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: 69
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: 729
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: 69
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: 729
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: 69
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: 729
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: 69
Joined: 14 Apr 2016



Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests