Electric Fields and Currents: 'Houston, we have a Problem'

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

Electric Fields and Currents: 'Houston, we have a Problem'

Postby Pivot on March 26th, 2020, 12:26 am 

If you are locked down with Covid-19, then you might have a bit of time on your hands and care to have a look at this paper titled ‘Electrons, Electric Fields and Currents: Houston, we have a Problem’ just pre-published on viXra.org.

The abstract reads:
There are many of the unknowns, problems and inconsistencies related to electric charge, electric fields and electric currents, and that well-known Apollo 13 movie quote ‘Houston, we have a problem’ seems appropriate.

This paper explores how a change of model for the electron can redress many of these problems so that Jack Swigert’s original assertion: ‘Houston, we’ve had a problem here’, indicating the problem has been resolved, can be used.


So, keep adequate social separation, particularly when greeting family and friends; make sure you often wash your hands with soap and water or regularly hand-sanitize; and have a read rather than going to the shops.

The link to the paper is:https://vixra.org/abs/2003.0547
Pivot
Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 14 Apr 2016


Re: Electric Fields and Currents: 'Houston, we have a Proble

Postby bangstrom on March 26th, 2020, 4:34 am 

What experimental evidence do we have suggesting that electrons are “bitrons” that can alternate between positive and negative energy states?
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 797
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Electric Fields and Currents: 'Houston, we have a Proble

Postby Pivot on March 26th, 2020, 6:59 am 

I have thought long and hard about how to experimentally demonstrate the existence of bitrons. They would only seem to exist within a host material such as a metal conductor (in their billions), but when they are polarised the only difference is the circular flow direction of their core and energy field relative to their heading, and it is most difficult to see how you prove such a difference experimentally.

However, if you are looking for evidence, which is something people don’t do when they believe that an electric current only consists of electron movement, the place to look would be probe-tips attached to a power supply as described in the paper, in the electric arcing between probes (although thee are more likely to be fast-speed electrons), or in photovoltaic cell and photodiode generated electric current which, according to STEM, consists of the one-way movement of electrons and positrons respectively.

As far as I am aware, research on electrons and positrons relates exclusively to those isolated and examined separate from their original host medium: they have thus been provided with sufficient kinetic energy to allow them to escape their host material (e.g. an electron gun or a high-energy laser or beta decay for positrons). Although their energy-core would be intact, they have different physical characteristics due to having a highly skewered field-energy flow pattern of monopole electrons and positrons.

So in terms of experimental evidence there is probably no more than there is evidence of quasiparticle positive holes or atom dipoles from electron cloud distortion, or many other entities in Physics.

However, anecdotally there is a lot of evidence because the bitron structure hypothesized explains so much about electric currents (DC, AC and semiconductor based), capacitor storage and discharge, depletion zones, radio waves, electrostatic fields, electric and magnetic fields, opposite pole attraction and like-pole repulsion, and why magnetic fields are generated by a current-carrying wire. It also provides a mechanism by which a neutron can convert instantaneously into a proton and vice versa. This amounts to a lot of evidence.
Pivot
Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 14 Apr 2016


Re: Electric Fields and Currents: 'Houston, we have a Proble

Postby bangstrom on March 27th, 2020, 4:37 am 

Pivot wrote: ...according to STEM, consists of the one-way movement of electrons and positrons respectively.


How do you define a “positron” in this example? By one definition, a positron is the antiparticle for an electron, or as Feynman said, “An electron moving backward in time.” This is the particle from beta decay.

A positron is also a positively charged atom that has lost an electron from its outer orbit. This is an imaginary particle used to explain the movement of positive charges in solid state devices. I prefer the term “hole” to avoid confusion with the anti-particle. I understand these to be entirely different things with nothing in common but a positive charge and their name.

Also, in your theory, where is the charge held in a capicator? On the plates or in the di-electric?

And, if the di-electric is a vacuum?
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 797
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Electric Fields and Currents: 'Houston, we have a Proble

Postby Pivot on March 27th, 2020, 11:10 am 

a positron is the antiparticle for an electron

A positron is the antiparticle for an electron in terms of having the opposite chirality. For fast-moving electrons and positrons that present as monopole charges, has an opposite electrical charge. For slow-moving electrons and positrons the antiparticles are simply very similar dipoles with different chirality.

This is the particle from beta decay

True, positrons are a byproduct of beta decay but are also created by bombarding metal foil with high-speed particles within an accelerator such as CERN or by high-energy laser bombardment. And as much as I admire Feynman, I do not believe all his opinions were correct, and in this case I believe that “an electron moving backward in time” is a function of how the time-sequencing aspect of Feynman diagrams are drawn and/or a mathematical rather than a real-world interpretation of positrons.

an imaginary particle used to explain the movement of positive charges in solid state devices

You nailed it: a hole is “an imaginary particle used to explain the movement of positive charges in solid state devices”, and as detailed in the referenced paper, the hole-based explanation for current in photovoltaic cells is blatantly erroneous.

where is the charge held in a capacitor?

The charge in the capacitor is held in the field-energy threads that form between the capacitor plates: the threads are joined-up extensions of the e-strands and p-strands. These are the same type of energy-field threads that form between opposite pole electric monopoles and around dipole antennae used for radio wave transmitters. It is also the same field-energy that provides fast-moving electrons and positrons with their respective electric charge.

If the dielectric is a vacuum, the threads still exist and the capacitor charge persists: do you have any experimental evidence to the contrary?

Keep in mind that STEM is an energy-centric theory. It contends that there is only this mysterious material that forms into and interacts with matter, and that has been called ‘energy’. Energy would seem to have a natural propensity to form into toroidal-shaped concentrations (core-energy) which thin out as field-energy that presents as electromagnetic fields. Positive and negative charges are thus just different energy-field movement (or flow) patterns rather than representing a new or different charge force-field manifestation, and the different flow patterns of energy-fields interact to produce the forces of attraction and repulsion.

