One strike & i am out.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/veritasium-(yt)-the-big-misconception-about-electricity/msg4043983/#msg4043983
Yes, i see that there were about 14 postings (on that thread)(re Veritasium (YT)) re the Faraday Disc Paradox starting at my own reply #1457, & then a few more at #1669.
I will have to look into all of that later in the week. The aether explains the Faraday Disc Paradox, but then the aetherwind (500 km/s) creates a difficulty, but i think that i can find the answer (& avoid a strike).
Einsteinists reckon that GTR provides the answer to the Faraday Disc Paradox. I might look into that too, but for sure i wont understand it. Next week hopefully.
There are lots of (stupid) youtubes re the (stupid) STR cause of the mmf near a wire. They all briefly & quietly assert or infer that the electron spacings stay the same, ie before & after the current is switched on. A disaster for STR. I called it STRIKE-1, but that makes it look as if u are allowed a number of strikes – NO – one strike & the STR cause of mmf is out, that game is over.
And, if u think about it, STR is also out, that makes it two lost games, each has been struck out with the one pitch, its a case of killing two birds with one stone. When i say STR is also out (falsified), i mean the length contraction part of STR (not the time dilation part).
Aetherists believe in length contraction due to velocity, the velocity of the aetherwind (not due to some stupid STR relative velocity). In the case of a wire conducting an electric current, the aetherwind or length contraction are not needed to explain anything (eg electric current, emf, mmf etc). However, the aetherwind will of course affect the electric fields etc, eg the aetherwind can (we know) slow electricity (if a headwind), or can fast electricity (if a tailwind)(as shown by DeWitte)(& Torr & Kolen).
The cause of mmf near a wire remains a mystery. Indeed emf remains a mystery. But electricity is no longer a mystery, it is due to (my) elektons (photons that hug the wire).
So, lets look again at what Purcell wrote….
In the lab frame of Fig. 5.22(a), with spatial coordinates x, y, z, there is a line of positive charges, at rest and extending to infinity in both directions. We shall call them ions for short. Indeed, they might represent the copper ions that constitute the solid substance of a copper wire. There is also a line of negative charges that we shall call electrons. These are all moving to the right with speed v0. In a real wire the electrons would be intermingled with the ions; we’ve separated them in the diagram for clarity. The linear density of positive charge is λ0.
It happens that the linear density of negative charge along the line of electrons is exactly equal in magnitude.
That is, any given length of “wire” contains at a given instant the same number of electrons and protons.
[9] [9 It doesn’t have to, but that equality can always be established, if we choose, by adjusting the number of electrons per unit length. In our idealized setup, we assume this has been done.]
The net charge on the wire is zero. Gauss’s law tells us there can be no flux from a cylinder that contains no charge, so the electric field must be zero everywhere outside the wire. A test charge q at rest near this wire experiences no force whatsoever.
How can Purcell & Co justify [9]? They can't. A disaster for the STR cause of mmf, & a disaster for STR, both killed with one stone.
A very important feature of magnetic forces in engineering is that very strong forces can be produced by running reasonable currents through conductors, especially when forming the wires into coils so that the same current contributes to the field over and over. In normal constructions, it is hard to obtain very large electrostatic forces from charged metal objects.
Under normal conditions, matter in bulk is very, very close to electrically neutral, which means that the number of protons and electrons in the piece of bulk material are very, very, very close to equal.
In setting up his calculation, Dr Purcell starts out with a metal cylinder (wire) that is electrostatically neutral, to see what happens when a current runs through it.
What possible objection could there be to starting from that initial condition?
So, Purcell & Co say that the center to center spacings of drifting conduction electrons in a wire dilate when the current is switched on. Actually, that is a postulate, alltho Purcell & Co don’t give it that status. They know that raising it to the level of a postulate would be like waving a red flag, & they would rather sneak it into the conversation with zero fanfare. So here below is my version of this postulate (1). And i have composed & added a few other (mostly implicit) postulates (some good)(some bad)(some ugly).
