View Single Post
Old 07-29-2009, 08:25 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
and a second post on the same theme

Originally Posted by witsend View Post
In order to prove the claim I also need to refer to the model's definition of current. But this would hardly be appropriate without some reference to known definitions of current flow. If I may I'm starting with a definition of current flow as per wiki's definition. It's so full of holes its laughable. I'll then follow up with a more classicallly accepted defnition. All I'm trying to point to is that current flow may not, in fact be the flow of electrons. At this stage I'm not referring to an alternative. If the tenor of this post is offensive then let me apologise in advance. But there is a real need to show those points that classical physics has not, in fact, addressed.

'Wiki definition of current flow requires 'free floating electrons'. Given that these electrons that come from - somewhere? - also somehow 'attach' to a wire or any such conductive circuit components then can someone please explain this scenario. Take your average lead acid battery as a DC power supply. If these electrons 'travel' where do they go once they've reached the opposite terminal? Through the battery courtesy the 'pump action' provided by the battery?

Now Wiki explains that batteries, fortunately, have 'free floating protons'. This gets ever more interesting. Where do these 'free floating protons come from? Then. The electrons presumably need to travel through the battery. Presumably also they do this by attaching to the protons, somehow? But, if the electrons attach to the protons during their journey through the battery - then we get simple hydrogen atoms. The battery would then, theoretically, become a repository of pure hydrogen or subtle variations of this, each state - deuterium - tritium - becoming progressively more explosive than the last.

If the quantum of electrons on the wire or in the circuitry, exceeds the number of free floating protons - then we have a problem with that 'cluster' of electrons that cannot get past the terminal.

If by some happy accident the number of 'free floating' electrons precisely equals the number of 'free floating' protons then 'attachment' would result not in a reduction in potential difference but in an increase. This is because hydrogen - apart from being highly combustible in any condition - is also a negatively ionised atom. Therefore one would think that the increased ionisation would also result in an increase in the potential difference measured across the battery. It would not result in a decrease. What then accounts for the decrease is the actual measured result of current flow?

If, on the other hand - given that these innate logical contradictions were somehow answered by some force not yet incorporated in conventional explanations of current flow - but yet requires the flow of electrons - then the speed at which the electrons again 'detach' from the structure of those protons - would in no way equal the rate at which current is measured to flow through circuitry.

Then, assuming that the potential difference is reduced, notwithstanding the increase to potential difference courtesy the ionised state of these hydrogen atoms, and over time the battery indeed becomes flat - we recharge it - how? By adding more 'free floating electrons' or 'free floating protons / or possibly both?

So I put it to you that the 'flow of electrons' is logically inconsistent with the known properties of current flow. Here's the thing. The 'flow of electrons' was proposed as an enabling image - never a fact. That it then became incorporated into classical definition as 'a fact' is a sad reflection on the reluctance of scientists to grapple with contradictory evidence. Rather do they just accept all such explanations, the more obtuse the explanation, the more likely it is to be accepted. It hearkens to the story of the king's invisible cloak. At some point someone must point out the obvious.'