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: 71
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: 739
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: 71
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: 739
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: 71
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: 739
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: 71
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: 739
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: 71
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: 739
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: 71
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: 739
Joined: 18 Sep 2014



Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests