What Is Electric Current?

[MitkoGorgiev]

Birds of a feather . . . . . .moving this to silly claims

You can move it wherever you like, but you cannot stop the truth.

You can count on that.

[OceanBreeze]

The truth is, the concentric circles of the magnetic field can actually be seen by placing iron filings on a sheet of paper with the current-carrying conductor running through it. No spirals, just the concentric circles that are consistent with existing theory.

 

Maybe you can do a similar experiment and demonstrate your spirals? No? I didn't think so.

 

 

[MitkoGorgiev]

The truth is, the concentric circles of the magnetic field can actually be seen by placing iron filings on a sheet of paper with the current-carrying conductor running through it. No spirals, just the concentric circles that are consistent with existing theory.

 

Maybe you can do a similar experiment and demonstrate your spirals? No? I didn't think so.

Why do you comment on a topic which according to you is silly?

I will tell you why. Because it is not silly at all, and something deeper inside you tells you that. But your biased mind is not able to comprehend that.

The future will tell which theory is silly.

 

P.S. I will answer you soon to your objection about the magnetic field.

[marcospolo]

No wants to answer this question?

Posted 01 August 2020 - 05:25 PM

devin553344, on 20 Feb 2020 - 3:04 PM, said:

A mass spectrometer disproves other ideas. The electron is a point particle with mass. There have been other experiments that show that electrons exist as point particles.

 

Define a "Point Particle" please.

 

 

 

[OceanBreeze]

 

No wants to answer this question?

Posted 01 August 2020 - 05:25 PM

devin553344, on 20 Feb 2020 - 3:04 PM, said:

 

Define a "Point Particle" please.

 

 

 

 

 

Point particle

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

 

A point particle (ideal particle[1] or point-like particle, often spelled pointlike particle) is an idealization of particles heavily used in physics. Its defining feature is that it lacks spatial extension; being dimensionless, it does not take up space.[2] A point particle is an appropriate representation of any object whenever its size, shape, and structure are irrelevant in a given context. For example, from far enough away, any finite-size object will look and behave as a point-like object. A point particle can also be referred in the case of a moving body in terms of physics.

 

Why is an electron considered a point-particle?

 

The electron is an elementary particle, and thus a quantum mechancial entity, of the standard model of particle physics.

It is the way the mathematics of the standard model works out. The particles in the table are entered as point particles in the lagrangian, the mathematics is cranked, and predictions for the behavior of the electrons are made. These predictions work to a great accuracy, as demonstrated by the four LEP experiments.

That is the why, because the predictions of having the electron a point particle fit the data.

 

You could have easily searched these results yourself, no?

[OceanBreeze]

Why do you comment on a topic which according to you is silly?

I will tell you why. Because it is not silly at all, and something deeper inside you tells you that. But your biased mind is not able to comprehend that.

The future will tell which theory is silly.

 

P.S. I will answer you soon to your objection about the magnetic field.

 

"P.S. I will answer you soon to your objection about the magnetic field"

 

 

I'm looking forward to that answer. Don't forget to address the observed fact that the iron filings form concentric circles; no spirals.

[marcospolo]

Point particle

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

 

A point particle (ideal particle[1] or point-like particle, often spelled pointlike particle) is an idealization of particles heavily used in physics. Its defining feature is that it lacks spatial extension; being dimensionless, it does not take up space.[2] A point particle is an appropriate representation of any object whenever its size, shape, and structure are irrelevant in a given context. For example, from far enough away, any finite-size object will look and behave as a point-like object. A point particle can also be referred in the case of a moving body in terms of physics.

 

Why is an electron considered a point-particle?

 

The electron is an elementary particle, and thus a quantum mechancial entity, of the standard model of particle physics.

It is the way the mathematics of the standard model works out. The particles in the table are entered as point particles in the lagrangian, the mathematics is cranked, and predictions for the behavior of the electrons are made. These predictions work to a great accuracy, as demonstrated by the four LEP experiments.

That is the why, because the predictions of having the electron a point particle fit the data.

 

You could have easily searched these results yourself, no?

I can read, but I just cant believe that anyone could possibly accept the nonsense that claims that a dimensionless concept, ( the electron)  is a real physical entity that possess Mass, or has any other properties exclusively reserved for objects that have volume, that have dimensions, that take up space. 

 

If an Electron is a Point Particle, then by definition, it does not exist. Its a concept.  Concepts don't "carry electrical charge", or move anywhere, like flow along a wire.

 

You need to check the first few pages of a Physics book, to understand what constitutes a physical object, because obviously you have forgotten fundamentals.

Things like electrons that don't have dimensions, are therefore only concepts, so they don't have any mass.

Which means that you have no clue whats inside an atom, or how electricity actually works. You are creating myths and fables to explain these things, and then forgetting that they are only stories.

[OceanBreeze]

I can read, but I just cant believe that anyone could possibly accept the nonsense that claims that a dimensionless concept, ( the electron)  is a real physical entity that possess Mass, or has any other properties exclusively reserved for objects that have volume, that have dimensions, that take up space. 

 

If an Electron is a Point Particle, then by definition, it does not exist. Its a concept.  Concepts don't "carry electrical charge", or move anywhere, like flow along a wire.

 

You need to check the first few pages of a Physics book, to understand what constitutes a physical object, because obviously you have forgotten fundamentals.

Things like electrons that don't have dimensions, are therefore only concepts, so they don't have any mass.

Which means that you have no clue whats inside an atom, or how electricity actually works. You are creating myths and fables to explain these things, and then forgetting that they are only stories.

 

You asked a question, specifically you said “Define a point particle, please” and I responded by providing you two links and copy and paste from those links.

 

I have not made any claims at all, let alone created any “myths and fables” LOL

 

As for my having “no clue whats inside an atom” I think I have a pretty good clue, based on the Standard Model but it is true that there is a lot that I don’t know and I’m not a particle physicist and even they are not sure!

 

There is considerable debate about the radius of an electron, or even if it has a radius; it might be a string.

 

“The issue of the radius of the electron is a challenging problem of modern theoretical physics. The admission of the hypothesis of a finite radius of the electron is incompatible to the premises of the theory of relativity. On the other hand, a point-like electron (zero radius) generates serious mathematical difficulties due to the self-energy of the electron tending to infinity.[75] Observation of a single electron in a Penning trap suggests the upper limit of the particle's radius to be 10−22 meters.[76] The upper bound of the electron radius of 10−18 meters[77] can be derived using the uncertainty relation in energy. There is also a physical constant called the "classical electron radius", with the much larger value of 2.8179×10−15 m, greater than the radius of the proton. However, the terminology comes from a simplistic calculation that ignores the effects of quantum mechanics; in reality, the so-called classical electron radius has little to do with the true fundamental structure of the electron”

[devin553344]

 

No wants to answer this question?

Posted 01 August 2020 - 05:25 PM

devin553344, on 20 Feb 2020 - 3:04 PM, said:

 

Define a "Point Particle" please.

 

 

 

 

I don't have to define a point particle, we have evidence that electrons and positrons are created during pair production where electromagnetic radiation enters the nuclear area. These waves get separated into halves in my ideas. These wave halves form into spheres of the wavelength, and they have a center of charge and mass as a point particle. If a person considers these ideas correctly it is easy to see how electrons and positrons are point particles, keeping in mind they still have a boundary or wavelength to the mass.

 

In fact my theory has strong force equations that support particles being point like. Roughly the theory states:

 

mc^2 * exp(-0) = 1 (or full mass at the point)

mc^2 * exp(-1) = 1/2.718 or e (or reduced mass at the wavelength)

mc^2 * exp(-infinity) = 0 (or no mass at the edge of infinity)

 

These characteristics show a point particle with a definite boundary of the wavelength. I demonstrated that particles originate space-time itself and therefore are relativistic frames of reference all by themselves. Each particle has a wavelength of 1.0 but due to relativistics effects matches a measured wavelength relative to other particles.

 

These calculations match strong force binding energies of Deuteron precisely. So the ideas are supported by experimental measurements.

Edited August 4, 2020 by devin553344

[marcospolo]

I don't have to define a point particle, we have evidence that electrons and positrons are created during pair production where electromagnetic radiation enters the nuclear area. These waves get separated into halves in my ideas. These wave halves form into spheres of the wavelength, and they have a center of charge and mass as a point particle. If a person considers these ideas correctly it is easy to see how electrons and positrons are point particles, keeping in mind they still have a boundary or wavelength to the mass.

 

In fact my theory has strong force equations that support particles being point like. Roughly the theory states:

 

mc^2 * exp(-0) = 1 (or full mass at the point)

mc^2 * exp(-1) = 1/2.718 or e (or reduced mass at the wavelength)

mc^2 * exp(-infinity) = 0 (or no mass at the edge of infinity)

 

These characteristics show a point particle with a definite boundary of the wavelength. I demonstrated that particles originate space-time itself and therefore are relativistic frames of reference all by themselves. Each particle has a wavelength of 1.0 but due to relativistics effects matches a measured wavelength relative to other particles.

 

These calculations match strong force binding energies of Deuteron precisely. So the ideas are supported by experimental measurements.

Please stop playing with your calculator until you have some sane understanding of Physics.

Math is ONLY useful if you understand the Physics FIRST.

You are getting the cart before the horse.

Waves CANT have mass.

Points cant have mass.

 

and exactly where is "the edge of infinity"?

 

Your math is meaningless.

 

And "we have evidence that electrons and positrons are created during pair production where electromagnetic radiation enters the nuclear area. "

is untrue.

You have no idea what you are looking at. You ASSUME its something to do with fictitious Electrons, fictitious Positrons, and the assumption that the radiation we observe is actually made up of "electromagnetism".

These are all just assumptions, and guesses.

Sure we can make light with electricity and magnets, of just electricity alone, but that does not necessarily mean that radiant light IS COMPOSED of Electric and Magnetic "waves"..

 

I can make light from rubbing two dry sticks together, but the light is not composed of wood and friction.

 

I can create light from electricity, but the light is not electricity.

There is ZERO evidence to support the idea that Light is part of the "Electromagnetic spectrum", itself just a invention, not a clear solid example of PHYSICS.

Edited August 5, 2020 by marcospolo

[devin553344]

Please stop playing with your calculator until you have some sane understanding of Physics.

Math is ONLY useful if you understand the Physics FIRST.

You are getting the cart before the horse.

Waves CANT have mass.

Points cant have mass.

 

and exactly where is "the edge of infinity"?

 

Your math is meaningless.

 

And "we have evidence that electrons and positrons are created during pair production where electromagnetic radiation enters the nuclear area. "

is untrue.

You have no idea what you are looking at. You ASSUME its something to do with fictitious Electrons, fictitious Positrons, and the assumption that the radiation we observe is actually made up of "electromagnetism".

These are all just assumptions, and guesses.

Sure we can make light with electricity and magnets, of just electricity alone, but that does not necessarily mean that radiant light IS COMPOSED of Electric and Magnetic "waves"..

 

I can make light from rubbing two dry sticks together, but the light is not composed of wood and friction.

 

I can create light from electricity, but the light is not electricity.

There is ZERO evidence to support the idea that Light is part of the "Electromagnetic spectrum", itself just a invention, not a clear solid example of PHYSICS.

 

What proof do you have of your claims? Math is the language of mechanics.

Edited August 5, 2020 by devin553344

[marcospolo]

What proof do you have of your claims? Math is the language of mechanics.

Same proof you have that math IS the language of mechanics. This is not a "provable" statement.

 

Its not the language of Physics. Its just one TOOL that is useful in designing mechanical devices, in physics, but before you use math, you better damn well understand what you are trying to design.

And that is key fundamental requirement, understanding the Physics BEFORE you can ever think of number crunching.

Math is subordinate to Physics.

(Unless you are a cult member of a Numerology based religion such as Judaism with its kabbalah teaching. Then numbers are sacred to you.)

[marcospolo]

You asked a question, specifically you said “Define a point particle, please” and I responded by providing you two links and copy and paste from those links.

 

I have not made any claims at all, let alone created any “myths and fables” LOL

 

As for my having “no clue whats inside an atom” I think I have a pretty good clue, based on the Standard Model but it is true that there is a lot that I don’t know and I’m not a particle physicist and even they are not sure!

 

There is considerable debate about the radius of an electron, or even if it has a radius; it might be a string.

 

“The issue of the radius of the electron is a challenging problem of modern theoretical physics. The admission of the hypothesis of a finite radius of the electron is incompatible to the premises of the theory of relativity. On the other hand, a point-like electron (zero radius) generates serious mathematical difficulties due to the self-energy of the electron tending to infinity.[75] Observation of a single electron in a Penning trap suggests the upper limit of the particle's radius to be 10−22 meters.[76] The upper bound of the electron radius of 10−18 meters[77] can be derived using the uncertainty relation in energy. There is also a physical constant called the "classical electron radius", with the much larger value of 2.8179×10−15 m, greater than the radius of the proton. However, the terminology comes from a simplistic calculation that ignores the effects of quantum mechanics; in reality, the so-called classical electron radius has little to do with the true fundamental structure of the electron”

You, personally have made no claims, but the authorities you worship certainly have.

