What is voltage?

[ja7tdo]

The value of the current is the number of electrons. Current is a property that is manifested by things. So what is voltage?

Is it possible to explain the voltage in a matter? not formulas, not definitions.

Considering muon catalytic fusion, I think voltage is the size of electrons. I expect muons to be in the excited state of electrons.

Am I wrong?

[Dagl1]

I don't.... Okay can you explain what muon catalyZED fusion is? 
I don't understand how you want to explain something without formulas OR definitions, like... what else is there?
Can you explain what you think current is, in a slightly more clear way than "it is manifested by things"? 

I would highly recommend taking some type of courses on physics or train your way of explaining stuff, as currently it seems (from this thread and other threads) that you are not as knowledgeable as you seem to think you are.

-Dagl

[ja7tdo]

16 minutes ago, Dagl1 said:

I don't.... Okay can you explain what muon catalyZED fusion is? 
I don't understand how you want to explain something without formulas OR definitions, like... what else is there?
Can you explain what you think current is, in a slightly more clear way than "it is manifested by things"? 

I would highly recommend taking some type of courses on physics or train your way of explaining stuff, as currently it seems (from this thread and other threads) that you are not as knowledgeable as you seem to think you are.

-Dagl

I learned physics from google teacher. According to Descartes's reductionism, nature should be described in terms of things and things. I just follow view of mechanical nature. This is a scientific method. Is Descartes wrong?

[Dagl1]

5 minutes ago, ja7tdo said:

I learned physics from google teacher. According to Descartes's reductionism, nature should be described in terms of things and things. I just follow view of mechanical nature. This is a scientific method. Is Descartes wrong?

This is a discussion forum, so I will bite, but can you answer my questions before asking more questions?

I think Descartes had some philosophical truth, and he did start (in some sense) the scientific method, however I think you are not entirely using this scientific method if I am to be honest. I work in science (although I still have to get my PhD so I definitely don't know it all) and at least in my field (biology) this is not the way we approach problems. Additionally, using many terms a little out of place indicates that you may not have a true understanding of said terms.
So lets start; what is mechanical nature (what other nature things exist?)
Could you, in depth, explain the scientific method and how it goes about solving a particular problem etc?

-Dagl

[ja7tdo]

2 minutes ago, Dagl1 said:

This is a discussion forum, so I will bite, but can you answer my questions before asking more questions?

I think Descartes had some philosophical truth, and he did start (in some sense) the scientific method, however I think you are not entirely using this scientific method if I am to be honest. I work in science (although I still have to get my PhD so I definitely don't know it all) and at least in my field (biology) this is not the way we approach problems. Additionally, using many terms a little out of place indicates that you may not have a true understanding of said terms.
So lets start; what is mechanical nature (what other nature things exist?)
Could you, in depth, explain the scientific method and how it goes about solving a particular problem etc?

-Dagl

The reason I didn't answer about muon catalyZED fusion is because it is a standard issue that will come up in search.

The Cartesian methodology is easy. It is about explaining the phenomenon with things. So I expected the voltage to be the size of an electron. When muons (-) enter between atoms, there are times when nuclei are fused together. In the muon, the area that the Coulomb force exerts is broadened in the state where the electrons are large.

This is true not only for electrons but also for the size of protons. according to "The Rydberg constant and proton size from atomic hydrogen" <http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6359/79> The radius of the proton has changed again. The radius of the proton is changed by the measurement method. I guess this is due to the potential difference in the vicinity of the proton.

Can we do the same thing with electrons? This is the meaning of my question.

[Sensei]

2 hours ago, ja7tdo said:

The value of the current is the number of electrons.

That's not correct.

Current I, multiplied by time t, is charge Q.

Q=I*t

Charge Q divided by elementary charge e = 1.6021766*10^-19 C, is the number of electrons.

quantity = Q/e

It has included time in the equation!

If you have 1 Ampere of current, but you don't know the time of flowing such current, you don't know how many electrons flowed.

When charge Q is multiplied by voltage U, you have sum of kinetic energies of electrons:

E = Q*U

Single electrons has kinetic energy:

E.K.=e*U

That's energy which electron traveling through medium or wire can lose prior decelerating to local frame-of-reference.

If somebody says "we need more voltage to make this circuit element to work properly" (therefore need of voltage stabilizers, boost step-up converters i.e. changing small voltage of 1.5 V, 3 V, 5 V from typical batteries, to higher required voltage), that person is actually saying "we need to have electrons with higher kinetic energy" just using different words.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Sensei

[Eise]

1 hour ago, ja7tdo said:

The value of the current is the number of electrons.

It could also be other charged particles, but let's assume the electron case

No. It is the number of electrons that pass a through a cross section (e.g. a location in an electrical cable) per time.

1 hour ago, ja7tdo said:

So what is voltage?

Simplified said, it is the pressure of the electrons together.

1 hour ago, ja7tdo said:

Is it possible to explain the voltage in a matter?

No. The question makes no sense. There is not such a thing. However, one can speak of the difference in 'voltage' (better named potential difference) between two places. When there is a difference (voltage > 0) and the two places are connected, an electrical current will level them. The electrical current can be in the form of electrons (e.g. normal current in an electrical connection), ions (e.g. battery), electrical sparks (moving charges through an insulator) etc.

1 hour ago, ja7tdo said:

Considering muon catalytic fusion, I think voltage is the size of electrons.

No idea where you've got that. This is pure nonsense.

