Does Space Insulate or Conduct?

[upriver]

Brant, how do you suppose that electrons moving back and forth in AC transfer energy? And how can photons have no mass if they have effects on matter? If they can move electrons, they must have mass.

Electrons moving back and forth transfer energy by bucket brigade which is different than the electron or the mass doing the work. Kinetic energy has no polarity and may be transferred from particle to particle. Charge doesnt do the work, it never changes. The only thing that changes about an electron is spin or momentum.

Its not the mass that moves the electron, its the kinetic energy. Photons are carriers of kinetic energy but that doesnt mean they have to have mass. As I have said before I think there is massless energy in the form of kinetic energy.

Brant

[upriver]

Still the essential question remains: do charged particles drift faster in less dense matter (i.e., do "space currents" encounter less resistance in thinner plasmas), or do "space currents" require a conductor in order to flow at all? When phrased in terms of charged particle drift, this is easy to answer: the longer the mean free path, the faster the traversal, since particles lose time in collisions with other particles. The implication is that "space currents" should prefer thinner plasmas, and avoid extremely dense aggregates, such as stars.

The reason for all of the philosophical obfuscation here is that these people don't like that implication -- it invalidates the galactic current model of stars. So instead of considering other EM alternatives, they'd prefer to debate whether or not 0 is a quantity, and whether nothingness is somethingness, on a thread about the conductivity of free space.

Particles move through area of less matter better. However in the real world you still have impedance to deal with so I suspect it not just a linear density vs conductivity relationship.

[CharlesChandler]

Particles move through area of less matter better. However in the real world you still have impedance to deal with so I suspect it not just a linear density vs conductivity relationship.

Right -- it IS more complicated than that. There are thresholds, depending on the electron temperature, for one thing. The dark, glow, and arc regimes are distinctly different. So it's the inertia of the charged particle, and the electric field, and the mean free path, minus the time lost to particle collisions, where that time isn't always the same number. An insulator is a medium with atoms that have a high binding energy, because of where they are on the periodic table, and because of their temperature. A conductor has a low binding energy. So yes, it's complicated... But yes, all other factors being the same, the greater the mean free path, the faster the particle speed.

[Sparky]

As I have said before I think there is massless energy in the form of kinetic energy.

You're trying to confuse me, right?

[upriver]

Particles move through area of less matter better. However in the real world you still have impedance to deal with so I suspect it not just a linear density vs conductivity relationship.

Right -- it IS more complicated than that. There are thresholds, depending on the electron temperature, for one thing. The dark, glow, and arc regimes are distinctly different. So it's the inertia of the charged particle, and the electric field, and the mean free path, minus the time lost to particle collisions, where that time isn't always the same number. An insulator is a medium with atoms that have a high binding energy, because of where they are on the periodic table, and because of their temperature. A conductor has a low binding energy. So yes, it's complicated... But yes, all other factors being the same, the greater the mean free path, the faster the particle speed.

Ok. I'll go with that. Its a well qualified answer. So space where there is the absence of matter promotes the movement of matter which by proxy, when charged, we call electricity.

So by the definition of electricity as "moving (kinetically elevated) charged matter", space/vacuum is a conductor.
It could be considered a superconductor.

So how does this match up with what is known as a "superconductor"? Why does a superconductor work?
I think its not because electrons move easily through dense matter but because kinetic energy is more easily transferred.
Cold would promote that state because the particles would more closely have the same wavefunction i.e approaching a Bose-Einstein state.

Brant

[Sparky]

Brant:

So how does this match up with what is known as a "superconductor"? Why does a superconductor work?
I think its not because electrons move easily through dense matter but because kinetic energy is more easily transferred.
Cold would promote that state because the particles would more closely have the same wavefunction i.e approaching a Bose-Einstein state.

Easy, big guy! You are going off on a dead end tangent.

Where is documentation of kinetic energy upon electrons? And how did we get a Bose-Einstein state?

"This means that, unlike the more familiar conductors such as copper or steel, a superconductor can carry a current indefinitely without losing any energy.:"------

A superconductor is a material that can conduct electricity or transport electrons from one atom to another with no resistance. This means no heat, sound or any other form of energy would be released from the material when it has reached "critical temperature" (Tc), or the temperature at which the material becomes superconductive. Unfortunately, most materials must be in an extremely low energy state (very cold) in order to become superconductive. Research is underway to develop compounds that become superconductive at higher temperatures. Currently, an excessive amount of energy must be used in the cooling process making superconductors inefficient and uneconomical.

[upriver]

Brant:

So how does this match up with what is known as a "superconductor"? Why does a superconductor work?
I think its not because electrons move easily through dense matter but because kinetic energy is more easily transferred.
Cold would promote that state because the particles would more closely have the same wavefunction i.e approaching a Bose-Einstein state.

Easy, big guy! You are going off on a dead end tangent.

Where is documentation of kinetic energy upon electrons? And how did we get a Bose-Einstein state?

What would you call the energy that is imparted to an electron that causes it to move? That gives mass momentum?

