacent' (especially with all that stuff about Herr Euler, Gauss' brilliant introduction of the complex plane and comparison to Einstein - welcome analogies and hyperbole in this context, but not proof (also incorrect)).
[...]
In fact, the phasor transform is an isomorphism between the field F and the field of Complex number. This means the only difference between the two is a change of notation. So the two are exactly the same.
[...]
[...]
You have 3 apples, and want to take away 5 apples. So you have negative 2 apples.
NEGATIVE 2 APPLES? WHAT IS THIS SORCERY? This is just mathematical claptrap invented to compensate for made up problems and invent solutions.
How can you have negative apples? IMPOSSIBLE!!!! >:D
These excuses make you sound like a pre-medieval mathematician.
[...]
Take the set F of all 50 Hz sinusoidal waveforms. Each element f of F is of the form:
f= A cos(100*pi*t + phi),
The phasor transform maps f onto the complex number A angle(phi).
In fact, the phasor transform is an isomorphism between the field F and the field of Complex number. This means the only difference between the two is a change of notation. So the two are exactly the same.
ADX must agree that F has meaning physical?
I'm not sure that kind of response really helps. I mean, literally, how can I have negative apples?! Is that the number of apples that I must possess before I own zero? Where will these apples come from and to where will they go? In the sense of lengths, the negative implies a direction whereby we would still be counting a positive number of lengths in the backward direction... but I cannot own negative apples, I could owe a positive number of apples to a specific person perhaps. But the negative sign contains very little of the necessary information... hence negative numbers don't appear that often in accountancy.
This discussion is really more about mathematical philosophy than engineering. For engineers, the subject of mathematical philosophy doesn't put bread on the table.
Here's another interesting one:
Lets say that we have a rectangle with width w and height h. Does its area remain the same if we turn the rectangle through 90 degrees? If it does, then we have "proven" commutativity for the real numbers, i.e. w*h = h*w.
I tend not to worry too much about these type of questions and rather focus on making my designs work. I need to be able to factor polynomials over the complex numbers to design filters and control loops. I need the poles and zeroes of transfer functions. I need the Fourier transform for the frequency domain perspective. I need theorems from Complex analysis. So I tend not to worry about the philosophical meaning of j. It works and that's good enough for me.
How can I have negative current? Negative power consumption? Negative dollars in my bank account? Heck, I can even have negative areas in solutions to integrals.
So, if I can assign a forwards and backwards direction to a quantity (positive and negative)... why is it 'OMGZ IMPOSSIBLE MAN!' to assign... rotational direction to the quantity? Rotation isn't just forwards and backwards, but all the places in between. That's all sqrt(-1) means. I know you know that - but after many replies and seeing adx's latest comment (where he asks yet again what the point is of sqrt[-1]) I just shrug now. :-//
You seem to think sqrt(-1) is a fundamental property of all numbers so it is always there. To me no, you need to explicitly build a vector. If you go on arbitrarily adding parameters and degrees of freedom, you end up with the box set of Star Wars, and calling that a quantity.
Complex numbers, as much as reals, and perhaps even more, find a unity with nature that is truly remarkable. It is as though Nature herself is as impressed by the scope and consistency of the complex-number system as we are ourselves, and has entrusted to these numbers the precise operations of her world at its minutest scales."— R. Penrose
If you go on arbitrarily adding parameters and degrees of freedom, you end up with the box set of Star Wars, and calling that a quantity.
If you go on arbitrarily adding parameters and degrees of freedom, you end up with the box set of Star Wars, and calling that a quantity.
Actually, reducing the degrees of freedom to just 1 *is* the arbitrary approach here. The universe doesn't care about our 1-dimensional constructs. It's just a useful (for us humans) abstraction as any other.
As to "quantity", what is your definition?
For complex numbers, I guess the closest to what we are used to when talking about quantities is to consider their polar form. The module and argument of a complex number are quantities that may be easier to grasp.
18th and 19th century mathematics is something that happened to other people.
Well I guess I just don't believe. If someone like me insists on being an ignoramus who won't or can't understand (I can't be expected to tell the difference), and you are limited to 'appeal to authority adjacent' claims because there is no trivial proof, then in the absence of launching into full time study I can just remain skeptical. It's not a carload of students trying to get to the top of a hill (then not drive off it). I can still use I and Q, and I can pretend j doesn't mean anything beyond how it gets used.
Again, I never appeal to authority. I've provided ample resources to read from Steinmetz and Clarke down to YouTube level basic introductions. You've got the full gambit of resources at all levels of rigor available. Something something horse to water.
QuoteComplex numbers, as much as reals, and perhaps even more, find a unity with nature that is truly remarkable. It is as though Nature herself is as impressed by the scope and consistency of the complex-number system as we are ourselves, and has entrusted to these numbers the precise operations of her world at its minutest scales."— R. Penrose
QuoteThe question is whether imaginary numbers deserve to be "an axis", or just happen to work that way because we think they should. Imaginary numbers are dreamed up from fanciful mathematical impossibilities (x^2 is non-physical for -ve x: we can't have negative length).
You have 3 apples, and want to take away 5 apples. So you have negative 2 apples.
NEGATIVE 2 APPLES? WHAT IS THIS SORCERY? This is just mathematical claptrap invented to compensate for made up problems and invent solutions.
How can you have negative apples? IMPOSSIBLE!!!! >:D
These excuses make you sound like a pre-medieval mathematician.
QuoteHardly dents my argument (or really evidence) that some references and areas of engineering use phasors without sqrt(-1), or even j. I'm not saying j isn't widely used.
How is that even an 'argument' to have? Like, yes? What is even the point of what you're trying to say now?
[in response to penfold]
I'm frustrated that after pages and pages of conversation on this point we return RIGHT BACK TO SQUARE ONE. ...
So, if I can assign a forwards and backwards direction to a quantity (positive and negative)... why is it 'OMGZ IMPOSSIBLE MAN!' to assign... rotational direction to the quantity? Rotation isn't just forwards and backwards, but all the places in between. That's all sqrt(-1) means. I know you know that - but after many replies and seeing adx's latest comment (where he asks yet again what the point is of sqrt[-1]) I just shrug now. :-//
I should have left it "no proof trivial enough to satisfy me", it seems when justifiably hindered by that situation you will resort to an appeal to authority.
Steinmetz does use them to solve a non-phasor (transient) equation which has complex roots (damped oscillation), but he is then at great pains to say they should produce a real result - closer, but an artefact of using algebra to do calculations. Clarke is likewise careful to ensure there is no overly strong buy-in to a mathematical concept of complex numbers, and she treats vectors and complex quantities (being a complex of two quantities) almost as equivalent. Both authors use it as a tool at a time when analytical solutions were an enormous optimisation.
That is the look I am going for.
Not now, then. Twice I provided (well you did for one) examples of the concept not being used or necessary, both times you were up on my case trying to argue around the facts. The piece I left off that comment (again to try to make it shorter probably errantly) was "You don't need to try to prove it is." - you're grasping at straws, I would have thought needlessly.
That's because there seems to be no solution but you believe there is.
So now I know that you do think sqrt(-1) is a fundamental property of all numbers, I can understand it (and your subsequent reply) in context. Negation is no more than a 180 degree rotation, half the complex nature that all numbers possess, with the other half ready should it be needed. That's a matter of belief.
One I don't seem to share, due to insufficient evidence. I don't think it's impossible or implausible or even something I should believe against. It's just that when faced with fanciful notions like "how many sheep do you have" -> "oh, about 34 + j0", I am entitled to remain skeptical. Perfectly entitled.
I'm starting to wonder if any modern engineering requires that sort of mathematics. Engineers don't tend to use it directly that often, some not at all. Basic arithmetic on a computer seems to be enough for the 21st century. So "other people" might be 20th century engineers.
[in response to penfold]
I'm frustrated that after pages and pages of conversation on this point we return RIGHT BACK TO SQUARE ONE. ...
That's because there seems to be no solution but you believe there is.
[...]
Engineers don't tend to use it directly that often, some not at all.
Basic arithmetic on a computer seems to be enough for the 21st century.
So "other people" might be 20th century engineers.
I posted somewhere an anecdote where one of those hardware engineers doing some calculations complained to me (in jest) that Excel couldn't handle complex numbers and I replied (also in jest) that Excel was designed by accountants who would go to jail if they used imaginary numbers.
He he. All that from saying "I don't believe". Religion and metaphysics eh?
I'll reply to a few points here and there, in a less 'aconventional' way
[...] the power of ignorance [...]
[...] the power of ignorance [...]
Sometimes I feel as if it is the most powerful force in the Universe....
Ignorance is the human condition. None of us can possibly know everything.
Stupidity, however, is being proud of one's ignorance.
Ignorance is the human condition. None of us can possibly know everything.
Stupidity, however, is being proud of one's ignorance.
Neither ignorance nor stupidity have been of any help to engineering.
Ignorance is the human condition. None of us can possibly know everything.
Stupidity, however, is being proud of one's ignorance.
Neither ignorance nor stupidity have been of any help to engineering.
That's right, but we can avoid stupidity.
That's right, but we can avoid stupidity.
Ignorance is however very powerful when used well, nobody progressed any greater understanding by reading a textbook and being satisfied with the answer. Ignorance in others is also very revealing of a teacher's abilities and often demonstrates weaknesses in the pedagogical representation of concepts.
Ignorance is however very powerful when used well, nobody progressed any greater understanding by reading a textbook and being satisfied with the answer. Ignorance in others is also very revealing of a teacher's abilities and often demonstrates weaknesses in the pedagogical representation of concepts.The teacher is not the culprit if the student doesn't want to learn.
[...] And if you want to ascribe any physical significance to the complex numbers, just look around you. The ubiquitous and affordable distribution of energy wouldn't be possible without the help of its application to engineering.
But If you want to go down the rabbit hole of the meaning of numbers, whatever numbers, just start asking what is so two about two that makes it a two and not a three, or a four? That has nothing to do with engineering itself. And if you don't know how to answer those questions, you cannot possibly advocate for the eradication of the use of the number two from engineering.
How do complex numbers make energy affordable?
How do complex numbers make energy affordable?[...]
Have fun.
"Do" is the present tense, the content of those videos is more about the early days, and the nature of electrical supply and consumption has changed somewhat since then. Anything to suggest that it is still the optimum solution?
Does anybody really think complex numbers don't enter daily use in electrical engineering ?
...
Or, one could do an .AC analysis in SPICE (which is strictly algebraic and undoubtedly uses complex algebra internally).
...
Yes, the voltages indicated as I and Q on a two-phase lock-in amplifier are "real values" in the common mathematical sense of the word.
However, when I use these values to calculate something useful, such as the frequency response of an amplifier or an impedance as a function of frequency, being of sound mind I do the simple complex algebra in Excel, setting the imaginary part of the voltage to "Q" and the real part of the voltage to "I". Both values are functions of frequency going into the algebraic calculations.
The simple complex algebra that I do on my I and Q values is easier than using trigonometry on the sine and cosine waveforms, which is also valid mathematics.
What you see on an oscilloscope is a function of time.
Often, as in frequency response or impedance calculations, what you want is a function of frequency, where complex algebra is useful.
Time domain, everything is real-valued, and therefore "real" in my mind.
This discussion is really more about mathematical philosophy than engineering. For engineers, the subject of mathematical philosophy doesn't put bread on the table.
Here's another interesting one:
Lets say that we have a rectangle with width w and height h. Does its area remain the same if we turn the rectangle through 90 degrees? If it does, then we have "proven" commutativity for the real numbers, i.e. w*h = h*w.
I tend not to worry too much about these type of questions and rather focus on making my designs work. I need to be able to factor polynomials over the complex numbers to design filters and control loops. I need the poles and zeroes of transfer functions. I need the Fourier transform for the frequency domain perspective. I need theorems from Complex analysis. So I tend not to worry about the philosophical meaning of j. It works and that's good enough for me.
"Twice I provided (well you did for one) examples of the concept not being used or necessary."
Yes, also the concept of Bessel functions is not needed when I balance my checkbook, but they are quite useful in calculating the harmonic content of a transistor collector current (driven by a small sinusoidal base-emitter voltage).
Yet another piece of 19th century mathematics that is irrelevant to one or even three applications.
However, the basic concepts of logic disagree with your argument here, and they continue to be relevant to digital design.
...
I'm sure you are aware of the Hilbert Transform.
You can use it to split the real-valued data into their positive and negative frequencies.
These frequencies do exist, as seen in up-converted baseband signals. With the Hilbert Transform you can then throw one side of the spectrum away, allowing you to generate just upper side band or just lower side band signals.
But If you want to go down the rabbit hole of the meaning of numbers, whatever numbers, just start asking what is so two about two that makes it a two and not a three, or a four? That has nothing to do with engineering itself. And if you don't know how to answer those questions, you cannot possibly advocate for the eradication of the use of the number two from engineering.
So, hypothetically, just as an example, I could advocate for their eradication if I did know why two wasn't three? Yeah, the philosophy of numbers, before saying it has nothing to do with engineering... perhaps have a little think first, just in case there's one little application area you've not considered.
He he. All that from saying "I don't believe". Religion and metaphysics eh?
Not believing in certain things is also part of any religion.
QuoteI'll reply to a few points here and there, in a less 'aconventional' way
Yes, show us more how your belief in the power of ignorance can help engineering in the 21st century.
We're interested.
See, you're still restricted by Descartes' idiotic naming convention. I can assign ALL of those same properties to the complex j numbers. In fact, I do, all the time. I can measure the impedance of a capacitor. Don't tell me it isn't physical... I can see it and its effects on my circuits! I can literally define the power consumption of a circuit as S = VI* = P + jQ volts-amps. Why is this so impossible or non-physical?
I'm not citing waffle-y texts at you. I'm citing actual engineering practices. You can take them or leave them.
https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/power-triangle.html (https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/power-triangle.html)
...
Well, the most obvious and self-serving one, is the link posted by HuronKing here:See, you're still restricted by Descartes' idiotic naming convention. I can assign ALL of those same properties to the complex j numbers. In fact, I do, all the time. I can measure the impedance of a capacitor. Don't tell me it isn't physical... I can see it and its effects on my circuits! I can literally define the power consumption of a circuit as S = VI* = P + jQ volts-amps. Why is this so impossible or non-physical?
I'm not citing waffle-y texts at you. I'm citing actual engineering practices. You can take them or leave them.
https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/power-triangle.html (https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/power-triangle.html)
...
in response to me explaining my "issue with the 'physicality' of sqrt(-1)" - now forgetting about the details and my temerity for questioning sqrt(-1), the problem is clear. It confuses people.
And it's optional! That link never mentioned sqrt(-1), with only trivial passing mention of j. Although it is slightly simplistic, it works, remember it was given to me as an example of "actual engineering practices" - a live example of "the power of ignorance can help engineering in the 21st century".
But maybe I'm just being contrarian for the sake of it now. The true issue here is that engineering is a faith-based activity, if it is "applied science", and people believe it. Tifify too.
I'm not citing waffle-y texts at you. I'm citing actual engineering practices. You can take them or leave them.
https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/power-triangle.html (https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/power-triangle.html)
Go take issue with Keysight. Surely they have no idea about the lack of physicality of the j in their impedance analyzers >:D
https://www.keysight.com/us/en/assets/7018-06840/application-notes/5950-3000.pdf (https://www.keysight.com/us/en/assets/7018-06840/application-notes/5950-3000.pdf)
Keysight Impedance Measurement Handbook:
https://assets.testequity.com/te1/Documents/pdf/keysight/impedance-measurement-handbook.pdf (https://assets.testequity.com/te1/Documents/pdf/keysight/impedance-measurement-handbook.pdf)
The simple complex algebra that I do on my I and Q values is easier than using trigonometry on the sine and cosine waveforms, which is also valid mathematics.
What you see on an oscilloscope is a function of time.
Often, as in frequency response or impedance calculations, what you want is a function of frequency, where complex algebra is useful.
Yes, tricky - "valid mathematics" I think being the sticking point (or question) for me.
Time domain, everything is real-valued, and therefore "real" in my mind.
Frequency domain is an abstraction which is much further removed from the direct analogue "this point 'has' this quantity of voltage right now" (itself a short abstraction away from potential difference of an electric field). Decomposing an arbitrary signal into frequency components is a transform which has no physical significance whatsoever (in the sense that inventing a fairy tale to describe some physical phenomenon is no more valid than some other description which works - a point made by penfold a while back). I like to keep this fact (it's a fairy tale) in mind where possible. Do I believe it? Yes - it takes one set of real quantities and converts it into another, isomorphically. The fairy tale gains physical meaning when we lose the arbitrariness of the signal and begin dealing with sinusoids - RF, sound, bandlimiting, synchronous demodulation... I am happy to think in terms of reactance and the give and take of energy - not a complex number in sight. But I still like to check myself when talking about "frequencies" so as not to get too carried away by the fairy tale.
Complex numbers are where my belief in a fairy tale ends. Not because they don't work, but because the mathematical validity seems to be based on a leap of faith - a circular definition (no pun intended). Not entirely, but not 100% convincing. The fact that most 'proof' seems to consist of wildly gesticulating at my paragraph above saying "but but phasors" suggests that the proponents of the fairy tale have become so under its spell that they have lost the ability to reason.
My view on those videos is it seems a bit fangrrlish and "story" rather than dry sequence of facts - which is totally appropriate for a YT video, but quoting it as evidence is similar to someone quoting a movie as evidence because it was well received and based on real events.
"how important Steinmetz work is" <> "complex numbers ... The ubiquitous and affordable distribution of energy wouldn't be possible without the help of its application to engineering."
Sounds utterly ridiculous to me,
His total work is much more than complex notation,
this seems to have been motivated more as a non-mathematical hack (optimisation),
and both he and Clarke seem not to have given two hoots (for the most part) about the mathematical basis of complex numbers and solutions when using this notation.
Rather like HP's VNA - sqrt(-1) need not exist, because it is optional (I would like to suggest irrelevant) to the meaning of j.
And the unavoidable inference that it includes petroleum, solar etc.
You, half-baked engineers, are always puzzled, bewildered, perplexed. Any insight is over your heads. If you had spent the time and effort in rejecting the staples of electronics engineering that you employed with this thread in actually learning electromagnetism and complex numbers you'd be standing in awe of how easy it would be to solve all these things that puzzle you.
You, half-baked engineers, are always puzzled, bewildered, perplexed. Any insight is over your heads. If you had spent the time and effort in rejecting the staples of electronics engineering that you employed with this thread in actually learning electromagnetism and complex numbers you'd be standing in awe of how easy it would be to solve all these things that puzzle you.
You, half-baked engineers, are always puzzled, bewildered, perplexed. Any insight is over your heads. If you had spent the time and effort in rejecting the staples of electronics engineering that you employed with this thread in actually learning electromagnetism and complex numbers you'd be standing in awe of how easy it would be to solve all these things that puzzle you.
I'll buy it, to a degree. Timfox said "Stupidity, however, is being proud of one's ignorance." a page back. I tend to think stupidity is more being unaware of one's ignorance (actually I haven't thought that through properly, but it sounds good). I'd rather be perplexed than ignorant. I'd rather remain perplexed about something kind of trivial (like complex numbers) if it means I can fit concepts of multiple inheritance into my mind if needed for some software job (I don't, don't know what it means and proud of that if I'd be better off "learning complex numbers").
You are now discussing in extremely bad-faith. Once again, you're ignoring every application manual from industrial manufacturers that I've posted for the sake of being 'contrarian.'
I'll buy it, to a degree. Timfox said "Stupidity, however, is being proud of one's ignorance." a page back.
I tend to think stupidity is more being unaware of one's ignorance (actually I haven't thought that through properly, but it sounds good).
Perhaps you could provide some kind of public service announcement and a set of approved reading materials just to make sure nobody else is having an independent thought.
[...]Perhaps you could provide some kind of public service announcement and a set of approved reading materials just to make sure nobody else is having an independent thought.You're not having "independent" thoughts. You're resisting understanding. You're saying that math and physics do harm to engineering. And when in front of an engineering problem that requires insight about math and physics you balk like a mule.
You're like the aetherist: "duznt" know jack shit about physics or math, is proud of it, rejects learning it, but is remarkably an independent "thinker" who came up with an "alternative" theory. You, adx and he, should meet and have a beer together.
My actual stance on the argument was that the teaching of maths and physics to engineers is often done without regard to the philosophy behind it.
I'll buy it, to a degree. Timfox said "Stupidity, however, is being proud of one's ignorance." a page back.
You go a step further. You are proud of your own stupidity.
QuoteI tend to think stupidity is more being unaware of one's ignorance (actually I haven't thought that through properly, but it sounds good).
Stupidity, as I said in other threads, is a moral issue. We offered you insight, you outright rejected it. So it is not a cognitive problem. You're not mentally incapacitated. You made the conscious choice of remaining ignorant.
What else is required to justify the use of a given mathematical method on a physical problem?
Still, I don't have to believe shit that isn't real.
You are so unable and unwilling to decouple the concepts of sqrt(-1), i, and then j (in engineering), that you are unable to understand my question.
My actual stance on the argument was that the teaching of maths and physics to engineers is often done without regard to the philosophy behind it.
I am actually quite glad this is true. The power of maths in engineering is it's utility - it's ability to solve actual problems, and give reliable meaningful answers. To question it too closely is a folly (and maybe even leads to madness).
We stand on the shoulders of giants, and pay researchers and academics to check their solidness and that of the foundations underneath them. Occasionally they do find interesting stuff... but a random person on the internet rejecting the legitimacy of sqrt(-1) on philosophical grounds after 450 years intensive research and demonstrated utility across many disparate fields is not noteworthy at all.
It is them cutting off their nose to spite their face.
[...]QuoteYou are so unable and unwilling to decouple the concepts of sqrt(-1), i, and then j (in engineering), that you are unable to understand my question.
Your question, or rather, the answer you want is fundamentally nonsensical. In asking, "does this icky part of mathematics I don't like actually exist?" you're rather asking "does mathematics exist?" Am I incorrect? If so, rephrase your question, please because you haven't actually formulated a question to be answered for pages and pages now. >:(
[...]
surely you can understand why somebody might want to question the relevance of sqrt(-1) when it stands so separately with the other ways in which we treat vector quantities in engiineering.
My actual stance on the argument was that the teaching of maths and physics to engineers is often done without regard to the philosophy behind it.
I am actually quite glad this is true. The power of maths in engineering is it's utility - it's ability to solve actual problems, and give reliable meaningful answers. To question it too closely is a folly (and maybe even leads to madness).
We stand on the shoulders of giants, and pay researchers and academics to check their solidness and that of the foundations underneath them. Occasionally they do find interesting stuff... but a random person on the internet rejecting the legitimacy of sqrt(-1) on philosophical grounds after 450 years intensive research and demonstrated utility across many disparate fields is not noteworthy at all.
It is them cutting off their nose to spite their face.
[...] on a whiteboard and having a lab full of equipment to test the applications is the best way to make them forget about Descartes.
What I start to lose patience with (not referencing to you) is when the conversation seems incapable of moving beyond the 17th century and their objections to complex numbers. :-//
My view on those videos is it seems a bit fangrrlish and "story" rather than dry sequence of facts - which is totally appropriate for a YT video, but quoting it as evidence is similar to someone quoting a movie as evidence because it was well received and based on real events.
"how important Steinmetz work is" <> "complex numbers ... The ubiquitous and affordable distribution of energy wouldn't be possible without the help of its application to engineering."
Sounds utterly ridiculous to me,
It sounds ridiculous because you can't understand the implications of it. And you don't want to.
QuoteHis total work is much more than complex notation,
That's why I said that the "notation" helped. You need to improve your text interpretation skills.
Quotethis seems to have been motivated more as a non-mathematical hack (optimisation),
What you talking about? Everything is a hack. We are hacking our way through existence since we discovered that chipped stone could be used for cutting tools and weapons.
Did Steinmetz discover a hack to ease the design and analysis of AC circuits? Praised be him. Hacking is what makes us humans, in the first place.
Quoteand both he and Clarke seem not to have given two hoots (for the most part) about the mathematical basis of complex numbers and solutions when using this notation.
Why should they?
... Some mathematician out there must have done that. And that's the beauty of applying math to engineering. You can use it with confidence because it is already proven to be logically sound. That's what math essentially is: language devoid of contradictions.
QuoteRather like HP's VNA - sqrt(-1) need not exist, because it is optional (I would like to suggest irrelevant) to the meaning of j.
Your argument about VNAs not representing (-1)½, or whatever, completely misses the point.
The Smith chart was invented taking into consideration complex numbers. So, if you want to properly understand the meaning of what you're reading on a Smith chart, you need to get into the mind of Phillip Smith, the engineer who invented it. And for that, you'll need to study complex numbers.
You're an engineer, not an hobbyist.
It's as simple as that. This has nothing to do with some kind of dogma, tradition, or whatever, as you like to insinuate.
QuoteAnd the unavoidable inference that it includes petroleum, solar etc.
O yeah, I hook up the fuel hose of my gasoline-powered blender to an outlet on the wall of my kitchen and make a delicious milkshake every morning.
But, I do think that natural suspicion is a very reasonable thing to have, because, by intrinsically imbueing significance to the imaginary numbers, it conflicts with both the modern mathematical definitions (no numbers are natural) and the 17th century (some numbers are natural) views. But I can live with a third "engineering maths" definition of "anything goes".
TBH, its the same gripe I have with Poynting, it is a mathematical theorem of Maxwell's equations that we cannot contemplate avoiding, but it doesn't necesarily agree wiyh everything else when considered as a physical process... but the reason I let it slide is that it is a million times easier to explain than what might actually be going on... we'd first have to descover that, but I sruggle slightly in philosophically accepting it at DC along-side deBroglie (suggesting a wave with zero frequency carries zero momentum). Its just an internal pondering no rejection of the theories.
I was taught that the "natural numbers" are the positive integers (not including zero). An older name is "counting numbers".
Some mathematicians include 0 in the set of natural numbers, but others prefer "whole numbers" or "non-negative integers" for the set including 0.
But, I do think that natural suspicion is a very reasonable thing to have, because, by intrinsically imbueing significance to the imaginary numbers, it conflicts with both the modern mathematical definitions (no numbers are natural) and the 17th century (some numbers are natural) views. But I can live with a third "engineering maths" definition of "anything goes".
Please show me where modern mathematical definitions say "no numbers are natural." I don't understand what this means. ???
[...]
[...]
Because we have to operate within the paradigms of the theory. You have to be careful when trying to extend classical electromagnetism (Heaviside didn't know about photons) to quantum physics.
Still, I don't have to believe shit that isn't real.
I thought about writing a detailed reply to the your last post.
But this latest one shows that at the end of all this - you still don't understand complex numbers. You still think there is some ascribed meaning to the terms 'real' and 'imaginary.' :palm:
THERE... IS... NOT!!! It's not. Those names are the fairy tale fiction - not the concepts they are ascribed to. For the last time: get your mind out of the 17th century. |O
You keep accusing me, and others, of having axiomatic faith and 'convictions' and whining about belief systems with comments like this,
...
Mathematics is (or is supposed to be) a rational belief system.
It's my entire point! Complex numbers as an engineering concept exist almost entirely separate from the sqrt(-1) definition.
But I see your point, Smith charts are built out of complex notation and its operators, and just looking at one (which is what most people perusing a datasheet do) is not "properly understand the meaning".
My apologies, I wasn't paying attention, I didn't mean natural mathematically, I meant natural, philosophically, in the sense of being of or directly or closely related to natural things, say, quantities of countable things or something perceivable to humans: a number of sticks in a pot would represent the same quantity to two people regardless of the language or abstraction thereof. Rational numbers in the same way, as they can be formed (often, for most quantities) from fractions of units. Irrational numbers... that's a whole other discussion.
I can't recall immediately a good reference and I'm away from home for the week so it'll be a little while before I can dig for the right citation. Any generic set theory and mathematical logic textbook should give an idea how the more axomatic and less physical significance of "numbers" overtakes in a more modern sense. Think about how you might word it if you were to describe the equation or process using words, i.e. are you directly multiplying a length or are you multiplying numbers that represent the number of unit lengths, then what is the result and how would you then represent that physically, is there a measurement process used in between and how do you get from the written number to the physical quantity... its unfortunately one of those things that takes a lot of reading of lots of different books and single explanatory references aren't very common.
But, your reference to l'Hopital sums it up so nicely, as you lead into it with "As another example, what is 0 times infinity? 0 divided by 0? Infinity divided by 0?", suggests you havn't quite understood the question yourself, l'Hoptital it would give the value to a function that contains terms that individually tend to those values... not of the pure numbers themselves necesarily.
The complexities of nature are kinda irrelevent to the maths, the maths describes only our observations and patterns amongst them, it all exists within the artificial construct of logic that is related to human reasoning, nature just does its own thing.
Yeah... exactly... they both agree mathematically, but rely on very different implications towards physical processes, so it becomes a question of observeable quantities - so at the same time as apprechiating the limits of the theories one must also be careful of what the maths implies about physical processes - so when we are so quick to say that Poynting explains something, (rhetorical question) are we simultaneously saying that it is the genuine underlying physical process? I suspect you still havn't worked out that my gripe is not with maths itself, but with how people are so quick to ignore the fact it is only describing links between the observations etc, and whilst can (and has) predict(ed) other physical phenomena, the purely mathematical proof does not itself proove something physically.
I hope I'm not letting the terms 'real' and 'imaginary' directly drive my thoughts, as you rightly point out this would be trust in mere words.
But they do have an unavoidable historical ascribed meaning which for hundreds of years was accepted to be "true" by some of the greatest minds etc - the very basis on which it is now argued that the new meaning is justified. What's to say it won't shift again?
Now you say, “This can go on forever! We have defined powers of imaginaries and all the rest, and when we are all finished, somebody else will come along with another equation which cannot be solved, like x6+3x2=−2. Then we have to generalize all over again!” But it turns out that with this one more invention, just the square root of −1, every algebraic equation can be solved! This is a fantastic fact, which we must leave to the Mathematics Department to prove. The proofs are very beautiful and very interesting, but certainly not self-evident. In fact, the most obvious supposition is that we are going to have to invent again and again and again. But the greatest miracle of all is that we do not. This is the last invention. After this invention of complex numbers, we find that the rules still work with complex numbers, and we are finished inventing new things. We can find the complex power of any complex number, we can solve any equation that is written algebraically, in terms of a finite number of those symbols. We do not find any new numbers. The square root of i, for instance, has a definite result, it is not something new; and ii is something. We will discuss that now.-- Feynman 22-5
Also a while back you said "... We call them photons, because calling them corpuscles would carry with it a lot of baggage from Newton's other arcane ideas." - this works both ways, implying that real and imaginary remain current terms because the old meaning finds some support to this day, despite objections from some quarters. (It could be because the concept never went away, while the "corpuscle" theory did for a while.)
If they were called "lateral" maybe I would be less inclined to ask "how so?", but that's only because I'd assume defined meaning from the name. It's the same objection and ultimately solves nothing.
People who disagree with sqrt(-1) are disagreeing with a concept for the same reasons the name got invented - and that has meaning.
Unfortunately in trying to understand your questions here, I get more of a sense of belief and inability to see what I mean.
I'm not suggesting it is wrong.
No I am not asking "does mathematics exist?".
Correct - I don't believe math (not entirely / implicitly). "Never trust the math." I said.
All my objections to imaginary numbers in engineering disappear for polar notation (for obvious reason). I just prefer complex notation and operations.
Mathematics is (or is supposed to be) a rational belief system.
Um, I think there is your problem... For the large part Mathematics isn't a "belief system (although it is has been mathematically proven to be a bit rotten at the core from around 1930 or so...).
Maybe you follow the thoughts of Eugene Wigner?
I suspect you still haven't worked out my position if you think I've suggested that. I'm growing tired with this whole thread. I'm only writing one more response to adx and then I'm done. You and adx can have the last word.
[...] I meant natural, philosophically, in the sense of being of or directly or closely related to natural things, say, quantities of countable things or something perceivable to humans[...]This is an incredibly peculiar thing to say given what you're suggesting about only 'natural numbers' (a squishy philosophical definition you're making up) being okay and not the complex numbers.
Why are irrationals a whole other discussion? [...] we can't count it on our fingers... we're not even in the 17th century anymore. Welcome to ancient Babylon apparently... ::)
like sqrt(-1), is super mysterious and mystifying and has also been suddenly branded as icky in this conversation because we can't count it on our fingers
The more axiomatic and abstract our mathematical system has gotten, the more useful it has become. Thank goodness we don't just count on our fingers and toes anymore...
You can go round and round chasing your tail about whether math is 'physical' unless you're counting sheep or whatever. I'm not worried about that. Math is logic and the universe is, evidently, logical.
But sure, some people would rather huddle around and dismiss it all as philosophical mumbo jumbo ickiness because they can't find sqrt(-1) between their thumb and forefinger.
At this point... whatever.
QuoteBut, your reference to l'Hopital sums it up so nicely, as you lead into it with "As another example, what is 0 times infinity? 0 divided by 0? Infinity divided by 0?", suggests you havn't quite understood the question yourself, l'Hoptital it would give the value to a function that contains terms that individually tend to those values... not of the pure numbers themselves necesarily.
You haven't understood the example. I'm not motivated enough to explain it further given what else I'm reading here.
QuoteThe complexities of nature are kinda irrelevent to the maths, the maths describes only our observations and patterns amongst them, it all exists within the artificial construct of logic that is related to human reasoning, nature just does its own thing.Yet there are some here who want to reduce both nature, and our math, to nothing more compelling than counting on fingers and toes.
Quote[...] I suspect you still havn't worked out that my gripe is not with maths itself, but with how people are so quick to ignore the fact it is only describing links between the observations etc, [...]I suspect you still haven't worked out my position if you think I've suggested that.[...]
Nope. $$\sqrt{-1}$$ <stuff>
=SIN(3.1415926)
5.35898E-08
=SIN(3.1415926)
5.35898E-08
In a computed-tomography application, one of our software engineers used a value of pi defined to 7 decimal places instead of the compiler's function PI(). Unfortunately, he was off in the last decimal place. Computed tomography requires going around a circle exactly once. It was interesting how much error this small difference in pi caused to the resulting reconstructed image.
#!/bin/bash
count=`find src -type f -name '*.[ch]' | xargs grep -l -e "3[.]14" -e "1[.]57" | wc -l`
if [ "$count" != 0 ]
then
echo "Found a PI-like constant in these files:"
find src -type f -name '*.[ch]' | xargs grep -l -e "3[.]14" -e "1[.]57"
exit 3
else
exit 0
fi
You say you're not letting it drive your thoughts... RIGHT BEFORE YOU SAY THAT YOU ARE LETTING IT DRIVE YOUR THOUGHTS.
So things only make sense to you if they're named right?
QuoteUnfortunately in trying to understand your questions here, I get more of a sense of belief and inability to see what I mean.
You don't understand my simple questions? The trouble is, as I said, is I do know what you mean. The issue is you don't like my answers or the answers of any of the references I've posted. Whatever.
QuoteI'm not suggesting it is wrong.
QuoteAll my objections to imaginary numbers in engineering disappear for polar notation (for obvious reason). I just prefer complex notation and operations.
You object to the imaginary numbers... but you prefer complex notation...
That's it. I'm done. You win.
The entire purpose of educating students seems to ultimately get them to believe things they can go on to (never) use.
Especially engineering math.
Nope and nope. I meant sqrt(-1) hardly factors (non-mathematical meaning) into complex phasors.
O altar o proof, where artst [sic] thou?
\$\sqrt{-1} = \sqrt{e^{i.\pi}} = (e^{i.\pi})^{1/2} = e^{i.\pi/2} = i\$
Using the polar form, you can see that the square root of a complex number halves its argument.
But the root (pun?) of the "issue" is that adx doesn't see -1 as a complex number here, or the set of complex numbers as a superset of real numbers - I guess he sees them as completely separate entities.
But the root (pun?) of the "issue" is that adx doesn't see -1 as a complex number here, or the set of complex numbers as a superset of real numbers - I guess he sees them as completely separate entities.
I'm sure that sentiment is stretching the bounds of believability for many people here too. Sounds like you've been sniffing the chalk too long.
Complex numbers can exist as a mathland fiction all they want, as a fundamental 'quantity' of nature if you like (I'm just not 100% convinced - it feels like a broken reality the way it has been put), but fundamental to electrical engineering?
Real-valued measures of sines and cosines are not sqrt(-1), that idea is so ridiculous I shouldn't have continued arguing about it amidst the conflation with mathland fictions and quantum mechanical possibilities.
I'm sure that sentiment is stretching the bounds of believability for many people here too. Sounds like you've been sniffing the chalk too long.
You get math all wrong. Math is not based on faith. Math is essentially a bunch of conveniently chosen postulates and another buch of theorems, which are deductions from those postulates, deductions which are based on another set of postules themselves.
What is a postulate? Essentially a provisory truth. Let me give you a crude example.
1. All Australians eat kangaroo meat.
2. Adx is Australian.
3. Therefore, adx eats kangaroo meat.
In the deduction above, I'm not asking you to believe in the first or the second postulates. I'm asking you to accept them as a provisory truths, i.e., if those are true, the conclusion (3) will be true.
But what happens if I eventually find out that adx is IRL a vegetarian? Well, that doesn't invalidate my reasoning, but certainly my choice of postulates doesn't help me model, describe or predict reality, does it?
So, the postulates upon which math theories are constructed have allowed these theories to have a wide range of applications and have stood the test of time. Should they be revised tomorrow because we find out that they are incomplete or that they do not cut the mustard anymore, they'll be abandoned, or updated.
QuoteComplex numbers can exist as a mathland fiction all they want, as a fundamental 'quantity' of nature if you like (I'm just not 100% convinced - it feels like a broken reality the way it has been put), but fundamental to electrical engineering?
Fundamental in the sense that you'll have to deal with them one way or another.
QuoteReal-valued measures of sines and cosines are not sqrt(-1), that idea is so ridiculous I shouldn't have continued arguing about it amidst the conflation with mathland fictions and quantum mechanical possibilities.
You shouldn't have skipped the classes on complex numbers.
$$\cos{x}=\frac{e^{ix}+e^{-ix}}{2}$$
$$\sin{x}=\frac{e^{ix}-e^{-ix}}{2i}$$
Being expected to trust in intellectual authorities with absolutely nil room for deviation is pretty much the definition of faith. All this talk of theorems, deductions and postulates is the setting up of a system to engender belief.
Science students are told to believe and they had better enjoy it.
Applied mathematics seems there to be endured and never questioned from the outset.
When something is as optional as it seems to be, arguments in support are expected to collapse into various logical fallacies.
But sines are not sqrt(-1). They are real-valued.
Being expected to trust in intellectual authorities with absolutely nil room for deviation is pretty much the definition of faith. All this talk of theorems, deductions and postulates is the setting up of a system to engender belief.There is plenty of room for "deviation". The thing is that no one has been able, as of this day, to come up with something better.
[...]
The fundamental theorem of algebra says
Any polynomial of degree N will have N roots or solutions.
[...]
Being expected to trust in intellectual authorities with absolutely nil room for deviation is pretty much the definition of faith. All this talk of theorems, deductions and postulates is the setting up of a system to engender belief.There is plenty of room for "deviation". The thing is that no one has been able, as of this day, to come up with something better.
[...]
But... whilst it is faith and trust, the faith and trust should be in the rationalism and logical framework in which maths exists, as with science where it is the scientific method in which we must trust and believe - it is just a necesary contradiction that we must trust prior work to be valid, though proof and review processes contribute to rationalising that assumption. So, surely the argument there is that the maner in which maths is presented to engineering students, in the non-rigorous sense (i.e. very different to maths-degree maths), the student is expected to assume what is presented as true... but must trust the logic from which it is derived.The fundamental theorem of algebra says
Any polynomial of degree N will have N roots or solutions.
[...]
But... that is a theorem of algebra, the complex number does not arrive until one starts to pose questions. Starting with natural numbers, all positive, whole numbered, countable, possesable etc quantities, we seek the answer to a+b=1 which is not defined for all both "a" and "b" in the set of natural numbers, enter the integer, the rational, the irrational and complex as we seek more or less general solutions to problems involving numbers in each set. But that's all find and dandy, but it isn't a general property of all sets of numbers and any relationship with reality depends on the formulation of the problem and it is a later attribution of significance which gives the numbers and significance or relationship to reality.
[...]The fundamental theorem of algebra says
Any polynomial of degree N will have N roots or solutions.
[...]
But... that is a theorem of algebra, the complex number does not arrive until one starts to pose questions. Starting with natural numbers, all positive, whole numbered, countable, possesable etc quantities, we seek the answer to a+b=1 which is not defined for all both "a" and "b" in the set of natural numbers, enter the integer, the rational, the irrational and complex as we seek more or less general solutions to problems involving numbers in each set. But that's all find and dandy, but it isn't a general property of all sets of numbers and any relationship with reality depends on the formulation of the problem and it is a later attribution of significance which gives the numbers and significance or relationship to reality.
You should read more carefully.
The fundamental theorem of algebra states that any polynomial of degree N will have N roots over the Complex numbers.
But... whilst it is faith and trust, the faith and trust should be in the rationalism and logical framework in which maths exists, as with science where it is the scientific method in which we must trust and believe - it is just a necesary contradiction that we must trust prior work to be valid, though proof and review processes contribute to rationalising that assumption.
So, surely the argument there is that the maner in which maths is presented to engineering students, in the non-rigorous sense (i.e. very different to maths-degree maths), the student is expected to assume what is presented as true... but must trust the logic from which it is derived.
But... whilst it is faith and trust, the faith and trust should be in the rationalism and logical framework in which maths exists, as with science where it is the scientific method in which we must trust and believe - it is just a necesary contradiction that we must trust prior work to be valid, though proof and review processes contribute to rationalising that assumption.
We don't trust science. Science is just a method for accumulating knowledge based exactly on distrusting current hypotheses.
[...]
[...]
I don't know where you had your engineering math courses, and I don't care, but where I learned about math, still in high school, they taught us that math has axioms, or postulates, that are provisional truths, subject to denial if convenient.
It is the case for instance of the so called parallel postulate: true in euclidean geometry; false in, you guessed it, non-euclidean geometry (that one Einstein used for the GTR).
When we arrived in college, for our engineering degree, we all had this concept in mind. Postulates were accepted as ad hoc truths, we had to prove the deductions from these postulates and then test their application in the lab.
No one told us to trust or believe anything.
If the experience you had with math in your engineering degree is the one you described, I feel bad for you.
Being expected to trust in intellectual authorities with absolutely nil room for deviation is pretty much the definition of faith. All this talk of theorems, deductions and postulates is the setting up of a system to engender belief.
There is plenty of room for "deviation". The thing is that no one has been able, as of this day, to come up with something better.
... I don't think science is a place for faith to thrive.
QuoteApplied mathematics seems there to be endured and never questioned from the outset.
1 + 1 = 2. You can question it, but, before that, you need to understand why it is held true that 1 + 1 = 2.
QuoteWhen something is as optional as it seems to be, arguments in support are expected to collapse into various logical fallacies.
You've got a point here. Cockroaches survive without math. However they're not engineers.
...Or are they?
QuoteBut sines are not sqrt(-1). They are real-valued.
Alas, you slept through the class where they demonstrated that ALL real numbers are complex, too.
As we already said, there is no fundamental difference between irrational numbers and complex numbers (when having a non-zero imaginary part.) Both are defined by equations. Neither can *directly* be defined, so if your sense of what is "physical" and what is not is tickled here, both should tickle equally.
adx, you seem to be convinced that "real numbers" are physically real, while "complex numbers" are just a tool from human's imagination. That itself is a belief. It looks like the more accurate would be to say that you're "more comfortable" with real numbers, not that they inherently make more sense.
sqrt(2) is one solution of x^2 = 2. i is one solution of x^2 = -1. Big deal.
And, you have a problem with complex numbers because they are actually "two quantities" rather than just a single one.
But then you're OK with manipulating both sin and cos values, which are two quantities linked together.
Ultimately, I'm not sure this has really anything to do with science or reality, but mostly just with perception.
And IMHO, the universe and its physical reality does not freaking care about our qualms regarding numbers. It probably doesn't care about numbers altogether. Your perception does, and it's fine. Just maybe do not assume that you hold a "physical truth" just because it appears so in your own perception.
"Sin and cos are linked together by the sides of a triangle. Real and imaginary are linked together by insanity."
The second sentence in that quotation is both absurd and offensive to those with mathematical education.
Just because you find something to be icky does not render it insane.
Postgrad might be the first opportunity the unwashed masses have to think 'deviantly' (or critically).
But thrive it does.
Well I never needed math,
Complex is a construction on top of reals
FYI, Derek has done his follow up video, it's on his Patreon account for early access so I won't link to it here.
It's very good and adds lots of new detailing while admitting the lumped circuit model is the easy and obvious way to analyse it.
Although no mention of quantum electrodynamics, but I can understand how that might derail the video.
Having been dealing with Derek on this over the last 4 months, including an almost hour long video chat, I can attest to the great pains he has gone to to try and clear this up. And how his question was not a troll and he genuinely wants people to learn and was really surprised at the reaction it got.
He was originally going to do a response video before xmas, but got the heebie jeebies after our chat and did a whole bunch more work, most of which you never see in the video. He was considering scrapping the video at one point fearing that he wouldn't get it perfect enough to please everyone, but I think he did a really good balanced response.
You'll see his video within a day or two I'm sure, or go join his Patreon now to see it.
Postgrad might be the first opportunity the unwashed masses have to think 'deviantly' (or critically).
This is because they proved, after getting their degree, that they understand what they will "criticize".
QuoteBut thrive it does.
If that were true, scientists weren't be fiercely trying to test all the current theories to the limit in this very moment.
A rigorous definition of real numbers is the product of the 19th century, i.e. later than the acceptance of the existence of the imaginary numbers.
...
...
The FTA has many proofs as I gather from some googling.
See if you can invalidate one of the proofs.
https://mathbitsnotebook.com/Algebra2/Polynomials/POfundamentalThm.html (https://mathbitsnotebook.com/Algebra2/Polynomials/POfundamentalThm.html)
Here is a proof to get you started.
https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~anne/WQ2007/mat67-Ld-FTA.pdf (https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~anne/WQ2007/mat67-Ld-FTA.pdf)
Find the roots (zeros) of the polynomial function P(x) = x^4 - 16.
Factor. ... (x^2 - 4)(x^2 + 4) = 0
Factor again. (x - 2)(x + 2)(x^2 + 4) = 0
I'm looking forward to seeing his video and I hope it helps to interrupt this trend, among some so called engineering "influencers" at least, of attacking the ones who manage to bring profound concepts to the masses and dissipate misconceptions even among engineers.
We are all eager to see Veritasium's Pt2. And it might spur AlphaPhoenix to do his own promised Pt2 (but i doubt it)(chicken).I'm looking forward to seeing his video and I hope it helps to interrupt this trend, among some so called engineering "influencers" at least, of attacking the ones who manage to bring profound concepts to the masses and dissipate misconceptions even among engineers.Sounds like you'll never be happy. You'll be bitterly disappointed that there is no mention of quantumelectrodynamics.
FYI, Derek has done his follow up video, it's on his Patreon account for early access so I won't link to it here.I haven't seen the video yet. But the lumped circuit model as an easy and obvious way to analyze it was never the subject of his video or this thread.
It's very good and adds lots of new detailing while admitting the lumped circuit model is the easy and obvious way to analyse it.
Although no mention of quantum electrodynamics, but I can understand how that might derail the video.
I'm looking forward to seeing his video and I hope it helps to interrupt this trend, among some so called engineering "influencers" at least, of attacking the ones who manage to bring profound concepts to the masses and dissipate misconceptions even among engineers.
Nah, it was a social special operation.
Admitting to some alleged 'errors' in order not to alienate viewers from other channels (like the 1/c trivia, or the lack of deeper explanation and apparently saying the the transmission line model is fine - no it isn't as Rick Hartley snippets points out at the end of the video).
But from the comments one can see it works a charm: now everybody is claiming victory - they were all right all along.
We see the scope screen showing the green input pulse V trace & the yellow induced V trace for about 26 seconds.
Derek duznt show us where the 3.3 ns can be seen on the screen.
Derek duznt explain any/all of the rises & falls & variations in the V's.
Derek duznt tell us details of the (very fast) scope, ie how fast. Why didn’t they use the fastest mode?
Nor any detail of the input pulse, apart from it being 18V. It was supposed to be a lead acid battery & a switch.
I saw about 100 mistakes & shortcomings, in about 23 minutes – that’s about one per 14 seconds.
But otherwise Derek makes a goodish explanation of the (failed) old electricity explanation, or at least of the Poynting Vector version (however the standard Poynting Vector explanation is wrong)(all of the energy aint in the fields)(most of it is in my electons).
Derek duz a goodish job of explaining that the drifting electron version of the old electricity explanation is wrong.
Very disappointing. I can see that they steered clear of doing a detailed examination/explanation. And, so will AlphaPhoenix, when he duz his Pt2. It looks like it will be up to me myself to explain. I will be back.
I havent got a scope. I will examine Veritasium's screen.We see the scope screen showing the green input pulse V trace & the yellow induced V trace for about 26 seconds.Where's your video?
Derek duznt show us where the 3.3 ns can be seen on the screen.
Derek duznt explain any/all of the rises & falls & variations in the V's.
Derek duznt tell us details of the (very fast) scope, ie how fast. Why didn’t they use the fastest mode?
Nor any detail of the input pulse, apart from it being 18V. It was supposed to be a lead acid battery & a switch.
I saw about 100 mistakes & shortcomings, in about 23 minutes – that’s about one per 14 seconds.
But otherwise Derek makes a goodish explanation of the (failed) old electricity explanation, or at least of the Poynting Vector version (however the standard Poynting Vector explanation is wrong)(all of the energy aint in the fields)(most of it is in my electons).
Derek duz a goodish job of explaining that the drifting electron version of the old electricity explanation is wrong.
Very disappointing. I can see that they steered clear of doing a detailed examination/explanation. And, so will AlphaPhoenix, when he duz his Pt2. It looks like it will be up to me myself to explain. I will be back.
Yes, i could do a youtube.I mean where's your YouTube video response to Veritasium, debunking his claims?I havent got a scope. I will examine Veritasium's screen.We see the scope screen showing the green input pulse V trace & the yellow induced V trace for about 26 seconds.Where's your video?
Derek duznt show us where the 3.3 ns can be seen on the screen.
Derek duznt explain any/all of the rises & falls & variations in the V's.
Derek duznt tell us details of the (very fast) scope, ie how fast. Why didn’t they use the fastest mode?
Nor any detail of the input pulse, apart from it being 18V. It was supposed to be a lead acid battery & a switch.
I saw about 100 mistakes & shortcomings, in about 23 minutes – that’s about one per 14 seconds.
But otherwise Derek makes a goodish explanation of the (failed) old electricity explanation, or at least of the Poynting Vector version (however the standard Poynting Vector explanation is wrong)(all of the energy aint in the fields)(most of it is in my electons).
Derek duz a goodish job of explaining that the drifting electron version of the old electricity explanation is wrong.
Very disappointing. I can see that they steered clear of doing a detailed examination/explanation. And, so will AlphaPhoenix, when he duz his Pt2. It looks like it will be up to me myself to explain. I will be back.
Energy travels trough wires both during transient and much easier to see after that in DC regime.
Because energy storage is ignored (transmission line capacitance and inductance) he concludes that energy transfer is not done trough wires.
Yes, i could do a youtube.
I think that i can debunk his claim (that the energy is all in the fields) by simply using his own screen of his (very limited) X. See attached.
And then go one step further by showing that my new (electon) electricity ticks all of the boxes (re his X).
Anyhow, i will have a go at examining his X & posting on this here forum.
And i might comment in the comments section of his youtube (a bit of a waste of time)(there will be thousands of comments just today).
FYI, Derek has done his follow up video, it's on his Patreon account for early access so I won't link to it here.
It's very good and adds lots of new detailing while admitting the lumped circuit model is the easy and obvious way to analyse it.
Although no mention of quantum electrodynamics, but I can understand how that might derail the video.
Having been dealing with Derek on this over the last 4 months, including an almost hour long video chat, I can attest to the great pains he has gone to to try and clear this up. And how his question was not a troll and he genuinely wants people to learn and was really surprised at the reaction it got. He was originally going to do a response video before xmas, but got the heebie jeebies after our chat and did a whole bunch more work, most of which you never see in the video.
He was considering scrapping the video at one point fearing that he wouldn't get it perfect enough to please everyone, but I think he did a really good balanced response.
You'll see his video within a day or two I'm sure, or go join his Patreon now to see it.