The logical extension of such an energy-centric approach is that up and down quarks are various combinations of torus-shaped energy concentrations; and these combine to form nucleons that build into atoms.
Pivot
Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 14 Apr 2016


Re: Electric Fields and Currents: 'Houston, we have a Proble

Postby bangstrom on March 29th, 2020, 2:39 am 

Pivot » March 27th, 2020, 10:10 am wrote:
If the dielectric is a vacuum, the threads still exist and the capacitor charge persists: do you have any experimental evidence to the contrary?


I agree the evidence places the charge in the dielectric.

I don’t see anything dubious or hard to understand about positive ‘holes’ or other concepts that STEM is designed to solve. What is the problem with ‘holes’?

Also, how can positrons exist in the presence of ordinary matter if positrons are particles of anti-matter?
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 797
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Electric Fields and Currents: 'Houston, we have a Proble

Postby Pivot on March 29th, 2020, 6:17 am 

how can positrons exist in the presence of ordinary matter if positrons are particles of anti-matter?


STEM does not refer to or rely upon the concept of anti-matter: anti-matter would seem to be an aspect of the Standard Model. The main difference between an elementary particle and its anti-matter equivalent is a difference in charge, and in some cases some of their mathematically assigned quantum number. Anti-matter and anti-particles are SM concepts and issue.

NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope has detected beams of positrons launched by thunderstorms which act like enormous particle accelerators to emit gamma-ray flashes called terrestrial gamma-ray flash (TGFs) and high-energy electrons and positrons. Have a look at the NASA video https://youtu.be/lXKt7UVjd-I.

The SM-based interpretation is this sequence: electrical storm produces high speed electrons; hs electrons strike atoms to produce gamma rays; gamma rays every so often graze another atom to produce a positron and an electron; hs positrons collide with hs electrons to produce more gamma rays. The hs positrons are considered to be an example of anti-matter.

The STEM-based interpretation is: electrical storm produces high speed electrons and positrons; hs positrons collide with hs electrons to produce gamma rays. And when hs positrons strike the satellite, an additional burst of gamma rays is produced.

So, as you would expect, it would seem to be down to interpretation.

I don’t see anything dubious or hard to understand about positive ‘holes’ ... What is the problem with ‘holes’?


I would say the hole concept is dubious and simplistic rather than hard to understand. It is needed to explain how a P-N junction works, but the hole-based explanation for current in photovoltaic cells is blatantly erroneous. And I suspect that the hole concept is a breath away from the definition of a cation except that for a hole the charge can appear to move but not the atom. Dubious would seem to be a reasonable description.

concepts that STEM is designed to solve

STEM has not been designed to solve any particular problem. It is an energy-centric theory that contends that there is only energy (or nothing), and that this mysterious material called ‘energy’ builds into and interacts with matter. STEM is not a designer item.

Just as a side note here, I would like to point out that STEM is in the early stages of development, and some aspects of STEM will prove correct and others incorrect. I am not a career Physicist nor do I claim to have all the answers. With my limited Physics expertise I simply research and attempt to explain phenomena and experimental evidence using the strictly energy-centric approach of STEM, and I am amazed at how much can be explained. To others the divergence from the mainstream interpretation might be seen as having an axe to grind or is a reflection of how much I do not know rather than being a challenge to what they think they know.
Pivot
Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 14 Apr 2016


Re: Electric Fields and Currents: 'Houston, we have a Proble

Postby bangstrom on April 1st, 2020, 4:21 am 

Pivot » March 29th, 2020, 5:17 am wrote:
I don’t see anything dubious or hard to understand about positive ‘holes’ ... What is the problem with ‘holes’?

I would say the hole concept is dubious and simplistic rather than hard to understand. It is needed to explain how a P-N junction works, but the hole-based explanation for current in photovoltaic cells is blatantly erroneous. And I suspect that the hole concept is a breath away from the definition of a cation except that for a hole the charge can appear to move but not the atom. Dubious would seem to be a reasonable description.


I see the “hole” concept as exactly (not almost) the definition of cations where the charge moves but not the atoms. The positive charge moving towards the negative displaces electrons in the “wrong” direction.

It is hard to explain why this happens and I suspect this may be what you find to be “blatantly erroneous” about holes. One way to look at it is that electrons can move easily about in a neutral conductor.
Another way is to consider it from a Newtonian perspective. Any action such as an electrical current is only possible if it can work against an equal but opposite reaction.

Also, I think the duality of electrical currents is adequately explained as magnetic polarity so I don’t see the need for both electron and positrons and few electrical applications have the energy levels to generate positrons.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 797
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Electric Fields and Currents: 'Houston, we have a Proble

Postby Pivot on April 3rd, 2020, 6:05 am 

Bangstrom stated:
few electrical applications have the energy levels to generate positrons

On several occasions in this thread it has been stated that slow-speed STEM electrons (those which contribute to electric currents) are different to fast-speed STEM electrons that at some stage in their history have gained sufficient kinetic energy to allow them to escape from their original host medium. Although they have the identical energy-cores the energy-fields of the former present as dipoles whereas the energy-fields of the latter present as monopoles. Thus in terms of their electromagnetic energy-fields and possibly their level of energisation, they are distinctly different to each other.

It would be less confusing if STEM referred to the low-speed dipole version as e-bitrons to avoid confusion related to conventional Science’s electron stereotype. The same comments apply to p-bitrons for slow-speed positrons.

So I agree with you that no "electrical applications have the energy levels to generate positrons" because positrons need about 5 times the kinetic energy to escape their host medium compared that needed by electrons, but that does not preclude electrical applications from from generating p-bitrons that remain internal to the conductor.

According to STEM e-bitrons and p-bitrons can both be generated and move as part of an electric current, but when both are involved in the charge movement presenting as an electric they move in opposite directions, which kind of lines up with your "Newtonian perspective that any action such as an electrical current is only possible if it can work against an equal but opposite reaction".


So far I have been attempting to answer your questions to the best of my ability, but I have a couple of questions of my own that you and/or others visiting this stream might care to answer:

1. When a probe is attached to a positive terminal of a chemical power supply, how and why is a positive electric field created that is reminiscent of that associated with a positive electric monopole?

