What is electricity?

[Oracle_911]

Then if all light is invisible, why does the light side stimulate my retina why the shadow side does not? Remember, I do not have to be facing a light source to see the light. If they are reflecting off of the source side of the cup then they are being emitted.

The reflection is always there, if it is strong then its bright, if it is weak than its a shadow.

[sjw40364]

And when I turn a flashlight on in the middle of the night? I suppose it's just my imagination that I only see the light where the beam travels? Sorry, ain't buying the non-emittance theory. Now if you want to say the photons are always there are are just illuminated by the E/M force emitted from the source, that would maybe be acceptable, maybe.

But just so all of you understand my position, I do not believe in more than 3 dimensions, I do not believe time is a fourth dimension, I do not believe c is the fastest that an object can travel, nor do I believe it takes infinite energy to accelerate mass to the speed of c. I do not believe there is an outside power source, but instead all atoms and galaxies generate their own electricity. I do not believe that gravity exists except as a component of the E/M force, even though I may enter into discussions about it. I do not believe gravity holds planets in orbit, they are held in orbit by the E/M force. I do not believe in Black Holes, Neutron Stars, Dark Matter, Dark Energy or a space-time that is warped by mass and then tells mass how to move yet is not an aether. I do not believe in Red-shift = distance or even in the Doppler shift of light as explained, that the universe is expanding faster than c, or the Big Bang. Since science for the last 100 years can not convince me of these things I seriously doubt if anything but direct incontrovertible evidence ever will. And so far none has ever been presented to sway those beliefs.

I will gladly discuss any theory one wants, but if it goes against those core beliefs I will probably argue against it. Ok, not probably as I love a good debate anyways . Yes, I am opinionated and forceful in stating my opinions, but if each of us didn't believe that what they were saying was correct we probably wouldn't bother stating them. I think faster than I type (two fingers), so sometimes my words don't come out as I thought them and have been known to say things I do not believe in at all just to get arguments against that statement for use in other forums Sometimes all of you are the best source for counter arguments, we have quite a few bright people on this forum. So at times I may come off as arrogant, but hey, that's just me so ignore it, it's never meant that way.

But to answer the forum question what is electricity? I don't think anyone really knows that answer. It is a force that both attracts and repels. A force that creates other forces, magnetism is one. A force that permeates every single thing in existence and allows the human brain to "think." A force that can span the gap between electrons with no mechanical means needed. In the end I think the best answer is it is everything.

[webolife]

Be careful not to confuse core beliefs with hidden misconceptions.
A flashlight beam is only visible if there are dust or other particles reflecting it back to your retina. Make no mistake-- if you are seeing light, then your retina is in direct line of the light ray... this is the only way. You can not see light in transit in any way shape or form. It is only the interception of the light ray by a light detector that makes it visible. And the word reflection only implies emission if you are equating reflect with "bounce", as in a rubber ball, or a wave off a wall. What I am saying is that this reflection is a geometrical consequence of the system, not requiring "light stuff" to be moving across space. Likewise an electrical signal cannot be detected in transit, only by a an intercepting device, such as a meter. When a circuit is on [ie. closed] the electricity is detectable simultaneously at every point in the circuit. In an electrical relay system, there is an inrtial delay at the switch points which adds time delay to the electrical transmission, there is no real measurement of a "motion" of electricity across any distance of wire.

[mjv1121]

webolife,

I still have no understanding as to the nature of your centropic pressure field thingy.

How does your eye know when to see the light that is always there? What is the messaging/mediating system of this pressure field?

An aether, and make no mistake you are relating an aether field, works by bombardment, there is no other choice available. The particles of the field must act independently, waves are not acceptable in 3-dimensional space. Once you allow the particles to interact as waves then matter loses all sense of independent motion. Matter ceases to act by mechanical laws, unless the wave aether has a messaging system by which to control itself, which can usually be traced to the mind of the theorist. On Earth waves in air and water form because the molecules that make up the medium have an association to one another. An aether cannot act in the same manner or else the universe would appear as the motion of the aether associations and this is not what happens in reality.