"This means that, unlike the more familiar conductors such as copper or steel, a superconductor can carry a current indefinitely without losing any energy.:"------

A superconductor is a material that can conduct electricity or transport electrons from one atom to another with no resistance. This means no heat, sound or any other form of energy would be released from the material when it has reached "critical temperature" (Tc), or the temperature at which the material becomes superconductive. Unfortunately, most materials must be in an extremely low energy state (very cold) in order to become superconductive. Research is underway to develop compounds that become superconductive at higher temperatures. Currently, an excessive amount of energy must be used in the cooling process making superconductors inefficient and uneconomical.

Electricity is the movement of electrons but its the energy of motion that does the work. Kinetic energy is the variable. Charge doesnt change neither does mass. Spin stays the same under most conditions that we call electricity. We measure electrical energy in electron volts which is a unit of distance(motion).
I dont think that space and dense matter can have the same properties of zero resistance to matter. So if it is kinetic energy that is that energy that does the work, then if matter was in a state closer to a BE like a supercooled superconductor, then it would be easier to transfer this kinetic energy because the electrons are in a similar energy state. It takes energy to move an electron out of an atomic orbit, its cheaper if the free electrons interact with themselves instead of jumping in and out of orbit.
It similar to the Resonating_valence_bond_theory but it doesnt involve atoms, it says that electrons only form resonating bonds. However if the valence bond theory is correct all all the atoms link up, it not electrons moving its kinetic energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonating ... ond_theory

[CharlesChandler]

So how does this match up with what is known as a "superconductor"?

I always use the simplest possible model for starters, and only if that doesn't suffice do I look elsewhere. The Bohr model is just such a simple model, so how would that explain superconductivity? One thought is that conductivity in a supercooled metal is just like any other conductivity, but it has the benefit of a very regular crystal lattice. At any temperature above absolute zero, atoms are bouncing around within the limits of the covalent bonds. So imagine an electron skipping from atom to atom. If those atoms are in semi-random positions, the electron has a bumpy road to ride, dipping into valleys and then crashing into hillsides as it attempts to skim along the surfaces of the atoms. But if all of the atoms are perfectly lined up, as we would expect in a perfect crystal at a very low temperature, the electron nicks each atom, but never dips into any valleys nor crashes into any hillsides. As such, its velocity can be much higher.

If this is correct, we could predict which substances would make the best superconductors. They would have to be capable of being formed into perfect crystals, where the molecular structure is exactly the same all of the way down the surface. (This assumes that electrons travel along the surface of the conductor, not through the body of it.) A cleaved surface would work better than a machined one, since cleaving follows the molecular structure, while machining does not. And it would have to be a heavy element, where the outer electrons are loosely bound. So how 'bout we form a perfect crystal, by melting some metal and then allowing it to cool really slowly, and we supply a magnetic field to get everything lined up perfectly. Once the crystal lattice is set, we cool it down until it becomes brittle, and we smack it with a hammer to break it into cleaved surfaces. Then we pick one of those surfaces, and attach electrodes to it, to see what kind of conductivity we get.

Does anybody know if these predictions are consistent with what is actually known about superconductors?

[moonkoon]

The current thinking on superconductivity is embodied in BCS theory which holds that the phenomenon is related to the formation of Cooper pairs of electrons which condense to a superfluid "boson-like" (force carrying) phase where they can all occupy the same (low energy) quantum state. And if I understand the thinking correctly, these force carriers interact with the vibrational motion (phonon) of the atomic lattice. But it is a field in flux, so to speak , and new reseach is sometimes at odds with the current thinking.

One of the interesting anomalies is the isotope related variation of the super conductivity point for some elements. Isotope properties are neutron related, as opposed to element properties which are proton related or ions which are electron related.

Different isotope superconductivity temperatures suggest to me that superconductivity (and maybe conductivity) is not just electron related, but includes some resonance activity of the nucleus or maybe the atom as a whole.

Could it be that superconductivity, conductivity and insulation involve three different states for the electron or the atom as a whole?

[moonkoon]

Some discussion on the Isotope Effect.

Isotope Effect, Mercury
If electrical conduction in mercury were purely electronic, there should be no dependence upon the nuclear masses. This dependence of the critical temperature for superconductivity upon isotopic mass was the first direct evidence for interaction between the electrons and the lattice. This supported the BCS theory of lattice coupling of electron pairs.

It is quite remarkable that an electrical phenomenon like the transition to zero resistivity should involve a purely mechanical property of the lattice. Since a change in the critical temperature involves a change in the energy environment associated with the superconducting transition, this suggests that part of the energy is being used to move the atoms of the lattice since the energy depends upon the mass of the lattice. This indicates that lattice vibrations are a part of the superconducting process. This was an important clue in the process of developing the BCS theory because it suggested lattice coupling, and in the quantum treatment suggested that phonons were involved.

