Live data from Hacker News

Visualizing Electricity

demystifyingscience.com

61–70 of 93 posts

Re: Visualizing Electricity

#61

Your analogy doesn't work for me. Imagine the following simple case : A AC generator connected to two capacitors in series. Signal --||----||-- Ground . The voltage potential at the middle : In your analogy there is no reason for anything to turn as the electron wave are discontinuous inside the capacitors (there is a huge gap in the order of micrometers between each plate of the capacitor). The main important thing…

We can do A/c with the shells rotating back and forth. The micrometer gap is not a problem for the surface of the atom, which can extend indefinitely.

The electron is simply an excitation of the electric field in QM, so one does not come without the other.

Physics is the study of objects that exist, and so it's important to begin with objects in a visualization. Fields are a concepts that measure the location of something happening. That something is the surface of the atom.

Re: Visualizing Electricity

#62
I hate to rain on your parade, because I'm deeply interested in alternatives for established models, and as a rule I strongly prefer intuitive visualisations over mathematical wankery, but this is just... nonsense.

It has nothing to do with electricity in any sense. There's no matching theory that this is visualising.

To begin with:

1) This doesn't explain why in general only metals conduct electricity. You used the example of Hydrogen, which is a nonconductive gas. It might become metallic under certain circumstances, but nobody has a firm grasp on exactly how that works! Using the conditions found only in the cores of giant planets for a "simplified" example is absurd.

2) This doesn't explain why capacitors build up charge (literal excess electrons on one plate, and missing electrons on the other plate.) That is, your theory inside the wires has to also mesh well (heh) with what happens outside the wires, such as the buildup of static electricity.

3) It doesn't explain how electrons conduct electricity through the vacuum, where there are no atomic orbitals.

4) It doesn't explain how rarefied plasmas conduct electricity, where for the majority of the time atomic orbitals are not in contact.

5) It doesn't explain other types of current, such as charged fundamental particles in cyclotrons.

6) You haven't explained how batteries produce the rotations.

7) You haven't explained how dynamos produce the rotations.

8) You haven't explained how resistors, capacitors, and inductors work in this model.

9) You haven't explained how the rotations produce heat, light, or any other useful work done by with electric machines or with electronic devices.

10) You said that ionised hydrogen atoms are required for this to work! But they are just isolated protons. They have no electrons or electron shells!

11) This is actually a flaw of other models too, but I'll throw it on the pile: The infinite extent of the QM electron field is just a simplification of the QM mathematical model. Clearly, this is physical nonsense. A hydrogen atom can never have an electron orbiting it meters away, or light years away. That's just gibberish.

12) And the final nail in the coffin: You'll find that in general an extended 2D or 3D grid of gears will often get "locked up" and cannot transmit rotations. This is practically a meme at this point: https://www.reddit.com/r/CrappyDesign/comments/2hwwy0/those_...

For comparison, the liquid flow model is actually relatively accurate in terms of representing what's really going on (electron fluid flowing freely), and is also intuitive.

1) Resistors are like an constriction of the pipe. Flow is allowed but impeded.

2) Capacitors are like a wide section of the pipe, but blocked by a rubber sheet. Bulk flow through a capacitor is not possible, but vibrations can be transmitted.

3) Inductors are like a heavy propeller in the flow. The propeller resists flow while it's being "spun up", but then it no longer resists the flow when its speed matches the flow. If the flow in the pipe is reduced the momentum of the propeller provides pressure to keep the liquid flowing longer than it would have otherwise.

4) Transistors are like a soft rubber section of an otherwise inflexible pipe surrounded by a container with an input. Pressure in the container squeezes the flexible section and prevents flow through the pipe.

Etc...

Re: Visualizing Electricity

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the hydrogen atom model (the rendering model) is ambiguous, which makes the rotation ambiguous Also, I feel like you have to have a good grasp of symmetry and rotation to grasp the thought that they rotating in different directions - the top part of the thing, closest to the viewer, is going right for both of them. Why is that counter or clockwise? Thank God I took quantum chemistry and think I know what…

You have to view each terminal on its own terms: when viewed from above, each rotating atom at the end of each terminal is rotating oppositely (-/+ charge)...this means when you bring them together they coincide.

Yeah, I understand that they are mirror images of one another and their rotation ends up being complimentary

But if someone is at a very introductory level and doesn't know anything about rotational symmetry, the point that the terminal ends are rotating opposite directions may be confusing.

The transparency of the render models might lead to someone hearing that point about opposing rotations, stare at those rotating terminal ends, and then have something like the rotating mask illusion (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sKa0eaKsdA0) cause them to see that the terminal ends are visually rotating in opposite directions, rather than it being just in relative terms. I was able to do this on purpose with the faster-rotating negative terminal, and its rotation is genuinely kind of ambiguous at the scale I watched the video.

These aren't criticisms of the method, just a couple of points about the video that might pose some conflict with someone who is at a very introductory level.

I do like the idea generally. It's always fun to see new analogies for stuff.

Re: Visualizing Electricity

#64

Your analogy doesn't work for me. Imagine the following simple case : A AC generator connected to two capacitors in series. Signal --||----||-- Ground . The voltage potential at the middle : In your analogy there is no reason for anything to turn as the electron wave are discontinuous inside the capacitors (there is a huge gap in the order of micrometers between each plate of the capacitor). The main important thing…

We can do A/c with the shells rotating back and forth. The micrometer gap is not a problem for the surface of the atom, which can extend indefinitely. The electron is simply an excitation of the electric field in QM, so one does not come without the other. Physics is the study of objects that exist, and so it's important to begin with objects in a visualization. Fields are a concepts that measure the location of some…

>electron is simply an excitation of the electric field in QM

I am not a physicist but I think here is your mistake. The electron is an excitation of the Electron Field. It's matter aka fermions. The electric field are bosons. Those are two orthogonal things. You can have one without the other (although the fields are coupled).

Re: Visualizing Electricity

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can do A/c with the shells rotating back and forth. The micrometer gap is not a problem for the surface of the atom, which can extend indefinitely. The electron is simply an excitation of the electric field in QM, so one does not come without the other. Physics is the study of objects that exist, and so it's important to begin with objects in a visualization. Fields are a concepts that measure the location of some…

>electron is simply an excitation of the electric field in QM I am not a physicist but I think here is your mistake. The electron is an excitation of the Electron Field. It's matter aka fermions. The electric field are bosons. Those are two orthogonal things. You can have one without the other (although the fields are coupled).

It is well understood that the bosons are excitations of fields.

A boson is not a 'thing' it is a happening. The atom is the first object in physics. That is a shapely thing with location.

Re: Visualizing Electricity

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"what does this help me grasp" That electricity can be explained with atoms! And not the kind of bohr-model atoms that are thoroughly debunked (electron bead flying around nucleus magically). If we treat them like gearing shells, as chemists have for decades, we can provide a model of electricity that is consistent with quantum mathematical descriptions of the atom's shape and motion.

If you're the author, you should make clear who your audience is. "Demystifying Science" and "How to Visualize Electricity" imply a general high school audience... this sounds like it's specifically "How to Visualize Electricity for Quantum Physicists." Perhaps start off by stating some quantum formulas or misconceptions that aren't well served by the hydrostatic analogy but your analogy helps explain better. If I do…

Thanks. There is no reason why high-school or younger children can't understand the basic modern conception of the atom. We hope to bring that down to everyone's level.

Physics should start with objects. So we start electricity with atoms, unlike the traditional analogies.

Re: Visualizing Electricity

#67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>electron is simply an excitation of the electric field in QM I am not a physicist but I think here is your mistake. The electron is an excitation of the Electron Field. It's matter aka fermions. The electric field are bosons. Those are two orthogonal things. You can have one without the other (although the fields are coupled).

It is well understood that the bosons are excitations of fields. A boson is not a 'thing' it is a happening. The atom is the first object in physics. That is a shapely thing with location.

The point I'm trying to make, is that there are light fields, and matter fields.

Those are two distinct independent things (that can eventually be coupled).

Electricity is mostly a light phenomenon.

With the fields everything happen locally.

If I recall correctly, one of Faraday main discovery was displaying the lines of the magnetic field using metallic powder. Showing that fields were "real" things.

Two electrons don't interact directly with one another. It's more electron interact with photon which then interact with another electron. The one case where two electron interact directly with one another is the Pauli exclusion principle to make sure electron don't find themselves at the same place.

When in doubt follow the energy.

You can store the energy as bumps in light field aka photons (E^2+B^2 (eps0=mu0=c^2=1) ).

You can also store the energy as bumps in the Fermionic field : sums of kinetic energy of electrons.

Finally you can store energy in the coupling between those two fields. But this happen only locally.

At first approximation when dealing with electricity problems what matters is the energy of the electric field, not the kinetic energy of the moving electrons.

Re: Visualizing Electricity

#68
post #8

In case the author of the video reads this: I tried to watch it but after 2 minutes I just had to turn it off as I couldn’t handle that music anymore. It’s extremely distracting when you try to listen to what the narrator is explaining. It’s not that I don’t like background music in explanatory videos, but this music is way too loud and complex to not distract. Also, considering the video is uploaded to YouTube, I wo…

Cool. Thanks for the suggestion- i'll pass it along. You can mute the audio and still read the titles. Same info. Also, i'm pretty sure those are other distant atoms, not stars.

Fwiw, another user experience report: I managed to overlook the existence of the video, until seeing it mentioned here in comments. A white video arrow, overlaid on the white center of the poster image. My fuzzy recollection is I classified it as a decorative title graphic, as I skipped past it while reading.

Re: Visualizing Electricity

#69

I hate to rain on your parade, because I'm deeply interested in alternatives for established models, and as a rule I strongly prefer intuitive visualisations over mathematical wankery, but this is just... nonsense. It has nothing to do with electricity in any sense. There's no matching theory that this is visualising. To begin with: 1) This doesn't explain why in general only metals conduct electricity. You used the…

Hydrogen is a great place to start with electricity since there is only one orbital surface/ electron-shell. The principles are easily generalized to the multipolar surfaces of metals. Metals are conductive because of these unique d orbitals. In general they have unpaired electrons, which means charge on balance.

"To begin with"...

1) these are ionized hydrogens with delocalized electrons. 2) Capacitors build up voltage, which is differential rotation of their metal's e-shells. 3) In the vacuum, there is such low pressure on the atoms that their surfaces expand to fill the void. There is no such thing as a true vacuum. This is also how cathode ray tubes work under this model. 4) See above. The orbitals are in contact. 5) All those cyclotron measurements are electric at the end of the day. 6) Batteries charge the terminals electro-chemically. chemistry will follow in an additional video after magnetism. Basically, it is the same concept. Enmeshment of surfaces. 7) What dynamos? 8) All materials resist current to certain extent; this has to do with how conductive they are, which is a direct result of how their orbitals are configured/ how the atom is shaped. Capacitors are just terminals separated by insulating resistors. All these details deserve a follow-up blog at some point for sure. Thanks. 9) light is coming. Heat is chaotic motion, while electricity is a particular rotatory type. heat also involves translation/vibration in addition to shell rotation. 10) Hydrogens that are ionized are not empty protons, they simply have delocalized shells. 11) We don't think the limitless extension of the electron is mathematical gibberish. We think that those structures are essential to other atomic phenomenon, including light and gravity. videos to follow. 12) the locked up gear thing isn't a problem for the multi-polar orbitals of actual metals. It would be a problem for a hydrogen lattice, unless it had a hexagonal crystal, with bent geometry...hm.

Re: Visualizing Electricity

#70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is well understood that the bosons are excitations of fields. A boson is not a 'thing' it is a happening. The atom is the first object in physics. That is a shapely thing with location.

The point I'm trying to make, is that there are light fields, and matter fields. Those are two distinct independent things (that can eventually be coupled). Electricity is mostly a light phenomenon. With the fields everything happen locally. If I recall correctly, one of Faraday main discovery was displaying the lines of the magnetic field using metallic powder. Showing that fields were "real" things. Two electrons d…

Faraday believed his 'fields' were what some sort of actual objects were doing. He called them tentacles IIRC.

In our initial atom at beginning of the vid, the electron has tentacles based on Faraday to account for the tails of the RDF of QM — the indefinite extension of the shell. These will be important in visualizing the atomics of light and gravity in future vids. We ignore them for the circuit because they would obscure the events, but the tentacles remain!

Post reply on HN