The other huge destructive wave fallacy is Clerk Maxwell's electromagnetic waves. Years and years of thought and study and experiment, and not a wave in sight. But "what if" there were an electromagnetic waveform, how fast would it propagate? Well, it turns out it would propagate at c, therefore "light" must be an E/M wave. What a load of bollocks. Photons and E/M fields propagate at the same speed because they are emitted by the same process - they are emitted by electrons!.


A battery contains free electrons that are aligned due to the chemical/atomic structure/nature of the battery materials.
Thus there is an emission/flow into the wire. Disc shaped, Catherine wheel like spinning electrons, that are subjected to a "flow" have two choices. If they are at an angle of less than 45degrees to the flow they will be turned face on and will emit their charge at right angles to the wire as a radial magnetic B field. Those at more than 45degress will be pushed/tipped edge on the flow and will emit their charge parallel to the wire, creating an E field at right angles to the B field. Electrons are small compared to the atomic world they inhabit. Try to imagine an electron flying along, bumping into another electron, which bumps into another, creating some preposterous Newton's cradle - no, that sounds like nonsense. How about and E/M energy wave? Well, photons are not an E/M wave, and even if they were, why would they confine themselves to the wire?

Electricity is the alignment of charge emitting electrons. The charge is not in the battery or the wall socket. Charge is everywhere, it is the quantum vacuum that also causes the effect of gravity. The battery initiates an alignment of electrons, a copper wire has plenty of free electrons, air has considerably less. The current is the alignment of electrons along the entire length of the wire, a process which happens at nearly at c, the speed of the electron emission. At the light-bulb, the filament is made from a material whose electrons "prefer" to emit photons. The electrons in the wire, in the copper atoms and presumably also the free electrons, there will also be photon emission.
An electron surrounded by many other electrons will be subject to an increased level of quantum flux - not only is it taking quantum particles from the quantum vacuum field and emitting them as charge, but it is being subjected to the emissions of neighbouring electrons. If it cannot emitting all those quantum particles as charge it will have to get rid of them is one go as a photon - which will be emitted at the same speed as the "charge". If there is only a moderate quantum flux, only small photons will be emitted - radio photons, which are characteristic of E/M fields. If there is a greater "current", then at each point along the length of the wire, more of the electrons will be press ganged into action and the quantum flux to surrounded electrons will increase and so will the "size" of the photons they emit. Heat is photon flux - what 6-year old suggested that it was the "vibration" of atoms. Humans react strongly to infra-red photons - one might suppose that the hydro-carbon molecules we are made of ionise quite readily when subjected to those size photons. And as the wire "heats" up, resistance increases. Instead of concentrating on emitting charge, more and more electrons are spending their time emitting photons.

In order to initiate the "current", the battery needs to be connected at each end. If there is a break in the circuit, there is a discontinuity in the alignment of the electrons and they all fall back out of alignment. The battery does not contain "charge", it holds electrons. The process of "electricity" results in a slow drift of free electrons along the wire, and more crucially, out of the battery. When there are insufficient free electrons left in the battery to maintain the electron alignment in the wire, the battery is considered "discharged". There is then the slow process of "charging", whereby there is a slow drift of electrons back into the battery. You might have thought that a "charging" circuit could re-charge a battery very quickly, surely there is sufficient "current". Unfortunately, the slow drift of electrons is not so swift as the "current" might suggest.

Michael

[sjw40364]

Before we can discuss electricity I think we have to clear some things up and it seems the only way to do this is by asking one question at a time.
Does an electron have mass?

[mjv1121]

sjw,

I will play along.

Yes an electron does have mass. And, so do quantum particles and so do photons.

Michael


PS If you like you could ask two questions at a time.

[sjw40364]

Ok, I think all of us will agree that an electron has mass.

There are captured electrons and there are free electrons. Do captured electrons orbit a nucleus (regardless of your conception of what a nucleus is)?

How fast do free electrons travel and how fast do captured electrons orbit a nucleus?

How much energy (again regardless of your conception of energy, it's the word I use) does it take to accelerate the mass of an electron from its free state velocity to that of its captured velocity?

Does anyone think that space is not composed of an aether of smaller particles or that electrons are not composed of smaller particles, whatever these may be?

[Sparky]

mjv,

The process of "electricity" results in a slow drift of free electrons along the wire, and more crucially, out of the battery. ----The current is the alignment of electrons along the entire length of the wire, a process which happens at nearly at c, the speed of the electron emission.

I can understand the rest of your post, but this "slow drift" is ambiguous. anyone who has shorted out a car battery with a tool knows that there is no "slow drift" reaction. there is a flash and hundreds of amps burn off parts of the tool. I always assumed it was a rush of electrons. But, most of your post is concerned with photon emittance and this slow drift is almost an aside. photons are the Phields associated with electrical activity, but a large flow of electrons must be possible to account for the effects seen and measured.

In a wire, i would accept that an instantaneous alignment does occur , but that does not explain current. electrons are either being stripped off atoms and or free electrons are being propelled by electrical phields . the wire, in effect has become a plasma of electrons and ions. electrons are not drifting, they are abundantly moving, depending on voltage, resistance, and supply availability.

I like your explanation of photon emittance to produce phields.

[mjv1121]

sjw,

I think that the common conception if an atom as a mini solar system is basically accurate. Gravity pulls the enormously dense protons and neutrons together in a nucleus. The neutrons present a barrier to proton charge allowing gravity to pull the protons close together. Electrons orbit the nucleus, pulled in by gravity, but repulsed by charge - an orbit is a balance of gravity and charge. The orbital velocity is a few percent of c.

How much energy (again regardless of your conception of energy, it's the word I use) does it take to accelerate the mass of an electron from its free state velocity to that of its captured velocity?

I do not envisage at situation where an electron is sitting at rest and then is accelerated into orbit. One must presume that they are travelling and are captured by the gravitational pull of the nucleus.

Michael

[mjv1121]

Sparky,

Electricity is free electron charge. The free electrons are always in the wire and the charge is always in the quantum field, so it too, is always in the wire. A current or electricity is the alignment of free electrons so that they are emitting coherently. Electromagnetic fields are also the coherent emission of free electron charge. Neither the charge nor the electrons flow along the wire as such. It is more of a ripple effect starting at the battery/generator; starting from the battery free electrons all along the wire are "bombarded" into alignment. The charge of one electron is insignificant, but the charge of 10^30 electrons aligned together is electricity.

I am also suggesting that in this process, there is a slow drift of electrons along the wire. A spark, for instance when a spanner shorts across a car battery is a plasma discharge. In a plasma, subtle random or pseudo-random changes in the density of free electrons can lead to a chance rapid build-up of electron alignment. In a gas plasma the free electrons are less confined by surrounding atoms and so are free to be accelerated by the alignment process. Depending on the density of the plasma, the electrons may be more inclined to emit visible photons - so that in a plasma discharge you can see the process of electricity. In a wire the electrons are being pushed front in front and from behind, so their net movement is only a slow drift along the wire. In a plasma the electrons travel along with the "electricity". But the charge quantums from the field are already there, they do not flow like a stream from A to B. Although, in a spark the electrons are travelling more rapidly than those in a wire, it is the alignment of free electrons that happens at great speed. It is the alignment of free electrons that goes from A to B.

I like your explanation of photon emittance to produce phields.

I am suggesting that electromagnetic fields (or "phields") are produce by the emission of charge - which is the emission of quantum particles. Each photon of light or radio or infra-red consists of billions or trillions of quantum particles all in one instantaneous emission.

