speed of electrons

[ronaldrc]

Re: speed of electrons

Didn't understand your comment about Bennie?

But theres just one other person on this site that can fill Bennies shoes and its not you or myself.

Like I said my idea was just a thought since electrical flow is just theory to most of us doesn't hurt to try discuss different ideas.

Ronald

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: speed of electrons

Ronald,

Interesting,

electricity can only make heat and magnetism.

I would have said magnetism and electric field. Heat, light, motion are the result of electricity changing form to something else.

 

[physis]

Re: speed of electrons

I meant no offence to Bennie I was just razzing him a little.

 

[charlie b]

Re: speed of electrons

Originally posted by ronaldrc: I like the water analogy of electricity flowing through a pipe system better than any theory we use. No one knows the speed I don?t think.

Sure we do. Speed of light, or very nearly so, as has been mentioned before.

The problem I have with the whole mess is not the speed ,but rather the electricity really flows completely around the entire loop or circuit or not?

It does. It has to. Here?s the difference with the hose analogy: You can use a hose to carry water from you home?s pipes and throw it all over the garden. It does not have to make its way back into the pipe in order to complete the circuit. But a voltage source pushes every free electron along the entire length of the wire (even over a thousand mile transmission line) at the same instant. If there were no complete circuit, there would be no push, and therefore no current flow.

Imagine a water hose and instead of water imagine balls the same diameter as the hose lined end to end and touching and this is the particles we call electrons.

There is a problem of scale with this analogy. If you wish to compare the electrons to the balls inside the hose, then the balls would not be the same diameter as the hose. For a 1/2 inch garden hose, you would need to speak of the balls being perhaps one thousandth the size of a single grain of salt. Also, the balls would not touch, but are (on their own scale) miles apart from each other.

If you push it first ball even an 1/2 inch the last ball will move 1/2?. in other words we don?t know that the electrons make a full trip around the loop or not?

Here is another place at which the water analogy falls short. A water pump is a rotating piece of metal that pushes the water molecules through physical contact, and these molecules in turn push other molecules in line, and so it goes down the pipe. On the other hand, a voltage source imposes an electric field over the entire wire, and every free electron is pushed by that field (i.e., an electron is not pushed by a neighboring electron).

Maybe how far they move is dependent upon what the amplitude of the voltage is.

Sorry, no. The amplitude of the voltage will affect the number of electrons that, in response to the push, break free of their parent atoms and go flying down the line.

Bennie says all this energy can do is produce heat and magnetism and anyway you look at it, it is very simple we just can?t see it.

A charge creates around itself an electric field. A charge in motion creates around itself a magnetic field. A charge moving through a wire gives up some of its energy to the wire in the form of heat. We can?t see any of this happening, but we can detect it, we can verify that it is happening, and we can measure it.

 

[ronaldrc]

Re: speed of electrons

Charlie you take everything said to serious.

I intentionaly said for the ones just learning not you, to ignor what I was saying.There is enough confusion in electrical theory without reading my different ideas first they need to learn the accepted theories first.

Most people I have ever talked to admit that electrical flow is theory and we will never find the truth if we just accept the theories as they are.

I by no means think that the particles that make up electrical energy are the size of a water hose and you know that.That was said to make it visually simple to understand.

If electrical flow is not theory then point me in the right direction to litature that will prove that what you say is a fact and I will hush I Promise.

I thought of this idea just off the top of my head to make a discussion.

I no this is a code forum, sorry that is my line of work, I deal with power companies and electrical inspectors and Bldg. depts. everyday and I call that work and that is the hardest part of my job.This forum is living proof of how hard that job is.

Just ask someone on here what size conductor to use on a 15KW heater and you will get ten different opinions from 10 good electricians.

I sure don't want to do that as my pass time.

Ronald

[ May 12, 2003, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: ronaldrc ]

 

[charlie b]

Re: speed of electrons

Originally posted by ronaldrc:I by no means think that the particles that make up electrical energy are the size of a water hose and you know that. That was said to make it visually simple to understand.

