Furthermore, I don't think anyone just answered by saying that electrons move slowly. The answers were much more in the nature of saying that yes, they move, but they do move slowly, as compared to the reference the OP was asking about which claimed that they don't move at all.

 

Electrons move. Electrons move very slowly ( not really ).

The question is: Why do the electrons move slowly and voltage moves at ( a fraction of ) the speed of light ?

When you switch on a light bulb the electrons close to the switch react to the electric field and move very quickly and produce a field that makes the electrons that are close to them also move. This movement ( this wave ) propagates through the wires at a fraction of the speed of light. This is the velocity of the voltage, the electrons that are close to the light bulb "sense" that you have touched the switch in very low time.

But it takes a long time to the electrons that are near the switch to reach the light bulb.

Think of a pipe full of water. If you push the water in one side of the pipe the water in the other side will flow out ( at the speed of the sound in the water ) but it will take the water a long time to reach the output of the pipe.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampere#cite_note-BIPMdefinition-2

 

This statement is fair enough but it is counterproductive for any reader to have to wade through the rest of your spiel to get to it. Most will give up.

You give me the impression that you have read my spiel.

Anyhow, I thought that what is being referred to as science, including physics, is about what you call Spiel.

The idea that noumenal is the underlying reality of phenomenal (mainstream physical world) is not normally received with open arms, and the implication that noumenal world is free from physical qualities like motion, is not appreciated by many, and definitely not liked by many. We humans are so confident in our illusion about physical world, that physical world becomes our true reality behind existence, also in a scientific context. Physical world becomes the real Real Existing World, and Physical world (phenomenal world which inherently is an observer world, and a consequence of how information observes information) with its observer derived qualites is being used synonymous wit noumenal world. The two types of worlds are more than a rule than an exception mixed together, and this is confusing when it comes to fundamentals.

I trust that the above is clear as mud, just like the other spiel, but frankly, we are dealing with heavy philosophical / scientific terms. Do electrons move ? and the answer is Yes, they move in phenomenal world, and No, they do not move in noumenal world. To say that they move a little is to place the answer between two chairs.

 

Let's put it to a vote.

Anyone else think this is pure babble?

 

Electrons move. Electrons move very slowly ( not really ).

The question is: Why do the electrons move slowly and voltage moves at ( a fraction of ) the speed of light ?

When you switch on a light bulb the electrons close to the switch react to the electric field and move very quickly and produce a field that makes the electrons that are close to them also move. This movement ( this wave ) propagates through the wires at a fraction of the speed of light. This is the velocity of the voltage, the electrons that are close to the light bulb "sense" that you have touched the switch in very low time.

But it takes a long time to the electrons that are near the switch to reach the light bulb.

Think of a pipe full of water. If you push the water in one side of the pipe the water in the other side will flow out ( at the speed of the sound in the water ) but it will take the water a long time to reach the output of the pipe.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampere#cite_note-BIPMdefinition-2

Yes, the question is about WHAT is moving.

Many people will probably refer to this kind of discussion as pure babble, and a voting will disclose the percentage of majority thinking, nothing else.

Motion is a deep physical and philosophical question, because motion involves the presence or existence of true void. Of course it is on the bottom line a question about taste, whether one is willing to accept if cosmos can be governed by forces freely floating and being communicated in free void, and without asking the logic question about what forces are then being expressed out from ! The easy solution, so to speak.

OR, if one cannot accept the above easy solution, and chose to go the logic step further asking the question about what is the underlying mechanism(s), the underlying algorithm(s) that govern the cosmic order. This is a physical question relating to how best to conceptualize spacetime, as the underlying reality to physical world.

Motion vs reconfiguration IN SITU is therefore a relevant question, IMO, and to the latter mechanism, the obvious question is how a reconfiguration In SITU can be explained without involving a kind of motion, and my answer is that the object of change is being conceptualized as a 3D body undergoing an infinite regress towards smaller and smaller without ever reaching zero. The transistion from continuous and into discrete remains a deep paradox for human mind.

 

Yes, the question is about WHAT is moving.

Many people will probably refer to this kind of discussion as pure babble, and a voting will disclose the percentage of majority thinking, nothing else.

Motion is a deep physical and philosophical question, because motion involves the presence or existence of true void. Of course it is on the bottom line a question about taste, whether one is willing to accept if cosmos can be governed by forces freely floating and being communicated in free void, and without asking the logic question about what forces are then being expressed out from ! The easy solution, so to speak.

OR, if one cannot accept the above easy solution, and chose to go the logic step further asking the question about what is the underlying mechanism(s), the underlying algorithm(s) that govern the cosmic order. This is a physical question relating to how best to conceptualize spacetime, as the underlying reality to physical world.

Motion vs reconfiguration IN SITU is therefore a relevant question, IMO, and to the latter mechanism, the obvious question is how a reconfiguration In SITU can be explained without involving a kind of motion, and my answer is that the object of change is being conceptualized as a 3D body undergoing an infinite regress towards smaller and smaller without ever reaching zero. The transistion from continuous and into discrete remains a deep paradox for human mind.

True void? I think not. Look up Mach's principal. And what would you mean by true void, modern physics observes that the vacuum is not empty. Of course if you get too deep into philosophy you may discount all observation as an illusion. This is all so far from engineering.

 

I spoke too soon.

 

Yep. It's never too late for an open thread to take a header.

 

Book: ‘’Albert Einstein’ ‘ by Leopold Infeld.
Page 114.
‘ Electron, that is, negatively charged particles, produce
an electromagnetic field while in motion. Thus,
in Maxwell’s theory, and later in Lorenz’s theory, we
still find a mixture of the field and particle aspects.
Particles (electrons) move in an electromagnetic field
and influence the field by the motion.’
Page 115.
‘ In the electromagnetic theory, we have a mixture of field
and particle concept. The field is produced by the electrons
and their motion. Similarly, in Einstein’s original theory
(GRT), the gravitational field is produced by the bodies
( stars and nebulas) and their motion.’
Again:
‘‘ In the electromagnetic theory, we have a mixture of field
and particle concept. The field is produced by the electrons
and their motion.” And no vice versa.
The source of electromagnetic field is a dynamic electron. (!)
We know many kinds/forms of movement.
What kind of movement does electron use in Maxwell's equations, in SRT, in QED ?
What is reason of electron’s movement ?
Feynman noticed, "particles change when they move".
What changes can electron have in different action :in Maxwell's equations, in SRT, in QED ?
These questions are fundamental in philosophy of physics.
Philosophy without physical formulas and laws proves nothing.
Philosophy without physical formulas and laws is tautology.
=============...

 

When I was taking Physic II (an honors section that went deeper than usual), we spent a good portion of the semester calculating magnetic fields and their influence on things. Then, toward the end of the semester, the instructor walked in and announced that there were no such things as magnetic fields... and then proceeded to prove it. Like the Coriolis force and centrifugal force, a magnetic field is a pseudo field that allows us to work with the artifacts of our chosen reference frame.

 

And eventually came the day, when the monks had named all the myriad names of God, one and all.

Then all the stars in the heavens went dark.

 

And eventually came the day, when the monks had named all the myriad names of God, one and all.

Then all the stars in the heavens went dark.

A good Arthur C. Clark story, that.

 

When I was taking Physic II (an honors section that went deeper than usual), we spent a good portion of the semester calculating magnetic fields and their influence on things. Then, toward the end of the semester, the instructor walked in and announced that there were no such things as magnetic fields... and then proceeded to prove it. Like the Coriolis force and centrifugal force, a magnetic field is a pseudo field that allows us to work with the artifacts of our chosen reference frame.

If by that you mean a magnetic field is a pseudovector then yes but it's still a 'real' force, as the electric field being a 'real' vector is just a choice made by convention and you can work the EM equations using the EM bivectors (Clifford/geometric Algebra) either way but it's been a long time since I played around with this and my old brain hurts just thinking about it again.

 

Book: ‘’Albert Einstein’ ‘ by Leopold Infeld.
Page 114.
‘ Electron, that is, negatively charged particles, produce
an electromagnetic field while in motion. Thus,
in Maxwell’s theory, and later in Lorenz’s theory, we
still find a mixture of the field and particle aspects.
Particles (electrons) move in an electromagnetic field
and influence the field by the motion.’
Page 115.
‘ In the electromagnetic theory, we have a mixture of field
and particle concept. The field is produced by the electrons
and their motion. Similarly, in Einstein’s original theory
(GRT), the gravitational field is produced by the bodies
( stars and nebulas) and their motion.’
Again:
‘‘ In the electromagnetic theory, we have a mixture of field
and particle concept. The field is produced by the electrons
and their motion.” And no vice versa.
The source of electromagnetic field is a dynamic electron. (!)
We know many kinds/forms of movement.
What kind of movement does electron use in Maxwell's equations, in SRT, in QED ?
What is reason of electron’s movement ?
Feynman noticed, "particles change when they move".
What changes can electron have in different action :in Maxwell's equations, in SRT, in QED ?
These questions are fundamental in philosophy of physics.
Philosophy without physical formulas and laws proves nothing.
Philosophy without physical formulas and laws is tautology.
=============...

