Windevoid Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Has anyone even ever proven that electricity is "moving" "electrons" in or around wires?And "electrons" being the main carriers?I don't think they have!Has no one at all has pulled out their microscope to view "moving electrons" in electric wires?I heard about experiments like the Crookes tube, but that doesn't prove anything about "electrons". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Given that we have an entire civilization built around electricity and the movement of electrons, including the computer you're asking the question on, your question is really ludicrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windevoid Posted July 21, 2013 Author Share Posted July 21, 2013 Given that we have an entire civilization built around electricity and the movement of electrons, including the computer you're asking the question on, your question is really ludicrous. You don't necessarily need to know how plants work before you can stick a seed in the ground and cover it. Indeed, I don't remember/know at all botany, but it doesn't stop me from sticking a seed of tomato in the ground and expecting a plant in a few months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdEarl Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 In semiconductors, moving holes are current carriers. In metal, electrons. In plasma and electrolytes, ions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windevoid Posted July 21, 2013 Author Share Posted July 21, 2013 In semiconductors, moving holes are current carriers. In metal, electrons. In plasma and electrolytes, ions. Has nothing to do with actually seeing or heavily inferring "electrons". Just because I can say there's a blue rock on the moon doesn't make it so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 From http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/05/electrons-are-near-perfect-spheres/ A 10-year study has revealed that the electron is very spherical indeed. To be precise, the electron differs from being perfectly round by less than 0.000000000000000000000000001 cm. To put that in context; if an electron was the size of the solar system, it would be out from being perfectly round by less than the width of a human hair. The Imperial College team behind the research, which was conducted on molecules of ytterbium flouride, used a laser to make measurements of the motion of electrons, and in particular the wobble they exhibit when spinning. They observed no such wobble, implying that the electron is perfectly roundat the levels of precision available, reflected in the figure above. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdEarl Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Has nothing to do with actually seeing or heavily inferring "electrons".Just because I can say there's a blue rock on the moon doesn't make it so. Your original question has been answered, but insterd of saying, "Thanks," you allude that it is not so, and switch the question. If you really wanted to know, there at many ways to educate yourself. But, you apparently want to avoid getting an education. You are very close to being on my ignore list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Has anyone even ever proven that electricity is "moving" "electrons" in or around wires? And "electrons" being the main carriers? I don't think they have! What you think is largely irrelevant. What matters is what has actually happened. You present no specific experiment (or set of experiments) to examine. Has no one at all has pulled out their microscope to view "moving electrons" in electric wires? No, because electrons cannot be viewed in a microscope. ———— It's hard to even start addressing complaints based on willful ignorance about science (between this and other threads you've started), posted on an internet discussion forum using a computer of some sort, none of which would work if the science you questioned was wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windevoid Posted July 21, 2013 Author Share Posted July 21, 2013 What you think is largely irrelevant. What matters is what has actually happened. You present no specific experiment (or set of experiments) to examine. No, because electrons cannot be viewed in a microscope. ———— It's hard to even start addressing complaints based on willful ignorance about science (between this and other threads you've started), posted on an internet discussion forum using a computer of some sort, none of which would work if the science you questioned was wrong! http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/75769-is-current-electricity-theory-wrong/?hl=electricity Your original question has been answered, but insterd of saying, "Thanks," you allude that it is not so, and switch the question. If you really wanted to know, there at many ways to educate yourself. But, you apparently want to avoid getting an education. You are very close to being on my ignore list. I never really switched the original question. The question was about experiments and proof of not just electrons (we can suppose pretty easily that there are "electrons" whatever they are in atoms), but about them being the supposed main carrier of "charge/electricity" in metal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Since they are the only carriers of negative charge, there's no 'supposed' about it. It's hard to even start addressing complaints based on willful ignorance about science (between this and other threads you've started), posted on an internet discussion forum using a computer of some sort, none of which would work if the science you questioned was wrong! This sums up every thread you've started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/75769-is-current-electricity-theory-wrong/?hl=electricity I never really switched the original question. The question was about experiments and proof of not just electrons (we can suppose pretty easily that there are "electrons" whatever they are in atoms), but about them being the supposed main carrier of "charge/electricity" in metal. So what's your point? That other thread told you that the accepted theory of electricity is correct. If electrons are not the charge carriers in conductors, what is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windevoid Posted July 21, 2013 Author Share Posted July 21, 2013 What you think is largely irrelevant. What matters is what has actually happened. You present no specific experiment (or set of experiments) to examine. No, because electrons cannot be viewed in a microscope. ———— It's hard to even start addressing complaints based on willful ignorance about science (between this and other threads you've started), posted on an internet discussion forum using a computer of some sort, none of which would work if the science you questioned was wrong! You don't necessarily need to know how plants work before you can stick a seed in the ground and cover it. Indeed, I don't remember/know at all botany, but it doesn't stop me from sticking a seed of tomato in the ground and expecting a plant in a few months. So what's your point? That other thread told you that the accepted theory of electricity is correct. If electrons are not the charge carriers in conductors, what is? YouTube Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIuMICiFqmE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringer Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 You don't necessarily need to know how plants work before you can stick a seed in the ground and cover it. Indeed, I don't remember/know at all botany, but it doesn't stop me from sticking a seed of tomato in the ground and expecting a plant in a few months. Just because you stick a seed in the ground doesn't mean you will get a plant either. And gardening isn't necessarily botany, so your analogy doesn't really make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windevoid Posted July 21, 2013 Author Share Posted July 21, 2013 I mean if wires were really injecting electrons, then wouldn't you get cancer right off the bat from touching anything electric? But I've touched plenty of batteries and the wires they were connected to. I haven't died or had white growths, yet!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 (edited) I mean if wires were really injecting electrons, then wouldn't you get cancer right off the bat from touching anything electric? But I've touched plenty of batteries and the wires they were connected to. I haven't died or had white growths, yet!! This doesn't seem to make any sense. Are you under the impression that electrons cause cancer? BTW, did you bother to read this? http://www.wired.com...erfect-spheres/ Edited July 21, 2013 by ACG52 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 YouTube Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIuMICiFqmE A three and a half hour video as an answer to the question? Seriously? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringer Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 I mean if wires were really injecting electrons, then wouldn't you get cancer right off the bat from touching anything electric? But I've touched plenty of batteries and the wires they were connected to. I haven't died or had white growths, yet!! A virtually nonsensical non sequitur doesn't help your analogy make sense, nor does it help you make a case of anything other than willful ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffon Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 The question posed in the OP is quite intesting. As are some of the responses. The 'fact' that electricity is the result of electron flow is one of those things that many people 'know' because that is what they've been taught. There are many similar things that many people believe they 'know'. Our understanding that electricity is the flow of electrons is the result of a whole body of theory supported by observation and experiment. There isn't as far as I know a simple 'clincher' of a fact or observation that could prove to the sceptic that that is how it is. But I might be wrong. I hope someone might suggest one. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 The question posed in the OP is quite intesting. As are some of the responses. The 'fact' that electricity is the result of electron flow is one of those things that many people 'know' because that is what they've been taught. There are many similar things that many people believe they 'know'. Our understanding that electricity is the flow of electrons is the result of a whole body of theory supported by observation and experiment. There isn't as far as I know a simple 'clincher' of a fact or observation that could prove to the sceptic that that is how it is. But I might be wrong. I hope someone might suggest one. The problem is that no mention is made about any specific experimental result that is in question. The body of evidence is large and encompasses a long history over the past 100+ years. The laziness involved in being ignorant of that history should not be rewarded. An open-ended question such as this is little more than a dishonest debating tactic, akin to "prove me wrong" — it shifts the burden of proof. It's not incumbent upon anyone to lay out the whole of the evidence, only to have the perpetrator simply jump to the next objection. I've seen it happen in creationism discussions and don't see any difference in tactics here. The short answer is that our models work, and we build billions of dollars worth of electronics every year with them as the conceptual basis. That's ample scientific proof. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Excuse the off-topic nature of this query. Is WinDevoid equivalent to LossRich? And if so does that inform the matter of motivation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windevoid Posted July 22, 2013 Author Share Posted July 22, 2013 A three and a half hour video as an answer to the question? Seriously? If you don't watch the video with the info, you won't know the claims and the details of the claims, and you can't complain against them. Excuse the off-topic nature of this query. Is WinDevoid equivalent to LossRich? And if so does that inform the matter of motivation? No, it's "wind" and "void". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 If you don't watch the video with the info, you won't know the claims and the details of the claims, and you can't complain against them. Why don't you summarize from the video the strongest point that answers the questions 'If electrons are not the charge carriers in conductors, what is?' That surely should not take 3 1/2 hours. If the point is super strong, it will naturally lead to more questions and from there you can take more answers from the video. If the point is strong, there should also be plenty of written literature to support it. I, for one, am a much better written-word learner than a visual learner, and much more quickly gather knowledge from reading about things than watching them. So, if you can provide written support of the position, it would be much appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windevoid Posted July 22, 2013 Author Share Posted July 22, 2013 (edited) Why don't you summarize from the video the strongest point that answers the questions 'If electrons are not the charge carriers in conductors, what is?' That surely should not take 3 1/2 hours. If the point is super strong, it will naturally lead to more questions and from there you can take more answers from the video. If the point is strong, there should also be plenty of written literature to support it. I, for one, am a much better written-word learner than a visual learner, and much more quickly gather knowledge from reading about things than watching them. So, if you can provide written support of the position, it would be much appreciated. It seems the claim is that energy is not a "thing", but a result of several different variables, such as time, density, "magnetism", distance, and "dielectricity". Support can be found in Steinmetz's writings, Tesla's supposed writings (I don't think he makes exactly this claim, but I don't know, and he does question Einstein), and Heaviside's writings. And Eric Dollard has lectures on YouTube about this. I don't know if Thomas Edison says similar things or not. Edited July 22, 2013 by Windevoid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 If you don't watch the video with the info, you won't know the claims and the details of the claims, and you can't complain against them. I don't see why a short written answer won't suffice for the question I asked. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 (edited) It seems the claim is that energy is not a "thing", but a result of several different variables, such as time, density, "magnetism", distance, and "dielectricity". Ok, this should be easy then. Please post the equation of E = E(time, density, magnetism, distance, and dielectricity) and demonstrate how well it works in many of the most common uses of energy. I'll start with 2 easy ones. 1) I drop a golf ball from a height of 2 m. How much kinetic energy does it have when it hits the ground. 2) I burn 0.5 mol of octane in an excess of oxygen (so no incomplete burning, it all goes to CO2), how much energy is released in this exothermic reaction? Ok, this should be easy then. Please post the equation of E = E(time, density, magnetism, distance, and dielectricity) and demonstrate how well it works in many of the most common uses of energy. I'll start with 2 easy ones. 1) I drop a golf ball from a height of 2 m. How much kinetic energy does it have when it hits the ground. 2) I burn 0.5 mol of octane in an excess of oxygen (so no incomplete burning, it all goes to CO2), how much energy is released in this exothermic reaction? ------------ Oh, and it needs to be pointed out, that the above doesn't answer the question 'If electrons are not the charge carriers in conductors, what is?' at all. Energy and charge, while often related to one another, are not the same thing. This is pretty fundamental. Units of energy are Joules, units of electric charge are Coulombs. Definitely not the same thing. Edited July 22, 2013 by Bignose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts