Electricity

[bperet]

Rainer Huck of ISUS has, for quite some time, been promoting the idea that "voltage" is the ratio between the number of charged and uncharged electrons in a conductor. I looked into that idea when he originally presented it to me at the ISUS Conference in 1996, but have never come up with an explanation, nor validation of it, with Larson's RS.

Phil and I were talking today and he brought up Rainer's ideas again, so I took a look at it with the electron concepts of RS2, since we do have a slightly different electron model than Larson. Here is what I found out:

First, an understanding of how legacy science views "positive" and "negative" charges in electric current, and how Larson labeled them:

DB Larson, BPOM p. 151 wrote:

... On this basis, the term "positive" would always refer to a time displacement (low speed), and the term "negative" wouild always refer to a space displacement (high speed). ... For present purposes, therefore, current usage will be followed, and the charges on positive elements [time displacements] will be designated as positive. This means that the significance of the terms "positive" and "negative" with respect to rotation is reversed in application to charge.

... To avoid the possibility of confusion, the terms "positive" and "negative" will be accompanied by asterisks when used in the reverse manner [the manner legacy science uses them].

Larson's electron is constructed upon a material rotational base (time displacement), with an associated spatial rotation. The charge on this combination thus takes place in time, and is makes the electron "negative*". Larson does not have a "positive" charge, as postulated by legacy science.

In RS2, the electron is actually a cosmic positron with a spatial displacement, giving it the appearance of a positive* particle. Being cosmic, it appears as ENERGY, t/s, which is interpreted as a charge, though does not act like charge since there is no rotational vibration associated with it. Hence, uncharged electrons do not repel each other.

When the uncharged electron acquires a charge, the charge is temporal, making it a negative*, charged particle; static electricity.

The conclusion here is fairly obvious: RS2 has BOTH positive (uncharged) and negative (charged) electrons. Since "voltage" is the difference between negative and positive potentials (quantities of electrons), Rainer was EXACTLY correct... what we measure as voltage is the difference between charged (-) and uncharged (+) electrons in a conductor.

This has some other wide-ranging implications. Basic electronics talks of "electrons" and "holes" that move in opposite directions in a conductor, which forms the basis of our electronic theory. RS2 now has TWO particles that actually DO that, the uncharged electron (cosmic positron, a "hole" in space), and the charged electron (the common, negative charge). This brings the RS2 electronic theory MUCH closer to what is observed than Larson's original idea of electric current, and should make a connection between RS2 and legacy theory much simpler.

As a consequence, it should also be noted that the uncharged electrons will flow in the opposite direction of charged electrons in a conductor; the "current" of the uncharged electrons being proportional to the cross-section, and the "charge" of the charged electrons being proportional to the circumference of the conductor.

RS2 is still in agreement with Larson in regards to the uncharged electron being the carrier of electric current, but it does change some of his conclusions regarding inductance and capacitance, which I will address in a separate topic.

So Kudos to Rainer for spotting this so long ago. RS2 proves he was right, all along, and he has just opened up a far more comprehensive electronic theory for the RS.

[davelook]

Here's an interesting paper showing that Quantized VOLTAGE, not resistance, is the basic of the Quantum Hall Effect...

http://nvl.nist.gov/pub/nistpubs/jres/101/2/j2cage.pdf

I hope somebody can translate the voltage into natural terms.

[bperet]

davelook wrote:

Here's an interesting paper showing that Quantized VOLTAGE, not resistance, is the basic of the Quantum Hall Effect...

http://nvl.nist.gov/pub/nistpubs/jres/101/2/j2cage.pdf

It is an interesting paper. One might also want to look at the Wikipedia entry for the quantum Hall effect. What I find particularly interesting is the "fractional" quantum Hall Effect, where conductance is based on a fraction composed of two counting numbers (2/7, 1/3, 3/5).

