It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Electricity. What is it really ?

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
We have all heard of the Nicola Tesla inventions and contribution in the field of electricity.

Most of us also have the basic "standard" education on electricity through high school.


But what is electricity really?

This thread was inspired by two facts
1) My father, a brilliant Electrical/Mechanical Engineer from the University of Aachen,
tried to explain to me (many years ago) that although electricity, as taught,
moves along the periphery of conductors such as the copper wire, in fact the energy is propagated by means of electromagnetic waves that are in fact around and outside of the conductor itself.
2) I keep noticing in the grounds of ATS the same phrase over and over again:
"We are deceived as to what electricity really is." or "Most people do not have the real knowledge and understanding of electricity" or whatever phrase along these lines...

SO: What is Electricity Really?

I respect the fact that many around here have deep knowledge in the field and i would really like to hear the PROFESSORS VIEWS and UNDERSTANDING!





posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Electricity is the force created by the force of everything living. It's the energy that motion creates. If the waves did not turn, and the lava stopped flowing in the earth, there would be no life and there would be no visible physical force of life.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Particles that act like waves when we want, and act like particles when we want.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


That's more of a description of light.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
George -

My short answer is - I don't know, but I think it has to do with things that are not part of conventional science.

Conventional physics tells us the vacuum is empty - and when a positron and electron pair are generated by a quantum fluctuation, they then annihilate each other and emit a photon.

The above I believe is bunk. I think when a positron-electron pair 'annihilate' they form a subspace particle at the Plank length - or they re-enter a crystalline fluid composed of electron-positron pairs - I am kind of favoring a 6 fold geometry - but I really have little real evidence at this stage.

Conductors are crystalline, which would serve to align these particles, or this fluid lattice. Then you apply a differential charge across the aligned space - what happens then?

Don't really know - I want to believe that you get positrons spinning in one direction and electrons in the other - because this would explain the magnetic field perfectly.

The problem is the interaction of positrons and electrons moving like this through the lattice. There are a lot of problems with this kind of model - the first is that you will immediately be told that positrons will annihilate with electrons - the other is that the current model of the atom simply precludes this from happening.

I do think the current model of an atom is incorrect - but I can't make an atomic model I like yet. I think atoms are simply interactions of electrons and positrons at high energies - I would be fairly much alone in these thoughts though - and I can't figure out how to make a good atomic model.

There are some guys you might be able to find on the net who are working on these kind of theories - some probably have good alternative models.

Have a look for theories on ether - there are some theoretical physicists working on these kinds of things right now - but they are considered fringe.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Headshot
 


Electrons and light share a lot in common.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91 AND reply to post by Mr Headshot
 


Right. Light is a range of wavelength within the electromagnetic spectrum. To be precise, its range is 380 to 750 nanometers.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Electricity is the equalization of opposite electric charges through a conductive medium.

"Electrons" as a particle are not real.

They are merely a convenient representation that we use to mathematically predict electrical behavior.

Electricity is all about balance.

When a charge is built up in an area, it equalizes in the most efficient way possible.

Like a tank of water separated in half by a partition.

If one side is higher than the other the higher side wants to flow to the lowers side, and will find a way to do so (if possible)

The Electron theory is not entirely accurate, and is only used for mathematic and engineering convenience.

We can tell that it is not real because it only works for large scale applications, and does not hold to be true at micro (quantum) levels.

-Edrick


MBF

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Edrick has a real good explanation. The only way to put any more simple is that it is the flow of electrons. Star for Edrick.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   
It is,... the power that is.

And that is just the matter of fact.


Electricity is the plasma that ties us to the higher levels of existance.

Nothing more.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
i think electricity is a form of sound wave. Created by waves of liquid. Dark matter may have something to do with the friction that creates energy on our geomagnetic level.


[edit on 16-6-2009 by mastermind77]



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 01:57 AM
link   
A physicist named Gabriel LaFreniere has put together an argument that all matter is composed of standing waves in an aether.

This includes functional descriptions of electrons, as all matter he postulates is composed of electrons.

I think his descriptions are probably the most believable of any theory I've come across attempting to describe matter and light yet.

www.glafreniere.com...


Einstein's descriptions of light and energy do not satisfy me. They are obtuse in the extreme and do not provide ties back to reality as to why matter should curve space.



[edit on 16-6-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by GEORGETHEGREEK
We have all heard of the Nicola Tesla inventions and contribution in the field of electricity.


Yes, sadly a name that's over used in ATS.
In fact, why didn't you mention Andre Ampere? Why not Faraday? Why not Simon Ohm? Why not Antonio Volta? Why not Kirchhoff? Why not Thomas Edison? Heck, why not Maxwell? I'm sure I can come up with around 15 more scientist names that had works more importance than those of Tesla in the filed, so why him?


Originally posted by GEORGETHEGREEK
But what is electricity really?

I respect the fact that many around here have deep knowledge in the field and i would really like to hear the PROFESSORS VIEWS and UNDERSTANDING!


I'm not a professor, and I'm not sure the other guys are. However I have some books, written by some very smart people, designed so that students can learn those concepts easily. I'll merely share their view:

Charge is a property of the atomic particles of which matter consists. (electrons, protons, neutrons, etc). The charge on each of these particles has a fixed magnitude. Total charge in a body is the addition of all electric charges present on that body.

Charge cannot be created nor destroyed, only transfered. A conducting wire (one that allows free movement of charged particles) can make charge transfer easy.

To move particles, you need some sort of force. Charged particles are ruled by one of the 4 fundamental forces(cannot be described in terms of other interactions), that is, the electromagnetic force. (positive attracts negative, positive repels positive, etc)

If at one end of a copper wire you place a positive charged particle, and at the other end you place a negative charged particle, the negative charge will steal a positive particle from the closest atom, which will yield it easily because in turn it will steal one particle from the next atom, and so on until the last atom in the wire steals the positive charge from the positive charged particle.

Electric current is the time rate of change of charge, measured in Amperes.

The work (movement of particles) performed by an electromotive force(any force that moves electric particles, be it electromagnetic, or any other kind of force) is voltage.

So the force that moves the electrons, protons, etc, is electromagnetic in nature. However, what your dad explained is not electricity, but induction (his concept about induction is right, so maybe he didn't understand your question, or you just took one part of his answer, or you didn't ask properly)



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Electricity is a soft brown and white bunny. The following demonstrations will help you prove it to yourself.

AMAZING ELECTRICITY DEMONSTRATIONS


OK I was just kidding about the bunny part, but the demonstrations are amazing.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unlimitedpossibilities

Right. Light is a range of wavelength within the electromagnetic spectrum. To be precise, its range is 380 to 750 nanometers.

en.wikipedia.org...


That is incorrect. The entire electromagnetic spectrum is called light. The range between 380 and 750 is called visible light, opposed to invisible light. All of it is light.




Originally posted by daniel_g
I'm sure I can come up with around 15 more scientist names that had works more importance than those of Tesla in the filed, so why him?


Maybe because Nikola Tesla was the person who discovered alternating current (AC) electricity.



Originally posted by GEORGETHEGREEK
But what is electricity really?

I respect the fact that many around here have deep knowledge in the field and i would really like to hear the PROFESSORS VIEWS and UNDERSTANDING!


I can experimentally prove that electricity is just magnetism running in streams.

...but then that leaves the question, what is magnetism?

Here are 36 lectures on electricity and magnetism from MIT professors;
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by 0nce 0nce
I can experimentally prove that electricity is just magnetism running in streams.

...but then that leaves the question, what is magnetism?

Here are 36 lectures on electricity and magnetism from MIT professors;
www.youtube.com...


According to my theory - space is filled with a compressed polar fluid (particles or lattice) - when it is aligned (by presence of electric charge), then it creates the magnetic field - making it flow would explain electricity, but the circular magnetic fields extending from a wire are difficult to explain in that way - unless maybe the subspace particles spin as they flow.

Can you detail the experiment you use when you say "I can prove its magnetism running in streams'. I considered that electricity might be a flow of the vacuum fluid - but I was having trouble explaining the shape of the magnetic field - maybe your experiment will resolve this.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Electricity is the movement of charged particles through a conductive medium.

That part is easy. What's hard is when you start trying to explain what these charged particles are and why electricity tends to create electromagnetic waves. After all, no one has ever seen an electron... or a proton or neutron for that matter. Some years ago I did a little calculation on a theory I had heard, and it turns out that if you calculate the energy equivalent of a proton or neutron, and calculate the amount of energy that would be required to create a waveform with a single wavelength equal to that observed size, the two are amazingly equivalent to an acceptable margin of error (based on the tolerances of measurement devices used to obtain the experimental results previously mentioned). This gives some credence to the idea of material particles being simply 'trapped energy'.

A side effect to this is that, according to the equations used, the heavier a particle is, the more energy it takes to form it, and therefore the higher the frequency of that energy. In simpler terms, the heavier a particle is, the smaller that particle is, on a quantum level.

In our existence, this seems terribly absurd. We are used to larger things weighing more than smaller things. A pebble weighs less than a boulder. But that is because both the pebble and the boulder are made up of similar particles; the boulder simply has more of those particles and therefore weighs more and takes up more space. When we reach the quantum level, this situation is reversed. Larger particles are lighter, and smaller particles are heavier. Black holes are naturally formed this way, as the gravitational effects of a particle, and therefore the Schwartzchild's Radius of a particle, are proportional to the mass of said particle. The physical size of the particle is inversely proportional to it's mass and therefore at some point, a particle will exhibit a Schwartzchild's Radius greater than it's physical radius (wavelength halved) and become what we all know as a Black Hole.

Electrons, then, since they are so much lighter than either protons or neutrons, must be considerably larger, actually acting more like charged regions of space rather than a particle. These regions of space then can be mobilized via external charges and thus can create a current to power our labor-saving conveniences. Since electrons are charged areas of space-time, their charges can have effects throughout the area of space-time surrounding them, creating waveforms that we call electromagnetic radiation due to their movement in an electrical current or in a natural plasmatic phenomenon.

Light's 'dual nature' as has been brought up here is therefore actually not a dual nature per se, but rather an exhibition of properties a waveform that cannot create a particle since it does not resonate at a freqency that can be 'trapped', yet has otherwise the same makeup of a particle. Some characteristics will act like the wave is a particle, while others will indicate a waveform. The particle tendencies appear to be less pronounced at lower frequencies (such as the ones we can create directly via radio), but at higher frequencies such as light, they become pronounced.

OK, back to the soldering iron. I just popped on to let everyone know I was alive and to check my U2Us, but I couldn't resist this thread.

TheRedneck
(Oh, I see mnemeth1 has already touched on this. Good show!
)



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
As a side note, Dark matter / Dark energy is not real either.

Scientists merely do not know how gravity works, or is formed... so they created this "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" to add into their equations to make them fit observations.

IT is junk science.

-Edrick



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by 0nce 0nce
 




That is incorrect. The entire electromagnetic spectrum is called light. The range between 380 and 750 is called visible light, opposed to invisible light. All of it is light.



Ok. Yes. I should have been more explicit in my statement. But you know I meant visible. I listed the range at which it is defined.

However, you can take that argument up with Wikipedia if you want.



Light is electromagnetic radiation, particularly radiation of a wavelength that is visible to the human eye (about 400–700 nm), or perhaps 380–750 nm.[1] In physics, the term light sometimes refers to electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not.
en.wikipedia.org...

So, it is just semantics.






[edit on 16-6-2009 by Unlimitedpossibilities]



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   
And as a further side note.... particles are NOT real.

This observation of matter as "Little Cannonballs" is a byproduct of HOW we observe these things, and NOT an actuall aspect of nature in any way.

The continuation of the "Particle" theory just makes me laugh at scientists (though not science as a whole)


-Edrick

[edit on 17-6-2009 by Edrick]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join