Question about "Electric Universe" Book

[Sinister Rouge]

I was reading the book last night before going to bed and in Chapter 3 it says "It takes electrons hours to travel 1 meter in copper". Is this true because I was under the impression we used copper wires and they seem to transmit faster than 1 meter every few hours.

[Marnee]

Perhaps you are confusing the signal (electrical current) with the physical migration of electrons?

[Sinister Rouge]

I was under the impression that electric currents are a flow of electrons? I dunno anyone got any input on this and my first question? I'm really curious.

Also not that it matter that statement that electrons "take several hours to move one meter in a copper wire!" is on pg. 55 in The Electric Universe in the section about the sun's photosphere.

[Steve Smith]

Back in the day I found this analogy helpful: think of a hollow tube as the wire. Now fill the tube with ball bearings -- those are the electrons. Push another ball bearing into one end of the tube and the ball bearing at the other end will instantly fall out. Each ball bearing hardly moves at all, just one diameter, but the impetus (energy) moves through the tube almost instantly.

In AC current, for instance, the electrons don't even move down the wire, they oscillate back-and-forth. So "electricity" moves at only a few centimeters per hour, but the energy -- the push from the other end of the tube -- moves very fast.

[junglelord]

The potential difference between two charges sets up an Efield that determines the force on any charge between the two potential differences. This force is applied across each atom and electron and although this Efield is extends across the distance between the two potential differences, the actual motion of electrons at a atomic level is indeed about spending more time in one place within your own atom and not so much movement towards another atom. Of course in a conductor free electrons do trade place and there is a net movement of electrons, as mentioned in AC this action is back and forth and therefore any actually real motion forward of the electrons has a equal and reverse backwards motion...however the force of the Efield still stands and the amount of current produced is real, but the actual forward motion of electrons like water is not as often imagined or described when using water as an anology.

[Sinister Rouge]

Thank you so much for clearing that up guys.

[MGmirkin]

One might also think of it like a longitudinal wave or compression wave...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitudinal_wave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Onde ... _petit.gif

IE, atoms bump into nearby atoms and transfer their momentum, receiving some bit of "equal and opposite reaction" to move more or less back to near their original position. The second set of atoms bumps into a 3rd set. And so on and so forth until the "energy" or "compression wave" gets to the other end of the tube. The atoms are still in more-or-less their original positions, having perhaps moved slightly... They may tend to physically positionally drift as well (but again, that would seem to be a slow process).

Steve's explanation also seems apropos.

~Michael

[webolife]

Also the "speed" of the electric current through the wire is said to be "virtually light speed", but I challenge anyone to prove it is not "virtually instantaneous" regardless of wire length.

[junglelord]

Also the "speed" of the electric current through the wire is said to be "virtually light speed", but I challenge anyone to prove it is not "virtually instantaneous" regardless of wire length.

Trying to track down the TOE, as ususal, so its interesting to see that the work by those who work with electrogravity theory from Wal and Sansbury onward all have faster then light EM. Thats where many scientist part company with EU.
I got a bad rap from plasmatic for my vortex math thread. I am not the person who makes or breaks any theory.
I am a simple forum member, who thinks out loud. Vortex math or Multiple Matrix is good science.
Infact the notion of faster then light EM is nonsense to any person with a Phd and is not considered good science.
Remember that plasmatic, the next time you call my threads poison and that Wal could never agree with anything I post leaving me to sink the EU.


I happen to agree with Wal.
Not to mention that the MIT Lecture series on EM said that space was not electric in the FIRST lecture.
Thats means that we are all out in the cold.

[earls]

Easy to prove, webolife.

Electrons have mass, anything with mass cannot (currently) exceed the speed of light. So the fastest you could shove an electron into a wire is 99.9% the speed of light, hence the sub-luminal speed of electricity.

Unless you know how to accelerate electrons faster than light...?

This can also be proven (less practically) by taking a large loop of wire (on the scale of miles). Flip the switch, start a timer, and wait for it to travel the loop a little math will reveal the truth.

[richjkl]

Also the "speed" of the electric current through the wire is said to be "virtually light speed", but I challenge anyone to prove it is not "virtually instantaneous" regardless of wire length.

Don't you mean the speed of the electromagnetic energy? The current, as other people have said, is very slow moving.

Now, this is an experiment I'd really like to try...

"I've seen one way to directly measure the drift velocity of charges in a conductor. Connect metal electrodes to the ends of a large salt crystal (NaCl), then heat it to 700 degrees C and apply high voltage to the electrodes. At this temperature the salt becomes conductive, but as electrons flow through it they discolor the crystal, and a wave of darkness moves across the clear crystal. The velocity of this slow-moving wave can be measured. (And if you double the current, the speed of the wave doubles.)"

http://amasci.com/miscon/speed.html

[Plasmatic]

I got a bad rap from plasmatic for my vortex math thread. I am not the person who makes or breaks any theory.
I am a simple forum member, who thinks out loud.....Remember that plasmatic, the next time you call my threads poison and that Wal could never agree with anything I post leaving me to sink the EU.

Your comments are so far from what I actually say it would be funny if it wasnt so disturbing. You are having delusions of granduer. After all you have NO authority to effect what my actual comments addressed whatsoever. Also Its amusing how you come into threads that I am not participating in to spread your fantasies.

[webolife]

by earls on Sun Oct 12, 2008 5:16 pm
Easy to prove, webolife.

Electrons have mass, anything with mass cannot (currently) exceed the speed of light. So the fastest you could shove an electron into a wire is 99.9% the speed of light, hence the sub-luminal speed of electricity.

Unless you know how to accelerate electrons faster than light...?

This can also be proven (less practically) by taking a large loop of wire (on the scale of miles). Flip the switch, start a timer, and wait for it to travel the loop a little math will reveal the truth.

This is not a proof at all, but simply a restatement of the hypothesis based on the same assumption made by Einstein, et.al., that light actually moves at the c-rate through space, either as waves, or particles, or as some sort of w/p duality, and that this c-rate is a limit in the universe.
You miss, however, that Einstein himself showed that such an experiment as you suggest cannot be conclusive due to the "problem of simultaneity"; ie. there is no way in relatively moving systems [which all are] to prove simultaneity of timing, eg. to show that t-zero for one system-position is the same as t-zero for another. I challenge you to find [or to try] any such experiment, and demonstrate the actual time delay is more than at most about a second for any length or distance. Check out Ralph Sansbury for additional detail on this. The "delay" is in relay time, not in travel time. I don't depend on Sansbury's work, but it verifies the research I've done since about 1980 on this issue, demonstrating to my satisfaction, that light has instantaneous effect across distance, eg. that supernova you saw in the Andromeda galaxy last night in fact was happening as you were observing it, not 2 million years ago.

by richjkl on Mon Oct 13, 2008 9:30 am
webolife wrote:
Also the "speed" of the electric current through the wire is said to be "virtually light speed", but I challenge anyone to prove it is not "virtually instantaneous" regardless of wire length.

Don't you mean the speed of the electromagnetic energy? The current, as other people have said, is very slow moving.

Now, this is an experiment I'd really like to try...

"I've seen one way to directly measure the drift velocity of charges in a conductor. Connect metal electrodes to the ends of a large salt crystal (NaCl), then heat it to 700 degrees C and apply high voltage to the electrodes. At this temperature the salt becomes conductive, but as electrons flow through it they discolor the crystal, and a wave of darkness moves across the clear crystal. The velocity of this slow-moving wave can be measured. (And if you double the current, the speed of the wave doubles.)"

The question here in my mind is: Is the "current" really moving at all? It is easily explained that electrons do not "flow" as the word "current" suggests, rather that the energy is transferred, conservatively, across the distance [eg. of wire or space, atmosphere, etc.] virtually instantaneously, as in the analogous Newton's cradle. Now the effects of that energy transfer will be perceived progressively in relation to how close they are to the source [ie sink] of the field in operation, by a rule that is either linear, or roughly the inverse square of the distance, depending on whether you are observing a voltage effect, or more likely an effect of resistance to the electrical field pressure; hence, as in the case of atmospheric lightning, the progressive heating of the air appears to show "flow" [of light] under timelapse recording, yet it is absolutely clear that the lightning's entire "path", no matter how branched or complex, is fixed in the field before any heating begins... likewise both ends of a wire are simultaneously "charged" when the circuit is opened, so no travel time occurs, eg. from the switch to the light... extending this last example, no travel time exists between the generators of the hydroelectric dam 200 miles away and the light circuit's final "ground". And the length of the wire is of virtually no consequence. Here, as in your crystal example, the progressive effect of resistance based on distance from/to the light [or voltage] source/sink is an issue, but current "flow" is not what is being observed.

Sorry, moderators, this is probably getting off thread for the "electric universe" book...

[hyper.real]

It is because of the snail-like advance of electrons in metals, that chemical batteries last as long as they do. If the electrons traveled at the speed of light, batteries would expire almost as soon as equipment was switched on

[webolife]

And what I am saying is that they do not move, at least in the sense of "flowing through a wire".
Don't mistake me to be saying that ions are never transfered from point A to Point B in space... that would be ridiculous.
What I am pointing out is that once the field is enjoined ( eg. the circuit is opened), the entire field from source to ground is activated at once (think voltage) and that this "instant" activation is measurable anywhere within the field (eg. by a voltmeter). Regardless of wire length, as for example from that hydroelectric dam 240 miles away to my electric toothbrush.