Michael

[Sparky]

mjv,

In a wire the electrons are being pushed front in front and from behind, so their net movement is only a slow drift along the wire. In a plasma the electrons travel along with the "electricity". But the charge quantums from the field are already there, they do not flow like a stream from A to B. Although, in a spark the electrons are travelling more rapidly than those in a wire,

yes, i meant quantums being emitted....

what i suggest is that the wire becomes a plasma. the faster electrons in a spark from a wire imply that the electrons are moving just as quickly within the wire....

when a wire is connected to a power source, it becomes charged.
when the circuit is completed, the aligned electrons, along with electrons stripped off atoms, race toward the positive potential.
as a wire is not a perfect plasma, there is resistance, and resistance is added to prevent excess current flow. the simplest experiments indicate this.

i don't know what resistive effect a quantum field has on current flow in a wire, but it seems negligible.....that is why i suggest that a plasma is produced within the wire.

a 1.5v flashlight battery , shorted by a 22ga wire will not even warm up the wire.....but, put that same 22ga wire across a 1.5v
battery that can supply 500amps!!..it's the current, not the voltage..the voltage just sets there and aligns the particles. the current does the work. now, in the absence of current availability, a lot more voltage will produce the same effects, plus others that require a HV.

I don't know where this idea of "electron drift" in a circuit came from, but simple experiments prove it wrong... There may be drift when there is no complete circuit. a charge may initiate a drift.

and why can't electrons be stripped off of atoms in a conductor?

I accept the aligned electrons emitting coherently.

[sjw40364]

Now we are going to do a thought experiment. Hook a wire to a 9 volt battery and close the circuit. How much electricity is in the wire? Now take that same wire and hook it to a 24 volt battery. How much electricity is in the wire? Now take this same wire and hook it to a 110 volt system. How much electricity is in the wire?

If electricity is always in the wire then there must have been at least 110 volts in the wire to begin with. Yes/No? Since only the voltage of the source is in the wire at any given time it is clear that the maximum voltage I can send through any wire is not already "in" the wire. You will now think but when I flip a switch no matter how far away the light is it turns on instantly and this would imply faster than c travel of electricity. Why yes, it does doesn't it. Again, how much energy did it take to accelerate the mass of a captured electron to near the velocity of c? So if the miniscule mass of an electron can be accelerated to near the velocity of c with minimal energy, what makes anyone think that a smaller particle than an electron cannot be accelerated beyond the speed of c with minimal energy?

Work that thought experiment backwards starting with 110 volts. If the electricity is already in the wire then where did the 110 - 24 = 86 volts go to? Take a lightning strike, by the time you see the flash, the strike has already finished. You merely see the afterimage of the slow velocity of photons. The electrical force "IS" these smaller particles and they "DO" travel faster than c when accelerated by an electron which itself is traveling close to c. This is why it appears almost instantaneous when you flip a switch, because it is in fact almost instantaneous.

You need to drop the misconceptions about c, and about energy cost to accelerate mass to c and beyond. It is clear this is false as the mass of an electron is almost instantly accelerated to close to c when captured by a nucleus. Just as it is clear that free electrons in a plasma are also not likely traveling at near c. A photon is nothing but a byproduct of electrons accelerating these smaller particles to speeds above that of the photon. Not instantaneous, no, just orders of magnitude faster than c. A photon is not the source of E/M, it is the visible and non-visible radiation byproduct of particles accelerated beyond c. By the time you see the photon, the particle that emitted it in a constant stream has already passed and is long gone. Basically what you detect is an afterimage, a streak through space which is why it sometimes appears as a wave as it disturbs the other slower moving particles in its wake. You have been lulled into thinking c is the fastest any particle can travel by 100 years of incorrect cosmology. That it would take infinite energy to accelerate mass to the velocity of c, let alone near c. Yet I seriously doubt if an electron that orbits a nucleus took more than a miniscule amount of energy to accelerate it to that speed or any electron even if free moving at close to c takes more than a few volts if that to accelerate it to said velocity. Yet anyone that believes c is the top speed will insist that accelerating mass to that velocity requires infinite energy, yet are or are not electrons traveling at near c?

