Electric Current in physics Genuine Ether electricity
They are not mentioned in high school and university textbooks because physics in the early 20th century abandoned the Ether field theory for political reasons.
This article examines electric current on the basis of the Ether theory that scientists tried to discover, but was abandoned to make room for the new religious science of relativity and quantum theory.
Problem from the question: A Veritasium video says that a light bulb with the wires a light second away from the battery will light up in 1/c seconds if the light bulb and the battery were a meter apart. Doesn't the light bulb physically require electrons to pass through it?
Answer by Partha Sarathi Mishra:
Well he is right.
There are two times involved. The time taken for electric current tor each form battery to the bulb. And second, the time taken to completely lit the bulb. Bulb needs some time to lit completely as the field needs to penetrate and break and generate heat. Veritasium ignored the lit time, which is fine, and concentrated only on propagation time. Current flows in speed of light, if the dielectric is free space. So the time taken for electric energy to reach the bulb which is 1 meter apart from the battery will obviously be 1/c sec.
In short following is a representation of current flow through a circuit which will be explained in detain in short.
Actually his video could have be better if he would have included few more details about field theory and quoting directly from the works of Maxwell, Heaviside, J H Poynting, J J Thomson etc.
It’s a daredevil act, which rattled the academia’s dogmatic cage of materialism and bumping particles. That’s why so many counter videos were made to save their academic a**, as he has more subscribers. Few others also made similar videos but wouldn't got viral due to less followers. I am writing about same thing since 2 years. People like Eric Dollard, Ken Wheeler saying this since years.
First of all what he said is being know since Maxwell, and Heaviside and Poynting described it in detail. They were masters of field theory. It’s the physicists since last 100 years tried to kept people away from true field theory of electricity by confusing and distorting both the theories and the history.
This so called electron is nothing but a scam put to suppress rational progress in electrical theory and consumed by pure mathematical fantasy. Electron has no use in any of the practical electrical engineering work.
The so-called discoverer of electron J J Thomson never believe in it. I was later when he was consumed by greed of name and fame of Nobel prize when he changed his mind. Because his pre-Nobel works contradict his post Nobel work. If you read his field works in “Electricity and Matter” and “Notes of Recent Research on Electricity and Magnetism”, you will be baffled by the level of clarity he had in understanding field and electricity. He was the first to give an engineering view of aether with his Faraday Tube hypothesis. But unfortunately his works didn't carried out further, neither by him or somebody else, due to rise of mathematical materialism through particle physics and relativity and then quantum mechanics, and completely distorted our understanding of electricity which was established by Maxwell, Heaviside, Poynting, Thomson, Tesla, and Steinmetz.
Learn more: Electron - A Mathematical Fiction
Thomson himself was not happy after receiving Nobel prize. The JJ Thomson group at Cavendish would gather for occasional relaxation and a booze-up. Thomson would call the scientists to order – ‘Gentlemen, a toast, “To the electron — may it never be of any use to anybody.”
And he was right, there is no use of electron till date in engineering.
I think that's enough of a prologue. Lets start with the actual thing.
Let’s start with basics.
What is this charge physicists hang around? Are they independent of field? Can charge exists without field? There is no such independent entity called charge. Charge is a quantity, not an entity.
A charge can be visualized as terminal end or footprint of an electric lines of force.
You can call this end points of filed line as charge particle, but that doesn’t make it some independent entity.
Physicists try to deny field as much as possible and try to define particle for every electrical phenomena which was never done by any of the electrical pioneers. Hence the confusions.
Now following is a simple representation of electric field between two oppositely charged conductors at rest.
J J Thomson called this lines of force as Faraday Tubes as faraday devised this concept first. One single line of force is called as one tube of induction.
Physicists think these lines of forces are just mathematical abstraction, but Maxwell, Poynting, Heaviside, J J Thomson all gave them physical meaning. Faraday used tubes as a language to explain the phenomena of electric and magnetic.
Here are some quotes.
By Maxwell
We should thus obtain a geometrical model of physical phenomena, which would tell us the direction of the force, but we should still require some method of indicating the intensity of the force at any point. If we consider these curves not as mere lines, but a fine tubes of variable sections carrying an incompressible fluid, then, since the velocity of the fluid is inversely as the section of the tube, we may make the velocity vary accordingly to any given law, by regulating the section of the tube, and in this way we might represent the intensity of the force as well as its direction by the motion of the fluid in these tubes.
—On Faraday’s Lines of Force, J C Maxwell, pg 158–159
By J H Poynting
If we symbolise the electric and magnetic conditions of the field by induction tubes running in the directions of the intensities, the tubes being supposed drawn in each case so that the total induction over a cross section is unity, then we have reason to suppose that the electric tubes are continuous except where there are electric charges, while the magnetic tubes are probably in all cases continuous and re-entrant.
—On the connexion between electric current and the electric and magnetic inductions in the surrounding field, J H Poynting, pg. 279
By Oliver Heaviside
It is by observation of these forces in the first place, followed by the induction of the laws they obey, and then by deductive work, that the carving out Of space into tubes of force follows; and now, further, we see that the localisation of the stored energies, according to the square of the electric and magnetic force respectively, combined with the two circuital laws, leads definitely to a stress existing in the electromagnetic field, which is the natural concomitant of the stored energy, and which is the immediate cause of the mechanical forces observed in certain cases.
—Electromagnetic Theory, Vol I, Oliver Heaviside, pg. 86
By J J Thomson
In the mathematical theory of electricity there is nothing to indicate that there is any limit to the extent to which a field of electric force can be subdivided up into tubes of continually diminishing strength, the case is however different if we regard these tubes of force as being no longer merely a form of mathematical expression, but as real physical quantities having definite sizes and shapes. If we take this view, we naturally regard the tubes as being all of the same strength, and we shall see reasons for believing that this strength is such that when they terminate on a conductor there is at the end of the tube a charge of negative electricity equal to that which in the theory of electrolysis we associate with an atom of a monovalent element such as chlorine.
—Notes on Recent Researches in Electricity and Magnetism, J J Thomson, pg 2-3
J J Thomson rejected the independent existence of magnetic field and deduced that magnetic force can be derived from motion of electric tubes. Hence magnetism is a secondary effect.
An electric line of force or a tube can be visualized as a vortex filament in a fluid like shown below.
The Faraday tubes either form closed circuits or else begin and end on atoms, all tubes that are not closed being tubes that stretch in the ether along lines either straight or curved from one atom to another. When the length of the tube connecting two atoms is comparable with the distance between the atoms in a molecule, the atoms are said to be in chemical combination (bonding); when the tube connecting the atoms is very much longer than this, the atoms are said to be chemically free.
The property of the Faraday tubes of always forming closed circuits or else having their ends on atoms may be illustrated by the similar property possessed by tubes of vortex motion in a frictionless fluid, these tubes either form closed circuits or have their ends on the boundary of the liquid in which the vortex motion takes place.
A faraday tube can never terminate on space.
Following diagram mentions the direction of magnetic force by a faraday tube in motion.
Hence you can see that the direction of magnetic force is perpendicular to both the direction of electric displacement and to that of the propagation.
Following is the electric field diagram of conductor.
The magnetic lines of force are in the form of concentric circles. The number of magnetic lines of force is termed as magnetic flux.
The electric lines of force are radial to the surface of the conductor. The number of dielectric lines of force is called electric flux (aka charge in modern term).
Between two conductors, the line of force are crowded together and form arcs of circles, passing from conductor to return conductor.
Now let’s there be a battery with a fixed potential difference across it’s terminals.
For a fixed voltage to be maintained there has to be a fixed number of faraday tubes maintained across the terminals. But the potential exists in space around it. A potential source exerts potential difference across the space surrounding it’s terminals.
Lets connect the circuit with one simple resistor as shown below.
When the circuit is closed, the tubes slips through the conductor and starts shrinking to molecular dimensions as shown below.
As I said the tubes slips through the conductor and starts shrinking to molecular dimensions. The shrinking to molecular dimensions means, the tubes shortens till it reaches the atomic bond length. It’s the minimum length of a tube for that specific material conductor. See the following diagram.
Lets, say the tube is travelling across a conductor as shows below.
The tube travels and as the terminals are closed, it keep travelling and shrinking.
As you can see they disappear or shirk to the molecular length when they find closed path. They can shrink anywhere in the circuit, either on wire or resistor, and there could be multiple random sink points depends on number of components in a circuit.
I haven’t drawn magnetic fields till now. As I mentioned earlier, that the magnetic field intensity arises due to motion of electric field as H = v x D. So only the normal component of electric displacement contributes to the magnetic field.
v is the velocity of faraday tube, which is the speed of electric current, which is medium (space) dependent, and NOT conductor’s resistance dependent, as shown below.
Resistance affects the intensity of current, not speed.
Using the above thesis, lets see a detailed cross section diagram showing why magnetic field encircles as per the cork screw rule.
Lets see the magnetic fields of a circuit.
I have only drawn magnetic field across the surface. They extends throughout the space which you can visualize.
The tubes slowly penetrates inside the conductor as due to molecular vibrations causes many tubes to destroy and rate of propagation (not speed) decreases. Hence the resistive heat loss. So in order to induce more tubes to maintain the potential, the induction does need to penetrate in order to facilitate the flow. But it starts from space only where the actual energy is transferred.
As the potential source keep pushing new tubes, which due to resistance the conductor cannot remain in sync with it as the tubes are getting destroyed, hence they make slight angle due to the push from new tubes. Due to this angling, the normal component of electric displacement which leads to magnetic force also reduces. That’s why superconductors are best electromagnets.
Perfect conductor needs no penetration, as they could able to induce required number of tubes to maintain the potential. Hence Heaviside called a perfect conductor as a perfect obstructer. A conductor obstructs electricity just like a road obstructs you from falling into it, so that you could able to walk on the road. In electrostatics, the fields are always normal to the surface, irrespective of resistance. Unfortunately the physicists’ thinking is totally opposite, hence the confusion.
I hope you can see now clearly visualize the current flow is nothing but an electromagnetic wave propagation where electric and magnetic fields are perpendicular to each other and to the direction of propagation.
Professor J H Poynting devised a vector to calculate energy dissipation across conductors space. It’s later called as the poynting vector, S.
→S=→E×→H
It’s electric power per unit area. This is independently devised by Heaviside. Heaviside called the poynting flow as energy current. The poynting theorem clearly states that the energy flows density exists in the space surrounding the circuit. Hence current exists in the space surrounding the conductor, NOT inside the conductor. Energy is only dissipated inside the conductor, not carried inside the conductor.
Lets see the Poynting flow for a circuit with resistor and wires which a perfect conductor.
You can see that the poynting vector never converge with the conductor as the lines of force are normal to the surface due to zero resistance. They directly converge on the load.
Now lets see the poynting flow of circuit with resistive wires with load.
You can see the poynting vectors do converge on conducting surface also which leads to resistive loss.
The change in energy density which dissipates is given by:
−∂w∂t=→∇⋅→S+→E⋅→J
For perfect conductors, the electric field is perpendicular to the conducting surface, hence the poynting vector is parallel to the conducting surface. So the density variation will be zero. Hence no energy dissipation. Just constant loop of power. With resistance, the electric field makes some angle across the conductor’s surface when current starts flowing. Hence the poynting vectors starts to penetrate inside the conductor, hence the heat loss.
So when you ask does a bulb needs electron to physically pass through it to lit, it’s completely different question. A bulb or any load needs energy dissipation to function. But that’s after propagation. It’s loss. But you cannot say that loss as propagation of current.
Let me quote Poynting directly:
Formerly a current was regarded as something travelling along a conductor, attention being chiefly directed to the conductor, and the energy which appeared at any part of the circuit, if considered at all, was supposed to be conveyed thither through the conductor by the current, But the existence of induced currents and of electromagnetic actions at a distance from a primary circuit from which they draw their energy, has led us, under the guidance of FARADAY and MAXWELL, to look upon the medium surrounding the conductor as playing a very important part in the development of the phenomena.
—On the Transfer of Energy in the Electromagnetic Field, J.H
J J Thomson agreed with Poynting’s explanation about energy flow.
—Notes on Recent Researches in Electricity and Magnetism, pg 37
Mathematical physics has become obsessed with quantifying reality, they have in effect, ruined their ability to think independently of the crowd. This has become obvious, as particle physics has made no progress in the past 50 years. I don't expect any progress to be made either, as college graduates are pumped out of schools by the tens of thousands believing that abstractions are real things. They are trained to believe there are pieces of abstractions floating about the universe, no wonder why they have no issue with other more obvious absurdities such as big bang and black holes. If they could just understand that reification is not science, maybe they would be able to climb out of the cave and experience the light for themselves.
I will sum-up with a great quote from Tesla which is very critical for scientific thinking.
The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.
—Nikola Tesla
None of these electrical giants ever used phrases like “charges flow”. It’s a figment of imagination by physicists to confuse and sabotage electrical science. It started with death of aether and invention of virtual electron. Einstein was also one of the reason. Hence no significant rational progress happened in electromagnetic field theory in past 100 years, instead of complication and confusions to get Nobel prizes.
Steinmetz tried to hit the bull’s eye saying:
Unfortunately, to large extent in dealing with dielectric fields the prehistoric conception of the electrostatic charge on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electric field, the magnetic and the dielectric, and makes the consideration of dielectric fields unnecessarily complicated.
— CP Steinmetz, Elementary Lectures on Electric Discharges, Waves and Impulses (Lecture II, pg 18)
But nobody dared to care Steinmetz and physicists’ didn’t like him either. He was even far less popular compared to Tesla. Steinmetz was one of the person without whom we will be still using candle lights. He was engineer’s engineer.
Our modern electromagnetic education is mostly mathematical which doesn't not give any proper rational understanding of field theory. And we lack self learning ability from alternative sources and becoming cult member of mainstream where alternate theories and critical thinking are discouraged.
Hence I am not surprised when so many people got butthurt due to Veritasium’s video, nor I know whether Veritasium is aware of the things which I explained here, or he just wanted to get more views. Whatever may be the reason, the conclusion is correct, but we need to study it with an open mind from original sources instead of fighting back with mainstream indoctrinated mind, which most counter videos did.
Revealed At Last... Must watch!
Free Energy Magnetic Generator and synthesizes many other technologies imbued with Nikola Tesla's technological identity
✔ Nikola Tesla’s method of magnifying electric power by neutralizing the magnetic counter-forces in an electric generator
Generates Energy-On-Demand: 👉 Free Energy Will Change Our World Forever
✔ Combination of induction motor and alternator
✔ Combine generators with induction motors - self-powered generators with rotary motion
✔ Various methods of generating high power immobile generators
✔ Or maybe called Overunity for the system. Mother Nature doesn't care about people calling or naming phenomena. Overunity/Free Energy, Zero Point Energy (ZPE) are just a few different wordsA famous and high-quality book about Tartaria that cannot be missed:
