What is electricity?

[mjv1121]

webolife,

I too detect some cross-over/similarity of concepts, but it is fast approaching bedtime - we are "ahead" of Seattle in this part of the world (smug wry smile).

Can you please give some more detail on the physical nature of your "pressure field".

Michael

[Sparky]

mjv,

The electrons associated with the spark are not jumping out of the wire and travelling through the air.

Michael, of course they are. How else would EDM work?
You can measure current in the electrode and it will equal the sum of the currents in the anode and whatever other elements will attract electrons. A tv picture tube is lit by electrons striking the screen.
Lighting is a whole bunch of electrons burning through whatever they hit. Are you saying that "virtual" electrons jump the gaps?

I don't know the details, but if there are free electrons there is a partial plasma, whether gaseous, liquid, or solid. If an applied charge/voltage is able to strip off more electrons then you have ions.
I don't know what energy level it would take to do that.

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.

I don't know where those terms came from....to me current is just that, a flow, and in this case, electrons. voltage is a pressure deferential....

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.

battery charge and discharge is not what i am talking about....you can discharge a battery in minutes, and the chemical process of recharging may take hours....

If a high voltage were applied to one end of a 10mile long wire, the voltage would be measured at the other end, relative to the same return ground....what has happened inside the wire?
there may be current drift to satisfy the differences of potential within the wire. But i think what you said about atoms aligning would be taking place, even without current flow. wouldn't that be like static electricity?

[mharratsc]

Mike H,

The vibration of atoms? or even of sub-atomic particles. Think about that for a moment, what does or could that mean?
What is the nature of these vibrations? What might be the cause? and by what mechanism could that translate into charge?.

Michael

The question that I have to ask here is: what do you mean by charge?


I feel that there might be two types of 'vibration' (static and dynamic), and two different scales sub (micro and macro). 'Static' is energy held within an atomic lattice that does no work. It might actually define 'mass', for that matter. 'Dynamic' would be vibration that does work, travels longitudinally or coherently, perhaps?

On the macroscopic scale, these vibrational states could explain the underpinnings of what we call 'electricity', perhaps.

On the microscopic scale, however, dynamic vibrational energy might what we term 'electromagnetic waves'- vibrations/energy that travel in a line and that can do 'work' (i.e.- energize something that the wave runs into when it won't 'harmonize' with it and thus absorbs rather than conducts it.)

I think of experiments where they set ferromagnetic fluid in a varying magnetic field, or a dish of non-Newtonian fluid on a speaker emitting high-frequency sound, and this calls to my mind how a subatomic particle (or subnuclear particle?) might pick up 'static vibrations' and become a geodesic form of greater size, or greater 'mass'.

If this were so, it might explain how neutrinos would acquire 'energy' and become atoms. I'm having trouble with how 'inertia' plays into all of this. Possibly frequency and amplitude might correspond to electromagnetic emissions vs inertial travel, I don't know. :\

Basically, I've just been trying to come to wrap my mind around "what is charge?" (since we've already covered "what is electricity?" pretty much) and how is it different from kinetic energy/inertia...

... this is about as far as I've gotten so far.

However- in all honesty I haven't really been toying with this line of thought for very long... so I don't think I'm doing too bad with my 'theory' for a hand's on technical guy who just really started thinking about this stuff!

[sjw40364]

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

No, the radiation emitted by the particles that are accelerated by the electrons is what you detect traveling at c, not the particles that are the electricity. I thought that was rather clear that photons are not the source of E/M, they are a by-product, an emission of particles traveling beyond c. They are the radiation given off by these particles and we have merely assumed they are the source since we can not detect the source itself. This is why gravity remains a mystery as well, why it appears to travel faster than c, because it does. No evidence of faster than c? Do we or do we not calculate orbital maneuvers by the instantaneous speed of gravity??? And please do not give me the bull that it is close enough in our system. If it traveled at c then c would give an even more correct answer, but it gives the wrong answer, always, every single time. The speed of c is not even close when used in orbital maneuvers, it has been tried and it results in complete disaster every time. We still have not imaged a proton, or an electron or even the nucleus, so how are we possibly going to detect something smaller? We already have detected it second hand, by the emission it gives off, what we call photons. Anybody that knows anything about planetary orbits knows that inserting a delay into the orbit as large as c ultimately leads to what is termed a couple and the planet would drift away from the sun. Apparently this does not happen, so there is no couple and there is apparently little or any delay in the attraction and repulsion aspects of the electrical force. You have even less direct evidence for your quanta, yet you happily imagine them and believe they exist. Even GR agrees that gravity travels faster than c. Sure in the description the words say c, but the math uses zero aberration and zero aberration equates to instantaneous no matter how you try to explain it. This is why GR reduces to Newtonian theory, because it uses instantaneous velocity just as Newtonian theory does. It simply adds energy tensors. It adds to Newtonian theory, it does not replace it, contrary to what you may have been told by relativists. yet it and all gravity theories fail at the atomic level because gravity is a property of E/M, not a force unto itself.