What makes you think that the Standard Model has a good grasp of the insides of a atom?

And who cares what debates are raging about the form of imaginary sub atomic particles like the electron?

Clearly they only have self contradictory claims, but still are hanging on to Einsteins crap like a bull dog, even though its causing all sorts of issues.

You don't have a clue, do you? You and your church leaders are guessing. (guided by the cult doctrines and dogma.)

[MitkoGorgiev]

The truth is, the concentric circles of the magnetic field can actually be seen by placing iron filings on a sheet of paper with the current-carrying conductor running through it. No spirals, just the concentric circles that are consistent with existing theory.

 

Maybe you can do a similar experiment and demonstrate your spirals? No? I didn't think so.

Consider these experiments:

let us take two pieces of wire of equal thickness, but of different metals, which have a great difference in their resistivities – let's say, a copper wire and a kanthal wire. If we connect the two wires in series and position this “one” wire in north-south direction, under each piece we place a compass (the two compasses are identical) and then connect the ends to a battery, we will see that the deflections of the two needles are different. The needle under the copper wire deflects more than the needle under the kanthal wire.

On the other hand, when we connect in series two pieces of kanthal wire of different cross sections and then place a compass under each one, we notice again that the needles make different deflections. Under the thinner piece we see a greater deflection than under the thicker one.

The strength of the current is the same through both pieces since they are connected in series. But still, the deflections of the magnetic needles are not the same.

This happens because the pitch of the magnetic spiral is not the same through all the wire pieces connected in series. 

In the first variant of the experiment the magnetic spiral is more compacted in the copper piece.

In the second variant the magnetic spiral is more compacted in the thinner kanthal piece.

 

The magnetic spirals are not static. It is a magnetic current, just as the underwater spiral cavitation is a kind of current.

 

I see that some people like mathematics very much. For them, here is the formula for the magnitude of the angle of the magnetic spiral:

α = 90° (1-e^(-k*I/ρ*S))

 

e - Euler's number

k -  constant

I - current strength

ρ - resistivity of the metal

S - cross sectional area of the wire piece

 

When the current (I) is stronger, the angle (α) exponentially approaches to 90 degrees.

 

P.S. Do you really believe that the iron filings circles is enough proof that the magnetic field of a current-carrying conductor is ideally at 90 degrees with respect to the wire line? Wouldn't you get the same circles also in the case of spiral-shaped field?

The sheet of paper is two dimensional, isn't it?

 

[OceanBreeze]

Consider these experiments:

let us take two pieces of wire of equal thickness, but of different metals, which have a great difference in their resistivities – let's say, a copper wire and a kanthal wire. If we connect the two wires in series and position this “one” wire in north-south direction, under each piece we place a compass (the two compasses are identical) and then connect the ends to a battery, we will see that the deflections of the two needles are different. The needle under the copper wire deflects more than the needle under the kanthal wire.

On the other hand, when we connect in series two pieces of kanthal wire of different cross sections and then place a compass under each one, we notice again that the needles make different deflections. Under the thinner piece we see a greater deflection than under the thicker one.

The strength of the current is the same through both pieces since they are connected in series. But still, the deflections of the magnetic needles are not the same.

This happens because the pitch of the magnetic spiral is not the same through all the wire pieces connected in series. 

In the first variant of the experiment the magnetic spiral is more compacted in the copper piece.

In the second variant the magnetic spiral is more compacted in the thinner kanthal piece.

 

The magnetic spirals are not static. It is a magnetic current, just as the underwater spiral cavitation is a kind of current.

 

I see that some people like mathematics very much. For them, here is the formula for the magnitude of the angle of the magnetic spiral:

α = 90° (1-e^(-k*I/ρ*S))

 

e - Euler's number

k -  constant

I - current strength

ρ - resistivity of the metal

S - cross sectional area of the wire piece

 

When the current (I) is stronger, the angle (α) exponentially approaches to 90 degrees.

 

 

 

What sort of sorcery is this?

 

Does this “equation” happen to have a name? How about a source?

 

When the subject turns to magnetic fields around a current-carrying conductor, I find the Biot-Savart Law [math]B = \frac{\mu_{0}I}{2 \pi r}[/math] to be most useful, followed by Ampere’s Law.

 

The constant used in these equations is the permeability of free space. μ0 = 4π×10−7 H/m = 1.2566370614…×10−6 N/A² (1 henry per metre ≡ newton per square ampere)

 

B = is the strength of the magnetic field emanating from the wire in uT

 

As you can see, if the current is a known value, there is no need to include the resistivity or the cross- sectional area of the wire in the calculation. Also, there is no angle to be calculated, since the magnetic field surrounds the wire in concentric circles that are perpendicular to the wire and the flow of current.

 

Since YOU are the only person on the planet who is claiming the magnetic field spirals out of the wire, this equation you posted, with an undefined constant, no derivation and no link to support it, I can only conclude you made it up all by yourself! Very cranky!

 

I must conclude it is just more silly nonsense, further evidence that this thread has been moved to the correct section of this forum.

 

But you have the opportunity to prove me wrong. Just show your derivation, identify what the unspecified constant is, show that your equation is dimensionally correct, and post an independent link that supports your claim.

 

It should be simple to do, if the equation is real!

 

 

 

P.S. Do you really believe that the iron filings circles is enough proof that the magnetic field of a current-carrying conductor is ideally at 90 degrees with respect to the wire line? Wouldn't you get the same circles also in the case of spiral-shaped field?

The sheet of paper is two dimensional, isn't it?

 

 

Do you really believe that a 3D spiral will be displayed as concentric circles in 2D?

 

Not like this?

 

[marcospolo]

What sort of sorcery is this?

 

Does this “equation” happen to have a name? How about a source?

 

When the subject turns to magnetic fields around a current-carrying conductor, I find the Biot-Savart Law [math]B = \frac{\mu_{0}I}{2 \pi r}[/math] to be most useful, followed by Ampere’s Law.

 

The constant used in these equations is the permeability of free space. μ0 = 4π×10−7 H/m = 1.2566370614…×10−6 N/A² (1 henry per metre ≡ newton per square ampere)

 

B = is the strength of the magnetic field emanating from the wire in uT

 

As you can see, if the current is a known value, there is no need to include the resistivity or the cross- sectional area of the wire in the calculation. Also, there is no angle to be calculated, since the magnetic field surrounds the wire in concentric circles that are perpendicular to the wire and the flow of current.

 

Since YOU are the only person on the planet who is claiming the magnetic field spirals out of the wire, this equation you posted, with an undefined constant, no derivation and no link to support it, I can only conclude you made it up all by yourself! Very cranky!

 

I must conclude it is just more silly nonsense, further evidence that this thread has been moved to the correct section of this forum.

 

But you have the opportunity to prove me wrong. Just show your derivation, identify what the unspecified constant is, show that your equation is dimensionally correct, and post an independent link that supports your claim.

 

It should be simple to do, if the equation is real!

 

 

 

 

Do you really believe that a 3D spiral will be displayed as concentric circles in 2D?

 

Not like this?

 

Yes, of course a 3d spiral will be displayed as a circle in 2d.  That's an Archimedes spiral in your image, with varying radius,  not a helical spiral with fixed radius, which does make concentric circles when viewed straight on. 

 

And even if MitkoGorgiev was talking about a varying radius spiral, then STILL it can make a circular cross section.

 

How you may ask?  Well, consider one object moving along a varying radius spiral.  A transverse slice of that objects path would make a single spot, not a whole varying radius spiral.  You can only get that full 2d varying radius spiral by transposing every position that the object passes through, in the entire journey, onto some imaginary background screen, hence creating that Archimedes spiral.

 

But if there were millions of objects all moving along a series of varying radius spiral paths, and they were all at the same diameter at any one time, then a slice of that helix would create a ring of dots in a circular shape.

 

 

And how on earth can you post images here?  When I try, it just says I'm not allowed to post that type of image.. jpg, gif... ????

Edited August 9, 2020 by marcospolo

[MitkoGorgiev]

Does this “equation” happen to have a name? How about a source?

Before I answer you about the equation, I would appreciate if you comment on the experimental results about the different deflections of the compass needles as described in my last post. How would be that explained by the contemporary theory? 

 

Marcospolo, I upload my pictures as attachments. But there is a limit of 1 MB for attachments. I have nearly used the limit up.

Is there another way to post pictures or to extend the limit?