The alignment of electrons is "NOT" electricity. The alignment of electrons is the accelerator that accelerates the particles that are electricity to above c speeds. The magnetic field is the containment field for these particles. A wire works no different than a particle accelerator we build on earth, except they are accelerating larger particles (protons), and hence require more energy and yet still it does not require infinite energy to accelerate these protons to near c speeds. Our accelerators are merely not as efficient as is one made by nature.

[mjv1121]

Sparky,

The electrons associated with the spark are not jumping out of the wire and travelling through the air. The alignment of electrons if travelling. A plasma is still an atomic structure. Obviously an gas does not have the same structural integrity as a solid. The resistance in the wire is not quite the same as an obstacle course - free electrons and sent hither and tither by the gravitational and charge effects of the atoms.

Bear in mind that the terms current and voltage were not coined to describe a physical mechanical process. Try not to think of a current flowing - remove the water in a stream analogy from your mind.

Think of a current as the number of electrons recruited to the task. Remember, these electrons are busy all the time. Their constant everlasting aim in "life" is to emit 1eV of charge. They are constantly bombarded by the quantum field supplying them with quantums to emit, as well as being pushed about by gravitational and charge effects from other sub-atomic particles.

It may be a push to describe a wire as a plasma, but at the same time I don't entirely disagree. Google tells me that copper contains 8.5 x 10^28 free electrons per m^3. A cubic metre of wire is a lot or wire, but that's still a lot of free electrons. Perhaps some of the copper atoms can be persuaded to ionise and give a few extra electrons to the cause, but they might just steal free electrons back.

As to the slow drift of electrons, in part I am attempting to satisfy what I've been taught, but also there is the fact of battery discharging and then the slow process of re-charging. I cannot see that re-charging a battery is the process of putting quantum charge particles back into it. However, it seems to me to make sense that a battery contains a reservoir of free electrons. These electrons slowly "leak" out from the battery, and the process of replacing them is also slower than would appear necessary, if it were simply a process of putting the "electricity" back in. Thus a slow movement of electrons through solid copper makes sense.

Michael

[mjv1121]

sjw,

When I say the electricity is already in the wire, what I mean is that the quantum charge is constantly being absorbed and emitted by the electrons. The process of creating electricity in the wire involves "recruiting" free electrons to the cause. Imagine a given electron, subject to charge emission from another electron tips it face on or edge on the the emission., but for how long? Perhaps 0.001% of the time, perhaps only 1 nanosecond per second does that electron contribute to the coherent emission of a magnetic or electric field and the alignment of other electrons causing the effect of electricity. Maybe if the potential applied at the battery/source is increased to 1000volts, maybe each free electron can be press ganged into action for 100 nanoseconds per second.

I am suggesting that the quantum "charge" is always there, but it is the coherent alignment of the electrons that creates the effect.

This is why it appears almost instantaneous when you flip a switch, because it is in fact almost instantaneous.

I think you'll find that the "electrical signal" in a wire travels at about 98-99% of c - it appears instantaneous, because we humans are very very slow by comparison.

Take a lightning strike, by the time you see the flash, the strike has already finished. You merely see the afterimage of the slow velocity of photons.

Again, I sense you're trying to change reality to match what you would like to be true. A lightning bolt is a fairly slow process, quite considerably slower than c (google tells me that on average the speed is 3,700 miles/s = 0.02% of c).
There is a complex process of electron alignment and acceleration, magnetic fields forming that contain, direct and accelerate more electrons. Combine that with ionisation of the air molecules along the way and it is a relatively slow process in our thick atmosphere. Also, the localised glow of the plasma stream may linger for a while and the optical effect on your vision system of a bright flash.

Don't let your bias against SR affect your judgement with regard to c. The the constant and limited speed of photons is a measurement. Einstein falsely hijacked it for his own purposes - e=mc^2 is wrong, mass energy equivalence is a crock, don't let that nonsense bother you or affect your thinking. c has nothing to do with SR, it stands completely independent of SR.

There are a whole multitude of guesstimates for the orbital velocity of an electrons. I think it to be about 1-2% of c.

For the most part free electrons do not travel anywhere near c in a plasma discharge. Only in exceptional circumstances, perhaps in stars and cosmic jets, but run of the mill terrestrial plasmas do not necessitate such high electron velocities.

A photon is not the source of E/M, it is the visible and non-visible radiation by-product of particles accelerated beyond c.

What?

You have been lulled into thinking c is the fastest any particle can travel by 100 years of incorrect cosmology. That it would take infinite energy to accelerate mass to the velocity of c, let alone near c.

It am not reacting to SR, I dismiss it as an unfortunate mistake. c is the measured speed of light/photons and the calculated speed of electromagnetism.

Yet I seriously doubt if an electron that orbits a nucleus took more than a minuscule amount of energy to accelerate it to that speed or any electron even if free moving at close to c takes more than a few volts if that to accelerate it to said velocity.

Why do you believe that electrons orbits a nucleus at or near c? Why do you suggest that they are "accelerated into orbit"?.

Yet anyone that believes c is the top speed will insist that accelerating mass to that velocity requires infinite energy, yet are or are not electrons travelling at near c?

I say again, c has nothing to do with SR. It is simply the measured speed of "light". Whether you like it or not, there is no evidence for faster than c travel. You are clutching at straws in this regard.

Michael

[webolife]

MJV, SJW, and Sparky:
I am intrigued by how I agree [although with differing symantics] with some of what each of you say, for instance:
The idea that "charge is everywhere" sounds like my universal pressure field...
The "instantaneous alignment of electrons" in a wire sounds like what I would describe as my voltage vector...
My light does not wave across space. But also my light does not need particle bombardment to propagate, because it is a force field, not a medium of photonic spheroidal bits or disks... more like nearly cylindrical cones whose apex is at the light source/centroid and whose base is at the peripheral receptor... with the force ray arrow [vector] pointed toward the apex. Now when a circuit is closed [the switch is "on"] "negative electron flow" is at the same time countered by "positive hole flow" [my idea of flow is not the same as the usual "current" model] in the opposite direction... which is visualizable if we understand that the electricity is in the whole wire simultaneously, from the battery terminal [or HE dam] to my light bulb. I still think one of you [is it SJW?] may be confusing voltage with current? Voltage/potential difference is the amount of "push" due to the "energy" source charging capacity, current is the amount of electrical charge mesured at a location along a wire in a period of time. Provided the wire has constant resistance, increased voltage will increase the current, right? So your thought experiment may be a misconception?
I think we might all agree that an electron "drop" is the causative agent of a light action. But I do not say that the falling electron emits light/photon[s], rather that the electron drop creates [is identified with, IS...] the instantaneous voltage change of the field which we see as light. No medium is necessary because stuff doesn't have to travel from there to here -- we are connected to the light source [which is actually the light sink] by the universal pressure field. When the connecting vectors are "tugged" [pushed] by the electron drop, we feel/see it. I do not bow to c here as some impassable limitation... if there is a signal delay, it is because intervening elements of the field, eg. reflective/absorptive surfaces or resistive fixtures, reduce the sensibility or immediacy of the signal reception, ie. the relay causes a delay [for further clarification, I appeal to Ralph Sansbury's explanation on this]. I agree that light has "mass" in the sense that it is a manifestation of the same pressure field that we experience as gravitation [and measure locally as mass], although I am more comfortable with simply referring to it as pressure. Probably "charge" is another name for this same pressure field acting on a different level.