Ohms law

Hi Mitchell,

You need to understand the issues involved.

Charge flow occurs when you establish a potential (EMF measured as voltage) through a conductor.

Every conductor has some level of resistance due to impurities in the material.

As the charge flows through the conductor, the mass/energy is passed from atom to atom.  The conductor atoms are arranged in a crystal structure and can easily pass each photon from atom to atom.  When the photons reach an atom of different type (impurity), that atom may emit a photon of a different type (usually IR), which reduces the amount of charge through the conductor.  That is why wires get warm when you pass a lot of current through them.  Their residual resistance caused by the impurities causes some of the current to be released as IR photons.

In a superconductor, the atoms are all at their minimum energy state, which allows them to pass the photons between atom without emitting any IR photons, but the impure atoms will release photons of higher frequencies.  So there is still some loss, but in general, even the impure atoms will mostly pass the charge with less loss.

DAB

Not photons, electrons. And while impurities do cause resistance I'm fairly certain that electrons bouncing off the atoms of the conductor,

and imparting energy on those atoms in the form of heat is the main source of resistance in "pure" conductors.

P.S. It was Ben Franklin that first postulated that electric current was the flow of "particles" in conductors. It was over a hundred

years later that the electron was finally discovered as that particle in experiments with early cathode ray tubes.

Hi Gary,

No, I really meant photons.  I have done extensive research into subatomic physics over the last nine years and I have found that there is NO experimental evidence to support the idea that electrons are either a part of atoms or flow between atoms in electronic devices.

The mathematical proofs we present in my book "Reverse Engineering The Universe" show that the atom is more likely to have a shell of captured photons instead of the accepted orbiting electrons.  The photon model shows that you get a better understanding of how mass/charge flows between atoms to support all of the macro-level attributes associated with electron flow.

My photon flow model works very well to explain how and why V = I*R works at all levels from sub-atomic to Universe level events.

I know this idea runs contrary to everything everyone has been told or taught, but so far my models do a much better job of explaining actual electronic measurements at the atom and subatomic level.

DAB

Based on the overall success of modern electronics from over a hundred years of research by some of the greatest minds in science

and engineering I'll stick with everybody else is right and you are wrong. Thanks anyway.

Hi Gary,

While I tend to agree with you, if one really has a scientific thought process we have to leave open the possibilities. The scientific community went 200 years believing that they had things all figured out until Einstein showed them that at high speeds and high gravities the universe is not quite as simple as Newton portrayed it. I have looked briefly at DAB  's theories and I even bought his first book. If there is merit to his new ideas, at least, at the level that I do physics it is not worth changing from my familiar view. I believe that he might have better luck explaining things if the terminology did not overlap so much between his theory and the standard model. In the end I have chosen to stay with the standard theory of physics and not try to make the transition to something new. However, at this point, I would hesitate to tell DAB that he was wrong. We have even seen instances where two seemingly competing theories turned out to simply be the same but viewed from different mathematical perspectives. The test will be when DAB can propose an experiment whose result is correctly predicted by his approach and isn't correctly predicted by the current approach. I will keep my mind open but in the meantime, for me, electricity will remain the drifting of electrons through a conductor.

John

Hi Gary,

While I tend to agree with you, if one really has a scientific thought process we have to leave open the possibilities. The scientific community went 200 years believing that they had things all figured out until Einstein showed them that at high speeds and high gravities the universe is not quite as simple as Newton portrayed it. I have looked briefly at DAB  's theories and I even bought his first book. If there is merit to his new ideas, at least, at the level that I do physics it is not worth changing from my familiar view. I believe that he might have better luck explaining things if the terminology did not overlap so much between his theory and the standard model. In the end I have chosen to stay with the standard theory of physics and not try to make the transition to something new. However, at this point, I would hesitate to tell DAB that he was wrong. We have even seen instances where two seemingly competing theories turned out to simply be the same but viewed from different mathematical perspectives. The test will be when DAB can propose an experiment whose result is correctly predicted by his approach and isn't correctly predicted by the current approach. I will keep my mind open but in the meantime, for me, electricity will remain the drifting of electrons through a conductor.

John

Hi John,

In my latest update, I do propose a simple experiment to demonstrate my point.

Take a glass tube with two electrodes on each end and fill the tube with only Hydrogen gas.

Then apply voltage across the tube.

What you will find is a stream of photons moving between the two electrodes. If you measure the current at each end of the tube, you will find a loss of charge running through the tube as the photons are emitted.

If you use the electron model, then you should see each Hydrogen atom dissociate as an electron is ripped from its orbit, leaving a pile of protons at the bottom of the tube and little or no Hydrogen gas remaining inside the tube after a short period of operation.

So how sure can you be that electrons are flowing instead of photons?

A spectrometer shows a very wide range of photons being released between the two electrodes and a simple pressure check will show that no Hydrogen gas was lost during operation.

Since photons are released every time you draw an electrical arc, why is photon flow such a difficult idea?

Has anyone actually seen an electron flow through a wire?

Just saying.

DAB

Hi DAB,

When the difference in potential is put across your tube of hydrogen,  electrons are accelerated  and their increased velocities are the means by which energy is transferred to the hydrogen atoms. When there is electron - electron interaction energy is transferred to orbital electrons. These orbital electrons then emit a photon as they jump back to a lower energy level in the atom. There are cases where an electron is removed but it is quickly replaced with another and again photons of specific energies are released as it falls back into lower energy states.

I do not understand why you say that I will find a stream of photons moving between the potential difference. Photons would be undetectable and they have no reason to move as they are not affected by an electric field. I might see a source of photons between the two potential terminals but these are successfully explained by the interaction of electrons with orbital electrons and their subsequent returning to lower energy levels.

There is no need for the atoms to disassociate. Electrons are being supplied and recovered by the potential difference and the net ionization of the hydrogen gas will likely remain fairly stable. I am not sure what the characteristics are of the protons in your physics but from the standard theory they are positively charged which would cause them to repel one another. They would not accumulate at the bottom of the tube. Gasses that have a lot of ions are called a plasma and exist at very high temperatures such as your arc, in areas where the particle density is too low for easy recombination like the upper atmosphere or in places like the Sun's atmosphere where there is heat and low density. Even in plasma there is likely a net neutrality of charge.

Using an ideal gas model you may be able to calculate the amount of hydrogen in the tube by measuring temperature and pressure. I would not expect this to change under the standard model up until the point where temperature became great enough for the gas to transition to a plasma. Frankly I do not know if the ideal gas law applies to plasma.

If photons were affected by an electric field as you seem to indicate I should be able to place an electric field between my eyes and a light source and modulate the flow of the photons. This would produce a distortion that is not observed in experiments.

Your ideas are interesting and always spark a discussion. Nothing that I do or experiment with has any need to have a precise theory at the molecular level. I like

michaelkellett 's previous post as it accurately reflects how I feel. In the mean time when I feel like trying to imagine the atomic world I am comfortable with the standard theory even though I suspect that future revelations will tweak it towards more perfection without the radical change that you propose.

John