1 hour ago, ja7tdo said:

I expect muons to be in the excited state of electrons.

Maybe. But the standard model says nothing about this, afaik, A muon is an unstable particle in itself, that decays via the weak interaction in an electron and an anti-neutrino.

1 hour ago, ja7tdo said:

I learned physics from google teacher.

Then you won't learn real physics, I think. 

1 hour ago, ja7tdo said:

According to Descartes'...

Where Descartes is an important figure in the history of philosophy and science, he is of no importance in actual philosophy and science anymore. It makes no sense to build ideas about his'. That is 400 years ago?

Edited April 3, 2019 by Eise

[ja7tdo]

4 minutes ago, Sensei said:

That's not correct.

Current I, multiplied by time t, is charge Q.

 

yes, you are right. I forgot time. But current is proportional to the number of electrons.

[Sensei]

1 hour ago, ja7tdo said:

I expect muons to be in the excited state of electrons. 

There are two kinds of muons. Positive with +1e charge, and negative -1e charge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon

Negative muon decays to electron, electronic antineutrino, and muonic neutrino.

Positive muon decays to positron, electronic neutrino, and muonic antineutrino.

Muon has approximately 206 bigger rest-mass than electron or positron.

During decay of muon, so big rest-mass is conserved, as kinetic energies of newly created particles. Electron or positron and neutrinos and antineutrinos are accelerated near the speed of light.

[ja7tdo]

8 minutes ago, Eise said:

Simplified said, it is the pressure of the electrons together.

 

what is pressure?

7 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Muon has approximately 206 bigger rest-mass than electron or positron.

 

206 times bigger! muon has 105MeV。electron has 0.5MeV.
Is this a difference in mass? Is it a difference in size?

[Sensei]

14 minutes ago, ja7tdo said:

206 times bigger! muon has 105MeV。electron has 0.5MeV.
Is this a difference in mass? Is it a difference in size?

That's difference in rest-masses of particles.

Rest-mass and relativistic-mass in quantum physics is measured in eV/c^2 (and keV/c^2 MeV/c^2 GeV/c^2 etc.)

Rest-mass of muon is approximately 105 MeV/c^2

Rest-mass of electron (or positron) is approximately 511 keV/c^2 = 0.511 MeV/c^2

If electron and position annihilates together their rest-masses are conserved in kinetic energy of newly created gamma photons.

 

Edited April 3, 2019 by Sensei

[Strange]

4 hours ago, ja7tdo said:

Considering muon catalytic fusion, I think voltage is the size of electrons. I expect muons to be in the excited state of electrons.

Am I wrong?

Yes. You are completely wrong.

Voltage is not the size of electrons (all electrons are the same size), voltage does not depend on the presence of electrons, muons are not excited states of electrons, etc.

3 hours ago, ja7tdo said:

I learned physics from google teacher.

Then you have wasted your time. There are plenty of good online courses where you could actually learn some real science instead of making things up.

3 hours ago, ja7tdo said:

According to Descartes's reductionism, nature should be described in terms of things and things. I just follow view of mechanical nature. This is a scientific method. Is Descartes wrong?

Descartes was wrong about many things. This would appear to be one of them.

3 hours ago, ja7tdo said:

The Cartesian methodology is easy. It is about explaining the phenomenon with things. So I expected the voltage to be the size of an electron.

This is where your approach to "learning" fails. You read something that is not relevant (and may be wrong) and then use it it extrapolate to incorrect conclusions.

The size of fundamental particles is not really a well defined concept. They are usually treated as point particles (ie. with zero size). There are other things which could be considered the "size", for example the interaction cross-section.

But it is important to understand that these fundamental particles are NOT actually "particles"; they are not solid balls of stuff. The word particle is not really appropriate but is used for historical reasons.

3 hours ago, ja7tdo said:

Is this a difference in mass? Is it a difference in size?

It is the difference in mass, not size (see above).

[swansont]

5 hours ago, ja7tdo said:

 So what is voltage?

Electrical potential energy per unit charge.

 

[StringJunky]

8 hours ago, swansont said:

Electrical potential energy per unit charge.

 

How much/big is a charge and what is its unit. I'm a bit thick on electricity.

[Sensei]

20 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

How much/big is a charge and what is its unit. I'm a bit thick on electricity.

Read my top most post in this thread..

 

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Read my top most post in this thread..

 

Coulombs?

[swansont]

14 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Coulombs?

Yes. Or the fundamental charge, which is the magnitude of the charge on an electron or proton, can be used, and is 1.6 x 10^-19 C

The Volt, which is the unit of potential difference, has units of Joules per Coulomb

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Yes. Or the fundamental charge, which is the magnitude of the charge on an electron or proton, can be used, and is 1.6 x 10^-19 C

The Volt, which is the unit of potential difference, has units of Joules per Coulomb

Thank you. I keep telling myself I really must sit down and see how all the electrical parameters interrelate mathematically and then it would make more sense to me.

[studiot]

27 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

 I keep telling myself I really must sit down and see how all the electrical parameters interrelate mathematically and then it would make more sense to me.

A good starting place is the question

"Can you/how do you have voltage without current or current without voltage ?"

This bring home the idea tha Ohm's law (pun intended) does not cove everything.

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

A good starting place is the question

"Can you/how do you have voltage without current or current without voltage ?"

This bring home the idea tha Ohm's law (pun intended) does not cove everything.

OK. Cheers.