You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.
“The day when we shall know exactly what “electricity†is, will chronicle an event probably greater, more important than any other recorded in the history of the human race. The time will come when the comfort, the very existence, perhaps, of man will depend upon that wonderful agent.â€
“We are whirling through endless space, with and inconceivable speed, all around everything is spinning, everything is moving, everywhere there is energy. There must be some way of availing ourselves of this energy more directly. Then, with the light obtained from the medium, with the power derived from it, with every form of energy obtained without effort, from the store forever inexhaustible, humanity will advance with giant strides. The mere contemplation of these magnificent possibilities expand our minds, strengthens our hopes and and fills our hearts with supreme delight.â€
“So astounding are the facts in this connection, that it would seem as though the Creator, himself had electrically designed this planet...†- Nikola Tesla
Electricity if I am correct is, like light, a manifestation of the electro-magnetic force. I think there is a debate about whether light is a wave, a particle, or a wave-particle duality. It is also a mystery how light is beyond the constraints of time, because in Einstein's Theory of Relativity time stands still for a beam of light, and according to known science it is impossible to accelerate an object to the speed of light because to do so the object would need infinite mass. Because of these mysterious and seemingly metaphysical processes of light that we do not fully comprehend its true nature remains unknown. Since electricity is connected to light, and we do not fully comprehend what light is, and if the entire universe is electric, then we do not understand what the universe and its electric forces really are.
To make the jump from science to philosophy, in religion God is defined as the ultimate light. This may mean that God is beyond time, and he is the reference point all things are compared against since in relativity everything is measured in relation to the speed of light, and God is also at the ultimate level, because he needs no further evolution, and since evolution occurs over time and time stands still for God because he needs no further time to evolve. Light, electricity, and water are all living and flowing entities, shape shifting into the physical world of infinite evolutionary transformations. These forces hold the secrets of creation.
I think there is a debate about whether light is a wave, a particle, or a wave-particle duality. It is also a mystery how light is beyond the constraints of time, because in Einstein's Theory of Relativity time stands still for a beam of light, and according to known science it is impossible to accelerate an object to the speed of light because to do so the object would need infinite mass.
particles can move in wave form. its just that when the particle interacts with something else, it loses its wave form. larger mass particles interact easier with things, so they lose their wave form very easily or dont even travel in wave form. mass of light particle(to my knowledge there is no debate about whether light is a particle or not, might had bee i the 80's or so tho) on the other hand is so small that it can freely travel in wave form, because the small mass of light doesent interact with other things very easily. afaik, any particle(size isnt an obstacle) is able to be in wave form, as long as its not interacting with anything else(items that are mass of particles, like plastic or gold for example are interacting with each other all the time, thats why you can make your rolex be in wave form).
Yeah even I'm against ya on this one bro. Only place I disagree w your detrsctors is when waves interact with systems that cause them to collapse it is also possible the wave function is diffracted to different quantum realities.
He's talking about decoherence, though apparently in his universe light particles have mass. It wouldn't be an INTP post if he didn't embarrass himself. I really wish he'd change his name.
I dunno, I've noticed that one electron is like any other electron, just as in the dark, all cats are grey. And not only is one electron like any other electron, they are identical, they are so identical, they are interchangeable. This is an impenetrable mystery until we realise that all electrons appear to be the same because they are the same one electron.
Yes, in the entire universe there is only one electron. And it is an extraordinary beast as it transcends time and space and is everywhere, in all time, at once.
So just as we have Monotheism, we now have Monoelectronism.
I think of electricity as the result of having charges.
If the charges are stationary, then we have static electricity (static electric fields, voltages, etc.).
If charge is moving, then we have a sort of current. If there is a net motion of charge then we will have a net current.
Moving charge can also create electromagnetic radiation.
But what really is "electricity"? I think of it is either the electromagnetic signal being transmitted, or the energy carried by that signal.
I share the same wonderment as [mention=15371]RaptorWizzard[/mention].
We have some answers, but we can always go deeper down the rabbit hole. It is at least mysterious and fascinating to me, perhaps even mystical.
I know people have worked out Quantum Electrodynamics and Quantum Field Theory, but I cannot claim to understand either of these things.
I personally think, the common notion of electricity as "the movement of electrons" , like what [MENTION=206]Randomnity[/MENTION] said, is misleading.
Yes, electrons (if we conceive of them as particles) move in a wire (on average, slower than a snail's pace), but a signal is transmitted from end to end a lot faster (over half the speed of light). In the case of alternating current, the electrons don't really move on average.
To give you an idea of the magnitude of the difference, propagation delays commonly used in printed circuit boards are on the order of 100 ps/in, which translates to a speed of hundreds of thousands of miles per second (same order of magnitude as the speed of light).
Meanwhile, the speed of electrons is so irrelevant that I have to calculate it, instead of just knowing it from experience.
Let's say the copper wires have a density of about 100g per cubic inch, and has an atomic weight of about 60g/mole (~1*10^-22 g/atom). This means about 10^22 atoms per cubic inch, and since copper contributes one electron per atom to the valence/conduction band that means 10^22 electrons per cubic inch.
A current of 10 Amps through a 1/2" wide by 1/5" thick trace means a charge of about 1 Coulomb passes through a square inch of wire a second. This is about 6*10^18 electrons per square inch per second. Given that there are about 10^22 electrons per cubic inch, this means, on average, each electron needs to move about 6*10^-4 inches per second, which is about 2 inches per hour (assuming the current was consistent in that direction for the whole hour).
In integrated circuits at least, electromigration, is a rather big issue. But if electrons were moving very quickly through the wires, the electrons would damage or destroy the wires much faster than they do.
If electrons were actually needed to carry the signal--let's say the signal travels at 0.5c (c is the speed of light). The energy the electron would carry would be m*c^2/sqrt(1-(0.5)^2), which is about 10^-13 Joules (about half a million electron Volts--hundreds of thousands of times more than the work-functions of most metals).
If the copper-copper bonds needed to withstand a collision with this high energy electron, it would need to have bond strengths in the GigaJoules/mol (tens of thousands of times bigger than any Cu-Cu bond strength data I have come across).
The analogy I once had as kid was that of a wave propagating through a "sea-of electrons", like ocean waves moving through water. But I now think that to be inaccurate, because the signal is an electromagnetic wave (and electromagnetic waves do not necessarily need a medium).
As far as the relation of all this to quantum mechanics, I am not sure what to make of it.
I know the Drude model (which I implicitly used in my above thoughts) has issues related to heat-capacity, among other things. So quantum mechanics must be taken into account.
The conduction/valence band of a metal can be considered a Fermi gas (a gas of Fermions--in this case electrons). In this case, the electrons are considered wave packets that scatter off of impurities or vibrations in an otherwise perfect crystal of copper ions (instead of "hard sphere" collisions of electrons with ions).
It is also true, like [MENTION=3325]Victor[/MENTION] mentioned that these valence band electrons would be indistinguishable.
I learned about all this in my QM, solid-state, and device physics classes. But, it still seems to me that the corrections that QM makes keeps drift velocities of the electrons (if you consider the group velocities of the wave packets) on the same order of magnitude as before, while signal propagation happens at over half the speed of light in copper.
So, I guess you could say that I still don't understand electricity, and I used to design circuits for a living.
The analogy I once had as kid was that of a wave propagating through a "sea-of electrons", like ocean waves moving through water. But I now think that to be inaccurate, because the signal is an electromagnetic wave (and electromagnetic waves do not necessarily need a medium).
As far as the relation of all this to quantum mechanics, I am not sure what to make of it.
I think it is more akin to a potential energy 'wobble' that is passed from electron to electron as a potential energy wave.
Electrons being to electro-magnetic waves as velocity is to acceleration.
