You can apply as much voltage as you like but you will be unable to charge the capacitor without a source of charge.
It is the addition of charge to the plates that creates the voltage, not the other way round.

This can be proved by the fact that some capacitors get a charge when sitting idle, with no electrical connection. I assume from static charges in the atmosphere.

 

Not sure if this was already mentioned but it "tickled my fancy"....

 

BR549

Please note there were three Herr Webers, you should identify which one you mean.
The quote from my post#44 you refer to was from your link, not mine. I let the comment about negative mass go because it is not pertinent to this thread.

However negative mass can be found in the Quantum (Drude et al) explanation of the Hall Effect for Holes.

If you want to discuss negative mass further then please start your own thread as it is not relevent here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_mass_(solid-state_physics)

That sounds like a fun thread, should you decide to pursue it.

 

This can be proved by the fact that some capacitors get a charge when sitting idle, with no electrical connection. I assume from static charges in the atmosphere.

But I don't understand how this can work both ways. If, for example the voltage lags the charge (excess electrons?) and "pushes it" then on the other side of the capacitor, what is lagging and what is advancing? And in which direction.

 

That's because it doesn't work that way. Look up dielectric absortion.

 

This can be proved by the fact that some capacitors get a charge when sitting idle, with no electrical connection. I assume from static charges in the atmosphere.

Half in jest, the capacitor charges spontaneously because it pulls and traps virtual electrons from the quantum vacuum,

 

Not sure if this was already mentioned but it "tickled my fancy"....

I read it, but it didn't help. Not saying it isn't an effective method, it just didn't work for me.

 

10 posts on, and you haven't replied to my post#97.

Do you wish to continue?

 

Noted.
So now we can get on with addressing your actual question; it would be helpful if you would reiterate it, expanding as necessary.

Are you really interested in the physics of capacitor action?

You should realise that the charge comes first.
You can apply as much voltage as you like but you will be unable to charge the capacitor without a source of charge.
It is the addition of charge to the plates that creates the voltage, not the other way round.

yeah I was otherwise occupied w/ holidays.

I was after the action passing BETWEEN the plates, it's propagation characteristics, the medium in which it travels, its speed of propagation, means if any of interfering with or blocking it.. The cause, the means and the effect. I was after the 'means'.

If there is anyone who could add a five sentence Q.E.D. explanation of how our topic might be explained there, that would be nice. ( Poor people already left the discussion out of neglect.)

Also, no-one seems to have commented on my spherical plate capacitor which excludes magnetic action (or so it is said).

 

The Q.E.D. explanation is that charges are continuously sending out virtual photons, which tickle other charges and cause a force to be felt between the two charges. These virtual photons move at the speed of light. These cannot be real photons, because otherwise energy would be moving about. When it comes down to it, it all sounds like magic, but when you do the math, it all works out very well.

Bob

 

Bob, can we see the math please?

 

cbecket13,......how bout this.

Think of a signal capacitor as a one way "current to field to current" transducer.

The input plate is not self powered. To establish a field on the plate, we will have to put some charge there. This will take some time to establish this. This is why current leads voltage.

You need the current first to make the voltage. The capacitor does not have an established voltage like a power supply does. We need voltage to make the field.

As this delayed voltage builds up on the input plate......it shines a polarized field on the output plate. This field travels at the speed of light, times a fudge factor....the velocity factor, that factor depends on the media between the plates. This also causes a very very small delay. You can usually ignore this one.

The output plate is not self powered. However...it it powered by a field, not the accumulation of charge like the input plate.
The charge accumulation on the output plate follows the VOLTAGE accumulation on the INPUT plate. It follows at the speed of light times the velocity factor. The polarity is inverted.
Even though the voltage between the plates is inverted.......it's almost instantaneous.

Spheres are a special case when it comes the fields, because it’s the only close shape of an electric field. It's a whole subject by itself.

When it comes come understanding the mechanics of fundamental action, no one really knows down deep. You have to study the different theories and see what you are comfortable with. The particles that cause these fields have not been clearly defined as of yet.

I myself believe that particles are made of equal amounts of electric and magnetic, and therefore there are always equal amounts of electric and magnetic present.

There are many ways to look at electronic devices. According to modern science, devices actually do work in many different ways.......depend on where you are located and how you measure.

It can get complicated.

 

The Q.E.D. explanation is that charges are continuously sending out virtual photons, which tickle other charges and cause a force to be felt between the two charges. These virtual photons move at the speed of light. These cannot be real photons, because otherwise energy would be moving about. When it comes down to it, it all sounds like magic, but when you do the math, it all works out very well.

Bob

A quantum field theory view.
http://profmattstrassler.com/articl...ysics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

 

Bob, can we see the math please?

Sorry, but even in getting my undergraduate degree in physics I did not learn enough to do that.

The math involves summing the results of all possible interactions over all paths (obviously infinite) and then somehow coming up with a finite answer.

Bob

 

undergraduate degree

That's an interesting oxymoron

Skeptical as I am of the many grand theories of everything that have come and gone over the last 70 or so years, I remain even more skeptical that any form of Quantum Theory is either wanted or appropraiate to answer cbecket's question.
Classical theory provides complete and accurate theoretical and numerical answers however.

Br549 started post#112 so well and in such pretty language, it is a pity that it degenerated towards the end.

Apart from the polarized bit, I particularly like the "shines a polarized field on the output plate"

 

Sorry, but even in getting my undergraduate degree in physics I did not learn enough to do that.

The math involves summing the results of all possible interactions over all paths (obviously infinite) and then somehow coming up with a finite answer.

Bob

Or as us non physicists/mathematicians call it, "a wild a$$ guess". Throwing mathematics at something, like in quantum mechanics, etc, doesn't make it so. Why can't scientists just admit there are somethings we don't know yet. Instead of throwing math at things and saying "there you go, thats the answer"?

Sorry Studiot types faster.

 

Or as us non physicists/mathematicians call it, "a wild a$$ guess". Throwing mathematics at something, like in quantum mechanics, etc, doesn't make it so. Why can't scientists just admit there are somethings we don't know yet. Instead of throwing math at things and saying "there you go, thats the answer"?

Sorry Studiot types faster.

"a wild a$$ guess" is correct with some of the exotic theories of the universe but Quantum Mechanics has been around for a while because it works to predict outcomes to a extremely high precision in most cases just like the Newtonian Mechanics we normally see in our slow speed daily lives does. The big question that most people think scientists should answer is the fundamental 'why' question.

 

I have witnessed particle science turning into philosophy for many years.

Let's find out what matter is and how it works before we justify it.

Once we know what and how matter is............then we will know the right context for the "why" question.

How can one ask why before one knows what the why is about?

There's only a small spark left of real science.

 

That's an interesting oxymoron

Skeptical as I am of the many grand theories of everything that have come and gone over the last 70 or so years, I remain even more skeptical that any form of

Yes, there are theories that have come and gone. QM and Q.E.D. and Q.C.D have not gone. The standard model is not pretty, but we have, as yet found no experiment where it fails.

The finding of the Higgs boson was its latest triumph.

If you want to be skeptical, be skeptical of string theory.

Bob

 

QM and Q.E.D. and Q.C.D have not gone. The standard model is not pretty, but we have, as yet found no experiment where it fails.

The original quantum mechanics failed because it did not take into account zero point energy, later versions have issues with relativity.

What aspects of these are fully compatible with special and general relativity?