- #36
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 10,295
- 41
rosie said: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