As for electrons being trapped and accelerated to c or traveling at c before trapped makes no difference. At some point during their formation they were accelerated to c, that or the E/M force is so strong at the subatomic level that it can capture an electron traveling at near c and instantly cause it to orbit. Either way it's a mighty fine trick and either scenario would require more energy than currently postulated for such occurrences. Yet you have no problem with free electrons siting still in a wire merely vibrating back and forth or slowly drifting along the wire, why aren't they traveling at near c as well? And if they are vibrating at near c then how much energy do you suppose it takes to change their direction each millionth of a nanosecond or whatever the time scale is?? All of your solutions cause more problems for each solution they are meant to solve and always will untill you give up on the false notion of c.

[seasmith]

bluesky redsun

[quote]mharrat wrote:
I think of experiments where they set ferromagnetic fluid in a varying magnetic field, or a dish of non-Newtonian fluid on a speaker emitting high-frequency sound, and this calls to my mind how a subatomic particle (or subnuclear particle?) might pick up 'static vibrations' and become a geodesic form of greater size, or greater 'mass'.

[/quote]

With a filled globe, or equivalent set up, like it.

webolife wrote:
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.

Having just named 3 of the quadratic (penultimate) progression-phases of AC , why not take a next logical step and name the fourth aetheric pressure ? Experiments with polarizations of light, be it wave, photonic, or helicoidal radiant pressure; such as a lasers commonly provide.
for example the whole burgeoning market of 'optic ultrasubwave harmonics channeling', toward the purpose of HF networking.

Code: Select all

Enhancing, confining, and channeling light in subwavelength structures is key to numerous applications and devices in photonics.., 

http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10. ... 107.163902

mjv wrote:
subject to charge emission from another { electron} tips it face on or edge on the the emission...

i would posit, for sake of discussion, they are "face or edge' of electric phases.




With trajectory, that is the four dimensional AC circuit, which would make polarization the fifth, and (subharmonic) generational component.
We can't have light without source, can we ?


wikimage of no beginning and no end

~

[mjv1121]

sjw,

Do we or do we not calculate orbital manoeuvres by the instantaneous speed of gravity???

No. This appears to be a common misconception hereabouts. There is no time element to Newtonian gravity, so in that respect you might say either that it would appear that a gravitational field is permanently in place or that gravity acts constantly. You are introducing an additional non-implied conclusion it you say that gravity acts instantaneously.

At some point during their formation they were accelerated to c, that or the E/M force is so strong at the subatomic level that it can capture an electron travelling at near c and instantly cause it to orbit. Either way it's a mighty fine trick and either scenario would require more energy than currently postulated for such occurrences. Yet you have no problem with free electrons sitting still in a wire merely vibrating back and forth or slowly drifting along the wire, why aren't they travelling at near c as well? And if they are vibrating at near c then how much energy do you suppose it takes to change their direction each millionth of a nanosecond or whatever the time scale is?? All of your solutions cause more problems for each solution they are meant to solve and always will until you give up on the false notion of c.

May I say that you are becoming increasingly obsessed with electrons moving at c, but that it is only you that is suggesting that electrons often travel at that speed. It would seem then that on this subject you are arguing against yourself. (A word of warning: don't argue with that guy, you appear to be losing the argument.)

Michael

[mjv1121]

Mike H (mharratsc),

I realise that many of these words have several subtly different contextual meanings, "electricity" being a prime example.

What I mean by "charge" is the emission of quantum particles from electrons and protons, i.e. what is usually referred to as "electrostatic charge". The alignment of free electrons is then the cause of the effects we refer to as electromagnetic fields and electricity.

I am struggling with the concept of "static vibration".

'Static' is energy held within an atomic lattice that does no work.

Energy is 1/2mv^2, a mathematical concept, a number that quantifies how much work a body could potentially do. Energy does not do work, a body does work.

It might actually define 'mass', for that matter.

OK, I presume you're suggesting mass as an emergent property in some way. Not sure how that gets defined or described as a "static vibration".

'Dynamic' would be vibration that does work, travels longitudinally or coherently, perhaps?

My original point to was how does this vibration work? By vibration I am assuming that you mean some form of oscillation, so what physical mechanism causes and maintains this "vibration"?.

If this were so, it might explain how neutrinos would acquire 'energy' and become atoms. I'm having trouble with how 'inertia' plays into all of this. Possibly frequency and amplitude might correspond to electromagnetic emissions vs inertial travel, I don't know. :\

Inertia is the resistance to a body moving through the quantum vacuum. Whilst moving at a uniform rate in a straight line the collisional effects of the field are constant. A change of velocity or direction results in a momentary readjustment of those collisional effects of the field - we identify this a inertia. Standing on Earth we are subject to a certain amount of collisions from the field. If you move upwards or sideways you are changing that collisional balance and so experience inertia. If you free fall (ignoring atmospheric effects) there is no change in the collisional balance you experience from the field, hence no inertia. If you attempt to steer in free fall, inertia reappears. If you accelerate downwards through a gravity well at a rate faster than the local gravitational effect you will again encounter inertia.