2. How is a positive electric field generated from the positive side of a break in circuit (the equivalent of an attached probe) of an induced electric current (i.e. in a situation in which there is no physical positive terminal)?

3. An explanation of how is charge stored within a capacitor (as opposed to a statement that is stored within the dielectric)?

4. When a capacitor is discharged, where do the ‘new’ electrons creating the discharge current come from?

5. Now a dualistic yin and yang question: how are positive and negative charges different to each other and why are electric lines of force drawn to indicate energy to flow from positive to negative electric monopoles?


I realise that some of these are double-bunger questions, and look forward to some insightful responses, as will many other readers of this stream that might be starting to think that simple conventional electric current explanations might not be quite so simple and straight forward as they have been led to believe.
Pivot
Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 14 Apr 2016


Re: Electric Fields and Currents: 'Houston, we have a Proble

Postby bangstrom on April 4th, 2020, 6:18 am 

I put your last question first because it applies to the rest.

Pivot » April 3rd, 2020, 5:05 am wrote:
5.Why are electric lines of force drawn to indicate energy to flow from positive to negative electric monopoles?


Circuit diagrams are knowingly drawn with the current flowing in the wrong direction because of a historical error made by Ben Franklin. Franklin identified lightning as positive since lightning appears to travel from the clouds to the ground. Later it was discovered that lightning is a negative charge but it was decided not to change the old books and teachings so everything remained the same with the understanding that the energy flow is in reality electrons moving from negative to positive.

The reverse “current flow” in diagrams is imaginary but consistent with tradition. The “electron flow” is the true energy flow. Very confusing.

Pivot » April 3rd, 2020, 5:05 am wrote:
Now a dualistic yin and yang question: how are positive and negative charges different to each other?

The negative charges are electrons and positive charges are atoms with more protons than electrons. The negative electrons are the active yang and the positive ions are the passive yin.

Pivot » April 3rd, 2020, 5:05 am wrote:
1. When a probe is attached to a positive terminal of a chemical power supply, how and why is a positive electric field created that is reminiscent of that associated with a positive electric monopole?


The positive ions in the electrolyte migrate to the positive pole of a battery while negative electrons end their circuit at the positive terminal. The naming of the negatively charged pole as "positive" was Franklin's eror. The current through the probe induces magnetic field lines about the probe that we associate with the north and south poles of a magnet.

Pivot » April 3rd, 2020, 5:05 am wrote:
2. How is a positive electric field generated from the positive side of a break in circuit (the equivalent of an attached probe) of an induced electric current (i.e. in a situation in which there is no physical positive terminal)?

Did you mean to say a break in circuit is the equivalent of an unattached probe? The field is largely lost when there is a break in the circuit.

Pivot » April 3rd, 2020, 5:05 am wrote:
3. An explanation of how is charge stored within a capacitor (as opposed to a statement that is stored within the dielectric)?

The explanation that the charge is stored on the plates is wrong but it is intuitively simple and easy to illustrate. I think that is why it is popular.

Pivot » April 3rd, 2020, 5:05 am wrote:
4. When a capacitor is discharged, where do the ‘new’ electrons creating the discharge current come from?
The electrons come from the collapse of the magnetic flux within the dielectric inducing the opposite charges on the plates.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 797
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Electric Fields and Currents: 'Houston, we have a Proble

Postby Pivot on April 5th, 2020, 6:25 am 

Bangstrom wrote
Later it was discovered that lightning is a negative charge

Good old Ben Franklin. The back-story to lightening consisting of just negative charge (i.e. electrons) is the co-production of high-energy electrons and positrons radiating out into space associated with terrestrial gamma-ray flashes (TGFs) as mentioned earlier with reference to the NASA video https://youtu.be/lXKt7UVjd-I.


Bangstrom wrote
The negative charges are electrons and positive charges are atoms with more protons than electrons.

Concentrating on the positive side of a circuit as characterized by atoms with a relative shortage of electrons: on this basis all the copper atoms in wire leading to the probe, and the metal atoms within the probe itself, would also become reduced in electrons so as to produce a positive electric charge and associated field to the probe tip. Or do you see some other process at work here?

Such a model works well theoretically for a chemical power source where cations and anions create the electric current. The purpose of my poorly-worded second question related to a non-chemical power source such as created by a black-box power source that could be the output of an A-to-D converter or from movement of a wire or coil through a magnetic field (an induced electric current). How do you see the field generated by a probe attached to the positive side of such a black box set-up being generated?

It would seem that, apart from some exotic anti-matter particles (positrons, anti-muons etc), many of which are very transient, the only positive charge at play are protons (formed by positive and negative charged quarks) and possibly positive holes (which are quasiparticles), and the only negative charge at play are electrons.

STEM contends that it is not so cut-and-dry. Slow-speed bitrons are considered to be electromagnetic dipoles that dynamically assume different chirality as defined by their field-energy flow pattern. Such an approach quite well explains the formation of electric fields, capacitor charge/discharge, semiconductor current generation, the photo-electric effect and radio/micro wave generation. And it explains how electron anti-particles (positrons) can be generated by the high-energy laser bombardment of metal film.

STEM agrees that electrons and positrons outside a host medium present as monopole electric-charge particles as described and studied by conventional Science. So here we are discussing the differences implicit in the underlying assumptions regarding electron models: that of a point monopole negative electric charge with angular momentum but no spin versus a particle with a torus shaped energy core (with spin or energy flow) and associated energy field (with energy flow) but no assumed intrinsic electric charge. Both models satisfy the Dirac equations.

The conventional Science model for an electron varies by discipline from being a point monopole for wave equation compliance, to a finite spherical particle for applied Science applications to a wave-form with a range of weirdly shaped probability functions for atomic orbital applications. STEM simply distinguishes between low-speed and high-speed forms, and that relates to the flow pattern of their energy-fields.


Bangstrom wrote
The electrons come from the collapse of the magnetic flux within the dielectric inducing the opposite charges on the plates.