In the "displacement" discussion, we found in RS2 that the displacement, which Larson always calculated as the aspect of speed minus one (1/4 = displacement of 4-1 = 3), is actually the DIFFERENCE between the spatial and temporal magnitudes (1/4 = 4-1 = 3, or 2/7 = 7-2 = 5 (Larson has no notation for fractions such as 2/7... one aspect must be unity). The usefulness of this method of calculating displacement becomes apparent when electrons need to have a higher speed, aka "energy". The electron, 0-0-(1) has speeds of [ 1/1 - 1/1 - 2/1 ]. In RS2, other values are also allowed: [ 1/1 - 1/1 - 54/53 ] (since 54-53 still equals (1), giving the appearance of 0-0-(1) but having additional energy.

These fractional quantum numbers in the Hall effect seem to be indicative of the scalar electron speed, not the electron displacement. Still need to do some more research, but I thought I'd mention it since it is an interesting correlation.

davelook wrote:

I hope somebody can translate the voltage into natural terms.

Voltage is Electro-Motive Force (EMF), and has units of force, t/s².

In RS2, the electron is the cosmic positron, C 0-0-(1). It resides in the SPACE region (not the TIME region), of 1/s. When an electron captures a photon (t/s), the linear vibration of the photon imparts a rotational vibration to the electron, creating a "charge". In natural units: 1/s (electron) x t/s (photon) = t/s² (force = EMF = Voltage).

[davelook]

bperet wrote:

In RS2, the electron is the cosmic positron, C 0-0-(1). It resides in the SPACE region (not the TIME region), of 1/s. When an electron captures a photon (t/s), the linear vibration of the photon imparts a rotational vibration to the electron, creating a "charge". In natural units: 1/s (electron) x t/s (photon) = t/s² (force = EMF = Voltage).

This paper seems to back that up...

http://juwel.fz-juelich.de:8080/dspace/ ... /19406.pdf

The quantum DC voltage steps are a function the the freq. irradiating the junction, and the Josephson constant, 2e/h, 4.836 X 10^14 Hz/V.

In ST terms, this is freq / Hz/V => 1/t x t^2/s^2, => t/s^2 (voltage).

[bperet]

davelook wrote:

This paper seems to back that up...

http://juwel.fz-juelich.de:8080/dspace/ ... /19406.pdf

The quantum DC voltage steps are a function the the freq. irradiating the junction, and the Josephson constant, 2e/h, 4.836 X 10^14 Hz/V.

In ST terms, this is freq / Hz/V => 1/t x t^2/s^2, => t/s^2 (voltage).

If Larson is correct, I think we will find that EVERYTHING exhibits quantum behavior if you look hard enough... voltage, current, and even resistance because they are all composed of discrete units of motion. It is good to have supporting evidence.

There is a lot of evidence that the charged electron is an electron+photon, particularly when you get into radio applications.

There are a number of difficulties with Larson's "current" model in this area. Conventional application says that the RF is emitted from an antenna because of the electrons jumping orbital states in the conduction band and emitting photons. The RS, however, has NO orbital electrons, as the electrons pass through the nucleus, not around it, so there is no way to generate radio waves from the system.

The electron+photon combination is basically static electricity, which does NOT move through the atoms as an uncharged electron does (not being a unit of space), but along the skin of the conductor--the basic for antenna design. To transmit the radio wave, all the electron has to do is to lose the attached photon, which is emitted at the speed of light, and returns the electron to the uncharged state, which can then be carried back into the circuit as electric current.

I think the key is an understanding of Planck's constant. I'll do a separate topic on that.

[Horace]

Wouldn't a radioactive antenna skin make it easier for the charged electrons to shed the photons?

Another question that begs an answer is "Why does the frequency of the released photons mirror the frequency of the RF electric current?"

[bperet]

Horace wrote:

Wouldn't a radioactive antenna skin make it easier for the charged electrons to shed the photons?

Can't see how that would help--a charged electron is not longer a rotating unit of space, so it is moving through the space of the wire, not the time (atoms). Radiation is emitted from the breakup of the nucleus (the atomic rotations), so it would free electric current (uncharged), not the charged electrons, and the beta radiation would probably just introduce static into the emission.

Was there something specific you were thinking of with this idea?

Horace wrote:

Another question that begs an answer is "Why does the frequency of the released photons mirror the frequency of the RF electric current?"

Conventional electronics measures the movement of charges in a conductor, not electrons (being unaware of the uncharged electron altogether), so there is a good possibility that what they are measuring is the frequency of the charge, not the electric current itself.

I am just starting to collect data on AC to see what is actually going on at an atomic level with resonant circuits and transients. It may not be as conventional electronics describes it.

As I've posted elsewhere, I suspect that the positive electric charges are not the depletion of orbital electrons (since there aren't any in the RS), but the presence of uncharged electrons in the nucleus, and the negative charges are the charged electrons moving within the space of the conductor; the ratio between the two giving the potential difference, as Rainer Huck suggested.

Semiconductor data seems to indicate that "holes" and "electrons" will pair up, which is hard to do if the 'hole' isn't something physical, and I think the phenomenon is probably more predominant than the literature states. What that means in RS terms is that we are dealing with bi-rotating electrons (localized in time, non-local in space since the RS2 electron is cosmic), in which one electron captures a photon, acquiring a charge--but still connected. This would explain the numeric correspondence between "holes" and "electrons" in electrostatic experiments.

As a precedent for electron pairing, look at the free gases, such as H₂, O₂, N₂... all paired up, rather than remaining as ions. And what could be more "ionic" than an electron?

[davelook]

Th following might be old news to you guys (the article is from 1997), but while I knew "high energy" experiments got values closer to 1/128, I hadn't ever read THIS!

From http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/d ... 106-12.pdf...

From their data, the researchers obtained a value of the fine structure constant, a number

that characterizes the inherent strength of the electromagnetic force. As expected theoretically,

the newly obtained value of 1/128.5 is significantly larger than the 1/137 observed for a fully

screened electron.

“Ours is a clean measurement of the electromagnetic effect,” Koltick says. In higher-energy

experiments at other accelerators, the effect is swamped by additional factors, including the

strong force, which holds neutrons and protons together in an atomic nucleus and binds

quarks into protons and neutrons. Those factors make it difficult to distinguish the relative

contributions of the nuclear and electromagnetic forces.

[bperet]

davelook wrote:

Th following might be old news to you guys (the article is from 1997), but while I knew "high energy" experiments got values closer to 1/128, I hadn't ever read THIS!

From http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/d ... 106-12.pdf...

From their data, the researchers obtained a value of the fine structure constant, a number

that characterizes the inherent strength of the electromagnetic force. As expected theoretically,

the newly obtained value of 1/128.5 is significantly larger than the 1/137 observed for a fully

screened electron.

What I believe is going on here is this: the fine structure constant appears to be the degrees of freedom of the electron. Conventional science DOES NOT RECOGNIZE the "uncharged" electron which is defined in the RS. Consider:

Rotational degrees of freedom: two "magnetic" at 2² DOF each x one "electric" at 2³ DOF = 4 x 4 x 8 = 128 DOF.

Vibrational degrees of freedom (the photon), being a birotation with each aspect having 3 DOF = 3 x 3 = 9 DOF.

In RS2, the charged electron is the uncharged electron with a captured photon. Therefore:

Uncharged electron DOF = 128.

Charged electron DOF = 128 + 9 = 137.

It appears that their experimental setup has just stripped the charge off the electron, and they have, in fact, discovered the uncharged electron.

[Horace]

Neat explanation!

They stipped the charge by colliding electrons and positrons head on at 57.77Ge.

Uncharged electrons should not repel anymore.

Although I wonder how can they detect uncharged electrons in vacuum, and how can the uncharged electron survive outside of matter without reaquiring the charge.

Regards,

Horace