Static electricity and current electricity .

[McQueen]

The distinctions which are thought to exist between static electricity and current electricity are unfounded and , if subjected to a rational examination , patently absurd.
Static electricity maybe described as an unequal distribution of charge (either excess positive or negative charge ) on a conductor , which results in an electrical force existing at right angles to the plane of the surface of the conductor. In a spherical conductor this results in the lines of force acting as though they emanated from the centre of the sphere. Thus to all practical purposes a spherical conductor behaves like a point charge. The electrical force or lines of force referred to above , are infact linked together chains of photons , the presence of which are representative of an electromagnetic field. Thus a corollary of an unequal distribution of charge on a conductor (i.e static electricity ) is that it always results , as shall be shown experimentally , in the formation of an electromagnetic field and not an electric field as hitherto been widely held . An unequal distribution of electric charge can never be left unresolved , hence the formation of an electromagnetic field linking positively charged points to negatively charged points , in effect forming an electric di-pole and neutralising the effects of the excess charge. This explanation should itself be sufficient to establish the truth of this theory , for while present theory merely observes that “lines of force “ exist when either an excess positive or negative charge is present on a conductor , it offers no explanation for the existence for these lines of force. Why haven’t these electromagnetic fields been detected before ? As is only too often the case , they have been detected but have been attributed to other causes. Another reason for this lack of clarity is that it is not commonly known that static electric fields are the result of infinitesimal amounts of electrical charge , most often in the nanoamp or billionth of a Coulomb range. The largest amount of electrical charge ever forced onto an isolated electrical conductor was about 0.25 Coulombs , resulting in a Potential difference of 2 x 10 ⁶ Volts , loaded onto a 10ft. dia Van De Graf generator , remember that this represents a surface area of 1256 sq. ft. The electromagnetic field formed by a static charge is a reactive field . (See. http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/id3.html ) The experiment to prove that static electricity results in an electromagnetic field is as follows. Two metal plates of equal size are glued onto a glass plate side by side , charged with opposite signs of charge and isolated. If iron filings are sprinkled on the glass plate they will delineate the lines of force between the metal plates , similarly a compass needle will also be deflected along the lines of force. This field is indistinguishable from a reactive ( as opposed to radiative ) electromagnetic field . The presence of static electricity always gives rise to an electromagnetic field and not to an electric field as has hitherto been postulated.
An unequal distribution of charge cannot be left unresolved . even if the resolution takes place at an infinite distance from the conductor bearing the excess charge. The conclusion to be drawn from this are :-
(a) Just as there are no pure magnetic fields , so also are there no pure electric fields.
(b) Lines of force are not imaginary or hypothetical phenomenon but have a real existence in the form of chains of linked or connected photons.

 

[Integral]

Thus a corollary of an unequal distribution of charge on a conductor (i.e static electricity )

I am not sure where this came from. I all that I have learned charge will distribute itself uniformly on unifrom surfaces. That is pretty basic to Electric Field Therory.

Any conclusions that you have arrived at assuming that charge does not distribute itself on conducting surfaces must be incorrect.


The charge distribution can vary depending on local surface geometries.

 

[McQueen]

electric monopole ?

Thus a corollary of an unequal distribution of charge on a conductor (i.e static electricity )

I am not sure where this came from. I all that I have learned charge will distribute itself uniformly on uniform surfaces. That is pretty basic to Electric Field Theory.

Integral, You are right on both counts , the confusion with regard to the first assertion seems to arise out of an improperly worded statement. It should have read :”Thus a corollary of an excess charge (positive or negative ) on a conductor (i.e., static electricity.) “ Also , as regards the second point , the charge does distribute itself as evenly as possible given the dimensions and shape of the conductor. This means , even if it is for a fraction of a time , that the charge is moving which in turn should mean that it gives rise to an electromagnetic field. Shifting for a moment to another view point , it is necessary to examine the Coulomb forces. What would be the force of interaction between two spheres each having a volume of 1cm ³ if the discrepancy between the charges were one part in 10⁹ ? In other words let each sphere contain 10 ^-9 x 10 ²³ = 10 ¹⁴ non-compensated electrons or protons. The resulting force of interaction between such spheres placed at a distance of 1 cm would be about 10 tons ! The point I am trying to make here is that the much vaunted electric mono-pole cannot exist. The existence of such powerful forces must mean that the uncompensated forces are compensated as soon as possible which implies the existence of a di-pole . The existence of a di-pole must result in an electromagnetic field as demonstrated in the experiment referred to in my earlier post in this thread. The conclusion is that just as there are no pure magnetic fields there are also no pure electric fields in every case , whether the field is the result of a bar magnet or of an uncompensated electric charge , the field that results is an electromagnetic field.

 

[Arcon]

Originally posted by McQueen
In a spherical conductor this results in the lines of force acting as though they emanated from the centre of the sphere. Thus to all practical purposes a spherical conductor behaves like a point charge.

That is true only to a certain extent. Suppose the sphere is centered at x = y = z = 0 and has radius R. Outside the sphere (i.e. r > R) the field will be that of a point charge located at E = 0. Inside the sphere (i.e. r < R) E = 0.

This all changes if other charges are brought near the sphere since the charge will rearrange themselves and thus the field of the sphere will no longer have the character of being the field of a point charge located at x = y = 0. In fact it if a single charge is brought near the sphere and the sphere remains with its geometric center at the origin then the field will be that of a point charge located off the origin but within r < R. If more charges are brought near the sphere then the field at r > R will not have the character of being a point at all.

The electrical force or lines of force referred to above ...

You're now moving outside the domain of classical electrodynamics and into the domain of Quantum Field Theory. I've never taken a course in field theory (at least not yet) but I don't believe that QFT holds that to be quite true.

... , are infact linked together chains of photons , the presence of which are representative of an electromagnetic field.

If the field were electromagnetic then the electric field at a point outside the sphere would vary in time and there would be a magnetic force on a moving charge which is not the case here.

Thus a corollary of an unequal distribution ...

Why do you need to invoke unequal distributions since your claim would hold for any distribution?

... of charge on a conductor (i.e static electricity ) is that it always results , as shall be shown experimentally , in the formation of an electromagnetic field and not an electric field as hitherto been widely held.

It's been known for a very long time that in the quantum description of electromagnetism that nothing is really static. Classical electrodynamics is about the non-quantum description of electromagnetism.

This explanation should itself be sufficient to establish the truth of this theory , for while present theory merely observes that “lines of force “ exist ...

It is incorrect to say that lines of force really exist since they are but a mere tool for describing electromagnetic fields. In the past people have made the mistake of thinking of them as real and this has led to errors in calculations when trying to describe things like rotating magnets.

...when either an excess positive or negative charge is present on a conductor , it offers no explanation for the existence for these lines of force. Why haven’t these electromagnetic fields been detected before ?

Too difficult to measure things at the quantum domain. I'm not even sure that its physically possible to detect these photons that you're referring to (are they virtual photons?)

And why do you base this on charge distributions and not on a single charge?

This field is indistinguishable from a reactive ( as opposed to radiative ) electromagnetic field .

I'm not even sure what this means. What is a "reactive electromagnetic field"?

 

[McQueen]

New Field Theory

You're now moving outside the domain of classical electrodynamics and into the domain of Quantum Field Theory. I've never taken a course in field theory (at least not yet) but I don't believe that QFT holds that to be quite true.

Arcon , In fact this theory is not about classical physics or about quantum theory , it is based instead on a completely New Theory which holds that many of the phenomenon associated with electromagnetism , light etc., could be explained in simple terms if the structure of the photon took a different form. It is amazing that hardly any thought has been given to what the actual structure of a photon might be . Experiments with phenomenon like ultrasound have shown that in certain circumstances waves can behave very much like solids and be made to interact with matter almost as if they had substance. Why can’t the same principle apply to light and electromagnetic radiation also ? It would offer a simple explanation for the wave/particle duality of light which has caused such abstruse theories to be evolved. The theory would explain the principles behind magnetism and the different between inductive and radiative currents which have not been adequately explained.
It is incorrect to say that lines of force really exist since they are but a mere tool for describing electromagnetic fields. In the past people have made the mistake of thinking of them as real and this has led to errors in calculations when trying to describe things like rotating magnets.
The structure of the photon suggested by this theory also would allow for the linking up of photons to form chains , at present we are left with a theory that either accepts the existence of photons with wave lengths varying from a few nano metres to several kilometres (which is ridiculous ) or alternatively we have two completely different theories for phenomenon , (light and electromagnetic radiation ) which experimentally have exactly the same properties . Similarly our present theories of how electrical energy flows through an electrical conductor leave a lot to be desired: while electrons move in the conductor at a speed of fractions of a millimetre per second , the energy is established at the speed of light also the conservation of charges throws some doubt on how this energy can be delivered. All these problems would be solved if we were to accept the fact that it is photons which deliver the energy and which conduct electricity. Denial of this fact would mean that theories again have to be split with light (electromagnetic energy ) , moving through solids in one way and electrical energy moving through solids in another. If this theory is accepted then it means that the lines of force are tangible in the form of linked chains of photons , it would also mean that separate electric and magnetic fields do not exist , only electromagnetic fields exist and they are a result of the photons structure and not an independent phenomenon. See http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/photonstructure and http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/id3