Quantum is a slippery business and best left to theoretical physicists. Most of it is mindblowing, quantum observation effects and tunnelling featuring prominently in that regard. It's almost like the universe is running with a simplification algorithm. When you don't look the waves can go through objects through a mathematical mistake/probabilistic simplification where it gets away with a finding a route through the barrier and then when you look they can't because the universe starts modelling the barrier with zero permeability/porosity.
“The day when we shall know exactly what “electricity†is, will chronicle an event probably greater, more important than any other recorded in the history of the human race. The time will come when the comfort, the very existence, perhaps, of man will depend upon that wonderful agent.â€
“We are whirling through endless space, with and inconceivable speed, all around everything is spinning, everything is moving, everywhere there is energy. There must be some way of availing ourselves of this energy more directly. Then, with the light obtained from the medium, with the power derived from it, with every form of energy obtained without effort, from the store forever inexhaustible, humanity will advance with giant strides. The mere contemplation of these magnificent possibilities expand our minds, strengthens our hopes and and fills our hearts with supreme delight.â€
“So astounding are the facts in this connection, that it would seem as though the Creator, himself had electrically designed this planet...†- Nikola Tesla
He's talking about decoherence, though apparently in his universe light particles have mass. It wouldn't be an INTP post if he didn't embarrass himself. I really wish he'd change his name.
The arguement is not about the physics of whether photons have mass. Its a debate about the definition of "mass" which will give either a yes or no according to the definition.
There is a possibility that a photon has a finite rest mass. The best of current measurements of the photon's proper mass does not have the precision to detect any photon proper mass
Actually what your science book says or is trying to say anyway,is that the photon's rest mass is zero. The concept of the rest mass derives from special relativity. The rest mass is the mass of a particle (in our case the photon) as measured by an observer who sees the particle still and with zero speed. In other words, the particle is at rest as far as this observer is concerned. Thus comes the term REST mass. But according to special relativity, light ALWAYS travels with the light speed c, and is NEVER at rest. And so it has zero REST mass.
i find it amusing that you say that im embarrassing myself for saying that photons have mass, but its just really small and cant be measured, when neither of the theories has been confirmed to be true. (and even more amusing that you didnt have the balls to quote or mention me)
instead acting like a brat about this difference in our theories, you could try to prove your theory right. i suggest starting from defining what mass actually is, as i probably see it bit different from you.
what rules out the possibility of photons having similar mass than resting mass is, but it being so small that it cant be slowed down/stopped by our current equipment, and therefore we just being unable to give it a rest mass(as it needs to be at rest)?
why is it that when we combine matter and anti-matter(electron + anti-electron(positron) in the picture), we get a photon(gamma waves), which is able to again disintegrate into (possibly) different types of matter and anti-matter(quark and anti-quark) + gluon(it can happen that it becomes electron and positron again)?
like this:
after you answer those few questions, we should be able to get some adult like discussion going on about these two theories. if you arent able to answer those questions and still are so certain that photon is massless(and im not talking about rest mass, but something alike, since light cant be stopped by our equipment) you basically think that i embarrass myself simply because your lack of knowledge(which in my books counts as being pretty embarrassing).
i find it amusing that you say that im embarrassing myself for saying that photons have mass, but its just really small and cant be measured, when neither of the theories has been confirmed to be true. (and even more amusing that you didnt have the balls to quote or mention me)
instead acting like a brat about this difference in our theories, you could try to prove your theory right. i suggest starting from defining what mass actually is, as i probably see it bit different from you.
what rules out the possibility of photons having similar mass than resting mass is, but it being so small that it cant be slowed down/stopped by our current equipment, and therefore we just being unable to give it a rest mass(as it needs to be at rest)?
why is it that when we combine matter and anti-matter(electron + anti-electron(positron) in the picture), we get a photon(gamma waves), which is able to again disintegrate into (possibly) different types of matter and anti-matter(quark and anti-quark) + gluon(it can happen that it becomes electron and positron again)?
like this:
after you answer those few questions, we should be able to get some adult like discussion going on about these two theories. if you arent able to answer those questions and still are so certain that photon is massless(and im not talking about rest mass, but something alike, since light cant be stopped by our equipment) you basically think that i embarrass myself simply because your lack of knowledge(which in my books counts as being pretty embarrassing).
