Veritasium "How Electricity Actually Works"

[electrodacus]

How is that momentum transferred? When a marble rolls past a stationary one, the stationary one doesn't just start moving. Do the charges have little sticks that the prod each other with?

They (electrons) have a charge thus they repel each other and so they do not collide. This electron wave moves very close to the speed of light no matter the voltage or current.
So when an electron gets out of a source (battery, charged capacitor, any sort of generator) it will travel the loop (not that electron but the wave) at around the speed of light and so another electron will enter the source on the other side.
It seems physicists think in terms of mathematical photons emitted and absorbed by the electrons but no matter the real mechanism for the electron wave it will travel in wire (metals have free electrons) unless there is sufficient energy (high voltage) to go through a dielectric (not the case with Derek's example).
     

How does that current and potential get into the middle capacitor? And what what is current times potential, if it isn't energy?

As mentioned above electrons will repel other electrons (force will drop with distance) So this repulsion force works across a fairly large gap like the dielectric in a capacitor or even 1m in air.
So electrons enters the left side of a capacitor that repels electrons from the right side plate of the same capacitor and the those electrons will travel (the electron wave it will not be the same exact electron) will get through wire to the plate of the second capacitor with will create the same effect on that second capacitor and then the third and so an electron will get back into the source.
This energy is stored in all 3 capacitors (energy that got out of the source ends split between the 3 capacitors with some energy lost due to wire resistance).
There is a big difference between energy being stored and energy being used to do work.
So you can say that one single electron left the source and you end up with 3 electrons one in each capacitor. But the electron that left the source had much higher energy (source had higher voltage than the voltage across the 3 series capacitors combined).
So knowing how many electrons you have is not a measure of how much energy you have. Energy as shown by the formula depends on the capacity in Farad (dependent on distance and plate area plus the dielectric) and the voltage squared.
The higher the source voltage vs the voltage across the capacitors the higher the energy loss on the wire with alone should be enough evidence to show that energy travels through wire.

A switch is a capacitor and yet you need to close the switch in order to transfer energy. If energy could flow through the capacitor witch that is what a switch is then you will never need to close the switch.

Everything that is known point at the fact that energy travels through wires else switch could not stop the energy flow when open and there will be no loss as heat inside the wires exactly matching what will be expected based on amount of energy transferred and wire resistance to current flow.

[bsfeechannel]

which explains clearly that it is a theory dictating where energy flows, not experiments.
Much like bsfeechannel, they don't point to experiments, because they cannot.

It's theory explaining experiments. That's what a theory is for. I told you several pages ago that the idea that energy was transmitted in wires was already debunked in the 19th century based on experimental data. I even described what experiments they were.

Mmh I'm not quite sure why you renamed potential energy into 'backpack', but if I were to explain electricity to children, I would consider it. Is potential a forbidden word now?
I'm curious how you see energy moving in vacuum. Is vacuum filling/emptying backpacks too? And giving to electrons/protons?

What is remarkable of Derek's experiment is that it tosses in the bin all the alternatives to the Poynting theorem--a kind of discussion that only entertain physicists--especially S=VJ, so cherished by the hydraulic analogy lovers.

And when it comes to intuition, it seems that the Poynting theorem makes more sense now in the 21st century than it did way back when, as it can be stated by this underrated comment to Derek's video:

[hamster_nz]

As mentioned above electrons will repel other electrons (force will drop with distance) So this repulsion force works across a fairly large gap like the dielectric in a capacitor or even 1m in air.

If that is so, then that's a big problem.

A circuit with a few very large capacitors there might be a Coulomb of charge 'in play'. For an given elementary charge, it has to be interacting with  6.24x10^18 other elementary charges in the circuit to find the overall force on it.  That whole F = k Q₁ *  Q₂ / d^2", summed up over all the charges.  This is very unlike marbles rolling around on a flat surface, where marbles only exchange energy when in contact. But it gets worse. I might have a big bag of protons on the shelf, so they need to factor into the equation. Dave might have a really big bag of electrons under his desk in Australia, so that needs to be included.

And then there are the rovers on Mars, waggling electrons around in their antenna.  So that needs to be factored in too... the circuit may in fact be the receiver for the signals from Mars rover, so you can't say that those interactions don't matter and don't occur.

If the true reality is based on charges interacting at a distance, then for any charge to know what is expected of it needs to interact with every elementary charge in the whole universe, and that means every charge knows all the others on a personal, first name basis - they are all sending each other little messages all the time. That would be truly amazing!

Then an atom of Carbon 14 in a carbon film resistor resistor decays, that's two new elementary charges that every other elementary charge in your circuit and the while universe needs to interact with. It just never stops!

If you are happy with that situation being how reality is, then by all means see the world as the sums of interactions of bulk quantity of elementary charges. It will be near enough in most cases. A few billion electrons here in this charge, another few billions over there. That is the lumped element model. So wires running next to each other are transmission lines are inductors and capacitors all the way along them.

In that case, if electricity was gravity, you will be safe knowing that the apple will always fall towards the ground, and you can attribute it to the uncountable number of atoms in the apple are each individually being tugged on by the even more uncountable number of atoms in planet Earth, based on an inverse square law everybody learns at school -  F = G m₁ m₂ / d^2 - which very similar to the equation for interacting charges.

The presence of the electric field resolves all this false complexity. The charge interacts with the electric field locally. The field interacts with itself (like waves on a pond), combining and distributing information. The charge experiences all the interactions with other charges in the universe though their combined effect on the electric field exactly where it is. A charge doesn't need to communicate with Mars - that information is already there in the field. Those elementary charges can now stop writing their messages to all the other charges in the universe, and just go with the flow, directed by the electric field exactly where it is.

And if something dramatic changes, like somebody connects a battery to a wire? That energy and information spreads out in the Electric field, causing charges in the wire to move until the field inside the wire is once again nearly flat (this is the "electron wave"), and all the 'potential difference' between the wires is the energy in the field between wires - there because of the battery.

(once again this all ignore the magnetic field, which is actually needed to receive signals from Mars...)

[PlainName]

But it's not particularly important where and how it goes.

In principle I kind of agree with you, but I think it does matter in some cases. For instance, the recent discussion of PCB stackups is a bit of a nonsense until you take fields into account.

[electrodacus]

As mentioned above electrons will repel other electrons (force will drop with distance) So this repulsion force works across a fairly large gap like the dielectric in a capacitor or even 1m in air.

If that is so, then that's a big problem.
...
(once again this all ignore the magnetic field, which is actually needed to receive signals from Mars...)

The lumped element circuit model for the transmission line works because it is what happens in real world.  If calculations based on that will not provide accurate results then it will not be used.
You maybe saw my Spice simulation for a 10m transmission line and the result is the same as what Derek got testing it in real world.
When switch is closed energy will first need to charge the line capacitance and this is the reason you see a small current through the lamp as the lamp is a wire connecting the two capacitors in series.

The question is not even as complicated as you make it to be and is just
Does energy travels through wires in Derek's low voltage experiment ?
The answer for me is a clear yes and nothing points to other conclusions as all measurements you make point to the fact that energy travels through wires.
Energy is a generic term for all forms and you can transfer energy without wires but it will be in a different form like infrared photons that will be emitted by a transmission wire if resistance of that wire is not zero.
An incandescent lamp filament is a wire with high resistance and it emits a lot of photons mostly in the infrared spectrum but as it gets hotter some in visible spectrum.  And yes that is energy transferred outside the wire (those photons) but that is undesired for a transmission line so it is minimized so that most of the energy is transferred through the wire with as little loss as it will be economical.

   

[SandyCox]

A photon is the elementary particle dual of an electromagnetic wave. Light is an electromagnetic wave.

[Naej]

How is that momentum transferred? When a marble rolls past a stationary one, the stationary one doesn't just start moving. Do the charges have little sticks that the prod each other with?

This is, again, a non-physical question.
If you want to imagine that charges water the magnetic field, and magnetic wheat pushes on far-away charges, it works.
If you want to say that God propagates potential and momentum at the speed of light, it works too.
What really matter is: it is, and does so according to Maxwell equations.

How does that current and potential get into the middle capacitor? And what what is current times potential, if it isn't energy?

So you agree that energy is flowing in wires in the middle capacitor?
For how the potential travels: see above.

For electrostatics, the electric field fill the universe (just like gravity does). And the location of charges in that field define the electric field, just like how the location of masses define the gravitational field.

In a wire, where charges can move freely, changes drift to where they see the local field leading them, like marbles rolling down into a valley under gravity. They don't need to 'know' that there is a battery that is 10cm away to know which way to go, they just mindlessly follow the slope of the local electric field. Exactly like how water finds it's way to the outlet of a lake or dam. And as they move, their location also contributes to the electric field.  Because charges are able to freely move within the wire, and their location defines the electric field, the electric field quickly becomes flat inside conductors when modest currents are flowing. The charges are not dissipating much energy, they are "doing minimal work" in the physics sense (force x distance).

At the edges and outside of the wires, where the charges can't freely move is where all the tension in the electric field occurs - that is where the fields have the most 'slope'. It is on that slope where you can extract energy from the fields. If you release a charge on such a slope it will know which way want to go - a negative charge will head in the "most positive" direction, and a positive charge will head in the "most negative" direction. If you were able to put an extra charge into a wire not much will happen - it will just drift along on the current.

You attach one end of a resistor to a just the positive wire, but leave the other end free. A small amount of charge will flow into it, but very quickly the whole resistor will have an flat electric field, just as flat as the wire. Anywhere you measure with a voltmeter on the either resistor or the wire will measure 0V. The resistor isn't releasing any of the field's energy, just moving where the field's energy is in space.

But when you attach one end of the resistor to a positive wire. and the other end to the negative wire, then you can extract energy from the field. All the semi-mobile charges in the resistor will see the "so many volts per meter" slope of the field and start moving in that direction. Those charges don't need to know how the electric field gets there, just that the field is there, and it has to follow it. This converts electrical energy into momentum of the charge.

Because the slope in the resistor is so high compared to that inside the wire, they really want to move fast. This gives the thermal heating (or light from the light bulb). That energy isn't coming from the electrons moving in the wire, but the slope in the electric field that is through the resistor, that is what accelerates the charge.

The wire supplies a steady supply of low-energy electrons to be accelerated in the resistor, and removes the low energy electrons that appear at the resistor's other end. The charge is accelerated using the energy supplied by the field, not the wire.

All this time, (assuming resistance of the wires is low compared to the resistor the wires) the electric field on the inside of the wires is flat, and the charges in the wire only transfers minimal energy. The wires set the shape of the electric field, and supplies charge, but the energy flows in the fields.

Batteries also change the shape of the electric field. They generate (and try to maintain) an electric field between their terminals. Batteries are sold as X volt batteries. The first thing you care about for a battery is the strength of the electric field it generates between its terminals. The total energy it can supply is a secondary consideration (along with size or cost). When you connect a battery to a wire, because the wire's charges are mobile the electric field around that wire changes to match that of the battery's terminal. And sure, some charge movement is required for this, but if you could look at how much charge moved how far to build up the electric field it is minimal. (That is unless somebody has put a large capacitor in there somewhere...)

Sounds mostly correct to me. But I don't see how electrons are shoved by the electric field, with a stick perhaps? And how do they 'see' it, with tiny eyes?
And if you care about the strength of the electric field, why are they sold as X volt, instead of Y volt/meter? I think you care more about the potential difference than the electric field strength.
Ah and of course, you say that 'energy is in electron' is false, but with no experimental evidence; so it's your opinion, not a fact.

[Naej]

which explains clearly that it is a theory dictating where energy flows, not experiments.
Much like bsfeechannel, they don't point to experiments, because they cannot.

It's theory explaining experiments. That's what a theory is for. I told you several pages ago that the idea that energy was transmitted in wires was already debunked in the 19th century based on experimental data. I even described what experiments they were.

I must have missed it. Please explain what experiment was done, what was predicted by the S=JV folks, and what was found. (And why Poynting-Heaviside-etc. do not talk about it.)
Also, theories *predict* the result of experiments. You can see this as an 'explanation' if you like but the (main) goal is to have a discrepancy as small as possible between the theoretical result and the practical one.
If you ask questions like *how can charges push on each other?* you will be disappointed.

Mmh I'm not quite sure why you renamed potential energy into 'backpack', but if I were to explain electricity to children, I would consider it. Is potential a forbidden word now?
I'm curious how you see energy moving in vacuum. Is vacuum filling/emptying backpacks too? And giving to electrons/protons?

What is remarkable of Derek's experiment is that it tosses in the bin all the alternatives to the Poynting theorem--a kind of discussion that only entertain physicists--especially S=VJ, so cherished by the hydraulic analogy lovers.

I guess you're correct, something true is now in the bin for millions of people. How remarkable.
I also wonder how exactly all physicists proposing alternatives to the Poynting theorem never saw Derek's antennae coming in the whole 20th century. They must feel very silly now (no).

[TimFox]

"Sounds mostly correct to me. But I don't see how electrons are shoved by the electric field, with a stick perhaps? And how do they 'see' it, with tiny eyes?"

As with other fields discussed in physics, the E-field (in V/m) is defined in terms of the physical force exerted by the field on a physical charge.
(The gravitational field, similarly, is defined in terms of the force exerted by the field on a mass.)
F = qE, where the force F and the field E are vectors, and the charge q is a scalar.
The field from electron #1 at a separation (vector) r is Kq₁ r₁/r²,
where r₁ is the unit vector along the separation vector r, and r is the magnitude (length) of the vector r.
The constant K, in SI (mks) units is 9 x 10⁹ m/F, as can be found in any elementary textbook that uses "rationalized mks units".
Therefore, since the electronic charge q_e = 1.6 x 10^-19 C for both particles, and each has mass 9.1x10^-31 kg, you can calculate the acceleration, remembering Newton's Third Law since if both electrons are free, the mutual repulsion sends both of them in opposite directions in the "lab frame".
With equal charges, one gets the familiar "inverse square" dependence on distance and q₁q₂ dependence on the charges.

[IanB]

The real issue with this thread and others like it, is that the wrong language is being used to discuss the topic under consideration--a natural language, like English.

Such language is too imprecise, and subject to too much misinterpretation.

To be successful, the language used needs instead to be mathematical, such as shown in this video:

(The video even comes with an accidental mistake as a bonus!)

[electrodacus]

The real issue with this thread and others like it, is that the wrong language is being used to discuss the topic under consideration--a natural language, like English.

Such language is too imprecise, and subject to too much misinterpretation.

To be successful, the language used needs instead to be mathematical, such as shown in this video:

(The video even comes with an accidental mistake as a bonus!)

What was the mistake in the video ?   I have not noticed any mistake.
Maxwell's equations do not say that energy flows outside or inside the wires.

The question is very simple and so is the answer for anyone that understand what energy is.  And is not a limitation of the english language is a limitation of people not understanding what the word energy means in any context.

I noticed people always confusing Power and Energy and I always wanted to do a video explaining them but I now realize the confusing is much more than just between power and energy.

I always get questions (related to my business) from people asking how they can charge the Lithium battery in their RV or Boat from the vehicle alternator to compensate for times when there is less solar.
My answer is always why no add more solar since cost of solar generation is about 50x less expensive than generating un using gasoline.  Theyr replay is that they need to drive anyway so why not take advantage of the "free energy" from the alternator.

So they think that their fuel consumption will be the same if they drive at constant speed say on highway and take or not energy from the alternator.
Every kWh taken from an alternator will cost about a liter of fuel so right now here gasoline is $1.5/liter thus about $1.5/kWh vs solar panels that have a cost amortisation of just around $0.02/kWh that is 75x less (the 50x was from the time gasoline was $1 not that long ago).


I use math to prove energy travels through wires and it seems it did not help convincing almost anyone here.
There is absolutely no experimental proof to show energy transfer in Derek's experiment travels outside the wires.
Derek just did not understood that two parallel wires form a capacitor and that is the reason he seen a current through the lamp well before electron wave had the time to travel through the wire.
He did not check to see that power provided by battery is higher than power used by lamp by significant margins and that power is not wasted but stored in the capacitor formed by the wires. Then latter power provided by battery will be lower than power output at the lamp so stored energy is being discharged.

 

[aetherist]

A photon is the elementary particle dual of an electromagnetic wave. Light is an electromagnetic wave.

A photon is the fundamental (quasi) particle.
Photons emit em radiation, from the main central helical body of the photon.
Radio waves are em radiation.
EM radiation is a slab of E by H energy current. When i say slab, i mean there is no rolling E to H to E etc. Hertz was wrong.

[TimFox]

A photon is the elementary particle dual of an electromagnetic wave. Light is an electromagnetic wave.

A photon is the fundamental (quasi) particle.
Photons emit em radiation, from the main central helical body of the photon.
Radio waves are em radiation.
EM radiation is a slab of E by H energy current. When i say slab, i mean there is no rolling E to H to E etc. Hertz was wrong.

Radio waves, as first demonstrated by Hertz, are macroscopic phenomena.
Photons are microscopic.
The standard derivations of E and H in the "far field" (radiation region) have been demonstrated in RF engineering over and over, to the point that they are no longer discussed.  It works.
In passing from the microscopic quantum domain to the macroscopic classical domain (such as Maxwell), the macroscopic quantities are the "expectation values" (q.v.) of the quantum mechanical description.

[aetherist]

A photon is the elementary particle dual of an electromagnetic wave. Light is an electromagnetic wave.

A photon is the fundamental (quasi) particle.
Photons emit em radiation, from the main central helical body of the photon.
Radio waves are em radiation.
EM radiation is a slab of E by H energy current. When i say slab, i mean there is no rolling E to H to E etc. Hertz was wrong.

Radio waves, as first demonstrated by Hertz, are macroscopic phenomena.
Photons are microscopic.
The standard derivations of E and H in the "far field" (radiation region) have been demonstrated in RF engineering over and over, to the point that they are no longer discussed.  It works.
In passing from the microscopic quantum domain to the macroscopic classical domain (such as Maxwell), the macroscopic quantities are the "expectation values" (q.v.) of the quantum mechanical description.

Natural E×H waves do not exist. Hertz was wrong. As explained by Ionel Dinu. Heaviside was correct.
But non-natural manmade E×H radio waves do exist.
The slab of E×H can be made (manmade) to vary in strength in a sinusoidal way.

In the oldendays the manmade wave was always sinusoidal, koz of the sinusoidal mechanics used to make the wave, & hence this was easily confused with some non-existent apparition called a natural Hertzian E×H wave. And the confusion has carried over into the modern era (which will one day be called the Dark Age of Electricity)(ended by the coming of a Messiah), even tho nowadays there is no excuse, koz nowadays we can make square pulses, & yet the foolishness continues.

[TimFox]

Fourier analysis shows that any periodic waveform can be represented as a series of sinusoidal waveforms, or an integral over a continuous frequency range of sinusoids.
When building a transmitter, you will find that a sinusoidal carrier is a useful and efficient generator of radio waves.
Even Marconi's evanescent waves from ratty spark waveforms contained a sinusoidal carrier, due to the resonance of the antenna system.

[aetherist]

Fourier analysis shows that any periodic waveform can be represented as a series of sinusoidal waveforms, or an integral over a continuous frequency range of sinusoids.
When building a transmitter, you will find that a sinusoidal carrier is a useful and efficient generator of radio waves.
Even Marconi's evanescent waves from ratty spark waveforms contained a sinusoidal carrier, due to the resonance of the antenna system.

Yes i suppose that sinusoidal is best.
I am not sure how Hertz got a sinusoidal shape from his ordinary spark. I think that Ionel Dinu says that Hertz did not have a sinusoidal signal, ie it was faux-sinusoidal  (see other thread)(i haven’t read Ionel's papers lately).  If Hertz had a sinusoidal signal due to say resonance then Ionel Dinu would be wrong i think.

The Gasser-X was i think a version of Hertz-X, but mainly to do with speed. U might remember that Hertz had problems with speed, ie he got an infinite speed at one stage.  Here is some of Gasser's stuff, i haven’t read it lately, but it might have some interesting stuff. If not then i apologise.

Superluminal information transfer confirmed by simple experiment.
Wolfgang G. Gasser  (May, 2016).
Abstract:
A simple experiment has been performed in order to measure propagation speed of the electric field. The results show that the Coulomb interaction propagates substantially faster than at speed of light c.
Fig. 1:  Schematic of the experiment. [not shown]
The experiment uses a spark gap between two conducting spheres acting as capacitors of opposite electric charge. After spark-formation, this rapidly collapsing dipole field is measured by an oscilloscope connected via probes to conducting detector-spheres. Whereas the mutual distance between the detector spheres connected to the oscilloscope remains at Δx = 1.65 m (from left probe tip to right probe tip), different distances from the spark-gap have been measured.
Table. 1 [not shown]
The measured propagation speeds v = Δx/Δt from the left to the right detector sphere, with Δt averaged over each five measurements, range from around 1.4 c to 5 c, and show a dependence on the distance from the spark gap.

The by far simplest explanation of the experiment is the hypothesis that the Coulomb interaction conforms to Coulomb, who assumed instantaneous interaction at a distance. The dependence of the measured propagation speed on the distance of the measurement setup from the spark gap is explained by dissipative losses and "image charge" complication, leading to electric currents in the ground and the walls.
https://www.electronicspoint.com/forums/threads/experimental-evidence-for-v-c-in-case-of-coulomb-interaction.168813/
http://www.pandualism.com/c/coulomb_experiment.html

[hamster_nz]

Sounds mostly correct to me. But I don't see how electrons are shoved by the electric field, with a stick perhaps? And how do they 'see' it, with tiny eyes?

I know how it is done in the math. Make a very small bounding box, add up the surface integrals to get net force. As the size of the box reduces to zero, the integral remains.

The physical reality? I do not know. But I can make something up.

Just perhaps the position of a charge is delocalized - it continuously randomly jumps around at very small scale (after all, charges to tunnel through potential energy barriers). Rather than being a point it is a small fuzzy thing (some magic quantum uncertainty handwaving).

When the electric field has a slope to it, that makes small jump with the gradient easier than a jump in the other which is against the gradient of the field. This bias allows energy to transfer from the field to the charge, and allows the charge to accelerate.

This is most likely not the process, but it is a nice easy (maybe even natural) process that could underly such a thing, avoiding the need for charges to have little eyes, little (or very long) sticks to push each other, backpacks to hold energy, and direct connections to all other charges in the universe. Instead they are all just bouncing on vanishingly small pogo sitcks 

[TimFox]

"I am not sure how Hertz got a sinusoidal shape from his ordinary spark."

This is the same method Marconi used, exciting a resonant circuit (in Hertz' case, a "Hertzian dipole" resonant antenna) to generate an evanescent waveform:  a sine wave multiplied by a decaying exponential (as the circuit loss dissipates energy from the resonant circuit).  I believe the first practical transmitter to generate a true "continuous wave" was the Poulsen arc, later improved into the "Federal Arc", where a carbon arc's negative resistance placed across a resonant circuit.  Later, Alexandersson built a 200 kHz high-power alternator for GE.  Both were made obsolete by the vacuum tube.
https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node94.html for the math behind the Hertzian dipole.

[aetherist]

"I am not sure how Hertz got a sinusoidal shape from his ordinary spark."
This is the same method Marconi used, exciting a resonant circuit (in Hertz' case, a "Hertzian dipole" resonant antenna) to generate an evanescent waveform:  a sine wave multiplied by a decaying exponential (as the circuit loss dissipates energy from the resonant circuit).  I believe the first practical transmitter to generate a true "continuous wave" was the Poulsen arc, later improved into the "Federal Arc", where a carbon arc's negative resistance placed across a resonant circuit.  Later, Alexandersson built a 200 kHz high-power alternator for GE.  Both were made obsolete by the vacuum tube.
https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node94.html for the math behind the Hertzian dipole.

Interesting.
Anyhow, if Hertz intentionally or accidentally made a sinusoidal radio wave, then what reasoning was used by everyone to say that a radio wave is a photon(s).

[TimFox]

See my reply no. 362 above.

[aetherist]

See my reply no. 362 above.

Interesting.
Anyhow, if Hertz intentionally or accidentally made a sinusoidal radio wave, then what reasoning was used by everyone to say that a radio wave is a photon(s).

Radio waves, as first demonstrated by Hertz, are macroscopic phenomena.
Photons are microscopic.
The standard derivations of E and H in the "far field" (radiation region) have been demonstrated in RF engineering over and over, to the point that they are no longer discussed.  It works.
In passing from the microscopic quantum domain to the macroscopic classical domain (such as Maxwell), the macroscopic quantities are the "expectation values" (q.v.) of the quantum mechanical description.

How kum a microscopic photon can be mistaken for a macroscopic em something.

[hamster_nz]

See my reply no. 362 above.

Interesting.
Anyhow, if Hertz intentionally or accidentally made a sinusoidal radio wave, then what reasoning was used by everyone to say that a radio wave is a photon(s).

Radio waves, as first demonstrated by Hertz, are macroscopic phenomena.
Photons are microscopic.
The standard derivations of E and H in the "far field" (radiation region) have been demonstrated in RF engineering over and over, to the point that they are no longer discussed.  It works.
In passing from the microscopic quantum domain to the macroscopic classical domain (such as Maxwell), the macroscopic quantities are the "expectation values" (q.v.) of the quantum mechanical description.

How kum a microscopic photon can be mistaken for a macroscopic em something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_mechanics and so on...

In physics, statistical mechanics is a mathematical framework that applies statistical methods and probability theory to large assemblies of microscopic entities. It does not assume or postulate any natural laws, but explains the macroscopic behavior of nature from the behavior of such ensembles.

[TimFox]

A whole bunch of them make a macroscopic wave.  Many a pickle makes a muckle.  In formal language, an ensemble.

[aetherist]

Interesting.
Anyhow, if Hertz intentionally or accidentally made a sinusoidal radio wave, then what reasoning was used by everyone to say that a radio wave is a photon(s).

See my reply no. 362 above.

Radio waves, as first demonstrated by Hertz, are macroscopic phenomena.
Photons are microscopic.
The standard derivations of E and H in the "far field" (radiation region) have been demonstrated in RF engineering over and over, to the point that they are no longer discussed.  It works.
In passing from the microscopic quantum domain to the macroscopic classical domain (such as Maxwell), the macroscopic quantities are the "expectation values" (q.v.) of the quantum mechanical description.

How kum a microscopic photon can be mistaken for a macroscopic em something.

 

A whole bunch of them make a macroscopic wave.  Many a pickle makes a muckle.  In formal language, an ensemble.

Yes a bunch of photons can be made to form a wave. Somehow that appears to be a quality of photons, they like to make formations, ie they are kind of sticky (eg lasers).
But i can't see any sensible physical scientific link tween formations of photons & the em field! What historic discovery has ever even hinted at such a link?

It is my photaenos that combine to form the em field. Photaenos are emitted by the main helical body of every photon.
A photaeno is the simplest fundamental unit of microscopic em radiation. Lots of photaenos combine to give the macroscopic em field.
Standard science is saying that lots of apples (photons) can make a bin of apples (photons), & that lots of bins of apples (photons) make an orange (an em field).

Apparently someone somewhere decided that a bin of photons becomes a bin of em radiation, & that many such bins automatically arrange themselves into formations, called waves, eg radio waves.
Whereas my photaeno idea simply says that lots of microscopic em radiations combine to make a macroscopic em field (shocking)(who could have guessed?).

How is it that bins of photons (oranges) can be lasers. And bins of photons (oranges) can be an em field.

[TimFox]

Two words:  quantum mechanics.