Conventional Current in a circuit

[Oscar Wilde]

Alas, another one of my conceptual struggles in regards to current. In regards to a circuit in which a solid metal conductor is used to connect the positive and negative terminals of a battery, I do not understand the idea of conventional current.

I understand the way negative charges (carried by electrons) move- in the opposite direction of the electric field. I am under the impression that only negative charges move in such a circuit. I do not see why there would be a "convential current" (positive charge flow) in the opposite direction of the electron flow. And if there were such a positive flow in the opposite direction of the electron flow, how would the two flows manage to get through the conductor? Wouldn't they just attract each other and get "mixed up" for lack of a better term? Is there even positive flow in such a wire?

 

[jtbell]

There is no actual positive charge flow in such a situation. "Conventional current" is a historical artifact. Blame Benjamin Franklin for the confusion!

Basically, Franklin originated the idea of objects being positively and negatively charged, in his "single fluid" theory of electricity around 1750. In his theory, positively charged objects had an excess of "electric fluid" and negatively charged objects had a deficit. Electric fluid tended to flow (as an electric current) from positively-charged objects to negatively-charged ones, in order to distribute itself more evenly. Franklin could not actually see the direction the electric fluid flows, so he had to guess which objects were positively charged and which ones were negatively charged (and therefore also the direction of current flow).

Now we know that there are actually two kinds of electric charge (positive and negative), but in most everyday electrical phenomena, it is electrons that flow from one object to another, and that they actually flow from Franklin's negatively-charged objects to positively-charged ones.

But by the time people realized this, Franklin's assignment of positive and negative charge, and the corresponding direction of current flow, was so well established and used by everyone, that it would have been too confusing to make everyone change their terminology. So, we still speak of current flowing from positive to negative ("conventional current") even though the electrons flow in the opposite direction, and we call electrons "negatively charged" to make the same objects positively and negatively charged, as before.

 

[Oscar Wilde]

Thank you very much for that! I knew there was something that just wasn't right. I appreciate your response, thanks again

 

[rosie]

I know for a fact that electric current flow has nothing to do with the flow of electrons. They stay right where they are - inside the atoms. The 'flow' of electrons does not exist. What flows is charge. Electrons can be induced to flow - as in tv's ect - but that is a secondary response to the primary 'flow' of charge. And they then need to be collected in an amalgam - before they can respond to this charge. Electrons - within the atoms of conductive wiring - simply do not flow. They stay put. The 'flow' of electric current still needs a definition.

 

[Phrak]

Convensional current is far more useful in circuit analysis and design for the simple reason that NPN transistors have better characteristics than PNP, and now, as well, N channel FETs are better than P channel FETs.

 

[Phrak]

I know for a fact that electric current flow has nothing to do with the flow of electrons. They stay right where they are - inside the atoms. The 'flow' of electrons does not exist. What flows is charge. Electrons can be induced to flow - as in tv's ect - but that is a secondary response to the primary 'flow' of charge. And they then need to be collected in an amalgam - before they can respond to this charge. Electrons - within the atoms of conductive wiring - simply do not flow. They stay put. The 'flow' of electric current still needs a definition.

This is not a fact. It is nonsensical. If you combine your two claims that no electrons flow in a conductor, but will flow in a beam, then you will obtain an imbalance of charge per electron. You will end up with a bunch of naked electrons on the surface of the anode.

This is a physics forum, not a personal-theory forum (sorta).

 

[rosie]

Point taken. I'm suitably reprimanded. But here's my confusion. Current flows through a resistor - pd great enough to spark a fire. Extreme reaction. The fire entirely disintegrates the resistor leaving behind some disassociated iron and carbon atoms. Their number precisely corresponds to the number that initially fromed that resistor. But they are now disassociated. A puddle of powder. All atoms have the same atomic structure as before - including their electrons. Yet something burned up. What was that?

 

[chroot]

All atoms have the same atomic structure as before - including their electrons. Yet something burned up. What was that?

"Fire" is the combination of oxygen with other compounds. In the case of a burning resistor, the binders, enamels, etc. combine with oxygen and become, as you say, "dissociated." This burning process will continue, and the resistance will go up, until the power dissipated by the resistor is no longer capable of achieving those temperatures.

- Warren

 

[rosie]

We have fire in suns that have zero oxygen. My point is that energy was stored in the resistor during its manufacture. This was 'liberated' due to properties of current flow. Result being to dismantle the original manufactured resistor from its identifiable amalgam. But those properties have nothing to do with a flow of electrons. In any event Pauli's exclusion principle would forbid the flow of electrons on a shared path - as required by this image of current flow. The 'flow' of electrons is only something to hold in the mind's eye. I know it is a widely held concept. But whether or not it is correct is still an open question.

 

[JoAuSc]

We have fire in suns that have zero oxygen. My point is that energy was stored in the resistor during its manufacture. This was 'liberated' due to properties of current flow.

What happens is that the current through the resistor would be high enough to heat it up hot enough to cause a fire. The flow of electrons is responsible for the heating up, but not the burning. Now, when electrons flow in a solid, they replace other electrons, so that almost all of the electrons are right next to positively charged nuclei. Electrons replace other electrons, but none are "used up" in the heating up or the fire.

I think you may be confusing the flow of electrons with the flow of electrical power. Electrons travel down a wire pretty slowly, but when one electron is nudged forward, it pushes another, which pushes another, and so forth, and so no electron has to move far for a force to be felt far down the wire.

 

[rosie]

I think that the flaw in this explanation is that one electron nudges another. Electrons will not 'nudge' up against each other any more than like poles on a bar magnet can 'nudge' together. Then too, the time taken for these 'series' of interactions exceeds the time of actual flow of current which is known to be instantaneous. The fact is that engineers use the concept of 'the flow of electrons'. But it has very little to do with known proven fact. But nor is there an explanation of current flow. That's my point. It's the mystery of energy which is still out there. A really big question. Another big question is 'what is fire'? Also no real explanation.

 

[chroot]

We have fire in suns that have zero oxygen.

Whoa! Watch out here, this is one of the most basic misconceptions possible. The Sun is not "on fire." It has no oxygen, and no chemical reactions are taking place within it. Instead, nuclear fusion is operating in its core, fusing hydrogen into helium. This process liberates energy, but has nothing to do with fire. The surface of the Sun appears the color of flame simply because it is roughly the same temperature as a flame.

The 'flow' of electrons is only something to hold in the mind's eye. I know it is a widely held concept. But whether or not it is correct is still an open question.

Actually, this is by no means an "open question." The vast preponderance of evidence is all around you. The behavior of electric currents (of both negative and positive charges) is at the very heart of the science that made possible the microprocessor in the computer you used to type this message. Everything we can do with electricity is made possible by our very, very deep understanding of its microscopic behavior. The largest branch of physics is called consended-matter physics, and one of its largest concerns is the movement of charged particles through matter of various sorts. The number of people and experiments involved in the study of the microscopic behavior of electricity is absolutely immense. We have incredibly good models of the conduction of electricity. Ironically, you are attacking the very most solid branch of physics there is.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

I think that the flaw in this explanation is that one electron nudges another. Electrons will not 'nudge' up against each other any more than like poles on a bar magnet can 'nudge' together.

This is a strawman argument. No physical theory contends that electrons move through conductors by being nudged in turn, so your argument is moot.

Another big question is 'what is fire'? Also no real explanation.

Another big question is whether or not you're simply trolling...

- Warren

 

[rosie]

Warren, I seem to have offended you. I apologise. I know that the field of electrodynamics is extraordinary. What is 'trolling'.

 

[Matterwave]

Rosie: You state a lot of things as if they are scientific fact when in fact they are just plain wrong. Where do you get your information? Have you been reading a lot of VERY old (>200 years) textbooks? I mean, the phenomenon of fire has been explained for quite a while now...

 

[rosie]

Matterwave - I know there's a classical explanation for fire - but it does nothing to explain the thing itself. What, for instance is the difference between fire on Earth and fire in our sun. They both burn. And to explain it as some interaction requiring oxygen also does not explain it. I'm stuck at the fundamentals. I was hoping that by joining this forum I'd get an explanation for these questions. Another question - what is gravity. Another what is the strong and weak nuclear force. I don't mean it's measurment. I mean the thing itself. That I have a mathematical equation to measure it does not explain it. And I am not alone in defying the current flow as a movement of electrons. I have good authorities in profound physicists. But I grant you it is not popular thinking. Either way - can we not agree to disagree. I am in awe of quantum electrodynamics. It's amazing. But because it is so exquistely useable does not explain it. I'm struggling here.

 

[chroot]

Matterwave - I know there's a classical explanation for fire - but it does nothing to explain the thing itself. What, for instance is the difference between fire on Earth and fire in our sun. They both burn. And to explain it as some interaction requiring oxygen also does not explain it. I'm stuck at the fundamentals. I was hoping that by joining this forum I'd get an explanation for these questions.

As I've already said, "fire" is the chemical reaction of oxygen with other compounds, which releases energy as heat. The heat causes ionization and glowing, which we call a "flame."

The Sun does not "burn," and contains no "fire." It fuses hydrogen into helium -- a nuclear, not chemical process -- which releases energy. The heat causes ionization and glowing, which is why the Sun is yellow and bright.

Is this explanation unacceptable? If so, why?

The reason you're getting such gruff answers is that you are stating falsehoods as if they were fact. In fact, you're stating falsehoods that could easily be cleared up by reading a few Wikipedia pages, or *gasp* a freshman-level physics textbook. You haven't made the slightest effort to understand physics, yet appear to believe it is beneath you, and that is deeply offensive.

Another question - what is gravity.

The force that occurs between two massive objects.

Another what is the strong and weak nuclear force.

The forces which occur between certain subatomic particles.

I don't mean it's measurment. I mean the thing itself. That I have a mathematical equation to measure it does not explain it.

Your position is unfortunately extremely common. Science seeks knowledge, and does so by the continual refinement of a model, guided by experimental evidence. The model is used to predict the outcome of experiments, but you feel the model is "just a model," and does not speak of what "really happens" inside atoms. People in your position are often uncomfortable with physical theories unless they involve familiar agents -- billiard balls, ramps, and other macroscopic things.

Perhaps unfortunately, atoms and subatomic particles do not behave in a way that is describable with such macroscopic concepts, and many experiments have proven so. It has been proven that there is no way to extend the human concepts of "sight" and "touch" down to the subatomic level, so scientists do not try. We strive to make models which accurately predict the results of all experiments, and believe the model is therefore a commentary on what happens inside atoms. This is the very best one can do, in fact.

And I am not alone in defying the current flow as a movement of electrons. I have good authorities in profound physicists. But I grant you it is not popular thinking. Either way - can we not agree to disagree. I am in awe of quantum electrodynamics. It's amazing. But because it is so exquistely useable does not explain it. I'm struggling here.

You are most certainly alone in defying the flow of electrons. Your position is literally incompatible with hundreds and hundreds of years of scientific exploration and technological progress. Again, it is paradoxical that you use a computer, yet deny the very understanding that allowed a human being to build it.

The plain truth is this: if you wish to learn physics, perhaps you should begin typing less and reading more.

- Warren

 

[rosie]

Warren - This has been a remarkably ascerbic attack. I have very restricted vision and am obliged to use all kinds of sight aids. Possibly why I do not read enough. But, for my age, I believe I am extremely well read. And there is nothing wrong with my reasoning nor my education in physics which I admit is ongoing. That's why I joined the forum.

However to get back to the point. Could you please reconcile Pauli's exclusion principle with the 'flow of electrons' through your standard electric circuit?

As I understand it electrons belong to the Lepton family. They are charged. They have mutually exclusive orbits around a nucleus. How then do they 'follow each other' however it's done - through electric circuitry? This could only be done if they simultaneously 'lost their charge'.

Regarding your explanation of 'fire'. A 'chemical reaction' that somehow requires oxygen to enable it does nothing to explain the thing itself. All the molecules and all the atoms that go into that 'event' come out in tact. Not even bruised - and not one atom more nor less. Some may float away as gases - some may be trapped by gravity - some may even recombine with other atoms to form new exotic molecules. But all of them are basically and exactly as they were before the fire. So I ask you again - what then is fire? What burned? I propose that it may be their 'bound state' that changed. Just a thought. Because then the energy that was stored was then expended. It balances. But I'm more than likely wrong. I'd just like to know.

if this forum is simply based on a system of 'you ask the question and I'll give the answer' then I have lost the plot. I was rather hoping that we could explore complex questions. They keep me awake. It would help if I could find others who also ask these questions?

But I did not mean to antagonise you. I am just looking to find answers.

That 'fire' in the sun is the result of a nuclear reaction is exactly the same as saying that the fire on the circuit was a chemical reaction. It says nothing about the nature of 'fire'. Is it photons? Is it pure energy? What?

 

[rosie]

sorry - I meant to add - those who disagree with the movement of electrons comprising the flow of current. I'll provide that list tomorrow. I've got to search through my books and it takes ages because - as mentioned - I'm blind as a bat.

 

[chroot]

Warren - This has been a remarkably ascerbic attack. I have very restricted vision and am obliged to use all kinds of sight aids. Possibly why I do not read enough. But, for my age, I believe I am extremely well read. And there is nothing wrong with my reasoning nor my education in physics which I admit is ongoing. That's why I joined the forum.

You appear to have very little interest in education; instead, the bulk of your posts are strawmen and attacks against them. You seem eager to find flaws in a model that you clearly do not understand at all.

However to get back to the point. Could you please reconcile Pauli's exclusion principle with the 'flow of electrons' through your standard electric circuit?

Reconcile? What does the Pauli exclusion principle have to do with the movement of electrons through a conductor in the first place?

As I understand it electrons belong to the Lepton family. They are charged. They have mutually exclusive orbits around a nucleus. How then do they 'follow each other' however it's done - through electric circuitry? This could only be done if they simultaneously 'lost their charge'.

In a conductor, some electrons have energies sufficient to allow them to move freely throughout. The electrons in a conductor can be modeled reasonably well as a gas of free electrons. The electrons are not entirely free, of course, since they do interact with the atoms, but the effect is small.

If you apply an electric field, these mobile electrons will feel a force, and will begin moving. Their thermal energies are relatively high, though. They bounce around randomly inside the conductor with speeds approaching a million miles an hour, but the electric field biases them to travel a little more easily in one direction than the other. Over time, that bias causes them to slowly move through conductor. The speed at which they move through the conductor, the bias, is called the "drift velocity." This speed is on the order of centimeters per hour in normal situations. That's right, an individual electron's progress through a wire is slower than that of a snail.

Regarding your explanation of 'fire'. A 'chemical reaction' that somehow requires oxygen to enable it does nothing to explain the thing itself. All the molecules and all the atoms that go into that 'event' come out in tact.

When you burn something, you modify its molecules. You combine carbon atoms with oxygen atoms, say, and produce carbon dioxide. The atoms are the same, but they have been rearranged. That rearrangement liberates energy.

In the same way, a book on the edge of a table is one valid arrangement of books and tables. If the book falls off, energy will be released. The book might then end up under the table. That's also a valid arrangement, but it has less energy than the previous arrangement. Neither the book nor the table has changed in the process, but their arrangement is different, and energy has been released.

if this forum is simply based on a system of 'you ask the question and I'll give the answer' then I have lost the plot. I was rather hoping that we could explore complex questions. They keep me awake. It would help if I could find others who also ask these questions?

You are more than welcome to ask questions. You are absolutely not welcome to propose your own theories and tout them as being better than those of accepted, mainstream science. That's particularly troublesome when you make it clear that you don't even understand what accepted, mainstream science says in the first place.

That 'fire' in the sun is the result of a nuclear reaction is exactly the same as saying that the fire on the circuit was a chemical reaction. It says nothing about the nature of 'fire'. Is it photons? Is it pure energy? What?

"Fire" is a common name for any chemical reaction involving oxygen. It has no deeper physical meaning.

- Warren

 

[JoAuSc]

I think that the flaw in this explanation is that one electron nudges another. Electrons will not 'nudge' up against each other any more than like poles on a bar magnet can 'nudge' together. Then too, the time taken for these 'series' of interactions exceeds the time of actual flow of current which is known to be instantaneous.

This is a strawman argument. No physical theory contends that electrons move through conductors by being nudged in turn, so your argument is moot.

Maybe I should've used a better word than "nudge". I did not mean to imply that electrons bounce into each other like billiard balls, or line up behind each other one-by-one, but rather that:

1. when you apply an electric field to a small portion of a wire loop, the electrons will move in the opposite direction (since they're negatively charged), and this will cause the charge density to change from 0 everywhere to positive in one direction of the portion of wire and negative in the other direction;
2. the electrostatic force ensures that any charge density created will push forward more electrons, which will in turn create a new charge density change; and
3. this means that a charge density wave will propagate around the wire.

This example shows how electrical power can be transmitted down a wire. You can imagine a similar example with water in a loop of pipes, where you would only have to move the water a little bit to get all of the rest of the water to move a little bit.

I don't claim that this is exactly what happens; for example, I didn't mention drag, I didn't mention the random thermal motions the electrons were doing before any electric field was applied, and in the long term (over the time it would take to get the electric field to full strength) the electron motion would be less wavey and more uniform throughout the wire, but I hope I've made myself clearer.

I know for a fact that electric current flow has nothing to do with the flow of electrons. They stay right where they are - inside the atoms.

In a metal, not all electrons are stuck to atoms. The higher-energy electrons (the "conduction electrons") can travel almost freely within the metal.

It's difficult to explain why the Pauli exclusion principle does not prevent electrons from traveling through a metal. One explanation is this: When an electron is in an atom, it is in a quantum state (or a superposition of them), and when an electron is a conduction electron, it is also in a quantum state, in this case one which is spread out among the entire metal...I think. (I posted a question about this a little while ago, but got no replies.) Anyway, conduction electrons move in conduction electron states, and thus don't have to worry about using the atomic states which would be forbidden under the Pauli exclusion principle.

That 'fire' in the sun is the result of a nuclear reaction is exactly the same as saying that the fire on the circuit was a chemical reaction. It says nothing about the nature of 'fire'. Is it photons? Is it pure energy? What?

"Fire" is a process. It is a chemical reaction. Maybe you're thinking about "what is a flame?", in which case I can tell you it's very hot gases which glow. They are hot because the chemical reaction releases a lot of energy. I don't know if they glow from being so hot (i.e., I don't know if thermal radiation is strong enough at visual frequencies at the temperature of a fire to explain its glow), or if they glow due to chemical reactions which are occurring within the gas or the particles in the flame.

 

[rosie]

Ok. Here's the situation. I have a simple flyback switching circuit with a load in series with an inductor. A diode is placed in parallel to both resistor and inductor and returns to the battery. The switch is opeated with a 555 powering a MOSFET. The MOSFET has a protection body diode so that current is enabled during the off and on period of each switching cycle. I can arrange the frequency of the switch to operate at, say, 100KHz. The apparatus is powered by a battery. I generate a voltage across the load resistor and through my scope meter can see that the waveform is above zero for say, 90% of each cycle which corresponds to the on period of the duty cycle. Then the switch opens - the fields in the inductor collapse and the waveform moves in a sharp voltage spike before returning to zero. That spike goes way below zero. and this energy, from collapsing fields in the inductor can be seen to cause a small but measurable increase in the voltage across my battery showing that it is partially recharging the battery. Bear in mind that the circuit integrity is retained during the off period of the duty cycle by virtue of the MOSFET's protection body diode. This is well known. Nothing new. Not hypothetical.

It has to be due to the 'negative' voltage causing this fractional recharge in the battery - which implies that there is a definite negative current flow. The v squared over r analysis of the wattage at the resistor corresponds to both cycles including that sharp spike. In other words the resistor gets hot.

Now. Electrons first 'flowed' to establish the positive current flow which resulted in the voltage across the resistor above zero. Then they 'flowed' to establish the negative current flow back through the resistor and then to the battery. As mentioned, the battery is seen to partially recharge. But the electron cannot be responsible for both a negative and a positive current flow. So it must be something other than the electron that managed the second half of that flow.

Then. If the flow of 'loose electrons' in metal stuctures determine a postive current flow do 'loose protons' then allow for a negative current flow? To the best of my knowledge there are no loose protons or electrons in either. Just speculatively there may be. But that's not scientific.

That's another reason that I question conventional models.

 

[rosie]

JoAuSc - I have just seen your post. The above was meant for Warren regarding the properties of current flow. It's so nice to get a thoughtful reply. Thanks for that. I'll study it tomorrow. Right now I'm tired and feeling a bit bruised.

Rosie

 

[rosie]

Warren - by the way, I've actually done that experiment. I think it's called a flyback circuit used for powering battery operated drills and such like. The point is that if you put the diode to a second battery connected to the supply battery only through the negative rail - you can actually see the recharge cycle in process. I think it's used - partially - in that drill system - but am not sure. The point is that when you use it precisely for generating heat - then there's a marginal increase in efficiency.

 

[chroot]

If electrons travel one direction, you're free to call that "positive current." If the electrons travel in the opposite direction, you're free to call that "negative current." Both are still due to the movement of electrons.

- Warren

 

[rosie]

Ok. Then what flows when you use a positively ionised battery?

 

[chroot]

What's a "positively ionized battery?"

- Warren

 

[rosie]

What I mean is not an acid but an alkaline battery. The one's that you use in your remotes etc.

 

[dx]

Whatever battery you use, the electrons are the ones that flow in wires.

 

[chroot]

What I mean is not an acid but an alkaline battery. The one's that you use in your remotes etc.

Battery chemistry is irrelevant to the discussion of electric conduction.

By the way, you should attribute credit to whomever actually wrote your post #22.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

1. when you apply an electric field to a small portion of a wire loop, the electrons will move in the opposite direction (since they're negatively charged), and this will cause the charge density to change from 0 everywhere to positive in one direction of the portion of wire and negative in the other direction;
2. the electrostatic force ensures that any charge density created will push forward more electrons, which will in turn create a new charge density change; and
3. this means that a charge density wave will propagate around the wire.

This is really not a good way to describe the flow of current.

An electric field can be established between the ends of a wire in virtually no time at all -- changes in the field propagate at the speed of light in the material (c for conductors hanging in vacuum, about one foot per nanosecond for a conductors embedded in fiberglass).

As soon as the electric field has been established, electrons will respond to it. It is not necessary for charges to move, or for a wave of charge density to propagate through the wire. In fact, that charge density wave does not exist; even a small imbalance of charge density from one part of the wire to the next would result in extremely large forces. The charge density is uniform throughout the conductor (ignoring edge effects), and is not affected by the application of a uniform electric field.

- Warren

 

[Phrak]

For a step change in voltage applied to one end of a straight conductor, an electric field, magnetic field, and the current change, all in phase, down the length of the wire. Would the net charge porpagate as something of a shock wave, everywhere zero except at the step propagating near c, or will the charge be simply picked up along the way. I can't seem to see get the equation.

 

[DruidArmy]

Hi,
There may be a positive flow (conventional current) moving opposite to the electron flow, as evidenced by the positive Canal Rays which exit the cathode.

Don't you agree?

 

[rosie]

Warren
"By the way, you should attribute credit to whomever actually wrote your post #22".

I'm actually flattered that you assume it was written by someone else. It was an experiment that I did to see if transients could be used to enhance efficiency. As you know these are 'thrown away' as a rule - because they're redundant to the objects of most applications. If you send me your email address I'll download the details of the experiment. It was all duly recorded. Not ground breaking - but interesting. Post 22 was indeed written by me. Who else? I'm the only member of my family who is interested in physics. Truth is I think I used that example to try and show you that I do know a little bit about physics. But - before you state the obvious. I really do know a very little bit. I know this because there's so much out there that I don't know.

Classical theory is really not as complete as you imply. I agree that quantum electrodynamics is amazing. But - as you said - it is all modeled on concepts - of necessity. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is the foundation of all quantum physics and it was actually a cop out. Gravity - which you've described in a sentence - has never been fully reconciled with Einstein's theories on relativity. They're giants - Pauli, Heisenberg, Maxwell - all. But to the best of my knowledge none of them ever pretended to understand everything. The search is still on for the unifying principle. And that has to include gravity - dark energy and matter - and certain questions on locality that - thus far are known as paradoxes. Lots of questions Warren.

If I presume to question classical interpretations of current flow its because I can't buy into or get my head around one simple question. In the process of manufacture and refinement - electrons - extraneous to the material - free floating and from nowhere - attach themselves to the material of that amalgam. Just that. Where do these free floating electrons come from? And how do they attach?

I took the trouble to look up the definition of current flow. Your explanation is consistent with this - but also includes the requirement for 'free floating protons' in a battery supply source. Do these also move through the wire that they connects them to those free floating electrons. Sorry. I just don't buy it.

For me personally there are many more questions here than answers. I promised you a list of those physicists who do not 'buy into' the electron flow model. Starting with Pauli - his princple forbids the possibility of leptons 'sharing a path' - anywhere in or out of an atom. Paul Dyson - conceptual physics and Gary Zukov - dancing wu li masters. This latter is authoritative as it was approved and edited by a huge number of his colleagues. I'll add to that list but that's a start.

 

[rosie]

Sorry Warren. I don't suppose I should post two in one day - but there's another point. Let's say that we simply apply a battery in series with a load. The electrons all shift in one direction. Do they eventually spill out into the battery?

 

[chroot]

Classical theory is really not as complete as you imply.

You are correct, physics is not complete. That does not mean that our models of very basic phenomena like conduction are also incomplete.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is the foundation of all quantum physics and it was actually a cop out.

The HUP is absolutely not the foundation of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is based on a number of postulates, none of which make any reference to the HUP. The HUP is actually a derivation from those postulates -- hardly "fundamental" at all.

Gravity - which you've described in a sentence - has never been fully reconciled with Einstein's theories on relativity. They're giants - Pauli, Heisenberg, Maxwell - all. But to the best of my knowledge none of them ever pretended to understand everything. The search is still on for the unifying principle. And that has to include gravity - dark energy and matter - and certain questions on locality that - thus far are known as paradoxes. Lots of questions Warren.

Yes, yes, lots of questions, indeed. Unfortunately, electron conduction in wires is not one of them.

In the process of manufacture and refinement - electrons - extraneous to the material - free floating and from nowhere - attach themselves to the material of that amalgam. Just that. Where do these free floating electrons come from? And how do they attach?

What in the world are you talking about? The manufacture of what? Wires? Wires are made of metal, and, like all macroscopic substances, are always extremely close to being electrically neutral.

I took the trouble to look up the definition of current flow. Your explanation is consistent with this - but also includes the requirement for 'free floating protons' in a battery supply source. Do these also move through the wire that they connects them to those free floating electrons. Sorry. I just don't buy it.

Currents of electrons don't require complementary currents of protons at all! Hydroelectric generators do it quite well, with no movement of protons at all. Chemical batteries employ the conduction of protons, but that's no surprise -- that's how batteries were designed to work.

A chemical battery involves so-called "redox" reactions, which involve the movement of electrons from molecule to another. In other words, electrons are stripped from some molecules and deposited on others. The battery is cleverly designed so that, while the positive ions are able to flow easily through the battery's liquid, the electrons cannot, and are forced to move through a circuit instead.

For me personally there are many more questions here than answers.

It seems that you have never considered reading a book, since the answers to your questions are readily available.

I promised you a list of those physicists who do not 'buy into' the electron flow model. Starting with Pauli - his princple forbids the possibility of leptons 'sharing a path' - anywhere in or out of an atom.

The Pauli Exclusion Principle says that no two particles can have the same quantum numbers. Quantum numbers represent the available states of some system with some quantized quantity. It does not apply to the movement of electrons in conductors, because conductors have a continuum -- an infinitude -- of available states. Your argument is without merit.

Paul Dyson - conceptual physics and Gary Zukov - dancing wu li masters.

I think you'd need to provide specific quote for these fellows to actually give any weight to your argument. Besides, if your arguments had any weight of their own, you probably would not feel compelled to grasp at straws as slippery as these.

The discussion of personal theories is disallowed here. If you wish to gain a better understanding of existing physical theory (your understanding is appalling), feel free to continue the discussion. If you wish to tout your own personal theory, though, I'm afraid you'll have to find greener pastures.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Sorry Warren. I don't suppose I should post two in one day - but there's another point. Let's say that we simply apply a battery in series with a load. The electrons all shift in one direction. Do they eventually spill out into the battery?

A battery with a load connected across it sources electrons from one terminal and sinks them at the other. The electrons in the circuit are like the liquid inside a circular pipe. The battery is like a pump that keeps the water endlessly circling through that pipe.

I personally cannot believe that you are capable of building something using a 555 timer, yet do not understand even the most basic concepts of electronics.

- Warren

 

[JoAuSc]

This is really not a good way to describe the flow of current.

An electric field can be established between the ends of a wire in virtually no time at all -- changes in the field propagate at the speed of light in the material (c for conductors hanging in vacuum, about one foot per nanosecond for a conductors embedded in fiberglass).

As soon as the electric field has been established, electrons will respond to it. It is not necessary for charges to move, or for a wave of charge density to propagate through the wire. In fact, that charge density wave does not exist; even a small imbalance of charge density from one part of the wire to the next would result in extremely large forces. The charge density is uniform throughout the conductor (ignoring edge effects), and is not affected by the application of a uniform electric field.

- Warren

I'm confused. You seem to be assuming that the electric field is applied equally to all portions of the wire loop, where I'm saying that it's applied only to a small portion of the wire. I was thinking of a battery, which a potential difference within its region and doesn't directly exert an E-field elsewhere in the circuit. Of course, if an E-field is applied equally to all regions of the wire, all of the charges accelerate equally, and thus the charge density would remain zero everywhere even while the current is being ramped up. This is not the system I'm talking about. The system I'm talking about has a potential difference being applied to a small portion of the wire. An electromotive force would soon set itself up to push the electrons contained in the rest of the circuit. This process would necessitate non-zero charge densities that propagate around the wire, though they'd be very small and would only last for the tiniest fraction of a second. They'd be like sound waves being created when something is pushed through water, or those E-fields which exist for a split second within a conductor just after you place charges on them but before equilibrium is reached.

edit: It's strange to think of just how many different ways we describe electricity in order to understand its different properties. I tried explaining it with electrons nudging electrons, as if they were charged pool balls moving down a pipe. There's the water analogy which is popular. There's the description of electrons as particles which collide and move in many different directions, which helps explain their thermal motion and resistivity. There's the view of electrons as waves, and the view of electrons as occupants of the conduction band, two views which are logically consistent but difficult to picture simultaneously. No wonder people have difficult understanding this.

 

[rosie]

"The HUP is absolutely not the foundation of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is based on a number of postulates, none of which make any reference to the HUP. The HUP is actually a derivation from those postulates -- hardly "fundamental" at all."

A famous meeting held in Copenhagen just after the war - attended by Bhor - Heisenberg et al. Feynman's diagrams were ridiculed by Bhor as having no place in the description of an atom. Bhor claimed that that the only valid expression of particle interactions was mathematical. That night - and, I think it may have been one more day - something like that - Heisenberg formulated his 'uncertainty principle'. On the basis of his insights that meeting then reached consensus which was reached to accept quantum measurements as valid. Prior to that there was the very real possibility that schism would halt scientific progress. That was the 'birth' of quantum mechanics. You cannot get more fundamental than that.


" 'In the process of manufacture and refinement - electrons - extraneous to the material - free floating and from nowhere - attach themselves to the material of that amalgam. Just that. Where do these free floating electrons come from? And how do they attach?'

'What in the world are you talking about? The manufacture of what? Wires? Wires are made of metal, and, like all macroscopic substances, are always extremely close to being electrically neutral.'"

According to the commonly held model of electric current flow and as described by yourself - the assumption is that 'free floating electrons' somehow attach themselves to conductive material. These 'free floating' electrons then enable the transfer of current from a suppy source. That's not my definition it's the general definition. My question is - 'how do they attach to this metal? is all. Is it when the metal is refined - manufactured? And then where do these extraneous electrons come from? The air? The applied heat when the wire at the point of manufacture?

'Currents of electrons don't require complementary currents of protons at all! Hydroelectric generators do it quite well, with no movement of protons at all. Chemical batteries employ the conduction of protons, but that's no surprise -- that's how batteries were designed to work.'

Same question. Where do these 'free floating protons come from?

'A chemical battery involves so-called "redox" reactions, which involve the movement of electrons from molecule to another. In other words, electrons are stripped from some molecules and deposited on others. The battery is cleverly designed so that, while the positive ions are able to flow easily through the battery's liquid, the electrons cannot, and are forced to move through a circuit instead.'

Now I really have a problem. Back to the 'flow of electrons'. If I use a battery supply source that only enables a current flow in one direction then all those electrons move from terminal A to terminal B. Hypothetically, if the battery has a limitless pd capacity all those 'free floating' electrons would collect at terminal B at 'the end of the road' so to speak. Meanwhile 'free floating' protons would build up at terminal A? How does the 'Redox theory' resolve this consequence?

'It seems that you have never considered reading a book, since the answers to your questions are readily available.'"

Show me the book that 'explains' current flow and does not simply describe it. I'm looking for that book. Its on the lines of - who was it that said 'explain and electron and then I can tell you everything'? I've read up many interesting explanations of current flow - even contributions to this forum (not this link) - that are really excellent. JoAuSc's has pointed to the varying number of such. But the simple flow of electron's is simply not logical - for me personally. All such are contradicted by the effects of a DC current. And even when you develop ac from a DC supply source - certain effects remain unanswerable - specifically the instantaneous discharge of below zero voltage (reverse current flow) that transfers its pd in nano seconds back to the terminal. That far exceeds any time required to adjust the 'electron's path' as required by the very best models of current flow.

'The Pauli Exclusion Principle says that no two particles can have the same quantum numbers. Quantum numbers represent the available states of some system with some quantized quantity. It does not apply to the movement of electrons in conductors, because conductors have a continuum -- an infinitude -- of available states. Your argument is without merit.'

anyway you cut this - the fact is that Pauli - the genius - determined that it is impossible for electrons to 'share a path'.

'I think you'd need to provide specific quote for these fellows to actually give any weight to your argument. Besides, if your arguments had any weight of their own, you probably would not feel compelled to grasp at straws as slippery as these.'

I should supply specific quotes - but I wont. It takes up too much time. Just read the books. Dancing Wu Li Masters is excellent reading.

'The discussion of personal theories is disallowed here. If you wish to gain a better understanding of existing physical theory (your understanding is appalling), feel free to continue the discussion. If you wish to tout your own personal theory, though, I'm afraid you'll have to find greener pastures.'

I wish I had a theory to tout. But you're right. My understanding is appalling. I simply do not understand electric current flow. I have a model that I use. Simply that current flow is a mystery. That way I don't pretend to understand what I don't.

Regarding your comment that you do not believe that I could build a 555 switching system. Anyone can build this. Why should it be out of my capabilities. It's no big deal. Info readily available on google. No great skill. Just tricky soldering - for me personally. My eyesight is appalling. I'd be happy to forward you my paper - as mentioned. But it's boring reading. Written for a technical journal - in a discussion on energy co-efficients.

I must apologise to you for contradicting you as bluntly as I did in an earlier post. Not very diplomatic. As a rule I try to exercise more constraint. But the first question was so delicious - and I did not want it to disappear from this thread. But nor did I expect to get so involved.

I have no intention of describing my qualifications or otherwise. I find that such posturing is just arrogant and egocentric and hardly promotes discussion. It's precisely because these questions are discussed that I love PF. As mentioned in other posts - questions keep me awake. And it's a pleasure to find that others also grapple. But I'm really wary of anyone who says they know everything. That's scarey. Not even our giants have presumed to do this.

- Warren
Report Post Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
chroot
View Public Profile
Send a private message to chroot
Find More Posts by chroot
Add chroot to Your Contacts
Old Y, 08:01 AM #37
chroot

PF Admin

chroot's Avatar

chroot is Online:
Posts: 9,921

Re: Conventional Current
Originally Posted by rosie View Post

Sorry Warren. I don't suppose I should post two in one day - but there's another point. Let's say that we simply apply a battery in series with a load. The electrons all shift in one direction. Do they eventually spill out into the battery?

A battery with a load connected across it sources electrons from one terminal and sinks them at the other. The electrons in the circuit are like the liquid inside a circular pipe. The battery is like a pump that keeps the water endlessly circling through that pipe.

I personally cannot believe that you are capable of building something using a 555 timer, yet do not understand even the most basic concepts of electronics.

- Warren

 

[rosie]

Abject apologies. I've just expanded that article and see that I've pasted the entire thing. Blame my eyesight. It's what happens when I don't edit my contributions. So sorry. Do you want me to represent this? Probably not. Sorry for the erroneous and excesive pasting.

 

[Born2bwire]

"The HUP is absolutely not the foundation of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is based on a number of postulates, none of which make any reference to the HUP. The HUP is actually a derivation from those postulates -- hardly "fundamental" at all."

A famous meeting held in Copenhagen just after the war - attended by Bhor - Heisenberg et al. Feynman's diagrams were ridiculed by Bhor as having no place in the description of an atom. Bhor claimed that that the only valid expression of particle interactions was mathematical. That night - and, I think it may have been one more day - something like that - Heisenberg formulated his 'uncertainty principle'. On the basis of his insights that meeting then reached consensus which was reached to accept quantum measurements as valid. Prior to that there was the very real possibility that schism would halt scientific progress. That was the 'birth' of quantum mechanics. You cannot get more fundamental than that.

I don't even know where to begin with this. Heisenberg formulated his uncertainty principle in the late 1920's. Feynman got his doctorate shortly before the war started and I do not think he had his first faculty position until after the war. He wouldn't have been invited to a meeting of the caliber. Plus, Shroedinger's paper was published before Heisenberg's uncertainty paper and it was inspired by de Broglie's work after being given the suggestion by Debye, not Heisenberg.

EDIT: I have something else attracting my attention so I'm coming back to pick and edit but I agree with chroot. The origin of quantum mechanics is from Planck. Schroedinger's equation, my point being, was a consequence of, according to Bloch, Debye's suggestion that he look into de Broglie. I would put Schroedinger as the birth of what most people think as quantum mechanics. Heisenberg's work in the uncertainty principle is a result of the formulalism. I never came across people that used the uncertainty principle as any basis for theory until I came to these forums and those that do I will never agree with. It is a consequence of the postulates and formalism of quantum mechanics, not a theory or proof in of itself.

 

[chroot]

That was the 'birth' of quantum mechanics. You cannot get more fundamental than that.

The birth of quantum mechanics is generally considered to be Planck's quantization of energy leading to the resolution of the ultraviolet catastrophe. I really don't know where you get your history; most of your claims seem to be simply made up to fit your cock-eyed view of physics.

Quantum mechanics begins with a few simple postulates (how states and operators are represented, basically), and the HUP is derived from them. In fact, the HUP is a direct consequence of the fact that the Fourier transform is used to transform wavefunctions which are functions of position to wavefunctions which are functions of momentum. The people who created quantum mechanics chose that relationship, and the HUP is a direct consequence of that choice.

If you disagree with the use of Fourier transforms for this purpose, then you also disagree with all of the predictions made by quantum mechanics, even those which have been verified to extraordinary precision. You may also want to consider the fact that the Fourier transform is a very natural tool in the study of all waves -- it takes center stage in optics, electrical engineering, and many other disciplines.

According to the commonly held model of electric current flow and as described by yourself - the assumption is that 'free floating electrons' somehow attach themselves to conductive material. These 'free floating' electrons then enable the transfer of current from a suppy source. That's not my definition it's the general definition.

I see, you're asking the following question: If the electrons are a free gas, what's keeping them inside the metal? Why don't they just escape? That's a perfectly fine question to ask, rosie, and I don't think anyone would mind you asking it. Unfortunately, your desire to be right has ruined your ability to see the limits of your own understanding. Instead of approaching this forum with questions about physics, you have approached with it accusations, mostly about things you don't even understand. As with every "objection" you've brought up in this thread, this "objection" just illustrates another of your misconceptions.

The atoms in a sample of metal are all more or less electrically neutral. When you dig the stuff out of the earth, each atom is neutral, with an equal number of protons and electrons. When you refine it, melt it, etc., this remains the same. No electrons are added, from anywhere. They were native to the atoms.

Inside the metal, the orbitals of the atoms overlap, and the electrons can easily "slide around" from one atom the next. The electrons are weakly bound. Imagine a small cube inside the metal; over a short period of time, some electrons will have entered the cube, and some will have left it. On average, the same number enter as leave, so the average density of electrons does not change.

Now, the answer to your question is this: the electrons do not escape the surface of the metal because they do not have the energy to escape. The electromagnetic force is very strong, and the positive nuclei strongly attract the negative electrons. An electron would have to have a great deal of energy to be able to get past this, just as a rocket must have a great deal of energy to be able to escape Earth's gravity. You are welcome to imagine the electrons jumping up, outside the surface of the metal by some small distance, but falling right back into it because of the enormous strength of the electromagnetic force.

The best analogy I can give you is this. Imagine taking a common cafeteria tray, with a flat surface and a lip around it. Now imagine using a tool to make a series of shallow dents in it, in a regular pattern so they nearly overlap. Put a bunch of ball bearings on the tray and jostle it side to side. You'll see that the ball bearings (electrons) can easily move from one dent (atom) to another, because the "hills" between them are not very tall, but have a much harder time jumping over the lip (surface). The jostling is analogous to thermal excitation, which makes the electrons zip around inside the metal, constantly interacting with each other and the nuclei. Every now and then, a ball bearing (electron) randomly acquires enough energy to escape the tray (metal). Once the metal loses an electron this way, it will eventually gain another from an interaction with its environment. Being a few electrons short of exact neutrality is inconsequential, anyway.

If you shine a strong light on a metal, some of the photons strike electrons, and give them enough energy to escape. This is the so-called photoelectric effect, and it was one of the first experimental clues that led to quantum mechanics.

Where do these 'free floating protons come from?

The 'free-floating protons' in a battery are the hydrogen atoms attached to acid molecules. The acids, of course, were found in the earth, or generated by some chemical reaction from things that were found in the earth. The protons were present in the original materials, and thus are present in the battery.

Now I really have a problem. Back to the 'flow of electrons'. If I use a battery supply source that only enables a current flow in one direction then all those electrons move from terminal A to terminal B. Hypothetically, if the battery has a limitless pd capacity all those 'free floating' electrons would collect at terminal B at 'the end of the road' so to speak. Meanwhile 'free floating' protons would build up at terminal A? How does the 'Redox theory' resolve this consequence?

No. As I've said -- are you actually reading my replies? -- a circuit is like a circular pipe full of water. A battery is like a pump which pushes the water around the loop.

The electrons do not "pile up" at the positive terminal; they are sucked into the intake of the pump (the + terminal) and pushed out the outlet (the - terminal). Since nothing piles up anywhere, the wire (and the battery) remains electrically neutral all the while.

Show me the book that 'explains' current flow and does not simply describe it. I'm looking for that book.

Any freshman-level introductory textbook will have at least some treatment of electron conduction. I suggest that you stop reading tripe like The Dancing Wu Li Masters and begin reading more meaningful texts if you really wish to find meaning.

But the simple flow of electron's is simply not logical - for me personally. All such are contradicted by the effects of a DC current. And even when you develop ac from a DC supply source - certain effects remain unanswerable - specifically the instantaneous discharge of below zero voltage (reverse current flow) that transfers its pd in nano seconds back to the terminal. That far exceeds any time required to adjust the 'electron's path' as required by the very best models of current flow.

I have no idea what you're talking about, but, rest assured, there are no glaring holes in our understanding of electromagnetism, or the behavior of ac and dc currents. Your continual insistence that something is "wrong" with physics is ridiculous; you don't know enough about it to even begin criticizing it.

anyway you cut this - the fact is that Pauli - the genius - determined that it is impossible for electrons to 'share a path'.

Excuse me? Do you not realize that the PEP is a physical statement, which must be expressed in a very precise way in order for it to mean anything at all? I gave you the definition of the PEP -- fermions must all have unique quantum numbers -- and it definitely cannot be turned into some english statement about "sharing a path."

I'm going to be honest, rosie. I've been lenient with you. This is an educational site, and all you've done so far is erect strawmen and mouth off about your perceived paradoxes. If you're now going to stick your fingers in your ears and chant "I'm right, you're wrong," then you really do not belong here.

I should supply specific quotes - but I wont. It takes up too much time. Just read the books. Dancing Wu Li Masters is excellent reading.

Garbage. If you want to understand science, start reading books on science. Stop reading books about science. Clearly, The Dancing Wu Li Masters has done you a great disservice.

I have a model that I use. Simply that current flow is a mystery. That way I don't pretend to understand what I don't.

You do not simply say "I don't know how current flows." You entered this thread by claiming to have found all sorts of flaws in our theory of conduction, but I have shown them all to be your own errors. Now you're claiming to not understand anything, eh?

I have no intention of describing my qualifications or otherwise. I find that such posturing is just arrogant and egocentric and hardly promotes discussion.

I don't care about you qualifications. I care about you coming onto PF and saying things like physics is all wrong because it says electrons do x when in fact the theory says electrons do nothing at all like x.

You must understand a theory before you can criticize it, and you are a long, long way from understanding it.

But I'm really wary of anyone who says they know everything. That's scarey. Not even our giants have presumed to do this.

"Trust those who seek the truth; fear those who claim to have it." (paraphrased from Andrew Gide)

- Warren

 

[rosie]

Warren, I'll get back on this. But just one thing - If you refer to what was written - I have only ever claimed that 'the flow of current has nothing to do with the flow of electrons'. This was a cheek - I know. But I did not want the thread to end on a note that I feel left the first question unanswered.

I then said, without meaning to pretend to be right - that the 'bound state' of amalgams is the one thing that goes - when there's a fire. As I cannot understand current my model is this. The bound state changes. All metals suffer fatigue. Possibly stored energy somehow enabled that bound state and then was expended as energy was dissipated. so - for what it's worth - while I do not buy into current flow as determined by the you - I have never replaced it with any theory. Nor do I recommend anyone use this model. NEVER NEVER NEVER have I claimed to know the answers. Indeed I am on record as saying that current flow is as mysterious as energy itself.

But my model being the mysterious property of energy - which I do not know or understand - at least explains - for me only - the fact that metal and resistors suffer fatigue. And this intrigues me. In other words - dissipated energy, as heat, appears to degrade the bound state of matter. There is definitely stored energy in that amalgam - so perhaps the energy delivered by the battery, dissipated at the load, relates to the amount of energy stored in the manufacture of that resistor. If that constitutes an attack on conventional thinking - it was not intended.

 

[Born2bwire]

I'm sure you can account for the eccentricities of your circuit by application of the appropriate circuit theory rather than trying to come up with such an esoteric explanation as it being energy stored in the manufacture, whatever that is.

 

[rosie]

Warren and Born2bwire. You are right. Feynman had nothing to do with the argument I've just looked it up. And indeed Feynman was born in 1918 - after the war. Apparently the Copenhagen Interpretation relates to the resolution of the wave/particle duality. Heisenberg was due to present his paper at The Solvay Congress. His first attempt was ridiculed. He had a stand up argument with Bohr. He worked on that paper during the night and the next morning at a beach somewhere near Copenhagen he 'saw the light'. He presented his argument and Bohr bought in - so much so that the two of them toured ad lectured extensively thereafter, promoting their theories - thereby laying down the foundations for quantum mechanics. The Congress was successful in as much as the majority 'bought' into the theory. Significant opposition from both Einstein and Schrodinger until their respective deaths based on the following - and I quote

"It is the job of physicists to uncover the laws of nature that govern those motions which, in the end will not require statistical theories"

Einstein did not 'buy into' quantum physics precisely because it did not promote a fundamental understanding of the atom and its particles. Nor does it yet. The only thing that quantum electrodynamics does with unparalleled success is measure and apply a concept of electric energy that is unquestionably remarkable and that has launched us into the 21st century. But it does not promote a conceptual understanding of particle interaction.

there is nothing wrong is trying to get a fundamental understanding of this. Quite apart from which all concepts that try to promote an understanding based on the 'flow of electron's' - while it may be widely used - is indeed flawed.

Gary Zukov's book - that you dismiss as 'rubbish' was edited and approved by a huge number of his collegues. It was his answer to Einstein's challenge to explain physics away from 'statistical theories'.

I happily do account for the 'eccentricities' of my circuit by the application of appropriate circuit theory. it is the current 'description' that eludes me. That is an entirely different thing.

And as you so rightly say Born2bwire - it has nothing to do with Feynman. However, quantum mechanics rested on the brilliant insights of Heisenberg - which insightes were presented at the Solvay Congress in 1927 resulting in a resolution of the wave/particle duality. And he and Niels Bohr are thereby regarded as being the fathers of quantum mechanics.

 

[chroot]

Einstein did not 'buy into' quantum physics precisely because it did not promote a fundamental understanding of the atom and its particles.

So what? Many great minds before us have been wrong: Descartes, Bohr, Einstein, Newton, you name it. In fact, virtually ALL of the great minds before us were wrong in one way or another, but that does not dull their achievements. If you think that Einstein's resistance of quantum theory somehow makes it wrong, you might as well close up shop right now and forget about learning any real science.

Nor does it yet. The only thing that quantum electrodynamics does with unparalleled success is measure and apply a concept of electric energy that is unquestionably remarkable and that has launched us into the 21st century. But it does not promote a conceptual understanding of particle interaction.

Quantum electrodynamics predicts the results of experiments with staggering precision. It permits us to build microprocessors which behave exactly like we expect them to behave. It allows us to build lasers, waveguides, and an almost endless number of other technological marvels. In the microscopic world, it allows us to understand what happens with individual photons and individual electrons. If is a conceptual framework, one which happens to answer questions quite well.

If you invented another conceptual framework, which predicted the same experimental outcomes, then your conceptual framework and that of QED would necessarily turn out to be isomorphic -- the same.

all concepts that try to promote an understanding based on the 'flow of electron's' - while it may be widely used - is indeed flawed.

This is where you stick your fingers in your ears and chant "I'm right, you're wrong." You don't have the foggiest idea how little you actually know about science, and you're certainly not equipped to make any judgments of its quality.

This quote is exactly the sort of thing that is not permitted on PF, and thus this quote brings this thread to a close. It may well bring your participation on this site to a close, also.

- Warren