ggunn
PE (Electrical), NABCEP certified
- Location
- Austin, TX, USA
- Occupation
- Consulting Electrical Engineer - Photovoltaic Systems
'Ey! Come back! Don't you want to 'aggle??Any points of clarification you would like to discuss?
'Ey! Come back! Don't you want to 'aggle??Any points of clarification you would like to discuss?
If you want to discuss physics and electrical theories that are no main-stream, I would require reference material to grasp the framework.
I think we have about covered it also.
I had fun as well but I'm sure there will be more fun to be had on other topics. Later.
Probably should open a new thread for it. Let me know if I miss it.Any points of clarification you would like to discuss?
You could list the references. It might be one I would want to aquire or I might have it.A lot of the stuff I'd like to quote is locked behind copyright models like the Feynman lectures.
Do you mean that the change in mass of an electron consistent with the Einstein's equation can not happen at the speed of light?Can't be so because the energy propagates faster than the electron.
If we consider the mass to include the energy, the energy adds to the mass of the system as a whole and there will be an increase in the mass outside the surface of the conductor.Do you mean that the change in mass of an electron consistent with the Einstein's equation can not happen at the speed of light?
If you say yes, you must be wrong.
'Mass' is not a thing in itself. It is a property of matter and do not confuse mass with matter.If we consider the mass to include the energy, the energy adds to the mass of the system as a whole and there will be an increase in the mass outside the surface of the conductor.
Free electrons are everywhere inside the conductor. The energy flows as change (at the speed of light) in the mass of the free electrons during conduction of an electric current i.e the energy flow is tied to the free electrons constituting the electric current.But if you want to say the energy flowing to the load belongs to the electron alone, it does not change the fact that this energy to the load flows on the outside of the conductor.
Matter and field are two different things. They are not same. The increase in potential energy due to my climbing stairs does not exist independently of me. It is with me wherever I go. Same is true even for sub-atomic particles.Consider what happens as you climb stairs. The potential energy of the gravitational system increases. Since gravity is a distortion of space-time, you could say that the energy is stored in the space-time field and not within your cellular structure.
I'm pretty sure that electricity flows in a conductor at a velocity somewhat less than the speed of light in a vacuum.Free electrons are everywhere inside the conductor. The energy flows as change (at the speed of light) in the mass of the free electrons during conduction of an electric current i.e the energy flow is tied to the free electrons constituting the electric current.
I'm pretty sure that electricity flows in a conductor at a velocity somewhat less than the speed of light in a vacuum.
But what about the effect of the electricity? I have text somewhere that says that although the electrons flow at a speed slower than light, the effect of the flow can be instantaneous.
IOW, you could have a light a light year away from a switch and the light would illuminate as soon as you turned on the switch, you wouldn't have to wait a year or more for that to happen.
IIRC, the energy flows around 70% the speed of light. The propagation speed is a function of the geometry between the conductors and what material is between the conductors.I believe that is something like 2/3 to 3/4 the speed of light. I'd google it up but I am too lazy and/or busy.
Correct. At best we would have to wait a year but probably slightly longer.As to your example, you would indeed have to wait at least a year; nothing is truly instantaneous.
Don't confuse yourself:'Mass' is not a thing in itself. It is a property of matter and do not confuse mass with matter.
Do you mean that the change in mass of an electron consistent with the Einstein's equation
According to the article in the newspaper last week, about the Higgs Boson: "Mass" may well be thing unto it's self.'Mass' is not a thing in itself. It is a property of matter and do not confuse mass with matter. ...
According to the article in the newspaper last week, about the Higgs Boson: "Mass" may well be thing unto it's self.
We all know the news media:angel: would never mis-represent or mis-quote.
ice
Kind of sorta depending on how picky you want to be. Send a photon into a volume sphere and that sphere will experience an increase in equivalent mass because of the mass-energy equivalence. That is not technically perfect, but close enough. I have a physics paper somewhere that gets the terminology technically and pickily correct if it is important.That's kind of how it looks.....particles that have bosons, like protons and electrons have mass, and particles that do not, like photons, don't.
Did I get that correct? I may not be older than quantum physics, but I am older than the first high school text books that covered it.
I don't know. I've subscribed to Scientific American for maybe 40 years. After throwing out all of the left wing kitty-cat articles, I can read and sort of understand maybe half of the rest. Particle physics, quantum mechanics, is way beyond my ken.:dunce: The first I recall of hearing about "up, down, charm, strange, top, bottom" was maybe while I was in college, in the early 70s.That's kind of how it looks.....particles that have bosons, like protons and electrons have mass, and particles that do not, like photons, don't.
Did I get that correct? I may not be older than quantum physics, but I am older than the first high school text books that covered it.
Don't confuse yourself:
You are the one bringing up mass and the change in mass via the change in energy. I'm willing to discuss a topic if you want and we can discuss invariant mass, relativistic mass, energy mass equivalants, etc. but don't put words in my mouth just so you can have something to argue against. If you want to discuss something I have said in particular, that will be fine.This is incredible. You are thinking mass=matter.
You promised to look for an expression for the energy flow outside ideal conductors connecting a resistance in a DC circuit. So far you are not successful, I presume.If you want to discuss something I have said in particular, that will be fine.
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.You promised to look for an expression for the energy flow outside ideal conductors connecting a resistance in a DC circuit. So far you are not successful, I presume.
Just testing to see if this appears in the post list. The last post did not.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.
There is no need for me to provide the equation for the energy flow outside the ideal conductor because you already have it: the equation for the Poynting Vector, which was the basis for that whole line of discussion. 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.