I do know that; my intent was to help, not to criticize. Visualizing is a great tool to help in understanding the world around us. It is particularly helpful to visualize something with which we are familiar (like a water hose), in order to help us understand something more complex and harder to visualize (like the movement of electrons). But it does not help if we visualize something that is so far removed from the physical realities that it leads us to the wrong conclusions. If we visualize large balls moving through the hose, we will get an invalid idea of the flow of electrons. Bumping up against each other is just not how electrons move through a wire.

If electrical flow is not theory then point me in the right direction to literature that will prove that what you say is a fact

I believe that humans will never get a perfect understanding of the natural world. But if we can bypass the esoteric and philosophic level of discussion, and stick to the practical, I can say that our scientists have a very clear understanding of electrical flow. I can also say that electrical engineering students are required to have a detailed understanding of electrical flow before they can even begin their second year of studies. It?s not just theory. I first learned about it in my High School Physics class. 30+ years later, I still have the text book: ?Physics, Parts I and II,? by Halliday and Resnick. It?s now in its sixth edition, with the title ?Fundamentals of Physics.?

But if you want a reference source that describes electrical flow in simple, practical terms, and that backs up the physical descriptions that I have given in this thread, I don?t know where to send you. All the text books that I keep at my desk were written for the post-graduate level of electrical engineering studies, and are therefore not good places to begin. I can only offer the suggestion that you visit the Reference Desk at your local library. Perhaps some other member of this forum can offer a suggested reading list?

 

[bphgravity]

Re: speed of electrons

Basic modeling is the best way to describe the phenomenon of electricity and the description of an electron. However, most of the basic models are quite wrong. Much of the true mathematics and concepts are of no consequense to the electrican. As some have stated here, all we need to be concerned with is the heating and magnetic effects that we wish use or in most cases control. What is actually happening is happening beyond our control, whereas the effects of what is happening should be our true concern.

A basic understanding of the theory is sufficent. Anything above that is beyond conventional math and theory. For example, several statements were made on this forum that are really not true, but help to make a complete model of what an electron is doing.

Electrons orbit the nueclus of an atom: false
Electrons have mass: false and true
Electrons are negative: false
Electrons travel at c: false

The list goes on and on. The reality of the these statements however have the same result; the effects of what we call electricity.

This theory stuff makes the NEC read like a childs book!!!

 

[ronaldrc]

Re: speed of electrons

For the practical application of electricity our theory is more than sufficient.

But as long as we know that this is theory there will be some like myself who the hunger for the truth.

I don't really see what harm is in that?

Charlie I respect the scientific and engineering fields but without the hunger for knowledge they would never advance.


Ronald

 

[bphgravity]

Re: speed of electrons

Ronald:

I definetly do not see a problem with wanting to learn the true nature of things. I have been going to school for over 8 years now, and still dont have a degree!

I just find it funny that someone argues that someone else is wrong with nothing more than a wrong statement themselves?

 

[ronaldrc]

Re: speed of electrons

This is getting no where I didn't say anyone was wrong or right I was just trying to open a discussion up, but to heck with it.

It would be fine with me to just drop it.

I would delete this thread but everyone gets peed off when you erase thread.

Ronald

 

[bphgravity]

Re: speed of electrons

Ronald:

I was actually agreeing with your intent on your original post that got discredited right away. I personally love talking about this stuff, and actually spend as much time on another forum completely dedicated to theory and advanced science as I do with this one that is primarily application.

Nobody here would ever suggest not posting your ideas or thoughts. Feel free to do so as you wish. My only additional point is that if you get too far off topic, just start a new one.

With that in mind, I may post a new thread on electrical theroy since this particular one got so much good discussion. I hope you respond with more of your ideas!

[ May 12, 2003, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: bphgravity ]

 

[bphgravity]

Re: speed of electrons

Originally posted by jtb:
OK now. Given the fact that Positrons have less mass than Electrons, how fast can they travel, and do they leave negative holes? Which way is current defined? What about a Tachyon's minimum speed? Charge? Current? LOL

Positrons have identical mass to electrons, but exhibit +1 positive charge. Their velocities at rest and in resonance would be the same.

Tachyons are a theoretical particle thats minimum speed would be the speed of light. It is believed that these particles actually exceed c, and travel in reverse time? Tachyons have no carrier particles, so no field effect would present, except for spin gravity. Am interesting theory is that as energy is lost from a tachyon particle, it actually accelerates instead of slowing down? Quite weird stuff.

If tachyons do exist, Special Relativity is wrong. This is going to be a hard idea to stomach!!!!

 

[physis]

Re: speed of electrons

Bryan'

Wow, those things sound cool. I've never encountered a description of a tacyon befor. The association of speeds near light and time have always interesting to me. I have a question though about relativity. I agree that a tacyon going faster than light should go backwards in time but exept for going over the speed limit (even though C is rather central to the theory) isn't that what Einstein predicted?

 

[charlie b]

Re: speed of electrons

Originally posted by bphgravity:I just find it funny that someone argues that someone else is wrong with nothing more than a wrong statement themselves?

At the risk of repeating myself, I am convinced that it is beyond the power of humanity to obtain perfect knowledge of the natural world. It necessarily follows that EVERY statement made about nature IS wrong. That is what I have been trying to offer: concepts that I know are wrong (for they cannot avoid being wrong), but that are close enough to the truth that they might aid in understanding electricity.

I intend to go on visualizing electrons as orbiting a nucleus, as possessing mass, as possessing the property of charge (of the type we have named ?negative?), and as traveling at (or I should say near) the speed of light. Whenever I am called upon to explain electrical concepts (part and parcel of my work), I intend to continue using these concepts. I know well that all four are untrue, but they are close enough to being truth to satisfy the needs of most electrical, mechanical, structural, and chemical engineers whose work frequently interacts with my own.

I also like the water analogy. I think it greatly helps in the understanding of electricity to compare it to water flow. But what I like most is the contrast between the two, the ways in which electricity does not flow like water flows.

 

[bphgravity]

Re: speed of electrons

Hello Physis!

Einsteins theory of special relativity states that no particle or wave can travel faster than the speed of light. This is based on the mathematical relationship of space/time which travels at c.

SR and what is known as the "casuality paradox" or the "Shalimar Treaty" prevent speeds faster than c for chronological protection of events. If an object with mass were to leave point "A" at c+ towards point "B", the object would actualy get to point "B" before it ever left point "A". Things dont work that way!

The key ponit to SR is that information or energy transfer must take place to qualify. Speeds of c+ are allowed as long as they dont violate those two restrictions. Electrons themeselves can readily exceed the speed of c. The wave/particle duality that best represents electrons provide for phase and group velocities to exceed c. No information or energy is transfered, but the apparent motion certainly does. This is the basis of "Quantum Entaglement".

If Tachyons do exist, they will most likely have mass. This will mean SR is wrong! Electrons however, dont have mass at rest. Electrons are nothing more than a resonating gamma ray photon that exhibit motion mass. (carrier particle) EM-repulsion and gravitational fields also travel at c.

 

[iwire]

Re: speed of electrons

What is the speed of gravity?

Bryan, I saw this and thought you would like it.

Bob

 

[physis]

Re: speed of electrons

Bryan,

Your a lucky guy, I sort of get the impression you like physics, at least a little, and you have time to keep up with it too. I wish I did.

I want to try to undersdtand this tacyon thing a little better. I'm going to go in the order of your post.

First: Can you tell me what SR is? It's been a while since I've looked at physics.

Second: An object with mass can't make C because mass increases with velocity requiring more energy until the universe is out of gas (the short version). So that's where it seems like this tacyon not manifesting as mass could get away with it.

Third: Again, I don't know what SR is, but you say information or energy must be transfered to qualify. I'm not being sarcastic but doesn't that mean you can only go faster than light as long as nobody knows about it?

Third.5 (edited in): Electrons readily speeding? Phase and group velocity? Is this theory or measured?

Fourth: Oh boy, quantum mechanics, I think it was invented by calculator salesmen. I know it's produced some acheivements but I keep waiting for the simpler theory rule to fix it.

Fifth: How do you know an electron needs motion to have mass? I know that they've almost froze atoms to the point of stopping but I thought they were still moving a bit (I forgot the temperature). I can sort of visualise that though. The electron dissipating to energy. Sub atomic particles are kind of bashful.

And one more thing: I heard some years back that our way of seeing time as a series of discrete events starts to break down at about 10 to the -27 seconds. Do you know anything about that?

Sam

[ May 14, 2003, 05:21 AM: Message edited by: physis ]

 

[physis]

Re: speed of electrons

Bob and Bryan,

I followed Bob's link and it reminds me that I've seen something on the planetary orbits being located at harmonic intervals. I haven't done the math, it wouldn't take much, But if there are harmonics there's a good case for waves.

[ May 14, 2003, 02:16 AM: Message edited by: physis ]

 

[bphgravity]

Re: speed of electrons

Sam:

Originally posted by physis:
Bryan,

First: Can you tell me what SR is? It's been a while since I've looked at physics.

SR is just special relativity.

Second: An object with mass can't make C because mass increases with velocity requiring more energy until the universe is out of gas (the short version). So that's where it seems like this tacyon not manifesting as mass could get away with it.

This is the old E=MC^2 equation. (short version) This works well for practical acceleration with mass, but does not account for gravity.

Third: Again, I don't know what SR is, but you say information or energy must be transfered to qualify. I'm not being sarcastic but doesn't that mean you can only go faster than light as long as nobody knows about it?

Not really. There are several superluminal solutions that do not violate SR or the casuality laws. Actually, all wave equations possess possible solutions with speeds ranging from zero to infinity. Thius is called "undistorted progressive waves." Most are only thought experiments and cannot be produced in the physical world. One true working experiment is with what is known as "X-waves." Think of wave motion like that of an AC sine wave. There are crtical values such as RMS, average, and peak-to peak. In waves, the energy or information part (RMS) travels at c, but the peak can become superluminal by transitory phenomenon. This is similar to the reshaping that occurs for waves in dispersive media (atomic gass) with absorption and gain. The gain exceeding c. (anomalous dispersion)

Third.5 (edited in): Electrons readily speeding? Phase and group velocity? Is this theory or measured?

These have been both theorized in field equations primarily by Maxwell Equations. As a matter of fact, all matter was accelerating well pass c in the early expansion of the universe. At some point, the expansion may exceed c again, and not violate any laws as long as the matter in space/time does not exceed c. The universe is currently expanding at about 70 km/s/Mpc.

Fourth: Oh boy, quantum mechanics, I think it was invented by calculator salesmen. I know it's produced some acheivements but I keep waiting for the simpler theory rule to fix it.

QM is responsible for alot of great discoveries and understanding of the really small. The uncertainty principle, spin, and paticle/wave duality has come out of QM. However, if QM and Gravity every want to be understood by one equation, QM will have to be totally re-condsidered. There is something missing???

Fifth: How do you know an electron needs motion to have mass? I know that they've almost froze atoms to the point of stopping but I thought they were still moving a bit (I forgot the temperature). I can sort of visualise that though. The electron dissipating to energy. Sub atomic particles are kind of bashful.

A photon (gamma ray in case of electron) travels at two velocities: rest and c. A photon at rest has no energy or no mass. How does an electron have mass? As it turns out, the accepted mass of an electron is that of a resonating gamma ray. It is then believed that the electron is a massless object with a resonating gamma ray about it. If the gamma ray were to be at rest, the electron would have no mass. What keeps the electron stable is the belief that the electron does not just exhibit a negative charge (-1), but has a domain charge that is equally positive. (+1) These two forces hold the electron stable, while the external negative charge reacts weakly and through EM repulsion to other particles.

And one more thing: I heard some years back that our way of seeing time as a series of discrete events starts to break down at about 10 to the -27 seconds. Do you know anything about that?

I believe you are refering to the "Planck Time". This si the length of time that classical mechanics of gravity and space/time cease to be valid and QM takes over. In mathematical terms, it is the time it takes a photon to cross a "Planck Length" or roughly 10^-43 sec. Nothing smaller in tim matters.

I started off my educational career, as I call it, with physics and math. When I realized that I couldnt make a living with it, I began studying electricty. The two inter-twine nicely. Thanks for your kind words.


Bryan Holland

 

[bphgravity]

Re: speed of electrons

BOB:

Thanks for the link. Gravity is my true passion, hence my screen name. Take care.

Bryan