We are in close agreement here, which might be quite worrying for some readers, except that you consider it to be magnetic flux whereas I consider it to be electric field threads, the energy-field extension of strands, that represent the stored energy and which induces opposite charges by flipping e-bitrons into p-bitrons (and vice versa) to generate the discharge flow.
Pivot
Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 14 Apr 2016


Re: Electric Fields and Currents: 'Houston, we have a Proble

Postby bangstrom on April 5th, 2020, 5:28 pm 

Pivot » April 5th, 2020, 5:25 am wrote:Concentrating on the positive side of a circuit as characterized by atoms with a relative shortage of electrons: on this basis all the copper atoms in wire leading to the probe, and the metal atoms within the probe itself, would also become reduced in electrons so as to produce a positive electric charge and associated field to the probe tip. Or do you see some other process at work here?

I see the probe tip as becoming more negatively charged in the vicinity of the positive terminal. Electrons repel so they are driven to the tip of the probe making it negative. The negative charge at the tip of the probe drives electrons away from the positive terminal and it draws positive ions from the electrolyte to the positive terminal. The probe and terminal become like plates of a small capacitor and, when connected, electrons can arc from the probe to the positive terminal.
Pivot » April 5th, 2020, 5:25 am wrote:Such a model works well theoretically for a chemical power source where cations and anions create the electric current. The purpose of my poorly-worded second question related to a non-chemical power source such as created by a black-box power source that could be the output of an A-to-D converter or from movement of a wire or coil through a magnetic field (an induced electric current). How do you see the field generated by a probe attached to the positive side of such a black box set-up being generated?

As described earlier, I see the probe becoming more negative and the positive terminal becoming more positive as the two approach. When the two connect, the current is free to flow from the probe to the terminal.
Pivot » April 5th, 2020, 5:25 am wrote:STEM contends that it is not so cut-and-dry. Slow-speed bitrons are considered to be electromagnetic dipoles that dynamically assume different chirality as defined by their field-energy flow pattern. Such an approach quite well explains the formation of electric fields, capacitor charge/discharge, semiconductor current generation, the photo-electric effect and radio/micro wave generation.

Yes, bitrons explain all that but I find the same process to be adequately explained by magnetic polarity.
Pivot » April 5th, 2020, 5:25 am wrote:STEM simply distinguishes between low-speed and high-speed forms, and that relates to the flow pattern of their energy-fields.

I can see where STEM fills a gap in our conventional model but it competes with a pre-1940’s understanding of electricity. I think they understood some things better back then.

Your “low speed” bitrons correspond to electrons in a low voltage current while “high speed” bitrons correspond to really high voltages. I am no electrical engineer but my understanding is that low voltage currents travel through the body of a wire while high voltage currents flow along the surface of the wire but it all takes place within the wire according to the conventional model.
The old time electrical engineers explained that really high voltages like those in long distance power lines were carried by the dielectric beyond the wire. This sounds like your high-speed bitrons that travel outside the medium.

The old time engineers discovered the hard way that, if you suddenly disconnect a high voltage power line or if a line breaks, the line does not go dead. The electromagnetic fields in the dielectric instantly collapse and, since the voltage in the wire depends on the rate of change in the field, an instant collapse can theoretically drive the voltage to infinity.

The voltage can never go to infinity because it finds the point of least resistance and escapes through that point which can be a transformer or a generator. The result is a large fireworks display often followed by a violent explosion. High voltage lines are equipped with resistors to drain the current safely but the system isn’t fail safe.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/v ... ction=view

The old theories were dropped because they dealt with such things as an aether dielectric and faster than light interactions among electrons. They were not dropped because they failed and electrons still work the same now as they as they did back then.

Remember to keep a social distance of 157.5 MHz ( 6 ft.) in the USA or 144 MHz (2m) in those countries that have switched to the newer metric system. That is, in the whole rest of the world.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 797
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Electric Fields and Currents: 'Houston, we have a Proble

Postby Pivot on April 19th, 2020, 1:33 am 

Bangstrom wrote
The negative charge at the tip of the probe drives electrons away from the positive terminal … I see the probe becoming more negative and the positive terminal becoming more positive as the two approach

You consider that the charge on the probes increasing as the probes approach each other, with the driver force being the electrons in the negative probe repelling electrons away from the tip of the positive probe, so making it more positive. Thus you would consider that the charge in the positive probe tip to be dependent upon the emf applied by the power source and the distance between the probe tips.

On this basis, if a flat capacitor-type of plate replaces the negative probe then it ought to be able to repel electrons in a similar capacitor plate that is not attached to the power source, and so provide it via induction with a positive charge with the other side of the plate and any attached loose wire becoming (slightly) negatively charged. See the diagram attached, which admittedly looks a little strange.

I understand that such polarisation (i.e. an induced positive charge on one side of the plate and negative on the other side) can be generated from static charged metal spheres (see Walter Lewin’s video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd9HY8iLiCA) but am unaware of an evidence that this is possible for a negative flat plate and a neutral flat plate combination.

Bangstrom wrote
high voltage currents flow along the surface of the wire but it all takes place within the wire according to the conventional model.

The peak voltage of high-voltage lines is about 50% (factor of 1.4 or √2) than RMS voltage, and with such high electrical field strength on the conductor surface arcing and corona discharge occurs which causes the crackle noise associated with the lines. The degree or intensity of the discharge is affected by air humidity, density, wind and airborne contaminants with irregularities on the conductor surface such as nicks or sharp points adding to the mix.

The escaping electrons are most likely to be high speed electrons similar to those produced by a heated element. Although they can exit and re-enter the transmission line as arcing, they eventually exit by ionising air molecules and contaminants. And yes, the inductance backlash from a broken transmission line can cause fires and even blow transformers in spite of the use of insulators and protective overload circuitry as demonstrated in the video link you provided.

Bangstrom wrote
Yes, bitrons explain all that but I find the same process to be adequately explained by magnetic polarity.

Should you consider that both approaches explain ‘all that’ (i.e. electric fields, capacitor charge/discharge, semiconductor current generation, the photo-electric effect and radio/micro wave generation), STEM manages to do so without assuming that positive and negative charges are two different fundamental particles with specific electrical field properties and characteristics. STEM contends that there is only energy and everything else that we observe is a function of the manner in which electromagnetic energy moves and interacts, with positive and negative electric fields and magnetic fields being considered to be manifestations of the same type of field energy but with distinctive yet different flow patterns.

The confusion associated with the concept of low-speed electrons is causing a re-assessment of STEM terminology: the terms e-bitrons or a-bitrons (for anti-clockwise spin bitrons) seems a better option than slow-speed electrons (or dipole electrons) and p-bitrons or c-bitrons (for clockwise spin bitrons) rather than slow-speed positrons (or dipole positrons). Then, by default, the terms electrons and positrons are those particles that present as monopoles and which we observe outside their original host material, but are different to orbital-electrons as defined by wave equations and electric-current-electrons of the conventional Science approach.

For the conventional point of view, electric current direction is defined in terms of electron movement from negative to positive, or a positive charge equivalent using the industry-standard positive to negative flow direction. For STEM it is the direction of the circular magnetic field generated around a current-carrying wire conductor that is more important than identifying a current flow direction. The movement of electric charge as an electric current is considered to be due to the one-way or the two-way (i.e. duplex) movement of polarised bitrons, and it is their spin direction that creates the direction of the circular magnetic field. And if you know the direction of the circular magnetic field then you know the direction of the associated emf that is driving the electric current and this emf direction allows for unambiguous use of Maxwell’s equations.

In the STEM defined scenario, a change of magnetic flux can induce an electric current and an electric current can generate a magnetic field, and a magnetic field can result in a force being applied to a current-carrying wire. Why then, apart from historical reasons, do we need to assume that there are separate fundamental positive and negative charge particles, that strangely have angular momentum but no spin, and which are associated with electric fields that mystically share a duality with magnetic fields, when they can be reasonably explained in terms of being different manifestations of energy and nothing but energy?

To assume that there are separate fundamental positive and negative charge particles conceptually provides a simple particle model, but it also creates a rod for our backs and possibly leads to a whole host of complications and unnecessary mysteries, adjustment factors and related rules/laws to make the model fit observation and experimentation. The result is good description supported by a plethora of complex tailored/tweaked mathematical equations, all of which is accompanied by a profound lack of explanation, and, in many cases, the descriptive models put forward fail the common-sense logic test (particularly in the QM arenas).
Attachments
Capacitor inductance ircuit.PNG
Polarisation Effect from negative Capacitor-like Plate
Pivot
Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 14 Apr 2016


Re: Electric Fields and Currents: 'Houston, we have a Proble

Postby bangstrom on April 19th, 2020, 5:26 am 

Pivot » April 19th, 2020, 12:33 am wrote:
The escaping electrons are most likely to be high speed electrons similar to those produced by a heated element. Although they can exit and re-enter the transmission line as arcing, they eventually exit by ionising air molecules and contaminants. And yes, the inductance backlash from a broken transmission line can cause fires and even blow transformers in spite of the use of insulators and protective overload circuitry as demonstrated in the video link you provided.

I was saying the voltage in a long, high-voltage power line can far exceed even the RMS in the case of a sudden disconnection in the line. That is, a suddenly “dead” line can cause a deadly explosion. Do you understand where the extra voltage comes from? That is the point I was trying to make.

Pivot » April 19th, 2020, 12:33 am wrote:
For STEM it is the direction of the circular magnetic field generated around a current-carrying wire conductor that is more important than identifying a current flow direction.

The circular magnetic field and current direction are directly related, as pointed out by the thumb in the right hand rule, so one is no more important than the other.

Pivot » April 19th, 2020, 12:33 am wrote:
In the STEM defined scenario, a change of magnetic flux can induce an electric current and an electric current can generate a magnetic field, and a magnetic field can result in a force being applied to a current-carrying wire. Why then, apart from historical reasons, do we need to assume that there are separate fundamental positive and negative charge particles, that strangely have angular momentum but no spin, and which are associated with electric fields that mystically share a duality with magnetic fields, when they can be reasonably explained in terms of being different manifestations of energy and nothing but energy?

I don't see where the bitron removes the particle problem or explains anything not explained by electrons. Also, electrons have spin but not in the ordinary sense of a revolving body.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 797
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Electric Fields and Currents: 'Houston, we have a Proble

Postby bangstrom on April 19th, 2020, 6:39 am 

Pivot » April 19th, 2020, 12:33 am wrote:

I understand that such polarisation (i.e. an induced positive charge on one side of the plate and negative on the other side) can be generated from static charged metal spheres (see Walter Lewin’s video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd9HY8iLiCA) but am unaware of an evidence that this is possible for a negative flat plate and a neutral flat plate combination.

Why would you expect any difference and the results should be easy to demonstrate.

On your diagram, is the component in the the top-center a capacitor or a battery? The symbol is half of what a battery should be. I assume the component is a capacitor in which case the charges it holds should be reversed.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 797
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Electric Fields and Currents: 'Houston, we have a Proble

Postby Pivot on April 21st, 2020, 12:06 pm 

Bangstrom wrote
Do you understand where the extra voltage comes from?


I thought I indicated where the extra voltage came from when I stated ‘the inductance backlash from a broken transmission line can cause fires and even blow transformers’. There are step-up voltage coils at the source end and step-down coils on the delivery end, and I believe that the inductive backlash is caused by the energy stored in the coils. The sudden high resistance from the break means that the backlash voltage goes through the roof in spite of a small current flow.

Bangstrom wrote
I don't see where the bitron removes the particle problem or explains anything not explained by electrons.

It is not a particle problem, but rather a charge problem. Positive and negative charges are different but conventional Science makes no attempt to explain why. STEM seeks to explain how they are formed and how they interact to produce electric field attraction and repulsion rather than simply stating the obvious (i.e. they do interact).

Conventional Science variously invokes different models for electrons: a point monopole for wave equation compliance and QM experimentation; a finite spherical particle for Chemistry and applied Science applications; and a wave-form with a range of weirdly shaped probability functions for explaining atomic orbitals.

A lot can be explained by the conventional Science electron as long as you choose the version appropriate to the application. It would however be a lot better if there was continuity between the models: at present the only thing in common would seem to be their negative charge.

For positive charge, as is mainly manifested in protons or as the anti-particle of the electron (the positron), there is also much mystery. Some believe protons (and neutrons) consist of positive up quarks and negative down quarks but without suggesting a reasonable structure. Notwithstanding these inconsistencies, all positive charge associated with electricity is considered to be due to nuclear protons.

STEM has only the one torus model for concentrated energy, with the neutral/dipolar bitron form being prevalent within a parent or host material, and a monopole form resulting from a jolt to the energy core that provides a bitron with sufficient kinetic energy to escape the parent material. Positive and negative charge associated with electricity is considered to be due to different chiral forms of the energy-fields of polarised bitrons. It is a simple model that provides consistent feasible explanations for a wide range of phenomena. The only mystery here relates to what ‘energy’ is and why it behaves the way it does.

Bangstrom wrote
Also, electrons have spin but not in the ordinary sense of a revolving body

Really? Spin but not in the ordinary sense of a revolving body! This is not the first time and probably won’t be the last time that I will hear such assertions regarding electron angular momentum existing with no angular velocity (spin).

Electron and positron angular momentum must surely have a cause and a sensible explanation apart from being a mathematical adjustment related to wave equations (i.e. quantum spin).

We understand what angular momentum is and how it forms in terms of Newtonian mechanics. The flow (or is it spin?) of concentrated torus core-energy of the STEM model readily provides an explanation of electron and positron angular momentum.

Conventional Science describes but does not explain what electric charge is, or what makes a positive charge different to a negative charge, or why electric charges interact as observed.

The STEM approach tries to explain why positive and negative charged particles are different and interact with each other as observed; admittedly its explanations are incomplete and not totally convincing. It simply attributes the difference between positive and negative charge to the chiral pattern of their energy fields, and those energy fields are considered to consist of just the one material, that mysterious material called ‘energy’. Magnetic fields are considered to consist of the same type of field-energy but with a different flow pattern.

STEM simply attempts to reduce the mystery around the concepts of electric charge, electric fields, magnetic fields and electricity. Surely you must find this an attractive proposition? (Possibly this is a rhetorical question.)

Bangstrom wrote
is the component in the top-center a capacitor or a battery?

A battery (surely a common-use shorthand notation).

Bangstrom wrote
Why would you expect any difference and the results should be easy to demonstrate

I would expect a negative charge in the loose wire (left hand side) and a miniscule to nil positive charge on the face of the plate (the right hand side). And yes, it should be easy to demonstrate and I daresay that it has been done.
Pivot
Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 14 Apr 2016


Re: Electric Fields and Currents: 'Houston, we have a Proble

Postby bangstrom on April 24th, 2020, 5:27 am 

Pivot » April 21st, 2020, 11:06 am wrote: I believe that the inductive backlash is caused by the energy stored in the coils.

I hadn’t considered the coils as a source of energy but you are right in that they must be a part of it. I rather consider the coils to be the unfortunate recipients of a greater energy surge from the miles of transmission lines. High voltage electrical systems with large distributions fields are the ones that have problems inductive backlash.

I think of high voltage lines as plates of a capacitor where the charge is found mainly in the dielectric around the wires. When the voltage is lost, the fields suddenly collapse and something has to blow.

Lightning discharges are another example where electrical charges in the atmosphere suddenly collapse in an inductive backlash. There are no wires involved with lightning but speculation has it that the collapse is centered about the ionized trails left by cosmic particles criss-crossing through the atmosphere. This explains the zig-zag shape of lightning.

Pivot » April 21st, 2020, 11:06 am wrote:
STEM seeks to explain how they are formed and how they interact to produce electric field attraction and repulsion rather than simply stating the obvious (i.e. they do interact).

My personal understanding of the electron is unsettled and I find it difficult to consider the electron as simply a point charge particle. I have been looking into some other explanations both old and new and your STEM model appears to sync with some other models with the exception of the positron.

I think of positrons as anti-matter that would not be compatible with matter if I am understanding your view of positrons correctly. I don’t see what positrons contribute to the theory that can’t be done with electrons alone as toroids with spin.

Pivot » April 21st, 2020, 11:06 am wrote:
STEM has only the one torus model for concentrated energy, with the neutral/dipolar bitron form being prevalent within a parent or host material, and a monopole form resulting from a jolt to the energy core that provides a bitron with sufficient kinetic energy to escape the parent material.

Are you saying electrons are in the wire and positrons are in the dielectric?

Pivot » April 21st, 2020, 11:06 am wrote:
Bangstrom wrote
Also, electrons have spin but not in the ordinary sense of a revolving body

Really? Spin but not in the ordinary sense of a revolving body! This is not the first time and probably won’t be the last time that I will hear such assertions regarding electron angular momentum existing with no angular velocity (spin).

My understanding is that electrons have angular velocity (spin) without angular momentum. A circular wave can have spin without momentum in much the same way as a crowd in a sports stadium can generate a wave with velocity but no momentum.

Pivot » April 21st, 2020, 11:06 am wrote:
The STEM approach tries to explain why positive and negative charged particles are different and interact with each other as observed; admittedly its explanations are incomplete and not totally convincing. It simply attributes the difference between positive and negative charge to the chiral pattern of their energy fields, and those energy fields are considered to consist of just the one material, that mysterious material called ‘energy’. Magnetic fields are considered to consist of the same type of field-energy but with a different flow pattern.


Daniel Fitzpatrick finds cosmological implications in Ampere’s force law where parallel wires attract if the currents in them are running in the same direction but they repel if the currents are running in the opposite direction. He finds this attraction-repulsion applies to all material bodies from quarks to galaxies.
How would Ampere’s force law work in the STEM model where negative currents run in one direction and positive currents run in the opposite direction so you have currents running in both directions?

Pivot » April 21st, 2020, 11:06 am wrote:
STEM simply attempts to reduce the mystery around the concepts of electric charge, electric fields, magnetic fields and electricity. Surely you must find this an attractive proposition? (Possibly this is a rhetorical question.)

I would favor a model that explains electric charge as a non-local particle to particle interaction. Carver Mead has such a model in his Collective Electrodynamics and Gilbert Lewis also had an early form of the same idea.
Pivot » April 21st, 2020, 11:06 am wrote:
Bangstrom wrote
Why would you expect any difference and the results should be easy to demonstrate

I would expect a negative charge in the loose wire (left hand side) and a miniscule to nil positive charge on the face of the plate (the right hand side). And yes, it should be easy to demonstrate and I daresay that it has been done.

That sounds right and the loose wire should drain the charge from the system and even emit a spark if the voltage is high enough. I am sure the effect has been demonstrated and has its uses. Large aircraft have needle-like projections on the back of their wings to discharge the electric charges that build up on the airframe. I don’t see where the conventional explanation has a problem here.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 797
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Electric Fields and Currents: 'Houston, we have a Proble

Postby Pivot on May 6th, 2020, 12:09 am 

Bangstrom on April 24th, 2020, 5:27 am wrote:
I think of positrons as anti-matter that would not be compatible with matter if I am understanding your view of positrons correctly. I don’t see what positrons contribute to the theory that can’t be done with electrons alone as toroids with spin.

According to STEM positrons are simply high speed electrons with opposite chiralty, which due to their attraction/repulsion patterns, we interpret as representing opposite electric charges.

Bangstrom on April 24th, 2020, 5:27 am wrote:
Are you saying electrons are in the wire and positrons are in the dielectric?

I am saying that bitrons become polarised to form a-bitron and c-bitron dipoles, which align as strands so that their polarised energy fields combine to generate electric fields as a-wisps on the positive side and c-wisps on the negative side. Overlapping or joined a-wisp and c-wisp pairs are called threads, and the capacitor energy is stored as threads. No additional electrons or positrons are stored within the dielectric.

Bangstrom on April 24th, 2020, 5:27 am wrote:
Daniel Fitzpatrick finds cosmological implications in Ampere’s force law where parallel wires attract if the currents in them are running in the same direction but they repel if the currents are running in the opposite direction. He finds this attraction-repulsion applies to all material bodies from quarks to galaxies.

I had not previously read anything about Daniel Fitzpatrick’s ideas. I have had a look at ‘Fitzpatrick's Theory of Everything’ blog and must admit that I agree with his underlying premises that ‘all the forces have a common origin’ and ‘all the forces have identical properties’. The common origin concept resonates with the underpinning hypothesis of STEM that such a common origin is energy.

For STEM the rationale as to why parallel wires attract if the currents in them are running in the same direction is the direction whereas they repel if the currents are running in the opposite direction is related to the direction of the associated magnetic field generated around the wires as shown in the attached diagram. The field flow cancellation effect between wires and binding flow effect around the wire pair net field effects causes attraction whereas the crowding effect of increased flows causes increased energy density and repulsion.

Thus STEM is probably in agreement with Fitzpatrick’s “A” laws:
The space-time interval is diminished the most between any two objects, the closest sides of which "see" themselves spinning or moving on parallel paths in the same direction at the same frequency or a close harmonic thereof. You can also say these two objects will attract each other.

And ‘Both space and time are created the most between any two objects, the closest sides of which "see" themselves spinning or moving on parallel paths in opposite directions at the same frequency or a close harmonic thereof. You can also say these two objects will repel each other.

But STEM's explanation is far simpler and less convoluted than Fitzpatrick’s space-time “A” laws explanation.

Bangstrom on April 24th, 2020, 5:27 am wrote:
How would Ampere’s force law work in the STEM model where negative currents run in one direction and positive currents run in the opposite direction so you have currents running in both directions?

Well it is not really positive and negative currents: it is polarised same-spin bitrons moving in opposite directions representing charge movement that generates the circular magnetic fields around the wire with the resulting apparent attractive and repulsive force effects being formed as described above.

Bangstrom on April 24th, 2020, 5:27 am wrote:
I would favor a model that explains electric charge as a non-local particle to particle interaction. Carver Mead has such a model in his Collective Electrodynamics and Gilbert Lewis also had an early form of the same idea.

Thank you for directing my attention to Carver Mead. I have downloaded a copy of his 2000 book ‘Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism’ and found it most interesting.

What I found particularly impressive was that his equations and inferences were based upon direct experimentation. As he quotes from his mentor and co-worker Richard Feynman:
It is the facts that matter, and not the proofs. Physics can progress without the proofs, but we can’t go on without the facts ... if the facts are right, then the proofs are a matter of playing around with the algebra correctly’. How refreshing in a time where mathematics would seem to be driving the Physics agendas rather than the other way around. Mathematics is much needed, but more so is a sensible interpretation of observation.

Albeit in terms of superconducting wire coils, Carver Mead would seem to suggest that electromagnetic and quantum phenomena are compatible and quantifiable in terms of relatively simple equations. In his part 1 summary he states:
It thus appears possible to formulate a unified, conceptually correct introduction to both the quantum nature of matter and the fundamental laws of electromagnetic interaction without using either Maxwell’s equations or standard quantum formalism’.

I would suggest that superconducting wire coils would represent an excellent analogue model of the STEM toroidal forms of concentrated energy as both represent continually circulating energy (i.e. once the coils are charged and shorted) and both have no internal resistance to the movement of electric charge or energy. So I see his whole experimentation approach, and the equations and concepts derived, to be most relevant to and supportive of the STEM approach.

One example is on page 14 he states:
When we substitute into Eq. 1.5 the measured value of Φ0 and the known value of h, we obtain for q0 a value that is exactly twice the charge qe of the free electron. The usual explanation for this somewhat surprising result is that each state in the superconductor is occupied by a pair of electrons, rather than by an individual electron, so the elemental charge q0 should be 2qe, not qe.

2qe is what would be expected with a 2-way movement of electric charge as suggested by STEM as opposed to the 1-way movement of electrons of the conventional approach.

I also like the development and quantification of the concepts of current density and the related energy density. The ‘distribution of current as being carried by a large number of wires of infinitesimal cross section, and the current density as being the number of such wires per unit area normal to the current flow’. Whereas a copper wire conductor does not consist of ‘a large number of wires of infinitesimal cross section’, in the STEM scheme of things these micro-wires equate to strands, and the energy density (equation 1.11) would seem to relate to the magnetic field energy generated around the current-carrying wire. It also has implications for the STEM proton and neutron models.

The STEM concept of strands also comes into its own related to electrodynamic momentum with respect to the statement ‘in an arrangement where charges are constrained to move in concert, each charge produces phase accumulation, not only for itself but for all the other charges as well. So the inertia of each charge increases linearly with the number of charges moving in concert’.

I will need more time to go through Carver Mead’s book in more detail, but on first pass it is refreshing and exciting to find equations and concepts derived to explain experimental measurements and observations, most of which is supportive of the independently and pragmatically developed STEM approach. Or looking at it from a more selfish perspective, it is great that someone has done the hard yards to set up the experiments and to reasonably quantify the results.

And then there are some of his really great appropriate quotes throughout the book. Two that stood out for me in the context of the energy-centric STEM approach to fundamental particles, electric currents and electromagnetic fields are:
In atomic theory we have fields and we have particles. The fields and the particles are not two different things. They are two ways of describing the same thing— two different points of view.’ — P.A.M. Dirac

I feel that it is a delusion to think of the electrons and the fields as two physically different, independent entities. Since neither can exist without the other, there is only one reality to be described, which happens to have two different aspects.’ — Albert Einstein

So, once again, thank you for the reference. It has been most useful and encouraging.
Attachments
Parallel Wires.PNG
Parallel Current-Carrying Wires
Pivot
Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 14 Apr 2016


Re: Electric Fields and Currents: 'Houston, we have a Proble

Postby bangstrom on May 10th, 2020, 2:32 am 

Pivot » May 5th, 2020, 11:09 pm wrote:
According to STEM positrons are simply high speed electrons with opposite chiralty, which due to their attraction/repulsion patterns, we interpret as representing opposite electric charges.


Could it be that bitrons are ordinary electrons in atoms having left and right-hand spins (c and a spins) and upon the application of an emf they become oriented about their rotational axis and are induced to move in opposite directions?
I like the view of a bi-directional flow of electrons. This places the polarity in the direction of the resulting field and not in the charge or motion of electrons. It is my understanding that the curl of a magnetic field spirals in both directions about a magnet and a current carrying wire.

An electrical current in a liquid is also bi-directional. When someone receives an electrical shock, much of the pain and damage comes from the movement of sodium ions going in one direction and chloride ions going in the other- not from the movement of electrons.

Pivot » May 5th, 2020, 11:09 pm wrote:
For STEM the rationale as to why parallel wires attract if the currents in them are running in the same direction is the direction whereas they repel if the currents are running in the opposite direction is related to the direction of the associated magnetic field generated around the wires as shown in the attached diagram. The field flow cancellation effect between wires and binding flow effect around the wire pair net field effects causes attraction whereas the crowding effect of increased flows causes increased energy density and repulsion.


That makes sense as an explanation for Amperes force law. You may have noted in the quote from Fitzpatrick, he describes what you call a “cancellation effect” as the two electrons “seeing less space-time between them” and your crowding effect he describes as the creation of more space-time.

This sounds much the same as the effects you described but his "creation of more space-time" implies more than a “crowding effect”. Possibly too much more.

Fitzpatrick also considers the source of what we call space-time to be an atmosphere like field created from the combined effect of all these out-of-phase repulsive forces originating from the combined presence of all the masses in the universe. This would be a profound understanding if true. Would you go so far as to say the[b crowding effect is the creation of space-time?

Pivot » May 5th, 2020, 11:09 pm wrote:
But STEM's explanation is far simpler and less convoluted than Fitzpatrick’s space-time “A” laws explanation.


This is a recent quote from Daniel Fitzpatrick and it is relevant to his “creation of space-time” and a current discussion in this forum about the block universe. Fitzpatrick’s mention of a “dark sky” refers back to his explanation for Olber’s paradox. Does this make sense from the perspective of STEM or is it totally out of range?

“For your eye to bond with an electron on a distant star, their in phase portions cannot match unless their external "out of phase" space-time realms match exactly as well.

Think what this means: You are restricted to seeing that star within a microsecond of a specific time!

Because mainly of this and also that our eyes have a limited number of light absorbing cells in them, these number of bonding pairs is severely limited like phase symmetry is telling us and we see a dark sky at night.

This is one major discovery given to us by phase symmetry but the next major discovery is a real whopper indeed.
In our reference frame, it takes about 8 minutes for light to come to us from the sun and it takes years for light to come to your eye from a distant star.

In my last paper I showed you how Hermann Minkowski theorized that light from a distant star came to your eye instantly.
Here's the way phase symmetry gets a quantum of light from that distant star to your eye instantly.
And it's a whopper indeed because no force carrying particle, such as a photon, is needed.

Since it is only these "out of phase" spin frequencies of the electron building all this space-time between the electron in your eye and the electron on the star, then there is NO SPACE-TIME between those tiny in phase portions of both of those electrons.

Thus you obtain the light instantly because there is NO SPACE-TIME between those tiny in phase portions of those two electrons.

But since there still is all that "out of phase" space-time between you and the star then you will see the star as it was years ago, with all that space and time still between you and it.

I hate to call it a "wormhole" through space-time but the only reason that light quanta is coming to your eye instantly is because, in phase symmetry, there is no space-time between those tiny portions in phase of the two binding pair electrons.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 797
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Electric Fields and Currents: 'Houston, we have a Proble

Postby Pivot on June 25th, 2020, 5:40 am 

I would like to close this topic down as it seems to have gone about as far as it can, but would like to direct any readers to the topic to its updated form which is titled 'Holes and the Spin Separation of Orbital Electrons'.

The link to the new topic is: http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=35929
Pivot
Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 14 Apr 2016



Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests