Conventional Current in a circuit

[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