Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Visualizing Electricity

demystifyingscience.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 93 posts

Re: Visualizing Electricity

#81

Post by trent_lott »

mickfaraday wrote: post #72
trent_lott wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rotatin…

aha i get your point exactly. Yes, i'll see if i can't address those for future vids. Unfortunately youtube doesn't let you update vids so i'll have to include those points in the next vid on magnetism. thank you!

If it were me, I'd probably have the camera fly down to between the two terminal ends (don't cut, so the viewer understands what's happening). Then, turn from one terminal and shoe the rotation with an arrow, then rotate and turn to the other and do the same. Maybe mention that they're mirror images, so the rotation coincides.

Obviously not a dictate, but if I were trying to explain it to my chemistry freshmen that is how I would do initially.

It might be useful to seek out some non-expert boards that help undergrads in physical science or engineering to see what they think!

Good luck! I'll bookmark your stuff and ref it to some EE people.

Re: Visualizing Electricity

#82

Post by jabl »

GistNoesis wrote: post #64
mickfaraday wrote: post #61

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).

Yes, the excitations in the electromagnetic field are what we call "photons", which, as you say, are bosons.

Re: Visualizing Electricity

#83

Post by jabl »

mickfaraday wrote: post #3
tom-thistime wrote: post #2

" we propose the following animation: Electricity as surface-to-surface rotational gearing between electron-shells on atoms (see movie below). " That's not the mechanism for ordinary electrical conduction in metals. In my opinion the resulting visualization is very misleading. EDIT: I recommend the excellent Hyperphysics web site. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/ohmmic.h

Why? Metals are addressed at the end of the video. Metals can be thought of in the same manner except with complex orbitals that host multi-polar contacts with neighboring atoms.

Molecular orbitals are a useful tool when studying, well, molecules. But, it is a simple model that doesn't capture the full complexity of reality. In particular, it doesn't work at all for metals.

Re: Visualizing Electricity

#84

Post by mickfaraday »

trent_lott wrote: post #81
mickfaraday wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

aha i get your point exactly. Yes, i'll see if i can't address those for future vids. Unfortunately youtube doesn't let you update vids so i'll have to include those points in the next vid on magnetism. thank you!

If it were me, I'd probably have the camera fly down to between the two terminal ends (don't cut, so the viewer understands what's happening). Then, turn from one terminal and shoe the rotation with an arrow, then rotate and turn to the other and do the same. Maybe mention that they're mirror images, so the rotation coincides. Obviously not a dictate, but if I were trying to explain it to my chemistry freshmen that i…

thank you!!! Yes, I'll include a side-by-side when i revisit this for magnetism/solenoid in the next vid.

Re: Visualizing Electricity

#85

Post by mickfaraday »

centimeter wrote: post #80
mickfaraday wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to really look at the Heisenberg uncertainty relation. Position cannot be sharply determined if we know direction (angular momentum). Speed is problematic too. The state of an electron (or electrons) in the atoms isn't an eigenstate of the velocity (or speed) operator, so no way to nail down the speed precisely. That being said, we chose to abbreviate momentum with rotation speed for our visualization. Reali…

Thanks for linking that spin paper earlier - I'm reading it and it's interesting. With respect to uncertainty of angmom vs position - I would expect the pontryagin dual of angmom (which would be affected by the H.U.P.) to be angular density distribution, not "position" as such. Do you have any information on this relationship? Also, do you know what the energy eigenstates of electrons in the fermi band look like, and…

Density distribution can be transformed to position with spherical shell slice processing from what i understand.

This visualization is an interpretation of all of the math we could get our hands on. Hopefully we get closer to what the atoms are actually doing. Quite literally, electron volt can be considered momentum, so we did our best to illustrate this...simplifying it to rotation speed. In all cases, we are trying to get closer to what the physical object atoms are doing to provide for the phenomenon.

For instance, ionization means delocalized surface of the atom in this illustration because we can't imagine the electron to be a bead that flies around magically and moves through the wire providing motive pressure, per se. So we use shell gearing instead as a rationalization that fits the math and makes more intuitive sense.

Our belief is that QM is absolutely correct in its descriptions but lacking in its interpretations. There is a lot of woo out there because of this.

If you know any other QM experts that would be willing to help us develop the model further, that would be great- can you PM me through the website?

Re: Visualizing Electricity

#86

Post by mickfaraday »

GistNoesis wrote: post #79
mickfaraday wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

At the extreme electricity works just fine without the electrons. Take two hydrogen nucleus without any electrons (aka proton H+). Throw them around and see where they interact and land. They experience electrostatic repulsion, no electron cloud required. Local classical Maxwell is enough to explain electricity no need for QM. I think I get what you are trying to do : "making the Light field implicit". It's a temptin…

photons are transactions between atoms.

Re: Visualizing Electricity

#87

Post by mickfaraday »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #32

My mental image (fwiw) is that the push of an electron is able to push electrons both in immediate proximity and to electrons at a distance. So, that allows the relatively slow speed of moving electrons to produce nearly light speed changes in momentum of faraway electrons.

yep. I think i agree.

Re: Visualizing Electricity

#88

Post by [deleted] »

mickfaraday wrote: post #50
floatrock wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More importantly, I don't understand what this model is trying to conceptualize. The hydrostatic analogy helps a person understand the difference between voltage and current. But its real power is it gives you the building blocks that lets you understand more complicated behaviors by analogy. Take power in the P=I*V sense. Pretending it's water, we can see how a supersoaker nozzle (ie high voltage, low current) is ki…

"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.

[deleted]

Re: Visualizing Electricity

#89

Post by tom-thistime »

This might be a workable visualization.

As physics it's wrong. There is an existing QM explanation for current flow in solids, attributed to Bloch and dating back to the late 1920s. It doesn't work like this visualization. For example in this visualization the electrons aren't transported anywhere, they just sit in place and rotate. That's misleading. In fact charge flows.

I worry about using an incorrect physical picture to visualize physics.

Re: Visualizing Electricity

#90

Post by mickfaraday »

tom-thistime wrote: post #89

This might be a workable visualization. As physics it's wrong. There is an existing QM explanation for current flow in solids, attributed to Bloch and dating back to the late 1920s. It doesn't work like this visualization. For example in this visualization the electrons aren't transported anywhere, they just sit in place and rotate. That's misleading. In fact charge flows. I worry about using an incorrect physical pi…

Because charge is rotation in this visualization, we can also say that the charge is moving since the speed of rotation propagates after the circuit is closed. This is a patent reification, of course, but the idea is consistent with QM.
Post reply on HN