davelook wrote:
Very interesting article... I've been digging through electric, magnetic, electrostatic and magnetostatic systems for the last week, and had pretty much gotten to the point where NONE of it made any sense, for almost the same reasons presented in this article.
Take something as simple as a "resistor", which is supposed to resist the flow of current. Wrong. Examine the space-time dimensions:
Resistor: t
2/s
3
Current: s/t
Hate to mention it, but s/t to t/s constitutes
motion, and current will flow unimpeded through a resistor. What a resistor actually resists is the
charge on a charged electron, t/s, since t/s to t/s is NOT motion.
Then you also discover that AC (alternating
current) may alternate, but it is alternating
voltage, NOT CURRENT! The current (number of electrons present in the wire) remains constant, only the potential difference over a unit length changes. But we measure current indirectly, by placing a voltmeter across a resistor. Per Rainer's definition of voltage being the ratio of charged to uncharged electrons, only the charged electrons will be "resisted", so we see the ratio change without any change in the actual quantity of electrons. Makes the meter jiggle, but the current has not actually changed.
This shows up when you start treating all the components as complex numbers. For the electron, it is SPACE that is the imaginary quantity, because the electron is actually the cosmic positron--a "space region" in coordinate time. The only way you can capture an electron is to counter it with the same inverse speed--the rotational
counterspace of material atoms.
Beaty's article got me thinking... the conventional science view of superconductors says that it is the MATERIAL that superconducts. Nehru discovered it was actually the electrons, forming bi-rotating pairs, that is responsible for superconduction. What if the same thing is going on here... rather than electrons being "stored" in a capacitor, what is going on is that the atomic structure of the dielectric is just being reconfigured by the potential difference?
I liked Beaty's description of the capacitor being a wound-up spring--a property of the dielectric, not the electrons. Electric power is just the "force" used to do the winding.
Given that some of the EDLC capacitors are up to 500,000 Farads now, if they are actually storing electrons we should notice that the capacitor gets HEAVIER when charged, since electrons have mass and the quantities of electrons being stored in these caps is astronomical.
The conclusion I am being pushed towards, to make sense of the complex representation of speed, is that the concepts of inductance and capacitance are properties of atomic orientation--kind of like a polarization of light--where electric current and voltage are used to do the orienting, in a similar fashion to crystals with light. It may be something as simple as "electric" is linear (1D) and "magnetic" is circular (2D) polarization.
The 1D and 2D differences may be an artifact of the process of observation, not what is actually going on at the scalar level.