POSTULATE (1). The electron to electron (center to center) spacings (of drifting conduction electrons in the wire)(measured along the wire)(measured in the wire frame)(ie the lab frame) stay the same, ie before & after the current is switched on. (2) These spacings are the same as the Cu atom spacings (ie the proton spacings)(measured along the wire). (3) Hence the wire is charge neutral, before & after the current is switched on (in the wire frame)(ie the lab frame). (4) The current is due to electrons being injected into the wire (at say one end). (5) For a steady state current, electrons are ejected from the wire (at the other end). (6) There is some kind of automatic natural process whereby the injection & ejection rates ensure that the number of drifting electrons equal the number of (say Cu) atoms in any length of wire (at least for a steady state current). (7) The auto process in (6) automatically takes into consideration the Einsteinian (STR) length contraction of the spacings, such that the injection rate reduces (or something). (8 ) The auto process in (6) also automatically offsets the contraction-compression of the electron spacings that arises due to the forces needed to drive the electric current (ie push the electrons) along the wire. (9) Some of the force & energy of the compression in (8 ) is of course needed to overcome the electrical resistance, & (10) it heats the wire.
POSTULATE (11). All conduction electrons participate in the current, ie they all drift, & (12) the average drift velocity is often very slow (eg 0.02 mm/s). (13) The length contraction of electron to electron spacings involves the ave drift velocity, ie (14) it duznt matter that most drift slower or faster most of the time, (15) it duznt matter that the thermal motion of a Cu atom (& hence the thermal motion of conduction electrons) is about 200 m/s (ie 10,000,000 times the drift velocity). (16) The length contraction of proton to proton spacings involves the ave drift velocity of the electrons, (17) it duznt matter that a Cu nucleus (& the protons in the nucleus) have a thermal speed of say 200 m/s, (18) & it duznt matter that protons in a Cu nucleus have a high vibratory motion (say 1000 m/s)(needs checking). (19) It duznt matter that the thermal or vibrational etc motions are in the opposite direction to the drift velocity a half of the time. (20) Motions across the wire do not matter (in the simple case today), koz STR length contraction only applies to the xx direction (not the yy or zz directions). (21) Electrons have to travel much further koz they have to pass around atoms etc, but this extra distance & (22) the extra speed needed are automatically included in the calculation of ave drift velocity.
POSTULATE (21). The Coulomb force (or Lorentz force) experienced by the test charge (say electron) moving at the drift velocity (or at some other velocity) needs to be converted to the equivalent force in the stationary lab frame. (22) This conversion requires the application of the Einsteinian gamma, (23) giving a lesser force in the lab frame.
STR POSTULATES. STR says that space contracts, & hence that everything in that space contracts, eg electrons contract, the spacings tween electrons contract, the gaps tween electrons contract. But Einsteinists don’t agree (with each other) re length contraction. U might notice that Derek (Veritasium) in his youtube says that the spacings appear to contract (he uses the term perceived spacings). While Nick (The Science Asylum) says that the spacings actually contract. Einsteinists probly don’t care whether contraction is real or just apparent. I can't remember what Einstein thort.
Funny, i saw a comment in a youtube that said that a Professor said that when the electricity is switched on that the drifting electrons contract but that the spacings did not contract. The Prof said or implied that objects contract but spacings don’t. The Prof said that when the wire has a relative velocity then the wire suffers length contraction, ie proton to proton spacings are contracted. But if the wire is stationary then the spacings of drifting electrons dont change, no matter how fast they drift. I suppose that that explanation works, but i think that it violates the standard (Einsteinian) version of STR. I know that Einstein hizself said that individual electrons are length contracted, but Einstein did not ever (that i know of) mention a case where spacings or gaps were not length contracted.
Read again what you highlighted in red.
You objected to a particular statement "[9]" that the wire is electrically neutral (no net charge).
A very important feature of magnetic forces in engineering is that very strong forces can be produced by running reasonable currents through conductors, especially when forming the wires into coils so that the same current contributes to the field over and over. In normal constructions, it is hard to obtain very large electrostatic forces from charged metal objects.
Under normal conditions, matter in bulk is very, very close to electrically neutral, which means that the number of protons and electrons in the piece of bulk material are very, very, very close to equal.
In setting up his calculation, Dr Purcell starts out with a metal cylinder (wire) that is electrostatically neutral, to see what happens when a current runs through it.
What possible objection could there be to starting from that initial condition?
(0) Yes of course its ok to start with neutral wire. Me myself i reckon that all metals have a concentration of free-ish electrons on the surfaces, koz electrons repel electrons. And a greater concentration at sharper areas (eg external corners & edges). The centre of the metal would have a positive charge. This must result in the absorption of electrons from the environment, & the additional electrons would result in there being less (positive) charge in the center. (1) So, metal objects would tend to have a slight natural negative charge (in the near field)(& in the far field).
(2) When a switch in a circuit is closed i suppose that initially some surface electrons would move away from the contact. A weak & brief current. Old (electron) electricity would say that electrons injected into a wire would push & compress the electron sea in the wire, & (3) the wire would get a negative charge. STR would say (should say) that (4) the now drifting electrons get closer together due to length contraction, a double dose of negative charge.
But Purcell & Co ignore (3) & (4).
(0) is not the issue.
And its ok to ignore (1) & (2) (these are very weak effects).
I think that (1) & (2) might be (at least partly) responsible for the mmf in the Rowland-X. I might look into that next week.
Read again what you highlighted in red.
You objected to a particular statement "[9]" that the wire is electrically neutral (no net charge).
Yes, but [9] refers to the wire being neutral after the switch is closed, ie after the electric current is turned on, ie after the drifting starts.
That's not what your quoted text states.
It's an initial condition for his discussion of what happens in the wire.
That's not what your quoted text states.
It's an initial condition for his discussion of what happens in the wire.
If u look at Purcell's 3 pages attached to my reply #20, u will see his Fig 5.22 (a) &(b) & (c).
He duznt have a (d) showing the stationary protons & stationary electrons in a stationary wire in the stationary lab frame. No, Purcell is too clever for that. That would emphasise the extent of his fudge/push/lie/nonsense.
Purcell's initial condition is Fig 5.22(a), with the electrons drifting.
Funny, i saw a comment in a youtube that said that a Professor said that
This is the tubegen's equivalent of a friend's brother's mate down the pub as a measure of actualness, right?
Funny, i saw a comment in a youtube that said that a Professor said that
This is the tubegen's equivalent of a friend's brother's mate down the pub as a measure of actualness, right?
It would be surprising if a Prof did make that comment re electrons contracting but the spacings not contracting.
However we know that Einsteinists often disagree in drastic ways (eg the gedanken re whether the string tween spaceships breaks if they accelerate).
Another example. I could ask u whether a glass rod (here on Earth) suffers length contraction when it is hit by a quadrupolar gravitational wave (eg created by the merger of 2 cosmic blackholes). U might i think say yes.
Then i could ask u whether the glass rod resisted that there length contraction, ie whether the glass rod fully contracted or only partly contracted. U might i think say it fully contracts, ie it duznt resist the contraction of the spacetime in which it sits.
If so, if that is your answer, then i could point out to u that u have just denied that the 2 LIGOs can possibly detect quadrupolar gravitational waves, koz LIGO will not work unless the glass rod resists (their glass rod is their main laser).
Anyhow, Einsteinists don’t all agree, even Professors. Prof Reg Cahill (Adelaide)(one of my heroes) duznt believe in STR nor in (most of) GTR.
[...] U might i think say it fully contracts, ie it duznt resist the contraction of the spacetime in which it sits.
If so, if that is your answer, then i could point out to u that u have just denied that the 2 LIGOs can possibly detect quadrupolar gravitational waves, koz LIGO will not work unless the glass rod resists (their glass rod is their main laser).
[...]
Part of the purpose of LIGO is to test that very matter and provide some resolution to that issue. From a simplistic pop-science viewpoint, it can be easily interpreted that the entire and only purpose of such a detector is to do some gravity wave star-gazing, and where it is claimed by yourself (repeating the un-founded "research"/random-speculation in some papers) that it is a waste of money: that is the value (quite literally) of
proof. There is always a chance that any experiment will not produce the anticipated result and what you may see as "failure" is well within the spectrum of possible outcomes that physicists are more than willing to embrace, but as scientists, they can only embrace that for which they evidence or rational basis... hence why there haven't been any champions of electon theory so far.
[...] U might i think say it fully contracts, ie it duznt resist the contraction of the spacetime in which it sits.
If so, if that is your answer, then i could point out to u that u have just denied that the 2 LIGOs can possibly detect quadrupolar gravitational waves, koz LIGO will not work unless the glass rod resists (their glass rod is their main laser).[...]
Part of the purpose of LIGO is to test that very matter and provide some resolution to that issue. From a simplistic pop-science viewpoint, it can be easily interpreted that the entire and only purpose of such a detector is to do some gravity wave star-gazing, and where it is claimed by yourself (repeating the un-founded "research"/random-speculation in some papers) that it is a waste of money: that is the value (quite literally) of proof. There is always a chance that any experiment will not produce the anticipated result and what you may see as "failure" is well within the spectrum of possible outcomes that physicists are more than willing to embrace, but as scientists, they can only embrace that for which they evidence or rational basis... hence why there haven't been any champions of elekton theory so far.
I have mentioned my new (elekton) elekticity theory to a few scientists. One said that that kind of theory duznt work koz in some situations the (negatively charged) elektons need to have a (positively charged) partner that is an anti-elekton or somesuch. I avoid the need for an anti-elekton, eg i say that elektons on the negative plate of a capacitor repel surface elektons on the positive plate – anti-electons not needed (ie both plates have elektons but one plate has fewer).
LIGO & Co are a waste of money. However, LIGO & Co will eventually prove that quadrupolar gravitational waves don’t exist. In that sense the failure would be a success. And it would be good if LIGO & Co proved that gravity duz not propagate at c km/s (we know that it propagates at at least 20 billion c)(but i don’t think that LIGO & Co can provide that there proof). Anyhow one out of two aint bad. If LIGO & Co resulted in the death of GTR (& STR) then praps LIGO & Co would be worth the money after all.
You realize that in standard physics, the (negative) electron has a (positive) anti-particle, the positron?
Positron-emission tomography (PET) imaging is a very useful technique in medical imaging: when a radioactive nucleus in a "radiopharmaceutical" (a compound containing a radioactive element that goes where the doctor wants it to go) emits a positron (positive beta decay), it doesn't go very far at all in your body before it collides with a regular electron, and the mutual annihilation results in two photons (gammas) that head off in opposite directions. Temporal coincidence between two gamma detections in area detectors on opposite sides of your body therefore defines a line through your body and the accumulation of many such lines localizes where the radiopharmaceutical is concentrated in the body.
You realize that in standard physics, the (negative) electron has a (positive) anti-particle, the positron?
Positron-emission tomography (PET) imaging is a very useful technique in medical imaging: when a radioactive nucleus in a "radiopharmaceutical" (a compound containing a radioactive element that goes where the doctor wants it to go) emits a positron (positive beta decay), it doesn't go very far at all in your body before it collides with a regular electron, and the mutual annihilation results in two photons (gammas) that head off in opposite directions. Temporal coincidence between two gamma detections in area detectors on opposite sides of your body therefore defines a line through your body and the accumulation of many such lines localizes where the radiopharmaceutical is concentrated in the body.
Interesting. An electron is a photon that has bitten its own tail & formed a loop, the positive em radiation from the photon being annihilated inside the loop, the negative em radiation being emitted gives a negative charge (Williamson). A positron has a different kind of twist, & it is the negative charge that is annihilated inside the loop (Williamson).
Elektons have a negative charge koz the em radiation emitted into the wire is absorbed or annihilated or reflected or something. I think reflected. I think that the reflected em radiation has lost the positive part of its em radiation. I suppose that it aint impossible that an elekton can have a positive charge, which would make it an anti-elekton (ie a positon). But i dont need anti-elektons, all i need is that there are fewer elektons on one plate than the other.
Electons have a negative charge koz the em radiation emitted into the wire is absorbed or annihilated or reflected or something. I think reflected. I think that the reflected em radiation has lost the positive part of its em radiation. I suppose that it aint impossible that an electon can have a positive charge, which would make it an anti-electon (ie a positon).
For someone describing their own (new) theory, you seem very unsure of things. Or how things fit together. In fact, the only thing you seem sure of is that everyone else is wrong. Somehow.
Electons have a negative charge koz the em radiation emitted into the wire is absorbed or annihilated or reflected or something. I think reflected. I think that the reflected em radiation has lost the positive part of its em radiation. I suppose that it aint impossible that an electon can have a positive charge, which would make it an anti-electon (ie a positon).
For someone describing their own (new) theory, you seem very unsure of things. Or how things fit together. In fact, the only thing you seem sure of is that everyone else is wrong. Somehow.
Deciding on wrong is easy, one strike is out. Old (electron) electricity can't explain how insulation lowers the speed of electricity on a wire from c/1 to 2c/3. Hence old (electron) electricity is out. Plus it is out for lots of other reasons.
Measuring the speed of electricity on a threaded rod compared to non-threaded rod would be the most critical test of my new (elekton) elekticity, i say that the speed will appear to be reduced by exactly the extra distance (ie i say that the speed will not be reduced, i say that the distance will be increased).
Bob at RSD Academy needs to measure the exact nature of the sharp transient spike of current in his inductor.
Brian at AlphaPhoenix needs to tell us the details of the rising transient near his positive terminal.
Electons have a negative charge koz the em radiation emitted into the wire is absorbed or annihilated or reflected or something. I think reflected. I think that the reflected em radiation has lost the positive part of its em radiation. I suppose that it aint impossible that an electon can have a positive charge, which would make it an anti-electon (ie a positon).
For someone describing their own (new) theory, you seem very unsure of things. Or how things fit together. In fact, the only thing you seem sure of is that everyone else is wrong. Somehow.
It could be this, or that, or the opposite, or both at the same time or nothing but everything or something.
Man, no wonder Steinmetz thought aetherists were all cowardly loons.
Old (electron) electricity can't explain how insulation lowers the speed of electricity on a wire
How do you know?
I know throo my own searches over a few months that there has not been any satisfactory or reasonable explanation.
I know throo my own reasoning that there can be no satisfactory or reasonable explanation.
Electons have a negative charge koz the em radiation emitted into the wire is absorbed or annihilated or reflected or something. I think reflected. I think that the reflected em radiation has lost the positive part of its em radiation. I suppose that it aint impossible that an electon can have a positive charge, which would make it an anti-elekton (ie a positon).
For someone describing their own (new) theory, you seem very unsure of things. Or how things fit together. In fact, the only thing you seem sure of is that everyone else is wrong. Somehow.
It could be this, or that, or the opposite, or both at the same time or nothing but everything or something.
Man, no wonder Steinmetz thought aetherists were all cowardly loons.
A photon has no nett em radiation in the far field.
An elekton (a photon hugging the surface of the wire) has a nett negative charge in the far field, outside the wire.
An electron (a photon biting its own tail, to form a loop) has a nett negative charge in the far field, all around.
The cause of the photon's field, & the cause of the electron's field, are i think fairly easily explainable, but the elekton's field aint so easy to explain.
Reflection of the em radiation emitted from the elekton sideways, on an angle to the surface of the wire, could do the trick. The reflected em radiation would then combine with the directly emitted radiation to give a combined field.
Em radiation emitted directly down into the wire would be unlikely to be reflected, & if not reflected then it might be lost (annihilated)(probly not important)(it might add to the heat gain).
I don’t feel sure that everyone else is wrong, i am certain. However, it would make it easier to be certain if everyone else somehow managed to put some words together in a way that explained what in hell they are thinking. What exactly is the role played by their silly drifting electrons?
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, hence he did not have the benefit of Miller's improved MMX. Had he lived, Steinmetz would have been an aetherist.
Drifting electrons and holes make transistors work.
Flying electrons make vacuum tubes work.
Old (electron) electricity can't explain how insulation lowers the speed of electricity on a wire
How do you know?
I know throo my own searches over a few months that there has not been any satisfactory or reasonable explanation.
I know throo my own reasoning that there can be no satisfactory or reasonable explanation.
That's strange because through my own searches over a few years and with my own reasoning I came to the opposite conclusion to you. But I can spell properly, so clearly my opinion is the more thoughtful and, hence, correct one.