4 ms·

Your analogy doesn't work for me. Imagine the following simple case : A AC generator connected to two capacitors in series. Signal --||----||-- Ground . The vo

Your analogy doesn't work for me. Imagine the following simple case : A AC generator connected to two capacitors in series. Signal --||----||-- Ground . The voltage potential at the middle : In your analogy there is no reason for anything to turn as the electron wave are discontinuous inside the capacitors (there is a huge gap in the order of micrometers between each plate of the capacitor). The main important thing of electricity is the Electric field not the electron field. The electric charges get pushed around by the electric field. Each of these electric charge carry with it its Coulomb electric field. Sum contributions of every charge and you have the local electric field. In fact even more fundamental is the electric potential which you can take the slope to obtain the electric field.

mickfaraday 6y ago
We can do A/c with the shells rotating back and forth. The micrometer gap is not a problem for the surface of the atom, which can extend indefinitely. The electron is simply an excitation of the electric field in QM, so one does not come without the other. Physics is the study of objects that exist, and so it's important to begin with objects in a visualization. Fields are a concepts that measure the location of something happening. That something is the surface of the atom.
- GistNoesis 6y ago
  >electron is simply an excitation of the electric field in QM I am not a physicist but I think here is your mistake. The electron is an excitation of the Electron Field. It's matter aka fermions. The electric field are bosons. Those are two orthogonal things. You can have one without the other (although the fields are coupled).
  - mickfaraday 6y ago
    It is well understood that the bosons are excitations of fields. A boson is not a 'thing' it is a happening. The atom is the first object in physics. That is a shapely thing with location.
    - GistNoesis 6y ago
      The point I'm trying to make, is that there are light fields, and matter fields. Those are two distinct independent things (that can eventually be coupled). Electricity is mostly a light phenomenon. With the fields everything happen locally. If I recall correctly, one of Faraday main discovery was displaying the lines of the magnetic field using metallic powder. Showing that fields were "real" things. Two electrons don't interact directly with one another. It's more electron interact with photon which then interact with another electron. The one case where two electron interact directly with one another is the Pauli exclusion principle to make sure electron don't find themselves at the same place. When in doubt follow the energy. You can store the energy as bumps in light field aka photons (E^2+B^2 (eps0=mu0=c^2=1) ). You can also store the energy as bumps in the Fermionic field : sums of kinetic energy of electrons. Finally you can store energy in the coupling between those two fields. But this happen only locally. At first approximation when dealing with electricity problems what matters is the energy of the electric field, not the kinetic energy of the moving electrons.
      - mickfaraday 6y ago
        Faraday believed his 'fields' were what some sort of actual objects were doing. He called them tentacles IIRC. In our initial atom at beginning of the vid, the electron has tentacles based on Faraday to account for the tails of the RDF of QM — the indefinite extension of the shell. These will be important in visualizing the atomics of light and gravity in future vids. We ignore them for the circuit because they would obscure the events, but the tentacles remain!
        GistNoesis 6y ago
        At the extreme electricity works just fine without the electrons. Take two hydrogen nucleus without any electrons (aka proton H+). Throw them around and see where they interact and land. They experience electrostatic repulsion, no electron cloud required. Local classical Maxwell is enough to explain electricity no need for QM. I think I get what you are trying to do : "making the Light field implicit". It's a tempting thing to do because when things are coupled we are kind of thinking : is it the electric field which deformed the electron cloud or is it the electron cloud which generated the field. But this picture is dangerously misleading. It makes you assume strange electron cloud which interact non locally in complicated way (strange arms...). By giving special properties to the electron it doesn't respect the symmetry with respect to charge. Maxwell works just fine for protons. It also completely obscure the facts that we can have external E and B field ; in particular it makes you think that photons need matter to exist which isn't the case. It is much more clear and general to make light fields and matter fields explicit.
  - jabl 6y ago
    Yes, the excitations in the electromagnetic field are what we call "photons", which, as you say, are bosons.

mickfaraday 6y ago

We can do A/c with the shells rotating back and forth. The micrometer gap is not a problem for the surface of the atom, which can extend indefinitely. The electron is simply an excitation of the electric field in QM, so one does not come without the other. Physics is the study of objects that exist, and so it's important to begin with objects in a visualization. Fields are a concepts that measure the location of something happening. That something is the surface of the atom.

GistNoesis 6y ago
>electron is simply an excitation of the electric field in QM I am not a physicist but I think here is your mistake. The electron is an excitation of the Electron Field. It's matter aka fermions. The electric field are bosons. Those are two orthogonal things. You can have one without the other (although the fields are coupled).
- mickfaraday 6y ago
  It is well understood that the bosons are excitations of fields. A boson is not a 'thing' it is a happening. The atom is the first object in physics. That is a shapely thing with location.
  - GistNoesis 6y ago
    The point I'm trying to make, is that there are light fields, and matter fields. Those are two distinct independent things (that can eventually be coupled). Electricity is mostly a light phenomenon. With the fields everything happen locally. If I recall correctly, one of Faraday main discovery was displaying the lines of the magnetic field using metallic powder. Showing that fields were "real" things. Two electrons don't interact directly with one another. It's more electron interact with photon which then interact with another electron. The one case where two electron interact directly with one another is the Pauli exclusion principle to make sure electron don't find themselves at the same place. When in doubt follow the energy. You can store the energy as bumps in light field aka photons (E^2+B^2 (eps0=mu0=c^2=1) ). You can also store the energy as bumps in the Fermionic field : sums of kinetic energy of electrons. Finally you can store energy in the coupling between those two fields. But this happen only locally. At first approximation when dealing with electricity problems what matters is the energy of the electric field, not the kinetic energy of the moving electrons.
    - mickfaraday 6y ago
      Faraday believed his 'fields' were what some sort of actual objects were doing. He called them tentacles IIRC. In our initial atom at beginning of the vid, the electron has tentacles based on Faraday to account for the tails of the RDF of QM — the indefinite extension of the shell. These will be important in visualizing the atomics of light and gravity in future vids. We ignore them for the circuit because they would obscure the events, but the tentacles remain!
      - GistNoesis 6y ago
        At the extreme electricity works just fine without the electrons. Take two hydrogen nucleus without any electrons (aka proton H+). Throw them around and see where they interact and land. They experience electrostatic repulsion, no electron cloud required. Local classical Maxwell is enough to explain electricity no need for QM. I think I get what you are trying to do : "making the Light field implicit". It's a tempting thing to do because when things are coupled we are kind of thinking : is it the electric field which deformed the electron cloud or is it the electron cloud which generated the field. But this picture is dangerously misleading. It makes you assume strange electron cloud which interact non locally in complicated way (strange arms...). By giving special properties to the electron it doesn't respect the symmetry with respect to charge. Maxwell works just fine for protons. It also completely obscure the facts that we can have external E and B field ; in particular it makes you think that photons need matter to exist which isn't the case. It is much more clear and general to make light fields and matter fields explicit.
- jabl 6y ago
  Yes, the excitations in the electromagnetic field are what we call "photons", which, as you say, are bosons.