It's one thing to discuss the possibility that a photon has zero rest mass, but the level of that discussion entirely depends on the participants. Any discussion of "proof" or "definition of mass" is either going to be incredibly advanced, or little more than idle speculation based on ignorance.
I'm not seeing the "advanced" part, here.
Any discussion of photons and rest mass should at least bring up the standard special relativity equation relating energy and momentum:
This basically means that photons have momentum. If you bombard an object with photons, it will push that object (very lightly). This is also what comprises radiation pressure (which is not the same thing as the solar wind, which is a plasma physics phenomenon).
If a photon has "zero rest mass", that means that all of its energy is directly proportional to its momentum. "Proving" that the rest mass is zero is necessarily tricky: how does one design an experiment to conclusively demonstrate that the mass is zero? One can always chime in, "Well, you only determined that it's close to zero - it might be closer to zero than you can measure." This kind of thinking makes the concept of zero rest mass essentially not provable. And you can't use concepts like, "Does it exert a gravitational force?" because in general relativity, photons do exert gravitational force, due to their momentum (it's part of the mass-energy density). Karl Popper addressed these concerns long ago: we can disprove whether a theory is true, but we cannot prove conclusively that it is true. Therefore, the job of science is to come up with disprovable hypotheses and try to disprove them. Those hypotheses that continued experiments fail to disprove are considered to be "true". It is always possible that any given theory might be disproved later, thus to bring this possibility up in any sort of scientific discussion contributes absolutely nothing.
A more clear indication that the rest mass of a photon is very likely zero is that the formulation of quantum electrodynamics (QED) breaks down if it's nonzero. QED has accurately predicted the behavior of electrons and photons to one part in a billion, which is rather extraordinary, considering that quantum mechanics is so "fuzzy", so if one is to postulate and get others to accept the notion of nonzero rest mass for a photon, one will have to reformulate QED and explain why it's OK that a photon has mass.
These are nontrivial tasks. Given that the current evidence indicates that the photon's rest mass is zero, the burden of proof lies on those who would postulate otherwise, just as those recent experiments showing neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light had to bear the burden of proof for violating special relativity. One cannot just say, "It might be zero," and have any meaningful discussion, without pursuing at least some of the implications that derive from its being nonzero. And even then, the only real proof that it is nonzero would be derived from experiment, not argumentation.
i find it amusing that you say that im embarrassing myself for saying that photons have mass, but its just really small and cant be measured, when neither of the theories has been confirmed to be true. (and even more amusing that you didnt have the balls to quote or mention me)
instead acting like a brat about this difference in our theories, you could try to prove your theory right. i suggest starting from defining what mass actually is, as i probably see it bit different from you.
what rules out the possibility of photons having similar mass than resting mass is, but it being so small that it cant be slowed down/stopped by our current equipment, and therefore we just being unable to give it a rest mass(as it needs to be at rest)?
why is it that when we combine matter and anti-matter(electron + anti-electron(positron) in the picture), we get a photon(gamma waves), which is able to again disintegrate into (possibly) different types of matter and anti-matter(quark and anti-quark) + gluon(it can happen that it becomes electron and positron again)?
like this:
after you answer those few questions, we should be able to get some adult like discussion going on about these two theories. if you arent able to answer those questions and still are so certain that photon is massless(and im not talking about rest mass, but something alike, since light cant be stopped by our equipment) you basically think that i embarrass myself simply because your lack of knowledge(which in my books counts as being pretty embarrassing).
Oh please. Who's being a brat here? I like how you use a Feynman diagram and a QED explanation as to what's happening in order to somehow prove photons have mass, because if photons did have mass it'd break the model of your visual example. Now that was especially delicious.
Stick to copying Jung verbatim, as any attempt at independent thought from you it seems is doomed.
EDIT:
[MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION]'s explanation is more thorough, more accurate, and far nicer so I'd just go with what he said.
It's one thing to discuss the possibility that a photon has zero rest mass, but the level of that discussion entirely depends on the participants. Any discussion of "proof" or "definition of mass" is either going to be incredibly advanced, or little more than idle speculation based on ignorance.
I'm not seeing the "advanced" part, here.
Any discussion of photons and rest mass should at least bring up the standard special relativity equation relating energy and momentum:
This basically means that photons have momentum. If you bombard an object with photons, it will push that object (very lightly). This is also what comprises radiation pressure (which is not the same thing as the solar wind, which is a plasma physics phenomenon).
If a photon has "zero rest mass", that means that all of its energy is directly proportional to its momentum. "Proving" that the rest mass is zero is necessarily tricky: how does one design an experiment to conclusively demonstrate that the mass is zero? One can always chime in, "Well, you only determined that it's close to zero - it might be closer to zero than you can measure." This kind of thinking makes the concept of zero rest mass essentially not provable. And you can't use concepts like, "Does it exert a gravitational force?" because in general relativity, photons do exert gravitational force, due to their momentum (it's part of the mass-energy density). Karl Popper addressed these concerns long ago: we can disprove whether a theory is true, but we cannot prove conclusively that it is true. Therefore, the job of science is to come up with disprovable hypotheses and try to disprove them. Those hypotheses that continued experiments fail to disprove are considered to be "true". It is always possible that any given theory might be disproved later, thus to bring this possibility up in any sort of scientific discussion contributes absolutely nothing.
A more clear indication that the rest mass of a photon is very likely zero is that the formulation of quantum electrodynamics (QED) breaks down if it's nonzero. QED has accurately predicted the behavior of electrons and photons to one part in a billion, which is rather extraordinary, considering that quantum mechanics is so "fuzzy", so if one is to postulate and get others to accept the notion of nonzero rest mass for a photon, one will have to reformulate QED and explain why it's OK that a photon has mass.
These are nontrivial tasks. Given that the current evidence indicates that the photon's rest mass is zero, the burden of proof lies on those who would postulate otherwise, just as those recent experiments showing neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light had to bear the burden of proof for violating special relativity. One cannot just say, "It might be zero," and have any meaningful discussion, without pursuing at least some of the implications that derive from its being nonzero. And even then, the only real proof that it is nonzero would be derived from experiment, not argumentation.
i started to write long response few days ago, but got bored with it and cba to continue with it, so ill just make it simple.
matter is basically just small scale movement of energy, which is separate from larger scale, somewhat similar to our solar system to galaxy, what happens in the larger scale of galaxy, doesent really affect the earth, but affects the solar system as a whole. right?
matter and antimatter are essentially the same movement of same thing, except that they spin in opposite directions. right?
when you combine these two movements that run in opposite directions, they turn into an unstable photon, which disintegrates again into matter + antimatter(of same or different type). right?
so back to my theory. photons are also moving all the time, except that they arent in these "loops" that make up mass, but move straight forward in space.
if you think this straight forward movement(photon) as being 0, and(ill use electron/positron as an example) this "loop" type of movement of electron as 1, now positron would have the same sort of movement as electron, except running in opposite direction, so it would be -1. -1 + 1 = 0.
now if you take another type of matter and antimatter and give their "loop" type of movement values of 2 and -2. -2 + 2 = 0.
so wouldnt it be accurate to say that -1 + 1 = 0 = -2 + 2?
am i missing something? if not, i can explain how i see these "loops" manifesting in quantum physics, or more like how the possibilities happening in quantum field are manifesting themselves into concrete reality in the form of similar type of loops.
