Electrons - when they move from Atom to Atom - where do they end up?

[pfalcon]

This is incredible. You are thinking mass=matter. ...

If we consider the mass to include the energy, the energy adds to the mass of ...

'Mass' is not a thing in itself. It is a property of matter and do not confuse mass with matter. ...

Mivey knows he and I disagree enough
But since the typical accepted definition of Matter is "Anything that has mass" I'm not sure where making a distinction helps the subject under discussion.

Further most discussions of bosuns et al conclude that photons are energy with no mass; but general theory says without mass light can't fall into a black hole - yet it does.
Hence the whole particle/wave/energy/mass theoretical debate where:
Light is both particle and wave; And energy does and does not have mass.

In Mivey's quote above where Mass < Mass + Energy most equations presume that if energy has mass it's insignificant to their equation therefore the mass due to energy approaches zero and can be ignored.
So I have to agree with Mivey, if you want to debate whether Mass==Matter is correct then I think you have to define which system of mass equations you want to use.
Otherwise I think we need to agree that Matter is a term to express Mass without using units.

 

[pfalcon]

There appears to be a posting glitch. When the post went to page 19 it was unavailable to view.

 

[T.M.Haja Sahib]

Where did I promise that? IIRC, you were looking for the equation for the axial electric field in a non-ideal conductor and I promised to help you if you could not do it on your own. Since you could not, I provided that equation: E=V/L.

I wanted to have the equation in case of ideal conductors.

In an ideal conductor, the axially-directed electric field, which is external to the conductor surface, crossed with the magnetic field encircling the conductor gives the energy vector flowing towards the load.

You please derive the equation that the cross product of electric field owing to surface charges of the ideal conductor and magnetic flux density is equal to the energy vector flowing towards the load.

Even the authors of the disputed paper simply assumed it for the resistance of the circuit discussed in the paper, which I object.

That is the crux of the matter.

 

[T.M.Haja Sahib]

But since the typical accepted definition of Matter is "Anything that has mass" I'm not sure where making a distinction helps the subject under discussion.
Further most discussions of bosuns et al conclude that photons are energy with no mass; but general theory says without mass light can't fall into a black hole - yet it does.
Hence the whole particle/wave/energy/mass theoretical debate where:
Light is both particle and wave; And energy does and does not have mass.

In Mivey's quote above where Mass < Mass + Energy most equations presume that if energy has mass it's insignificant to their equation therefore the mass due to energy approaches zero and can be ignored.
So I have to agree with Mivey, if you want to debate whether Mass==Matter is correct then I think you have to define which system of mass equations you want to use.
Otherwise I think we need to agree that Matter is a term to express Mass without using units.

Mass, energy are properties of matter and they have no separate existence apart from matter. An electron is matter and its mass, potential energy etc can not be dissociated from it.

But mivey seems to assert as if it could be done.

 

[mivey]

In an ideal conductor, the axially-directed electric field, which is external to the conductor surface, crossed with the magnetic field encircling the conductor gives the energy vector flowing towards the load.

Pardon the typo. That should have said the radially-directed electric field (the field between the conductors).

In previous posts, I've already discussed that the axially-directed field (the electric field along the conductor) goes to zero in an ideal conductor. With no resistance there is no voltage drop along the ideal conductor.

 

[mivey]

I wanted to have the equation in case of ideal conductors.

In the ideal conductor, there is no voltage drop along the conductor so the electric field is all radially directed (i.e. between the two conductors). You use the same equation but since the axial component (voltage drop) is zero you have E/L = 0/L = 0.

You please derive the equation that the cross product of electric field owing to surface charges of the ideal conductor and magnetic flux density is equal to the energy vector flowing towards the load.

Even the authors of the disputed paper simply assumed it for the resistance of the circuit discussed in the paper, which I object.

That is the crux of the matter.

This is derived in several of the referenced papers and texts. I see no value in my repeating it. If you are interested enough to debate the material, then read it. I am simply not going to re-write a complete text for you.

If you want a detailed coverage, I suggest the book available from the IEEE Press: "Power Definitions and the Physical Mechanism of Power Flow" by Emanuel.

About $53US : http://www.amazon.com/Power-Definitions-Physical-Mechanism-Wiley/dp/0470660740

 

[mivey]

In the ideal conductor, there is no voltage drop along the conductor so the electric field is all radially directed (i.e. between the two conductors). You use the same equation but since the axial component (voltage drop) is zero you have E/L = 0/L = 0.

The equation should have read E = V/L = 0/L = 0

 

[T.M.Haja Sahib]

This is derived in several of the referenced papers and texts. http://www.amazon.com/Power-Definitions-Physical-Mechanism-Wiley/dp/0470660740

Come on, mivey. If you give even a few key lines in the derivation, we may be able pick up the nature and validity of the deivation.

 

[mivey]

To review prior posts: Since the axial component of the electric field is zero in the ideal conductor, the energy vector into the conductor is zero (no losses). The remaining radial component of the electric field, crossed with the magnetic field, gives the energy vector directed towards the load.

For non-ideal conductors, there is a small axial electric field component (proportional to the voltage drop) that is proportional to the energy lost in the conductor (the resistive losses).

The radial component of the electric field inside the conductor is a net zero because the applied field from the battery is offset by the electric field from the metal polarization. Thus, the non-zero radial component of the electric field is between the two conductor surfaces (where the energy travels).

The fact that the energy travels between the conductors is verified by the fact that the energy propagation speed is affected mostly by the geometry between the conductors and the material between the conductors.

 

[mivey]

Come on, mivey. If you give even a few key lines in the derivation, we may be able pick up the nature and validity of the deivation.

I doubt it since it has eluded you so far.

Add:
Besides, the derivation has been validated by physics and engineering societies including IEEE. The only thing that remains is for you to learn.

 

[T.M.Haja Sahib]

To review prior posts: Since the axial component of the electric field is zero in the ideal conductor, the energy vector into the conductor is zero (no losses). The remaining radial component of the electric field, crossed with the magnetic field, gives the energy vector directed towards the load.

For non-ideal conductors, there is a small axial electric field component (proportional to the voltage drop) that is proportional to the energy lost in the conductor (the resistive losses).

The radial component of the electric field inside the conductor is a net zero because the applied field from the battery is offset by the electric field from the metal polarization. Thus, the non-zero radial component of the electric field is between the two conductor surfaces (where the energy travels).

The fact that the energy travels between the conductors is verified by the fact that the energy propagation speed is affected mostly by the geometry between the conductors and the material between the conductors.

There is one difficulty here.
It takes around 8 minutes for light from the surface of the sun to reach the earth. So if the sun were to vanish at any moment, the earth would continue to receive light for 8 minutes, as if the sun is still there.
Similarly, if the D.C source is switched off, any suitable incandescent bulb should continue to glow for specific period during switching off, because energy flow started from the D.C source was still there for that specific period.
But it is hard to verify this, IMO.
Due to presence of inductance in the circuit, the bulb could glow for some time during circuit interruption.
But when inductance is practically absent in a circuit, the energy flow outside the conductors should still continue by conserable sparking across the switch contacts. But so far there is no report of considerable sparking across switch contacts in practically no inductance circuits. So the light in the bulb might go out almost in the same instant it is switched off in practically no inductance DC circuits and so there should be no energy flow outside the conductors similar to the light energy travel from the sun to the earth.

 

[iwire]

I am glad my life does not depend on the resolution of this thread.

 

[pfalcon]

Mass, energy are properties of matter and they have no separate existence apart from matter. An electron is matter and its mass, potential energy etc can not be dissociated from it.

But mivey seems to assert as if it could be done.

Well, first of all, I'm not aware of any physicist that claims energy is a property of matter. Rather I'm aware of several, Einstein being one, that believed that matter is a state of energy.

Second, there are a number of physicists that believe that mass is a function of local energy density with matter just being a concentrated source of that energy. So although for most purposes the definition of matter is accepted as "anything that has mass" there are several physicists working on the presumption that energy causes mass therefore there is mass without matter. Again it depends on which theoretical physics frame you pick.

The Poynting Vector is a work-energy equation that neglects non-work energy. It arrives at impossible answers when approaching ideal conditions. It leads to strange theories of physics when extrapolated. Those theories can only be falsified when testing ideal conditions and those conditions don't exist in a testable state at present. Therefore the theories can't actually be refuted; we can only disagree with the conclusions.

I agree the Poynting Vector equations work. But as pointed out by Einstein et al, most of our equations for physics are after the fact, ie they describe what we see after it occurs. The holy grail for physics is to find the equations that are predictive. They will work in all cases not just those we can test.

A case in point are the equations that predict black holes. There are corresponding equations for electromagnetism based on the same assertions. Both sets of equations predict singularities. However we can test for electromagnetic singularities. We have. And we've found they don't exist. But we can't test for gravity singularities. And there are a large number of physicists who still insist that gravity singularities exist. This even though they're based on the same premise as EM that was disproved.

 

[T.M.Haja Sahib]

Well, first of all, I'm not aware of any physicist that claims energy is a property of matter. Rather I'm aware of several, Einstein being one, that believed that matter is a state of energy.

Second, there are a number of physicists that believe that mass is a function of local energy density with matter just being a concentrated source of that energy. So although for most purposes the definition of matter is accepted as "anything that has mass" there are several physicists working on the presumption that energy causes mass therefore there is mass without matter. Again it depends on which theoretical physics frame you pick.

I think you did not take into account the group of physicists from the erstwhile Soviet Union and their dialectical materialism. In fact the issue here goes to Philosophy.

 

[ggunn]

I am glad my life does not depend on the resolution of this thread.

Ain't that the truth. It seems kinda pointless to me to argue over the unknowable.

 

[pfalcon]

I am glad my life does not depend on the resolution of this thread.

Which is good because:

Ain't that the truth. It seems kinda pointless to me to argue over the unknowable.

there t'ain't no resolution to be had over the unknowable. Discuss? Fun! :happyyes: Argue? Pointless. :dunce: Agree? Impossible. :slaphead:

 

[__dan]

Ain't that the truth. It seems kinda pointless to me to argue over the unknowable.

It's an arguement, 'is it knowable'.

http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/theory/TheoryPresentationPt1.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Antig...-Technology/dp/159143078X/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0967323819/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8

 

[ggunn]

It's an arguement, 'is it knowable'.

http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/theory/TheoryPresentationPt1.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Antig...-Technology/dp/159143078X/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0967323819/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8

That's some funny stuff right there. You know, the ahl bidness has been suppressing technology that would let us fill up our pickem up trucks off our water hoses and get 100 miles to the gallon for over 50 years. Dang it!

 

[T.M.Haja Sahib]

Your way of life decides to which camp of philosophy you belong: materialism or idealism. People who think mass, energy, soul etc., are properties of matter belong to materialistic camp. On the other hand, people who think energy, mass, soul., have independent existence and matter is derived from them belong to idealistic camp.

Anyway, the declaration of iwire

I am glad my life does not depend on the resolution of this thread.

may be wrong. Who knows, his life pattern and even his after life condition may change depending
on the resolution of this thread. :lol: