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

[HuronKing]

Publish this 'new electricity' in IEEE Transactions. See how far you get writing "electrons are photons that hug the wires." 

[penfold]

[..]
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.

[aetherist]

[..]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.

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.
And i dont mind the idea that free-ish conduction electrons drift inside a wire, alltho i think that this (old electricity) is not significant.

But Dollard duznt believe in the conventional model of the electron. And i think that Heaviside didnt like electrons.

[aetherist]

Publish this 'new electricity' in IEEE Transactions. See how far you get writing "electrons are photons that hug the wires." 

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 hugs it.

[eugene]

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.

[aetherist]

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.
An electon propagates along the surface of a wire at the speed of light (in vacuum)(or in air)(or in plastic).
The speed of the electon electricity is the speed of the electon.
In air it would be equivalent to the speed of sound in air being the speed of the air, ie the speed of the wind, rather than being the shock wavefront that actually occurs in air.
But u raise an interesting point.
Few people reading this forum would be aware that for the speed of sound in air to be what it is, it requires that for a brief time for a short distance every particle of air has to be moving at at least the speed of sound.
What u & everyone else dont realize is that your speed of sound criticism of my new electricity is in fact a criticism of old electricity.
Koz, for drifting electrons to create an electricity wave propagating at the speed of light this would require that for a brief time for a short distance every electron participating in the wave has to be moving at at least the speed of light.
I extend my thanx to u for contributing to the death of old electricity.

[aetherist]

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.

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.

Anyhow, i cant really be accused of hijacking this present thread, koz all of this stuff is where my new electricity was born.
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.

[HuronKing]

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?

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)?

But sure... you're just like Oliver Heaviside and electrons are photons. 

Do you have a paper or any mathematics at all?

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.

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.

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. 

[bsfeechannel]

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.

[aetherist]

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?

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)?
But sure... you're just like Oliver Heaviside and electrons are photons. 
Do you have a paper or any mathematics at all?

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.

Everyone (on youtube etc) seems to agree that electric energy is transmitted outside the wires, but i suspect that everyone has a slightly different version of what happens. We have versions by i think Faraday, Maxwell, Heaviside, Dollard, Nick (Science Asylum), Derek (Veritasium), Brian (AlphaPhoenix), Mehdi (electroBoom), Bob (RSD Academy), Dave (EEVblog), etc.
They all have a different explanation for the roll of electrons or electron drift (or would, if they went into more detail).
They all have a different explanation for the roll of the Poynting Field (or would, if they went into more detail).
But i feel sure that the IEEE would soon sort all of that out (& a murmuration of pigs will darken the Sun).

Heaviside of course didn’t mention electrons or photons in the early years. And he died 98 years before electons were discovered. But, every material thing is made of photons. Because all elementary particles are made of photons. Photons are the fundamental building block of our universe, ie the universe that we can feel & see & measure. Aether being the fundamental essence of the dark universe that we can't readily feel & see (but we can measure).

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.

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.
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. 

I did electricity-1 & 2 but didn’t do electricity-3 or 4.
All of Einsteinian Relativity is nonsense. The worst bit is the time dilation stuff. There is no such thing as time, & even if there was it would not dilate. But i don’t want to argue about muons today.

Einsteinists invoke length contraction to explain the magnetic field around a current in a wire. Veritasium has a youtube about that. Complete nonsense. There might be a thread here about that, or i could start one myself. Relativistic length contraction must exist, but not Einsteinian length contraction. What we must have is a form of what can be called neoLorentz length contraction. But if i started such a thread then i would need to finish the job by inventing my own explanation for magnetism around a wire. And to do that i would have to start at the beginning & explain that everything is a process of the aether. Along the way i would explain (aether would explain) the magnetic nature of the Faraday Disc Paradox.

Pointing out the stupidity of Einsteinian time dilation would be easy. I would then need to finish the job by explaining the real version of what happens -- what i call ticking dilation. This ticking stuff does indeed affect electricity, & hence deserves to be on this forum, but it would involve a lot of work for me, & i am fully busy on my new electricity (alltho in a sense my new electricity overlaps with all of this stuff).

[aetherist]

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.

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.
But a couple of days ago i did drive into town & buy some red wine.

[adx]

... 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.)

It could turn out one of your ideas works better than anything currently around, say your idea of electons fits with a theory similar to holes in a semiconductor and the "balls in pipe" analogy, such that an entangled pair of photon and electron behave like a composite particle and nobody can deny. It might be named after you by some subsequent great, but nobody will remember your surface electrons theory for example. The thing is, you don't decide. Karl Popper doesn't decide. It's down to what people think. An objective reality clearly exists at the individual level, but society as a whole is limited to belief.

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.

[SandyCox]

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.

[aetherist]

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.

An electon is not an electron.
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.
Either Pain is wrong or u is wrong.

[SandyCox]

Please read p. 114 in Pain.

[aetherist]

Please read p. 114 in Pain.

Can u post a copy.

[SandyCox]

https://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfVibrationsAndWavesH.J.Pain/page/n15/mode/2up

[adx]

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?

[SandyCox]

The same way that light travels from the sun?

[aetherist]

https://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfVibrationsAndWavesH.J.Pain/page/n15/mode/2up

That looks to be a dy/dt transverse particle velocity, not a dx/dt.

[aetherist]

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?

I dont understand. But i am talking about longi (axial) velocity not normal (transverse) velocity.

[penfold]

[...]
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?
[...]

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.

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?

[adx]

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?

I dont understand. But i am talking about longi (axial) velocity not normal (transverse) velocity.

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.

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.

[SandyCox]

https://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfVibrationsAndWavesH.J.Pain/page/n15/mode/2up

That looks to be a dy/dt transverse particle velocity, not a dx/dt.

Exactly! The particle and wave velocities are not equal.

"
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.

[adx]

Placeholder for "(b)ah, phonons". Momentum, aether.