Derek made it very clear that he didn't make things very clear in the original video. (Have any of us never made a meal of expressing an idea?)
He used your confirmation bias against you, he only repeated his funny claim that "the energy is in the fields," giving no proof of the definition he chose (obviously).Nah, it was a social special operation.
Admitting to some alleged 'errors' in order not to alienate viewers from other channels (like the 1/c trivia, or the lack of deeper explanation and apparently saying the the transmission line model is fine - no it isn't as Rick Hartley snippets points out at the end of the video).
But from the comments one can see it works a charm: now everybody is claiming victory - they were all right all along.
For sure and saying to his audience to watch the videos of the other "influencers" that called him outright wrong is a witty but classy retort.
However he confirms two things that restored my faith in humanity: the energy is in the fields and that the lumped model induces misconceptions. And this undermines the idea that engineers created a bunch of "alternative" theories to explain the phenomena with which they routinely deal.
Thank you Derek. Now we can witch-hunt those engineers. Gentlemen, grab your torches and pitchforks!
Veritasium's scope screen looks sick.
He used your confirmation bias against you, he only repeated his funny claim that "the energy is in the fields," giving no proof of the definition he chose (obviously).
He added an argument from authority from Rick Hartley, who himself only used another argument from authority to claim the same thing.
(It's bogus all the way down for some reason)
He also made mistakes:
- "electrons don't go to the battery" except they do it pretty quickly since they move at 1000km/s
- "charges contract radially on a wire" except you'd have a charged core of the wire, and you don't (at DC)
- he confused the 14 mW given by the capacitive coupling with the ~ mW given by the antennas (and I think this is a generous value).
All of this is irrelevant. He did the experiment and energy reached the load before it could travel the distance along the wires. End of story
Wires are not pipes.
Veritasium's scope screen looks sick.
The green trace shows that there is a weak plus & minus 0.5V by 9.5 ns signal in his "battery" before he closes the switch (ie before his scope sends the "pulse")(or sends a signal or whatever).
The yellow trace shows that there is a similar plus & minus 1.1V by 9.5 ns signal in his "bulb".
...
What is causing these spurious initial signals?
That screen shows how much energy left the battery and how much energy arrived at the load (resistor).
Since current in that loop will be the same in battery and in resistor
All of this is irrelevant. He did the experiment and energy reached the load before it could travel the distance along the wires. End of story
Wires are not pipes.
All of this is irrelevant. He did the experiment and energy reached the load before it could travel the distance along the wires. End of story
Wires are not pipes.
You think that KCL holds, in the first few nanoseconds?
Oh dear, not another Kirchhoff battle...
I aint an EE.Veritasium's scope screen looks sick.That screen shows how much energy left the battery and how much energy arrived at the load (resistor).
Since current in that loop will be the same in battery and in resistor is clear to see that much more energy is delivered by the battery than dissipated on the resistor.
Where is that extra energy that battery delivered ?
Part of it is stored in the transmission line capacitance and inductance and part of it is lost as heat.
As stored energy is irrelevant as it did no work the lost energy will be in the form of heat.
All you need is a thermal camera and you can see that wires (copper pipe in this case) is what delivered the energy from battery to load.
That initial small current seen trough the load is due to energy being stored in the transmission line.
Not understanding what energy and energy storage is made Derek to come to a wrong conclusion about how energy is delivered from battery to load.
I aint an EE.
Q1. Once the current is steady, i guess that the area under the yellow V trace is less than the area under the input green V trace. Q1A. Duz the diff in area tell us the amount of heat lost? Q1B. Or duz the diff in area include energy making or sustaining em radiation?
Q2. Why did the rise in the green trace from 0.4V to 18.6V take 8.6 ns? Q2A. Why didn’t their (costly new u beaut) scope do it in say 1.0 ns, or even 0.1 ns?
Q3. Why didn’t Veritasium show us the initial pulses/rises with a 1.0 ns/div horizontal scale (ie as well as the 50 ns/div)? I suspect that the scope could do better than 0.1 ns/div (i think that the scope can give at least 20 GHz, which is better than 0.1 ns/div). This would have better shown us the 3.3 ns delay.
Q4. If the green rise took 8.6 ns, why did the yellow rise take 17.0 ns (ie from 4.1 to 21.2). Or 20.6 ns if u prefer (from 4.1 to 24.8)?
Q5. Why did the green trace reach a steady state of 19.7V at say 300 ns, which is 1.0V lower than the yellow steady state of 20.7V at 300 ns? Even tho, early on (before 0.0 ns), the green trace sat at 0.4V while it was the yellow that sat 0.3V lower at 0.1V.
Q6. Why did the yellow trace start its main rise at 63.0 ns, when the speed of electricity along the 21 m Cu tube (10 m out plus 1 m spacing plus 10 m back) is 3.34 ns/m in air which demands that the rise should have been at 70.1 ns? A delay of 63.0 ns suggests a tube Cu length of only 18.9 m (2.1 m too short). Q6A. Why was the speed of electricity 10% faster than c?
25x less energy compared to the point in time where electron wave reached the load traveling trough the wire. There is a fairly sharp transition between the two.
It is 25x less power. Energy-wise it is far worse because the power is transitory in the DC system.
Derek made it very clear that he didn't make things very clear in the original video. (Have any of us never made a meal of expressing an idea?)
It was very apparent to me that when he was talking about a light illuminating "at any amount of current" in the first video, he was NOT including the extreme case of leakage current - but current that results from closing the switch. If it wasn't, then why even have a switch?
If you want to do scipop with antenna then you a) use the word antenna b) don't take as the only example unintended antennae.He used your confirmation bias against you, he only repeated his funny claim that "the energy is in the fields," giving no proof of the definition he chose (obviously).
He added an argument from authority from Rick Hartley, who himself only used another argument from authority to claim the same thing.
(It's bogus all the way down for some reason)
He also made mistakes:
- "electrons don't go to the battery" except they do it pretty quickly since they move at 1000km/s
- "charges contract radially on a wire" except you'd have a charged core of the wire, and you don't (at DC)
- he confused the 14 mW given by the capacitive coupling with the ~ mW given by the antennas (and I think this is a generous value).
All of this is irrelevant. He did the experiment and energy reached the load before it could travel the distance along the wires. End of story
Wires are not pipes.
You think that KCL holds, in the first few nanoseconds?
Has significantly more energy left the battery than got to the load/lamp ?
Do you agree that energy conservation can not be violated ?
If so then any difference should have ended up as heat and or stored in some form.
If you will have a sensitive enough thermal camera you will see that all energy delivered to the Load/lamp was trough the wires (not outside the wires) as you will be able to see the IR losses (yes for those first few nanoseconds).
If you want to do scipop with antenna then you a) use the word antenna b) don't take as the only example unintended antennae. Why are you so fixated on the magical words "the energy is in the fields" when it's only science-babble (not even wrong) ? How many mistakes are ok if you utter the magical words? (I forgot the part where resistance is explained, which is completely wrong)
And: wires are pipes, they are pipes for current and pipes for energy.
Is this for real? Tell this to the national electricity grid. Let's get rid of poles and wires and beam MW of power to customers :-DD
it's going into building the fields that will make the steady-state power transfer possible.
Or, if you dislike the idea of fields storing energy, it is going into separating the surface charge that will create the electric field inside the good conducting wires and the badly conducting load and that are responsible for the the local dissipation of energy in situ.
No, you will see the resistor of the lamp getting hotter while the wires are cold. And even in steady state you would see the lamp filament very hot and the wires not even lukewarm. You can't see the 'transfer' of energy: you can only see where it is dissipated.
it's going into building the fields that will make the steady-state power transfer possible.The creation of the electric field outside the wire due to line capacitance (storing energy) is what makes the initial small current flowing trough the lamp/load.
Or, if you dislike the idea of fields storing energy, it is going into separating the surface charge that will create the electric field inside the good conducting wires and the badly conducting load and that are responsible for the the local dissipation of energy in situ.
That initial field will collapse (being discharged) if the circuit is closed (ends not opened).
Nah, the antennae successfully worked, and the capacitors charged as predicted. Looks to me like another win for Maxwell's equations, but you are free to give a participation trophy to Poynting instead.QuoteAnd: wires are pipes, they are pipes for current and pipes for energy.Your theory lost. Nature won. Learn to live with that.
You seem to think that the current we are talking about is the displacement current that - so to speak - is moving from the lower leg to the upper leg, let's say 'vertically'.
No, the current I am talking about is flowing inside the wires and resistor (lamp) in the upper leg, and it is 'horizontal'.
It is caused by the surface charge that has been induced by the electric field disturbance that is propagating in space between the two legs of the circuit. Classically, power dissipation happens locally inside the resistor due to the great acceleration imparted to the electrons there by the 'strong' electric field that is associated with the charge displaced at the resistors ends. Before the perturbation in surface charge has traveled along the wires to the moon and back, there is only a fraction of the charge that will be there in steady state, and its spatial distribution on the surface of the conductors is not yet final . But still, you will have power dissipated in the resistor due to current INSIDE IT.
The surface charge distribution can be maintained (and subsequently reinforced) only if the circuit is closed: after a few back and forth you get the final configuration where the surface charge is such that there is a small, almost negligible, electric field directed longitudinally along the wires and a very strong electric field INSIDE THE RESISTOR that (classically) accelerate the electrons entering it, imparting them locally a lot of energy that is locally dissipated by means of collision with the resistive material lattice.
The role of the battery and the wires is that to keep the separation of charge at the resistor extremes, so that electrons that arrive there as pacifists will be turned into a warmongering hoard of wrecking Ralphs that will make the lattice red hot. You need the wires to get the right configuration of electric and magnetic field that will make power come out of the resistor.
But the energy is not carried by the electrons traveling into the wires; it is imparted to them by the field that they found there when they arrive.
You talk about the dielectric, while I talk about what happens INSIDE the plates.
Here: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/532541/is-the-electric-field-in-a-wire-constant
I put some references in this answer. A good deal of that is freely available on the net. Try to read at least the essay by Chabay and Sherwood.
I detect a continuing love affair around here for lumped element transmission line models. I wish to point out that there has never been any good correlation tween such a model & experiment for a DC transient of the Veritasium gedanken kind, albeit using 1000 m of Cu (AlphaPhoenix) or 22 m of Cu (Veritasium) or 8 ft of Cu (Howardlong) or any m or ft of Cu.
Q6. Why did the yellow trace start its main rise at 63.0 ns, when the speed of electricity along the 21 m Cu tube (10 m out plus 1 m spacing plus 10 m back) is 3.34 ns/m in air which demands that the rise should have been at 70.1 ns? A delay of 63.0 ns suggests a tube Cu length of only 18.9 m (2.1 m too short). Q6A. Why was the speed of electricity 10% faster than c?
re Q6: With all the complaints about the speed of light, has anyone included the meter of probe cable? Or its velocity factor? Just wondering...
re Q6. I have not looked at the graph that closely and I do not know their exact setup and how accurate their length measurements where. But is also irrelevant.[antenna] The length etc of the probes sounds like it could be the problem. The probes might have accidentally deducted 2.1 m from the 21 m of Cu tubing. Especially if the velocity factor for a probe is 2c/3. But i don’t know much about any of this stuff, i don’t know what a scope or a probe or Cu tubing smell like.
Funny, the link opens fine on my side. Maybe local servers undergo maintenance at different times.
Yes, inside the plates means inside the wires and inside the resistor.
Your simplification is assuming a lot of things that are true in circuit theory but are not necessarily true in the physical systems we are considering. Wait for the site to go back online.
[electrodacus] Veritasium says almost zero about the exact lengths, but i think that the total L of Cu tubing is 42 m.
I like the way that Veritasium has the tubing say 2.5 m above the ground, so that ground reflexions don’t spoil his measurement of the 3.3 ns delay. And then he duznt even show us (on his scope screen) where exactly we can see his measurement of his 3.3 ns delay.
Veritasium duznt tell us whether the Cu tubing has an enamel coating. We all know that the speed of electricity drops from c/1 down to 2c/3 when a Cu tubing is painted or when it is insulated.
Which brings me to my main point today. Duz a lumped element transmission line model allow input for the insulation on a wire?
Duz a lumped element transmission line model allow for ground reflexion?
Veritasium made much of Ben Watson's lumped element transmission line model. Actually i think that it was not a lumped element transmission line model, i think that it might have been a direct application of Maxwell. Duzzenmadder. The same question arises. Duz his Maxwell TL model allow input for the insulation on a wire?
I do not think there is any enamel of the copper pipe (that will not be common as far as I know). Also even if there was a thin layer of enamel or paint it will not charge the capacitance in any significant way as there is about 1m of air in between.I reckon that enamel on the Cu would not change the 3.3 ns initial transient delay (the delay tween the start of the rise in the green trace & the rise in the yellow trace). But, it would change the (angle of the) rise in the yellow trace (ie the V at the bulb).
Also even if capacitance was some other value (say closer pipes or anything like that it will still be irrelevant for the main question).
The transmission line model is very accurate and just a digitization of the real transmission line as you need finite element's in order to do the calculation.I think that a TL model can be very accurate here, after all there is almost no limit to the design of the model. But it would need to allow for slowing due to any insulation. Plus it would need some clever stuff.
So as mentioned the setup can be simplified to just a charged capacitor (in place of the battery or power supply) and a discharged capacitor that is paralleled to the charged capacitor to approximate the transmission line and even the load.I reckon that if Veritasium had a capacitor instead of his bulb (resistor) then he would have measured the same delay, ie 3.3 ns. The angle etc of the rise etc of the yellow trace might have been different, but the em radiation (from near the switch, to the other wire/tube) would have did what it always duz (at least in the first 3.3 ns).
You can have the two discharged series capacitors with a resistor in the middle but since the resistor is just a wire with higher resistance is not needed and since two series capacitors are the same with a single half capacity capacitor the simplification is perfectly accurate to explain the fact that all energy from one capacitor to the other is transferred trough wires (capacitor plates are also wires).
When you connect a charged capacitor to a discharged capacitor you have two ideal capacitors in series with a resistance (ESR) so the charge capacitor is say at 20V and discharged capacitor at 0V then 20V is the drop on the series resistance ESR plus is you want a light bulb Voltage will drop on the charged capacitor as it is discharged while the voltage on the discharged capacitor increases. The current is limited by the series resistance ESR plus lamp if you want to have one there.
There is no electric field in the discharged capacitor and the field is only present when there is a delta in electrons on the two plates.
The electric field has nothing to do with the energy transfer as that is done by electrons trough the wire and the electric field is the consequence of the electron imbalance. No electron imbalance no electric field.
Nah, the antennae successfully worked, and the capacitors charged as predicted.
Looks to me like another win for Maxwell's equations, but you are free to give a participation trophy to Poynting instead.
Veritasium duznt tell us whether the Cu tubing has an enamel coating. We all know that the speed of electricity drops from c/1 down to 2c/3 when a Cu tubing is painted or when it is insulated.
Which brings me to my main point today. Duz a lumped element transmission line model allow input for the insulation on a wire?
Duz a lumped element transmission line model allow for ground reflexion?
I agree that insulation (eg a coat of enamel) would have the effects that u say. But, i am fairly certain that tests (somewhere) have shown that the speed of electricity is drastically affected as per what i said, ie 2c/3 instead of c/1 for a bare wire.Veritasium duznt tell us whether the Cu tubing has an enamel coating. We all know that the speed of electricity drops from c/1 down to 2c/3 when a Cu tubing is painted or when it is insulated.Your rule of thumb for the enamel affect on the speed is only approximate for very closely spaced wires, such as a twisted pair transmission line. The effect is due to the storage of charge in the dielectric, where the field pulls all the electrons slightly in one direction, they then release and create a new field. The speed results from the superposition of the source and self generated field. (Aware that the theory I describe is also only a model and there is likely a quantum explanation for it)
Which brings me to my main point today. Duz a lumped element transmission line model allow input for the insulation on a wire?
Duz a lumped element transmission line model allow for ground reflexion?
When you have large amounts of air in between the superposition is dominated by the field in the air. Hence speed is very close to C.
You can create a lumped element model that accounts for ground reflection, but it would be horrible. I think OpenEMS pretty much does this for it's FDTD EM simulations.
The 2/3c velocity factor is only a rule of thumb!Those charts go as low as VF 66 which is 2c/3. The higher VFs for some cables are due to air (foam).
Here are the velocity factors for some of the common coax cables:
https://www.febo.com/reference/cable_data.html (https://www.febo.com/reference/cable_data.html)
The PE insulated version of RG6 (cable TV cable) or the classical RG58 is indeed 2/3c (66% speed of light) but there are lots of other cable types that are significantly faster than that. This is because they separate the conductors using different dielectric materials or even just use the same dielectric material in a different physical layout (such as foam or hollow grid)
Simply enamel coating a wire does not put a magical 2/3c speed limit on those electrons! You would need to cast both wires into a solid block of enamel resin for it to have this drastic of an effect on the velocity factor. If you have mostly air between the conductors the velocity factor is mostly determined by dielectric properties of air.
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.Nah, the antennae successfully worked, and the capacitors charged as predicted.
Exactly. That's why I said that invoking antennas and, now, capacitors won't save your claim. These two devices show that energy resides in the fields present outside their respective conductors.
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.QuoteLooks to me like another win for Maxwell's equations, but you are free to give a participation trophy to Poynting instead.Oh yeah. All of them are winners: Maxwell, Heaviside, Poynting, you name it. What they predicted Nature confirmed, saving us to have to give ears to "influencers" and crackpots.
Those charts go as low as VF 66 which is 2c/3. The higher VFs for some cables are due to air (foam).
But, they are i think for coax. Veritasium & AlphaPhoenix & Co are all using plain wire (with enamel) or plain tubing (no enamel).
I am fairly sure that a thin coating of enamel gives a VF of 66 (for wire or tube). And that thicker coatings give a VF of 66. And that a mile thick coating would give a VF of 66.
At some extreme thinness (say 0.001 mm)(enamel) the VF might start to rise. And would go to 100 at zero enamel.
U would think that this stuff would have been done to death by now.
Re a VF of 66 for a tube with enamel. I meant enamel on the outside. But it raises the question of what the VF would be for (a) enamel on the outside, or (b) enamel on the inside, or (c) enamel on both inside & outside, & of course (d) no enamel.
Yes i think that i have come across radio hams quoting VFs of nearly 100 for coated wires, even tho i reckon that it should be 66. It might have something to do with the way they insert that number into their equations for very high frequency stuff. I feel sure that for DC or for DC transients or for low frequency stuff & standard AC that the VF for twin lead & ladderline is 66.Those charts go as low as VF 66 which is 2c/3. The higher VFs for some cables are due to air (foam).So at what thickness does the enamel change the propagation speed from 1c to 2/3c? 1 atom thick? 100 atoms? 10um? 100um? 1mm? Copper oxide is also a dielectric, so do signals also travel slower trough heavily oxidized copper wires?
But, they are i think for coax. Veritasium & AlphaPhoenix & Co are all using plain wire (with enamel) or plain tubing (no enamel).
I am fairly sure that a thin coating of enamel gives a VF of 66 (for wire or tube). And that thicker coatings give a VF of 66. And that a mile thick coating would give a VF of 66.
At some extreme thinness (say 0.001 mm)(enamel) the VF might start to rise. And would go to 100 at zero enamel.
U would think that this stuff would have been done to death by now.
Re a VF of 66 for a tube with enamel. I meant enamel on the outside. But it raises the question of what the VF would be for (a) enamel on the outside, or (b) enamel on the inside, or (c) enamel on both inside & outside, & of course (d) no enamel.
Here you can find a table of the velocity factor for twin line cables made by Wireman:
https://www.dj0ip.de/open-wire-fed-ant/openwire-info/ (https://www.dj0ip.de/open-wire-fed-ant/openwire-info/)
As you can see the velocity factor from the table is 0.91, making it even faster than the fast types of coax. Yet the copper wires are surrounded by insulation, so why is it faster than coax? The reason is that most of the volume between the conductors is air (This is why they are useful, as air is low loss).
The equation for velocity factor is this:
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/419950d05ee7ac0563ddbccb279522bc1ca2a1a5)
So it shows that the speed is only determined by the relative permeability of the insulator. When you mix different insulators you get a permeability somewhere in between. When the wire is insulated on the surface with plastic and then separated by air then you get a permeability somewhere in between plastic and air, the more plastic you have the closer the permeability will be to plastic. In the case of twin line transmission lines yes there is plastic all the way between (since that is what holds the wires the correct distance apart) but the electric field doesn't just go straight, it also curves around, taking a path that is mostly trough air.
So by your logic if you build a capacitor from two 1cm separated metal plates, then put a thin plastic foil on each plate you expect to get the same result as if there was a 1cm solid block of plastic between the plates. This is not the case. The capacitor with the thick block of plastic will have a higher capacitance since the average dielectric permeability of the space between the plates is higher.
EDIT: Fixed link
Hontas Farmer is back
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsxXX5cGamY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsxXX5cGamY)
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.
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).
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.
Hontas Farmer is back
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsxXX5cGamY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsxXX5cGamY)
Hontas Farmer is back
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsxXX5cGamY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsxXX5cGamY)
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.
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.
There's nothing more absurd than looking at physics equations and say "how?", it's not a religion, it's an axiom. ::)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.Yeah. How do they do that? Do they have little arms to shove their fellow creatures one meter away?QuoteThey 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).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?
"Natural" antennae dismantled what? You think people who know that wires are pipes never heard of antennae?QuoteIt'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.It's a win for nature, that dismantled the wires-are-pipes stupidity.
There's nothing more absurd than looking at physics equations and say "how?", it's not a religion, it's an axiom. ::)
"Natural" antennae dismantled what? You think people who know that wires are pipes never heard of antennae?
There's nothing more absurd than looking at physics equations and say "how?", it's not a religion, it's an axiom. ::)
Forget the equations. What I'm talking about is how exactly an electron exerts force on the others 1 m away. Does it have a barge pole to poke their fellow subatomic particles at a distance?
It changes the potential, and electrons are sensitive to potential, and in particular its gradient.There's nothing more absurd than looking at physics equations and say "how?", it's not a religion, it's an axiom. ::)Forget the equations. What I'm talking about is how exactly an electron exerts force on the others 1 m away. Does it have a barge pole to poke their fellow subatomic particles at a distance?
But since you are obsessed with antennas, when exactly a piece of conductor decides it is not a wire anymore and becomes an antenna?They always are. Often they are poor antennae at most frequencies, which limits interference.
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.
Yep this is more what i would expect, in the order of single digit percent difference from adding insulation.
For the kind of precision Veritasiums experiment is working with this certainly would not make much of a difference. The experiment works fine and shows expected results. It just doesn't clearly show the 1m/c delay claimed in the original video.
............But it isn't necessarily where the energy travels - I'll choose to steer away from the "path of energy" argument (like Sredni's question) after coming up partly blank a coupe of months ago. No one knows where (or even if). Thinking about the fluid 'analogy' of a hydraulic system in a digger (again) - how can the energy travel in the pipes, if it is the pressure difference between them that does the work? If it is in the space between the fluids (and definitely not in the fluid), where does the energy travel? (Rhetorical - I chose to steer away. Also combining quantum surface effects with speed-of-light energy transfer, things start sounding awfully like Aetherist's electons.)On my copy i wrote a delay of 4.1 ns. But this was not an accurate estimate, your 3.0 ns is probly more accurate.
So the marbles model is at worst "misleading".
Anyway, I like to draw over scope screenshots too, below is my first hack at working out a 1m transit time (without checking, admittedly if it had come up with something like 5ns then I might not have posted the PNG):
Berni & TimFox know that Velocity Factor duz not tell us the speed of elekticity. Velocity Factor is simply a radio ham fudge factor that gives good numbers for antennas.It doesn't show the exact number it particularly clearly but it does show it. The yellow trace *starts* rising close enough to 3 ns after the green trace turns on. It does takes about 15-20 ns to reach the ~5V plateau. This is to be expected, and should show up in the HFSS models, but doesn't really detract qualitatively from the point: "the load begins to turn on significantly in a time approximately light crossing the gap". Yes, at exactly 3 ns the current is still quite small but it it rises rapidly to a significant voltage. Arguing about the precise dynamics is basically already conceding the point of the whole thought experiment.A quantitative discussion of the effect of normal insulation layers on velocity factor in antenna construction:Yep this is more what i would expect, in the order of single digit percent difference from adding insulation.
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.
For the kind of precision Veritasiums experiment is working with this certainly would not make much of a difference. The experiment works fine and shows expected results. It just doesn't clearly show the 1m/c delay claimed in the original video.
Given the nice setup with rigid metal pipe on supports I would have wanted to slide the rods closer together, say 0.5 m and see how that moved the trace. But I don't know that that would have actually been helpful for the target audience.
Berni & TimFox know that Velocity Factor duz not tell us the speed of electricity. Velocity Factor is simply a radio ham fudge factor that gives good numbers for antennas.
Berni & TimFox know that Velocity Factor changes with GHz. Hence it has little to do with the pure speed of electricity.
Berni & TimFox know that there is no experiment or test that has ever been carried out that links Velocity Factor to the speed of electricity. Not for bare wire, not for insulated wire.
Any/every proper test will show that insulated wire has a speed of electricity of 2c/3.
Berni & TimFox don’t know that it is not simply what is inside a coax that determines the speed of electricity.
The speed of electricity along a coax is the sum of the speed of electricity on the Cu wire, & the speed of electricity on the outside of the sheath (which is usually fully insulated).
Seeesh, i am getting tired of casting pearls.
A measure of the delay for the reflexion of a signal or pulse or something for a straight (single) bit of insulated Cu would do the job (say 10 m long if a good scope).Berni & TimFox know that Velocity Factor duz not tell us the speed of electricity. Velocity Factor is simply a radio ham fudge factor that gives good numbers for antennas.Velocity factor is not just a term that only works in RF. it is just a more convenient way of saying the speed without having to write out the speed as a huge number.
Berni & TimFox know that Velocity Factor changes with GHz. Hence it has little to do with the pure speed of elekticity.
Berni & TimFox know that there is no experiment or test that has ever been carried out that links Velocity Factor to the speed of elekticity. Not for bare wire, not for insulated wire.
Any/every proper test will show that insulated wire has a speed of elekticity of 2c/3.
Berni & TimFox don’t know that it is not simply what is inside a coax that determines the speed of elekticity.
The speed of elekticity along a coax is the sum of the speed of elekticity on the Cu wire, & the speed of elekticity on the outside of the sheath (which is usually fully insulated).