What does electron do in Maxwell's equations ?
Maxwell's equations say nothing about electron.
Maxwell's equations are theory about EM waves.
It was Lorentz who in 1904 put electron into Maxwell's equations.
Electron is dynamic particle.
As a dynamic particle it cannot rest in Maxwell's equations.
It must move.
There are many different kinds of movement.
Which kind of movement can electron use in Maxwell's equations?
=====…
socratus

 

What does electron do in Maxwell's equations ?
Maxwell's equations say nothing about electron.
Maxwell's equations are theory about EM waves.
It was Lorentz who in 1904 put electron into Maxwell's equations.
Electron is dynamic particle.
As a dynamic particle it cannot rest in Maxwell's equations.
It must move.
There are many different kinds of movement.
Which kind of movement can electron use in Maxwell's equations?
=====…
socratus

Maxwells equations are about the movement of EM fields in far free space but those fields must have a origin from electric charges and electric currents.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/farlaw.html

 

Maxwells equations are about the movement of EM fields....

\(\nabla .D = \rho \)

\(\nabla .B = 0\)

\(\nabla xH = J + \frac{{\partial D}}{{\partial t}}\)

\(\nabla xE = - \frac{{\partial B}}{{\partial t}}\)

Actually they are about rate of change of some physical quantity with another.
They are not, in general, about movement.

 

\(\nabla .D = \rho \)

\(\nabla .B = 0\)

\(\nabla xH = J + \frac{{\partial D}}{{\partial t}}\)

\(\nabla xE = - \frac{{\partial B}}{{\partial t}}\)

Actually they are about rate of change of some physical quantity with another.
They are not, in general, about movement.

I over simplified. They also provide the basis for which the speed (c) those changes/energy propagate (move) in space. The EM wave equation 'wave solution' in time and space gives speed of the waves in free space.

 

I did like your potato diagram though.

 

“ . . when there is a change of state the electron either releases
or absorbs a photon and its location changes from one discrete
energy pattern to another discrete energy pattern around the nucleus.
. . . . these things,
they are very well explained by the standard model of physics”
/ from an email /
==..
How can an electron ( slower than c ) emit photon at c=1?
==
Book:
' Now take the electron. Even if its velocity is close to that
of light – 10^10 cm/s – it will have a momentum of only
about 10^-17 g cm/s. The gamma photon used for
illumination has a very short wavelength ( say, 6 10^13 cm)
and a momentum of 10^-14, which is thousands of times that
of the electron. So, when a photon hits an electron, it is like
a railway train smashing into a baby- carriage.’

/ Book: ABC’s of quantum mechanics. By V. Rydnik. Page 98-99. /

==.
Opinions, please.
====

 

“ . . when there is a change of state the electron either releases
or absorbs a photon and its location changes from one discrete
energy pattern to another discrete energy pattern around the nucleus.
. . . . these things,
they are very well explained by the standard model of physics”
/ from an email /
==..
How can an electron ( slower than c ) emit photon at c=1?
==
Book:
' Now take the electron. Even if its velocity is close to that
of light – 10^10 cm/s – it will have a momentum of only
about 10^-17 g cm/s. The gamma photon used for
illumination has a very short wavelength ( say, 6 10^13 cm)
and a momentum of 10^-14, which is thousands of times that
of the electron. So, when a photon hits an electron, it is like
a railway train smashing into a baby- carriage.’

/ Book: ABC’s of quantum mechanics. By V. Rydnik. Page 98-99. /

==.
Opinions, please.
====

The interaction between electrons is doing by quantum of light .
/ Today’s opinion. /
#
The interaction between quantum of light and atom.
A simple atom is : electron + proton + empty space (!?).
One of four things can be happened:
1
The photon gives up its energy to an electron located in the atom.
Armed with this extra energy, the electron is able to move to
a higher energy level. ( and the photon disappears - where is photon now ? )
/ In this situation, when a photon hits an electron, it is like
a railway train smashing into a baby- carriage.’/
2
A gamma photon with much more energetic would strongly kick
the electron out of the atom
(and might even produce electron/positron pairs in the process).
/ In this situation, when a photon hits an electron, it is like
a railway train smashing into a baby- carriage.’/
3
The photon gives up its energy to the proton .
Proton is about 2000 times heavier than electron.
Maybe in this situation the poor photon is smashing now . . . .
. . . . and it will be hard to him to radiate back.
4 .
The empty substance (!?) allows the photon to pass through unchanged.
Known as transmission, this happens because the photon doesn't
interact with any electron or proton and continues its journey until
it interacts with another object.
===..
All four scenario are speculative because we don’t know
what photon and electron are and where the proton mass come from.
== ….
P.S.
1900, 1905, 1913
Planck, Einstein and Bohr found the energy of electron as: E=h*f.
1916
Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c,
1928
Dirac found two more formulas of electron’s energy:
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2.
According to QED in interaction with vacuum electron’s
energy is infinite: E= ∞
The energy of electron in the simplest atom is: E= - me^4/ 2h*^2 = -13,6 eV
The negative mark of energy shows that electron is tied in atom.
Questions.
Why does simplest particle - electron have six ( 6 ) formulas ?
What is interaction between them?
=======..