Electrons and Electricity. A Quantum Copnnection?

[kyle_baron]

I heard once (somewhere) that the use of the electrons in electricity, would be similar to stealing energy from another dimension. This has to do with the electrons "probability orbit" and the fact, that they go from virtual to real. Any comments or opinions would be appreciated. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

He's probably talking about the collapse of the wave-function, and Kerr's "many worlds" hypothesis. Just guessing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />The energy in elctricity does not come from the elctron itself, but from the difference in charge polarity between electrons and protons. Their oposite charge make the attract rather strongly. Since the electron is the light weight one, it moves more easily compared to the proton in the molecular structure its a part of.</font><br /><br />I thought the electrons were stripped off the atom, and forced into a direction, that causes them to flow in that direction:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity<br /><br /><i>An electric current is a flow of electric charge, and its intensity is measured in amperes. Examples of electric currents include metallic conduction, where electrons flow through a conductor or conductors such as a metal wire</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />He's probably talking about the collapse of the wave-function, and Kerr's "many worlds" hypothesis.</font><br /><br />I'm not sure about Kerr, but the many worlds hypothesis is what I was thinking about, along with the electron collapsing:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many_worlds_hypothesis<br /><i><br />In a Sept 2007 conference[10] David Wallace reports a proof by Deutsch and himself of the Born Rule starting from Everettian assumptions[11] and this has been reported in the press as support for parallel universes.[12][13] One physicist, Andy Albrecht at the University of California at Davis, is reported by New Scientist magazine, to have said "This work will go down as one of the most important developments in the history of science".[13]</i><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Then we are talking about the same thing, as Physicist Roy Kerr was the one who hypothesized the "many worlds" idea.<br /><br />Succinctly, it goes that when the wave function of a quantum event collapses, it becomes a single thing. Kerr hypothesized that all of the other potential choices didn't actually "go away" when this occurs: that each possibility does occur, just in another "world-line."<br /><br />Take an event, say an egg falling off of a counter. This is what happens in our world. In another, it <i>didn't</i> fall off the counter. In yet another, the egg isn't there. In yet another, the egg lands on the cat. In another, your foot. And so on.<br /><br />Consider the above with respect to quantum events. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[siarad]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I thought the electrons were stripped off the atom, and forced into a direction, that causes them to flow in that direction<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Electrons used in electricity are merely carriers an external force, emf, causes them to move & it's this force that is used, in a way similar to a car's fan belt or SF tram cable, no energy is used from these. Holes can also be used but the current flow is then in the opposite direction.<br />No electrons were damaged or abused in this post <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Electrons used in electricity are merely carriers an external force, emf, causes them to move & it's this force that is used, in a way similar to a car's fan belt or SF tram cable</font><br /><br />So, you're saying that the electron still exists, after it's force (emf) has been used? What happens to the electron after you turn off the electricity (with in a wire)? I thought it disappeared. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

This is a very good question. As an electrical engineer I have been interested in a clear link between quantum explanation of an electron and flow of electrons in a wire constituting currents. There seems to be a missing link between this two states of electrons.<br /><br />If electrons are clouds around a nucleus, how would you describe 'free electrons' in a conductor? <br /><br />Why probability is not required in calculating currents in a wire? Currents in a wire seem to be very 'deterministic'. <br /><br />Do electrons act like photons? When electrons are attached to a nucleus they act like clouds, but when they are detached from a nucleus, they behave like particles?<br /><br />Questions after questions, no answer. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Link<br /><br />It contains a concise explanation of some of what you're looking answers for. Towards the bottom of the page are links to descriptions of Electron behavior as both waves and particles (depending). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Exactly correct. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />In a superconductor all electrons in the current will act like one, and the friction in the cabel goes away. </font><br /><br />Would that be one electron particle, or one electron wave? Just guessing, but I would think it would be the electron wave. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />When electrons are attached to a nucleus they act like clouds, but when they are detached from a nucleus, they behave like particles? </font><br /><br />That sounds correct to me. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"Why probability is not required in calculating currents in a wire? Currents in a wire seem to be very 'deterministic'."<br />---<br /><br />currents are the result of motion of stupendous numbers of electrons and as such they are macroscopic events and therefore very deterministic, only when we look at what each electron does when it moves as a part of a current is the probability description used<br /><br />"When electrons are attached to a nucleus they act like clouds, but when they are detached from a nucleus, they behave like particles?"<br />---<br /><br />they behave 'particle like' only while they are emited and absorbed by atoms, during their travel in between atoms they are wave like (I believe)<br />but that depends if they actually spend much time in free travel between atoms, IMO electrons (particles generally) spend bulk of the time as a wave cloud and become particles only for the brief periods when there is some 'action' like they are emited or absorbed by atom<br /><br />but that's sort of explanation like for layman, actually the electrons do not spend much any time traveling in between atoms but rather slip from one atom directly to another and perhaps they spend only very brief periods of time in particle state (like when they make the transition btw atoms) and mostly they stay in wave state<br /><br />when you set up potential difference in a piece of conductor you distort those clouds of electron distributions around atomic cores and that makes those atoms more positively charged on their 'rear side' relative to the opposite side and the electrons start slipping from the front side of atoms to the rear sides of the atom next to them... of course setting up the potential difference means you have some sort of battery that has surplus of electrons on one of its poles and connection vire accross the battery poles skewes the atomic electron cloud distributions making them more positive on one side...<br /><br />I suspect that superconductance down at the bottom <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[siarad]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>after it's force (emf) has been used<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I didn't say that, I said an <i>external</i> force, could also be heat.<br />Yes it still exists as no energy has been taken from it only from the external force.<br />Richard Feynman, I think, said the reason we don't fall through the massive space between atoms is coz they keep disappearing & reappearing in different places.<br />So the electrons in use may not be the same ones driven initially by the external force which may be help in your quandary.

 

[alokmohan]

Uncharged, zero angular momentum black holes are called Schwarzschild black holes. Uncharged nonzero angular momentum black holes are called Kerr black holes. Nonspinning charged black holes are called Reissner-Nordström black holes. Charged, spinning black holes are called Kerr-Newman black holes. The black hole no hair theorem shows that mass, charge, and angular momentum are the only properties which a black hole can possess. <br />Did he mean this Kerr?<br />

 

[alokmohan]

Physicist Roy Kerr was the one who hypothesized the "many worlds" idea. THE BLACK HOLE SCHOLAR?<br />

 

[alokmohan]

Kerr?

 

[yevaud]

You needn't have posted a triply redundant question, Alok. Yes, the Same Kerr (from New Zealand). He proposed the idea in, IIRC, 1961. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>