A question of energy vs matter

[Louis_B]

Evening all. I was pondering the creation of electricity, as I was driving home..as you do; and I thought that if electrons were being stripped from the copper coil, it would end up being highly electropositive and electron deficient. As this does not seem to happen, where do all these extra electrons come from? Is the magnetic field diminished as it is transmuted into electricity? And as the electricity is only created as the lines of force are intercepted does it mean that magnetism and electrons are directly interchangable in a process we do not yet know of?

Best wishes, Lou_B

[reconsiderate]

Electric current is due to waves being transmitted through the electrons as a medium, similar to the way ocean waves are transmitted through water molecules without the same molecules having to travel with the wave all the way to the beach. That's what prayer told me anyway:)

[Louis_B]

Electric current is due to waves being transmitted through the electrons as a medium, similar to the way ocean waves are transmitted through water molecules without the same molecules having to travel with the wave all the way to the beach. That's what prayer told me anyway:)

Hi Reconsiderate. I understand what you say, but when said waves pass through a component - using some of the energy - there are then less waves or electrons left and the "water level" would go down, to use your analogy. I was just wondering, as the copper does not have an infinate number of electrons, how the interaction with a magnetic field seems to top up the water level so to speak?

[reconsiderate]

Electric current is due to waves being transmitted through the electrons as a medium, similar to the way ocean waves are transmitted through water molecules without the same molecules having to travel with the wave all the way to the beach. That's what prayer told me anyway:)

Hi Reconsiderate. I understand what you say, but when said waves pass through a component - using some of the energy - there are then less waves or electrons left and the "water level" would go down, to use your analogy. I was just wondering, as the copper does not have an infinate number of electrons, how the interaction with a magnetic field seems to top up the water level so to speak?

Waves are not like matter. They do not leave a void where they pass through. As a wave moves through water, the trough does leave an indentation that rises again re-distributing surrounding water to equilibrium. I believe the same happens with electrons in the copper wire. It is not a closed system. Electricity is like heat in that it reaches equilibrium when left undisturbed, I think. Once you switch off the power of an electronic device, the capacitor or whatever it is that maintains a certain level of charge dissipates the remaining charge into the wire. I'm not 100% sure about this, though, so maybe someone else has a better explanation.

[Lincoln]

In electricity, the electrons do not get stripped off the atoms in the sense of losing them. What happens is an electric field is set up an the electrons move. When one electron passes out of a lightbulb, simultaneously another enters the bulb. Therefore there is no net buildup of charge or loss of charge.

[reconsiderate]

In electricity, the electrons do not get stripped off the atoms in the sense of losing them. What happens is an electric field is set up an the electrons move. When one electron passes out of a lightbulb, simultaneously another enters the bulb. Therefore there is no net buildup of charge or loss of charge.

But isn't this caused by a constant modulation of the charge? In DC, the positive pole creates an electron deficiency that draws charge to it, correct? While in AC, I think the charge alternately pushes forward and pulls back creating a pulsating wave effect. Either way, I think the underlying relationship between individual copper atoms is that when one loses an electron, it draws it from the nearest neighbor that has an extra one to spare. So it's like a pressure system where one side is relatively vacuous and the other side has pressure to release toward the vacuum. Is this an incorrect analogy for some reason?

[Lincoln]

The analogy has merit. But in a battery for each electron that gets pushed out one pole, another one is brought into the other pole.

One can think of the voltage in a battery as being analogous to pressure in a pump. It's an imperfect analogy, but a pretty good one.

In AC, the pressure pushes back and forth, so electrons are pushed out and sucked back in from the same pole.

[reconsiderate]

The analogy has merit. But in a battery for each electron that gets pushed out one pole, another one is brought into the other pole.

Doesn't the electron hole initiate the process, not the "pushing" electron? I'm far from an expert in this but I recall hearing or reading this somewhere.

[Lincoln]

I think that you're thinking about semiconductors rather than conductors (and even that is a bit iffy.)

The real initiator is the electric field setup by the battery or generator.

[Louis_B]

I think i understand that elecrrons are stripped and then replaced in a loop-like scenario, but the thing i dont understand is for example, the system was powering an arc light. The electrons that are converted into energy cannot replace the ones stripped from the copper or cell anymore, so the interaction with a magnetic field is necessary to 'create' more electrons so the system balances. Otherwise the coil would run out of electrons and become highly eletro-positive. I was wondering how lines of magnetic force accomplish this. Please excuse my ignorance but I don't understand how the transecting of lines of force does this.

[Louis_B]

Ps. Why is it that only copper, out of all the elements, can accomplish this?

[Lincoln]

It's not true. Any metal works. And I assure you that no electrons are made. They only move.

[Louis_B]

Hi guys, thanks..I think I've got it now. Its the EMF that does the work, not the actual electrons themselves..would that be right? The generator or cell just shoves them hard enough through the system to light up the bulb or whatever. I must seem pretty thick to you expert guys, and I can only thankyou for putting things in laymans terms for me. It is much appreciated. I have always had a great thirst for knowledge and am very appreciative of the knowledge passed on through the forum here. You can't ask questions of a textbook if you don't understand!!

[Lincoln]

No problem at all. That's why many of us are here.

[reconsiderate]

The electrons that are converted into energy cannot replace the ones stripped from the copper or cell anymore,

I think you have to differentiate between the electrons themselves and the energy they carry with their momentum. Light/energy is emitted when an electron first jumps to another orbit and then falls back into its previous orbit. I think of it like the motion of putting a wave into a rope. If you move your hand up and down very quickly, the wave continues down the rope. The electron doesn't get converted into light any more than your hand gets converted into the wave in the rope. It's just a transfer of momentum/energy.

[Louis_B]

Ah, I see. That makes sense. I know it's a bit of a leap, but in an antimatter galaxy would positrons do the same job as electrons do in our galaxy (provided a conductor could carry them?) or as "conventional matter" would they not exist there? Also, do we know if positrons have spin as well. I find it hard to reconsile something that acts as a wave, as demonstrated in the slot experiment, can also carry spin. And do they all spin in the same direction - Can we even tell? Now I'm thinking about photon duality which i also find peculiar, but i think that deserves its own thread!!

[Lincoln]

I would not agree that the effects mentioned by reconsiderate apply very well in this case. In a conductor (i.e. metal), the electrons are only loosely bound to the atoms. That's what makes them conductors. It's strictly wrong, (but a valuable mental picture even so) to think of a metal as a rigid matrix of atoms, filled with a bath of movable electrons. If an electron moves down the wire, (and thus leaving the vicinity of an atom,) another atom comes along and keeps things neutral.

Regarding antimatter galaxy, yes. As long as an antimatter galaxy is kept from any matter, it would look precisely like a matter one. You could build antimatter cell phones and they would work perfectly, run by positrons flowing through the wires and chips.

Electrons do not all spin in one direction. The Pauli exclusion principle, which governs a vast amount of atomic chemistry, requires they have two spin states. Further, when they are not bound to atoms, the spin can be in any direction.

It is only in weak-force interactions, in which a neutrino has nearly zero mass, that the electron has a single choice for electrical spin. This is a property of the weak force, not electrons. Electrons can spin in any old way (direction wise) but with a single value. However, put them in a magnetic field and they align (Or antialign) with the magnetic field, resulting in precisely two possible values.

[reconsiderate]

I would not agree that the effects mentioned by reconsiderate apply very well in this case. In a conductor (i.e. metal), the electrons are only loosely bound to the atoms. That's what makes them conductors. It's strictly wrong, (but a valuable mental picture even so) to think of a metal as a rigid matrix of atoms, filled with a bath of movable electrons. If an electron moves down the wire, (and thus leaving the vicinity of an atom,) another atom comes along and keeps things neutral.

I don't know what you're saying I'm wrong about exactly. In my understanding, it is exactly the looseness of the electrons in a conductor that allow (kinetic) energy to be transmitted as electricity through electrons instead of as heat through molecular energy transfers. Very rigid particles would have to accelerate each other as a whole during each collision, which would slow down the energy transfer. Presumably, conductors get hot when the KE being transferred as waves of colliding electrons reaches a level that exceeds the capacity of the electrons to carry the energy. At that point the conductor would start to convert the energy into heat, and eventually light as well. I think that the looseness of the electrons in a conductor are also responsible for the material's behavior as an efficient conductor of heat. In that case, I think the vibration of the atoms as a whole can speed up (heat up) and slow down (cool) faster; making transmission of the heat go faster through the material. So is the only difference between heat and electric current the size of the particles transmitting the energy?

[Lincoln]

Light/energy is emitted when an electron first jumps to another orbit and then falls back into its previous orbit. I think of it like the motion of putting a wave into a rope.

True, but not relevant in this context.