Michael

[mjv1121]

seasmith,

Are you suggesting that electrical effects and caused by electrical effects?

polcls.gif (8.44 KiB) Viewed 8723 times

I wonder, are you aware that these electromagnetic wave forms do not exist in reality?

The entire notion of electromagnetic waves is beyond the pale of serious logical consideration.

Michael

[mjv1121]

Sparky,

mjv: The electrons associated with the spark are not jumping out of the wire and travelling through the air.

Michael, of course they are. How else would EDM work?
You can measure current in the electrode and it will equal the sum of the currents in the anode and whatever other elements will attract electrons. A tv picture tube is lit by electrons striking the screen.
Lighting is a whole bunch of electrons burning through whatever they hit. Are you saying that "virtual" electrons jump the gaps?

It is not electrons jumping lemming like out of the wire - it is a continuation of the alignment of electrons. Free on the solid atomic matrix of the copper, free electrons can be more easily accelerated, i.e. there is less "resistance" to motion.

EDM is not an electron gun, it is an electricity gun. In a lightning bolt, the electrons at cloud level are not the electrons that strike the ground. And what precisely are these electron projectiles "burning" through? Sheets of metal perhaps, and what is the metal made of? It is made of atoms - a nucleus and electrons. You are confusing process with effect. The overall effect is as observed, but the subatomic process is markedly different.

to me current is just that, a flow

Stop that, stop it now. This is not water in a river. There is no "current" flowing like electrical lava down the length of the wire. The circuit aligns the electrons at all points along the wire, so the "electricity" is happening, is available, at all points along the wire. A natural plasma discharge is not a circuit. It is an event that goes from A to B : initiated at A and ending at B.

"Static" electricity is not static. Electrostatic charge is not static. Charge is emitted by electrons at c, the variation in electromagnetic effects/phenomena is due the what the electrons are doing.

Michael

[Sparky]

mjv,

You are confusing process with effect. The overall effect is as observed, but the subatomic process is markedly different.-------There is no "current" flowing like electrical lava down the length of the wire.----In a lightning bolt, the electrons at cloud level are not the electrons that strike the ground-----free electrons can be more easily accelerated, i.e. there is less "resistance" to motion.

too cryptic for me....."there is no current flowing", a discharge is not electron flow, but then , "free electrons can be more easily accelerated".!...well, thinking of current as a flow and voltage as pressure works in real life....what is really happening may very well be a different process...are electrons moving as a current or not?

you did not address the example of a vacuum tube, with measurable currents at the cathode and anode + other elements that attract electrons are the same....what is being measured?
If it is a crt, i was told that the electrons striking the screen/anode
produce light. are electrons striking the screen ?

[seasmith]

I wonder, are you aware that these electromagnetic wave forms do not exist in reality?

The entire notion of electromagnetic waves is beyond the pale of serious logical consideration.

Michael

The same electrical effects could could be diagramed with particles instead of waveforms. They would both be wrong.
As i've explained several times now, wave and particle are merely constructed artifacts to help us visualize and measure what are essentially holographic and infinitely fractal functions.
The (artificial) diagrams are just cartoons of the motions. Hopefully one may extrapolate a sense of the process from the picture.

Are you suggesting that electrical effects and caused by electrical effects?
mjv

I'm suggesting a lexicon of phase and polarity which scales^up the observed phases of common Electro-Magnetic effects,
to proposed light, gravity, matter and aetheric phases of 'Electricity', as per your original question.

And, in accord with the Platonic model, i am trying to introduce the essential Generating principal, which your despised diagrams, and everyone else just seem to want to fluff over.

Some things in the world just are not simple black and white, hence we speak of phase ...
also of 'local and galactic polarities' .

Electric as in Universe
~

[mjv1121]

Sparky,

Remove entirely from your mind any idea that electric current is a physical flow of matter. However, in a plasma, not only does the "electricity" travel (i.e. the alignment of electrons), but the electrons themselves can also travel through space, although not as fast a the electricity. So, no the movement of the electrons is not the current.

In a cathode ray tube, electrons are "fired" at a fluorescent screen and the screen produces the light.

Michael

[Sparky]

mjv,

Remove entirely from your mind any idea that electric current is a physical flow of matter.

then explain why a resistor reduces current ?

If alignment of electrons was all that was going on, a resistor would make no difference to that action. It would just be a bump in the road.

[mjv1121]

Sparky,

I would presume that a resistor disrupts the electron alignment process.

Michael

[Sparky]

I=E/R whether R= the sum of 100 resistors or one resistor.

If alignment of electrons was disrupted once, why would it be equal to 100 disruptions by producing the same current? after all, one disruption is pretty much the same as any other would be, if there is no current to calculate the voltage drop per resistor.

wouldn't 100 disruptions produce an equal number of discreet magnetic fields?

btw, to break a habit, the easiest way is to replace that habit with something else...so, give me something more than 'aligned electrons" as current.