Seeesh, i am getting tired of casting pearls.
If velocity factor was significantly different for various frequencies then you would get your signal distorted after going trough a long coax cable as parts of the signal would separate out in time. This would be particularly visible when sending a square wave trough it, instead what tend to happen is the square wave getting rounded off, this is because the higher frequencies tend to cause more loss in the dielectric. This is why coax for >10GHz is special and usually insanely expensive.
You can do the experiment yourself if you don't believe it. Take a few different kinds of line such as classic solid RG58, foam core RG6 or some 300Ohm ladderline. Feed a fast square wave pulse into one end (with proper matching for the line impedance) and measure the time delay with a scope. You will see that the RG58 is very close to the 2/3c yet the ladder line is more like 9/10c while the foam RG6 is somewhere in between. As long as you have 10s of meters of cable you don't even need a particularly fast scope to measure it. You can also use a LCR meter to verify the equation that velocity factor is determined by the inductance and capacitance. In particular the capacitance part is what changes when you introduce a plastic dielectric.
I know that the speed of a signal down a transmission line is the usual function of the inductance and capacitance per unit length.If the leading edge of a (DC) signal is slowed due to the presence of a parallel wire then that would be a big problem for my new elekton elekticity.
In my career, I have measured transmission lines to verify this.
I have built resonant circuits using coax lines.
I have built delay lines from discrete inductors and capacitors.
I have used coax cables with and without the PVC outer insulation.
I have never seen the mythical behavior you wave your hands about.
I am getting tired of stepping through your “pearls”.
On my copy i wrote a delay of 4.1 ns. But this was not an accurate estimate, your 3.0 ns is probly more accurate.
Actually i had another go at it myself & it came to 2.2 ns.
What is your own explanation for the rise & plateau?
A measure of the delay for the reflexion of a signal or pulse or something for a straight (single) bit of insulated Cu would do the job (say 10 m long if a good scope).
Not coax. Not twin. Not ladderline.
I say the speed of electricity will be 5.0 ns/m, which is 2c/3.
A bare wire would be 3.4 ns/m, which is c/1.
This is the speed of the fastest signal (which will probly be very strong with a steep rise, if the scope is a good scope).
But i haven't got a scope.
What is your own explanation for the rise & plateau?
Probing (is my guess).
The say 10 m wire could be stretched high above the dirt, from the say 3rd floor of a building, using plastic rope going to the say adjacent building.A measure of the delay for the reflexion of a signal or pulse or something for a straight (single) bit of insulated Cu would do the job (say 10 m long if a good scope).If you have a straight conductor with nothing else around it you have created an antenna.
Not coax. Not twin. Not ladderline.
I say the speed of electricity will be 5.0 ns/m, which is 2c/3.
A bare wire would be 3.4 ns/m, which is c/1.
This is the speed of the fastest signal (which will probly be very strong with a steep rise, if the scope is a good scope).
But i haven't got a scope.
The speed in these is well known to be close to the speed of light since this is important in antenna design. They are designed according to the wavelength and as you see using insulated wire makes a difference of only a few %, certainly not 2/3c. And it makes sense sine most of the surrounding environment is air with a tiny bit of plastic in it.
There is also the problem with monopole antennas that you can't make a true monopole antenna. Current always flows in loops so driving this kind of antenna also pushes an identical reverse current into the ground. So whatever is connected to ground becomes 'the other piece of wire'. In real antennas this ground tends to be connected to a metal grounding rod right next to it to make the planet itself the other pole of the 'monopole'
So to actually do your experiment properly one would need to do it using a 10m metal rod flying in the air with the measurement setup stuck to one end of it. That way you would have nothing conductive anywhere near the antenna (inducing the ground) while the test electronics are powered by batteries. What you would get in that case is mostly the ground of your test equipment getting wiggled up and down at the square wave pulse rate. The metal case of the equipment acting mostly as the antenna while using the 10m pole as its earth.
The say 10 m wire could be stretched high above the dirt, from the say 3rd floor of a building, using plastic rope going to the say adjacent building.
But i would not worry too much. Minor reflexions etc shouldn’t matter much, as long as there is a clear strong non-ambiguous signal.
I would connect the wire to the scope (ie to receive a pulse), & not worry about completing some kind of circuit (or about using ground)(but i scored i think 51/100 for Electricity-1).
I suppose that u would need the scope to measure voltage across a resistor stuck on the near end of the wire.
Rather than using a (simple) pulse, i would prefer to use a (complicated) 12 V lead acid battery. Feed the wire from the negative terminal. Don’t have any connection to the positive terminal. Possibly use a special switch.
No great need to looz sleep about all of the things needed to make the experiment perfect.
The Nobel Committee will have an easy job.
The Nobel Committee will have an easy job.For once I agree with you!
I know that the speed of a signal down a transmission line is the usual function of the inductance and capacitance per unit length.If the leading edge of a (DC) signal is slowed due to the presence of a parallel wire then that would be a big problem for my new electon electricity.
In my career, I have measured transmission lines to verify this.
I have built resonant circuits using coax lines.
I have built delay lines from discrete inductors and capacitors.
I have used coax cables with and without the PVC outer insulation.
I have never seen the mythical behavior you wave your hands about.
I am getting tired of stepping through your “pearls”.
I suspect that the scope is its own ground. In any case ground is only a worry if voltage is critical, which here it aint, what we need is good nanoseconds not good nanovolts.The say 10 m wire could be stretched high above the dirt, from the say 3rd floor of a building, using plastic rope going to the say adjacent building.A scope measures all signals in reference to ground, so you have to connect ground somewhere.
But i would not worry too much. Minor reflexions etc shouldn’t matter much, as long as there is a clear strong non-ambiguous signal.
I would connect the wire to the scope (ie to receive a pulse), & not worry about completing some kind of circuit (or about using ground)(but i scored i think 51/100 for Electricity-1).
I suppose that u would need the scope to measure voltage across a resistor stuck on the near end of the wire.
Rather than using a (simple) pulse, i would prefer to use a (complicated) 12 V lead acid battery. Feed the wire from the negative terminal. Don’t have any connection to the positive terminal. Possibly use a special switch.
No great need to looz sleep about all of the things needed to make the experiment perfect.
The Nobel Committee will have an easy job.
The signal generator making the pulse (or a battery and switch) also has two terminals, so you need to connect the other end to something to see a signal at all. The source can only 'pump' electrons over. So if you want to push electrons into the 10m rod you have to pump them from somewhere.
I appreciate your input as usual. However that is old electricity."the leading edge of a (DC) signal" is nonsensical: what you mean is the leading edge of a Heaviside step function, which is not DC. Such step-function pulses or waveforms never exist without a source impedance from the generator. The end of the transmission line where you connect the generator is a discontinuity, and may well have parallel capacitance. What happens to a step function applied through a resistance to a capacitance in parallel with another impedance (the characteristic impedance of the transmision line)? Spoiler: you get an increased rise time. Quantitative values depend on the actual parameters.I know that the speed of a signal down a transmission line is the usual function of the inductance and capacitance per unit length.If the leading edge of a (DC) signal is slowed due to the presence of a parallel wire then that would be a big problem for my new electon electricity.
In my career, I have measured transmission lines to verify this.
I have built resonant circuits using coax lines.
I have built delay lines from discrete inductors and capacitors.
I have used coax cables with and without the PVC outer insulation.
I have never seen the mythical behavior you wave your hands about.
I am getting tired of stepping through your “pearls”.
Anytime you have two wires, you have a transmission line. Two wires lying on top of your bench makes a crappy transmission line, by which I mean that its parameters are not well-defined, nor are they constant down the length of the wire, as the would be in a well-made coaxial, twisted-pair, or twin-lead line.
With transmission lines, especially those of substantial length, the voltage and current are local, and don't include uncontrolled long wires outside the measurement.Waveguides are another area where i know little, but i can smell a 2nd Nobel medallion.
Ideally, one defines a plane, perpendicular to the long direction of the coaxial cable (in this example) and the ideal voltage probe/oscilloscope measures the voltage from center to outer conductors in that plane, and the ideal current probe measures the current through the inner conductor passing through that plane.
Practical oscilloscope and current probes try to emulate that ideal situation.
When the diameter of the coax (again, in this example) becomes too large at the time scale of the measurement, we are crossing into waveguide territory, where we concentrate on the fields in the interior of the guide. Note that waveguides can be built with dielectric walls instead of conductive walls, with well-defined (in conventional electrodynamic theory) results similar to conductive guides, with the possibility of having a large DC (or lower-frequency than the waves) voltage from one end to the other. Similarly, if the interior of the waveguide is evacuated, one can run current in the form of electron or ion beams down the length of the guide, which will interact with the high-frequency fields. As mentioned in someone else's textbook citation, at the frequencies where waveguides are common, the skin depth in the metal walls is very small, and the energy is transported mainly in the traveling wave down the guide. With a bad termination, or a resonant cavity, energy can be stored in the standing wave.
There is a large literature and industrial history of both waveguides in general and particle accelerators in particular. Again, they both work.
When Heaviside made his huge breakthrough (realizing that adding lumped inductors in series with the telegraph lines improved their bandwidth), he may have used the telegraph system grounding as the return (bandwidth is not so high with manual Morse code). When AT&T successfully adopted his method to trunk telephone lines, they used twisted-pair transmission lines (balanced with respect to ground).
By the way, with respect to the outer insulation (jacket) on coaxial cables. I have used precision coaxial cables, some of which had armored jackets to prevent damage, and coaxial cables with various dielectrics (usually PE or PTFE), and various jackets (usually PVC), but also "semi-rigid" coaxial cables, where the outer conductor is essentially a copper tube, with no outer insulation. Careful use of these semi-rigid cables requires proper tooling for making bends, so as not to destroy the inner geometry. See https://www.pasternack.com/pages/Featured_Products/hand-formable-semi-rigid-cable-assemblies-up-to-18-ghz-new-from-pasternack.html?utm_campaign=usa_cable_assemblies&keyword=semi-rigid%20coaxial%20cable%20assemblies&gclid=eaiaiqobchmi2dv1-dzv9wivshrnch1uia-oeaayasaaegkoypd_bwe (https://www.pasternack.com/pages/Featured_Products/hand-formable-semi-rigid-cable-assemblies-up-to-18-ghz-new-from-pasternack.html?utm_campaign=usa_cable_assemblies&keyword=semi-rigid%20coaxial%20cable%20assemblies&gclid=eaiaiqobchmi2dv1-dzv9wivshrnch1uia-oeaayasaaegkoypd_bwe) for such assemblies available with or without outer insulating jacket. Again, they work the same either way.
"I am worried about the term wave. E×H has no wave, it is a slab, all of the fancy perpendicular sinusoidal models are wrong."Radar etc waves are manmade waves. They can be made to be sinusoidal or any shape we like. They are not the same animal as (non-manmade)(natural) Hertzian waves, which (if they existed)(which they don’t) would be sinusoidal all the time.
What evidence do you have for the assertion that the fancy perpendicular sinusoidal models are wrong?
The fancy perpendicular sinusoidal models work well with traveling waves down waveguides and radiated waves propagating away from antennae.
Popular modes for waveguides are TE (transverse electric, where the E field component in the longitudinal direction of propagation is zero) and TM (transverse magnetic, the H component in the direction of propagation is zero.)
Arbitrary waves propagating in the longitudinal direction are superpositions of TE and TM, under normal conditions, and the transverse components of (time-dependent) E and H vectors are everywhere mutually perpendicular.
At this point, things get messy, and I don't claim expertise. Please refer to the standard textbooks on waveguides, and remember that WWII was won through use of radar, waveguides, magnetrons, and klystrons.
The finite conductivity of the walls in rectangular cross-section waveguides is a source of attenuation (loss) as energy propagates by the sinusoidal fields down the guide. When you see the mathematical equations, you will notice a spatial dependence in the transverse (cross-section) directions, and a sinusoidal time dependence down the longitudinal direction, with loss also in the longitudinal direction.
There is a cut-off frequency, below which the waves cannot propagate down a rectangular guide, which is why these rectangular pipes are used in the microwave frequency regime.
This is because every physics textbook today claims that Hertz demonstrated experimentally Maxwell’s theory.
I suspect that the scope is its own ground. In any case ground is only a worry if voltage is critical, which here it aint, what we need is good nanoseconds not good nanovolts.
Re seeing a signal at all, that is old (electron) electricity. My new (electon) electricity don’t need no circuit.
Hence the X will confirm my electons whilst killing your electrons.
The electons are continuously circulating on the negative terminal of the lead acid battery. Fed from the electrolyte in the cell. They do not need any pumping or pushing. They merely need a contact, & off they go, at the speed of light (albeit slowed by the drag of the Cu surface)(ie the drag of the drifting electrons in the Cu)(plus a little bit of drag due to having to plough through free surface electrons).
Sweden here i kum.
Radar etc waves are manmade waves. They can be made to be sinusoidal or any shape we like. They are not the same animal as (non-manmade)(natural) Hertzian waves, which (if they existed)(which they don’t) would be sinusoidal all the time.
Yes, finding an answer usually leads to a deeper question.This is because every physics textbook today claims that Hertz demonstrated experimentally Maxwell’s theory.This is a general problem that comes up over and over again. Learning, understanding and education is not about reading textbooks as received wisdom and believing what they say. That is not science, that is religion.
Nobody knows what electrons, photons, electric fields, magnetic fields or electromagnetic radiation really are, and probably nobody can know. It is a pointless subject to argue about and serves no purpose.
What I do know is that people can design smartphones and computers and many other devices using established models of the world, and those devices work as intended. If our models were wrong, then all the engineers trying to design things would get very frustrated.
The way to make headway in a debate such as this is not to write lots of words and somehow think they convey meaning, because words are just words. You can make them say anything you like, but to what purpose? The way to make progress is to show that when people try to design computers, or telecommunications equipment, or silicon chips, that they fail, and that their designs do not work. Once you can show that, then you have evidence to claim that our model of the world is wrong and that we need new physics.
Yes Wheatstone or someone measured the speed along a long wire. But he didn’t ever use an insulated wire, & neither has anyone else (officially).I suspect that the scope is its own ground. In any case ground is only a worry if voltage is critical, which here it aint, what we need is good nanoseconds not good nanovolts.And why do you think there are more electrons on the negative terminal?
Re seeing a signal at all, that is old (electron) electricity. My new (electon) electricity don’t need no circuit.
Hence the X will confirm my electons whilst killing your electrons.
The electons are continuously circulating on the negative terminal of the lead acid battery. Fed from the electrolyte in the cell. They do not need any pumping or pushing. They merely need a contact, & off they go, at the speed of light (albeit slowed by the drag of the Cu surface)(ie the drag of the drifting electrons in the Cu)(plus a little bit of drag due to having to plough through free surface electrons).
Sweden here i kum.
Because the battery is pumping them over from the positive terminal, this happens until the battery cell voltage is reached. So if you take away the electrons on the negative terminal it will simply pump more electrons off the positive terminal to push it more positive. Even if you use the example of an electronically charged balloon, then you have a charged capacitor where one plate is the balloon and the other plate is the environment. As a result you can actually make the same balloon store more or less energy if you surround it with a different dielectric or not.
In the same way pushing a voltage into a scope probe without connecting the probe ground will simply push the entire scope to a higher potential and you see 0V on screen.
How much experience do you have in using an oscilloscope anyway?Radar etc waves are manmade waves. They can be made to be sinusoidal or any shape we like. They are not the same animal as (non-manmade)(natural) Hertzian waves, which (if they existed)(which they don’t) would be sinusoidal all the time.You can create any wave shape you want out of combining enough different frequency sinusoidal waves. This is well known for centuries now and used in many practical applications.
Feel free to apply the scientific method to your claims. Collect your assumptions on how electrons behave, use those assumptions to craft a prediction of how something might behave because of it, then finally use an experiment to verify that prediction.
As we have established using long enough pieces of wire makes it possible to measure these speeds without needing any super fast and expensive test equipment.
..
Anyway, interesting point you (adx) made previously about the hydraulic analogy... I did wonder, much earlier on, whether Derek was simply setting us up for a video entitled "The big misconception about hydraulics". Extending the "rubber hoses in air" (the hoses being somewhat compliant and able to transmit a pressure wave), I wondered what would happen if the hydraulic circuit were constructed, rather than with tube in air, with cavities, channels, or tunnels within a soft and gelatinous medium (low-durometer silicone rubber perhaps). From the pressure of fluid within a cavity, the resulting dimensional change of that cavity could transmit a wave throughout the medium and affect the displacement of fluid elsewhere in the "circuit"... interestingly, because we have some control of the material properties, we can have a medium that only conveys the wave resulting from pressure and surely could only transmit power in a transient/continuously varying sense. We could at least hypothesize a fluid that is inelastic but moderately viscous (and immiscible with the hydraulic fluid) and can move slightly under the influence of friction with that moving fluid - where we could have a wave of movement. I've not really thought about it beyond that point, but it is easy to see where the aether concept arose.
I didn’t say that there are electrons on the negative terminal of a lead acid battery, i said electons.
Yes, conventional theory (old (electron) electricity) says that things don’t change if the battery polarity is reversed.I didn’t say that there are electrons on the negative terminal of a lead acid battery, i said electons.A good test of theories would be to reverse the polarity of the battery. Assuming the plates are symmetrically arranged (positive exposed at one end, negative at the other) then the only difference from swapping polarity is the polarity of the result, by conventional theory. Amplitudes and timings will be unchanged.
If the scope were truly isolated (or ground lifted, depending on where EMC caps go) then the green trace should rise sharply more like the yellow.andI explained some of the problems with AlphaPhoenix's result many pages back, one of the main ones which distorts the send waveform I think is common mode coupling. I explained what I think it should look like, if it is measured with a better technique. Others did too, and went into quite some detail.
At 7:27 in the video is a diagram of the setup. The probe "reference GND" is the ground clip of the scope. This is tying one side of the pulse generator to Earth, loosely via extension cords and perhaps an inverter from the cars (described in discussions here at the time). The green probe, which is on the other side of the resistor, can thus not see the step directly from the step generator, because it is shorted to ground at the send end (by the ground clip). In essence it can only see voltage due to current getting around the circuit the long way, and a slow change of the GND voltage (which we can't directly see, because there is no probe measuring the voltage between this scope's GND and Earth under the desk).
This is not the way it's meant to be, but surprisingly the experiment still works. It's not necessarily an error if the person doing the test knows that taking this shortcut will still work. Again, I agree the green trace is "wrong", and this does represent the current in that resistor, and hence the current sent into that leg of the 'apparatus'. The other leg should be taking the balance, so it should be seeing nearly all the initial pulse missing from the green side (because that is shorted to ground).
From the clean white trace I can infer that the differential send current is probably fairly rectangular. But subtract the green trace and add the generator step, and that's going to make for a pretty messy voltage on the far side of the unprobed resistor, possibly best not to think about because it is guaranteed to confuse.
The situation would be the same but inverted traces (voltages) if the polarity of the generator is changed - other than that there is no difference and I likely would not test to confirm if I were doing the experiment.
Re the apparent polarity issue in AlphaPhoenix's video, I dragged this orgy of self-centered insight up from the deep...Yes, i am ok with all of that. There might be always be some intrinsic asymmetry from the source, but for sure there is asymmetry from the position of the switch (symmetry needs 2 switches) plus as u say the ground/earth (ie the position of the source inputs).Veritasium's new video is the same setup, minus the send resistors and current probing.If the scope were truly isolated (or ground lifted, depending on where EMC caps go) then the green trace should rise sharply more like the yellow.andI explained some of the problems with AlphaPhoenix's result many pages back, one of the main ones which distorts the send waveform I think is common mode coupling. I explained what I think it should look like, if it is measured with a better technique. Others did too, and went into quite some detail.At 7:27 in the video is a diagram of the setup. The probe "reference GND" is the ground clip of the scope. This is tying one side of the pulse generator to Earth, loosely via extension cords and perhaps an inverter from the cars (described in discussions here at the time). The green probe, which is on the other side of the resistor, can thus not see the step directly from the step generator, because it is shorted to ground at the send end (by the ground clip). In essence it can only see voltage due to current getting around the circuit the long way, and a slow change of the GND voltage (which we can't directly see, because there is no probe measuring the voltage between this scope's GND and Earth under the desk).
This is not the way it's meant to be, but surprisingly the experiment still works. It's not necessarily an error if the person doing the test knows that taking this shortcut will still work. Again, I agree the green trace is "wrong", and this does represent the current in that resistor, and hence the current sent into that leg of the 'apparatus'. The other leg should be taking the balance, so it should be seeing nearly all the initial pulse missing from the green side (because that is shorted to ground).
From the clean white trace I can infer that the differential send current is probably fairly rectangular. But subtract the green trace and add the generator step, and that's going to make for a pretty messy voltage on the far side of the unprobed resistor, possibly best not to think about because it is guaranteed to confuse.
The situation would be the same but inverted traces (voltages) if the polarity of the generator is changed - other than that there is no difference and I likely would not test to confirm if I were doing the experiment.
It's nothing to do with polarity, but which side the GND clip is attached to.
I resisted posting this since I didn't want to give wrong ideas to the 'original thinkers' in these threads, but since there already is some sort of discussion on how to mimic the behavior of the circuit with a mechanical model and the apparent necessity for an ether (in the mechanical representation) has already been thrown around, I figured... what the heck.
...
If I remember correctly, there were different models (different characteristic impedance) to see what happens at discontinuities.
I think this old Mister Wizard demonstration uses the same unit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DovunOxlY1k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DovunOxlY1k)
He made notable contributions in electronic engineering and solid-state physics during the early days of transistor development at Bell Laboratories. In particular, he produced experimental evidence that holes could diffuse through bulk germanium, and not just along the surface as previously thought. This paved the way from Bardeen and Brattain's point contact transistor to Shockley's more-robust junction transistor. Shive is best known for inventing the phototransistor in 1948 (a device that combines the sensitivity to light of a photodiode and the current gain of a transistor), and for the Shive wave machine in 1959 (an educational apparatus used to illustrate wave motion).
I resisted posting this since I didn't want to give wrong ideas to the 'original thinkers' in these threads, but since there already is some sort of discussion on how to mimic the behavior of the circuit with a mechanical model and the apparent necessity for an ether (in the mechanical representation) has already been thrown around, I figured... what the heck.It reminds me of prep school & grade-1, where we used slate boards & slate pencils & wet sponge to wipe the slate clean.
In high-school physics class, ca. 1965, we had a mechanical demonstrator for one-dimensional transmission lines that used a dense set of transverse rods connected to a central torsion spring.What a wonderful youtube. I wonder how it applies to elekticity. How duz elekticity reflect off a deadend, or off a change in impedance.
One could propagate a pulse down the rods and see reflections. Termination options included nothing (open circuit), fixed position (short circuit), and terminated (dashpot for viscous damping).
The propagation speed down the rods was appropriate for human eyesight to see the results.
If I remember correctly, there were different models (different characteristic impedance) to see what happens at discontinuities.
I think this old Mister Wizard demonstration uses the same unit.
I have seen photons reflect from surfaces (dead ends) when doing photography.
I have seen photons reflect from surfaces (dead ends) when doing photography.Yes free photons can indeed reflect from a deadend, ie a photon inside a glass prism can reflect off the end of the glass, ie some do reflect while some don’t (in which case they exit the prism).
I have seen photons reflect from surfaces (dead ends) when doing photography.Yes free photons can indeed reflect from a deadend, ie a photon inside a glass prism can reflect off the end of the glass, ie some do reflect while some don’t (in which case they exit the prism).
Internal reflexion has i think a different cause to external reflexion.
However, i have trouble re how some light can be reflected internally when the incidence is exactly perpendicular (i think this angle is called 00 deg).
External reflexion for 00 deg is i think explainable, but internal reflexion is a worry (for my theory).
The standard explanation for IR involves i think absorption of the photon, & re-emission. I am sceptical that absorption is the answer.
Anyhow a free photon (an eagle) is a slightly different bird to an electon (an emu).
Free photon reflexion is i think different to electon reflexion. In fact i don’t think that electons can reflect at all.
I should not call a photon in glass a free photon, but i call it a free photon koz free photons propagate in a straight line, & a photon in glass propagates in a straight line, even tho it is constrained rather than free, ie it is slowed due to drag from the presence of mass (glass), but that drag is evenly distributed all round. I should have called it a gannet or duck rather than an eagle. The photon is sometimes a flying duck (ie a free photon) or a swimming duck (electon) or a diving duck (no name), or a duck that has bitten its own tail (free electron), or a duck that is orbiting a nucleus (orbiting electron).
The 6th kind of photon is the neutrino, this is 2 photons that have merged by virtue of sharing their axis (ie photons have a helical main body, with an axis), the 2 photons sitting a half cycle apart, in which case their em fields cancel in the nearfield, in which case a neutrino is very slippery (compared to an ordinary single photon which has a non-zero em field in the nearfield).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_internal_reflection
U might notice that in relation to reflexion wiki mentions an evanescent wave going parallel to the surface of glass.
My electon is an evanescent photon going parallel to a wire.
..
Anyway, interesting point you (adx) made previously about the hydraulic analogy... I did wonder, much earlier on, whether Derek was simply setting us up for a video entitled "The big misconception about hydraulics". Extending the "rubber hoses in air" (the hoses being somewhat compliant and able to transmit a pressure wave), I wondered what would happen if the hydraulic circuit were constructed, rather than with tube in air, with cavities, channels, or tunnels within a soft and gelatinous medium (low-durometer silicone rubber perhaps). [...]
That's certainly an interesting thought. I was trying to work out how a fluid analogy of a transformer would work some time back, and worked something out based on sort of similar principles - but hadn't thought of making a hydraulic circuit with "radiation". My mind boggles at the opportunities (none of them business!). Little embedded air bubbles to visualise it? Would mercury be too heavy? Advertising opportunities on YouTube maybe (as SiliconeAether?), high speed cameras, sounds like a fun thing to do.
Yeah... the fluid transformer analogy has me stumped a little bit, at least I just can't imagine it quite.
Yeah... the fluid transformer analogy has me stumped a little bit, at least I just can't imagine it quite.
You can have pressure waves in pipelines full of liquid (the water hammer phenomenon), and reflections will occur where there is a change in impedance such as a restriction or change in diameter along the pipe. In this case the pressure waves are undesirable, but in case one wanted to minimize reflections an impedance matching device could be used such as a gradual enlargement rather than a sudden change.