[Sparky]

[quoteWhat would you call the energy that is imparted to an electron that causes it to move? That gives mass momentum? ----------------its cheaper if the free electrons interact with themselves instead of jumping in and out of orbit.[/quote]

The electric force, not proven to be kinetic, precedes the electrons as they move through the lattice. transferring energy as they go. Only free or loosely bonded electrons will do this. An electron, entering an atom will give up it's electrical energy, becoming part of the atoms' structure.

Electricity is the movement of electrons but its the energy of motion that does the work.

Yes, electrical energy is converted into mechanical movement. The electrons act as transducers to supply a flow of electricity. They facilitate the electrical energy , in the vacuum energy, to appear and operate in the observable state.

[upriver]

What would you call the energy that is imparted to an electron that causes it to move? That gives mass momentum? ----------------its cheaper if the free electrons interact with themselves instead of jumping in and out of orbit.

The electric force, not proven to be kinetic, precedes the electrons as they move through the lattice. transferring energy as they go. Only free or loosely bonded electrons will do this. An electron, entering an atom will give up it's electrical energy, becoming part of the atoms' structure.

Electricity is the movement of electrons but its the energy of motion that does the work.

Yes, electrical energy is converted into mechanical movement. The electrons act as transducers to supply a flow of electricity. They facilitate the electrical energy , in the vacuum energy, to appear and operate in the observable state.

Yep, the electric field imparts energy to the electron to move it. That is kinetic energy. This is different than charge. What you call "electrical energy" is a combination of parameters than can be broken down into individual properties.

[Sparky]

Yep, the electric field imparts energy to the electron to move it. That is kinetic energy. This is different than charge. What you call "electrical energy" is a combination of parameters than can be broken down into individual properties.

I am lost... """Kinetic energy is energy possessed by an object in motion. """
By that, I must see electrical energy as different, more like charge.

""--broken down into individual properties--"" Yes, because of need to incorporate each into math. But they are all part of the energy that supplies all of creation. We use the characteristics of one to get the other, but understanding the definition of one does not give us the same definition for the other. Manipulation of "electric forces" is to elevate one property for our use.

But, the translation of electrical energy from the unseen to the seen and usable, is to bring forth all aspects of electricity as energy, to be measured, as decided by our instrumentation.

We do not really understand what it is, whether current, voltage, magnetic field , or electric field. We understand definitions, and how to manipulate each, but what is it, other than energy.?

[upriver]

Yep, the electric field imparts energy to the electron to move it. That is kinetic energy. This is different than charge. What you call "electrical energy" is a combination of parameters than can be broken down into individual properties.

I am lost... """Kinetic energy is energy possessed by an object in motion. """
By that, I must see electrical energy as different, more like charge.

""--broken down into individual properties--"" Yes, because of need to incorporate each into math. But they are all part of the energy that supplies all of creation. We use the characteristics of one to get the other, but understanding the definition of one does not give us the same definition for the other. Manipulation of "electric forces" is to elevate one property for our use.

But, the translation of electrical energy from the unseen to the seen and usable, is to bring forth all aspects of electricity as energy, to be measured, as decided by our instrumentation.

We do not really understand what it is, whether current, voltage, magnetic field , or electric field. We understand definitions, and how to manipulate each, but what is it, other than energy.?

An electron has charge, spin(See Stern–Gerlach experiment), mass and momentum(velocity).

Charge I like to think of like a rubber layer around the electron. When electrons interact they repel. The charge doesnt lose energy but the electron gains kinetic energy. Standard theory says virtual photons are responsible for accelerating the electrons by interacting with the electric field of the charge. I say its kinetic energy from the background of the universe.
Electron mass doesnt change so its not a variable from 0 to lightspeed like electron velocity. Electron velocity is is measured in voltage or electron volts and come from an applied electric field. Mass is intrinsic to an electron.

Here is the important part. Kinetic energy comes from outside the electron. It is not a part of the electron.
Yet when you look at how work is done it is all kinetic energy that does the work like in a light bulb filament.
Kinetic energy is something that is passed between particles and photons. And its given to particles from the background of the universe under the right conditions of charge and electric field.

The reason why we call it electricity is because it is a moving system of charged particles. Kinetic energy does the work of collisions, ionizing and knocking photons loose. The charge just keeps things in order, electrons in the wire and properly separated..Charge is part of the electron and kinetic energy is not.

The interesting thing is that magnetic fields dont appear until you add kinetic energy to a charge in the case of EM.

Thats why I say this composite of properties(motion and charge) that we call electricity, is powered by kinetic energy, the energy of motion. We use electricity to transfer kinetic energy.

[Sparky]

Charge is part of the electron and kinetic energy is not.

The interesting thing is that magnetic fields dont appear until you add kinetic energy to a charge in the case of EM.

Yes, that is true...

Still having difficulty with your understanding of "kinetic" energy.

If an electron is mass, then my understanding of "kinetic" energy is that it requires mass and that mass be moving.

What understanding of a permanent magnet do you hold? What is the magnetic field?
From what we have evolved to, there must be mass, moving.?