Do Electrons Exist? Investigating the Evidence

[Tisthammerw]

I've seen one guy claim there's no such thing as electrons. Not wanting to disbelieve my physics textbooks, can anyone help me here?

Standing wave in a feed line or antenna means that there is a voltage and a charge at one point and not at another even though the two places are connected by a conductor. If there were electrons, this would imply that one spot in a conductor had many electrons clustered and snother spot a few inches away had none. Even though no resistance inhibits the flow of electrons from the point of maximum charge to the point of no charge. This is contrary to electron behavior according to electron theory.

Skin effect is the observed condition where at high frequencies, current is conducted by only the outside layer of a conductor, not at all by the inside. What (according to electron theory) is the difference between those atoms in the outer layer and those in the inner part of a conductor?

Electron theory says that the positive pole of a battery has a deficiency of electrons and the negative pole has an excess. If that were true, connecting the positive pole of one battery to the negative pole of another battery would cause current to flow, but in the real world it doesn't.

Now, explain to me in terms of electron theory why lead-acid batteries have internal resistance and NiCad batteries don't?

 

[Tide]

Who was that guy anyhow? Bad assumptions and faulty logic make for bad conclusions. :-)

 

[anti_crank]

Sigh... here we go again. For future reference, please note that the Internet and the world are full of crackpots who think they are smarter than any physicist alive, and refrain from even considering their arguments if they are trying to rewrite physics that has been known for 100 years.

Addressing the specific issues:

1) First, an antenna does not have zero resistance, and currents are induced on one. Second, even in a conductor it is possible to separate charge by applying an electric field.

2) There is no difference in the atoms. The skin effect is a result of Maxwell's equations. See http://www.hep.caltech.edu/~peck/lecture_CircuitsAndSkinEffect.pdf for an explanation and derivation.

3) This is an incorrect picture of the way a battery operates. In a closed circuit, electrons move because of potential differences. The internal chemistry of the battery is what sets up this difference across its terminals. When the scenario he describes is created, there is no closed circuit. If electrons were to move in the described manner, the resulting electric field from the separation of charges would quickly balance out the low chemical potential difference with negligible net transfer.

4) All batteries have internal resistance, some lower than others. Not to mention that tihs internal resistance is strictly an outcome of the battery's chemistry.

No electrons, that's a good one. Perhaps he can explain how his monitor works?

 

[Tisthammerw]

For the record I agree with you (I'm usually apt to trust my physics textbook), but for the sake of scientific curiosity, learning and dialogue, I'll post the person's response.

He said, "3) This is an incorrect picture of the way a battery operates. In a closed circuit, electrons move because of potential differences. The internal chemistry of the battery is what sets up this difference across its terminals. When the scenario he describes is created, there is no closed circuit."

Bullshirt. A conductor connected from the positive pole of one battery to the negative pole of another PROVIDES a COMPLETE circuit from a voltage source to a voltage sink. There is a potential difference between any positive pole and any other negative pole. If he thinks "complete" circuit means there is current flow within the battery, he's full of it. There are eddies of charge within a battery, but sulfuric acid is NOT a conductor of current.

His bluff about "the resulting electric field from the separation of charges would quickly balance out the low chemical potential difference with negligible net transfer." is a complete crock. IN FACT the fact that current does not flow in the circuit I have described is because there are no little particles of matter which congregate around the negative pole and which have a deficiency around the positive pole.

The most up-to-date and recent findings on electron research find that there is no discernable estension, no shape, no size. They are point sources, and the theory says if they are point sources they would have infinite energy, but in the real world they don't.

...

Once again, anticrank says "all batteries have internal resistance". Bull. No batteries have internal current. Alkali electrolyte batteries can be modeled as if they had a resistor in parallel, meaning that under load the voltage remains the same, but current will decrease. Since current decreases while voltage remains the same, this means the "internal resistance" is variable. V = IR. For V to remain constant while I changes, R must also change. Tell anticrank to explain how his famous internal resistance changes with the load. What feedback mechanism tells the "internal resistance" to change as the load increases?

There is no internal resistance because there is no internal current. Anticrank is a crank. And if there is an internal resistance, why is there no voltage drop? It is not for fun that electrical engineers call a resistance a "voltage drop". All resistances cause voltaqge drop when current flows through them, and they use power, creating heat. NiCad batteries give off heat when they are CHARGING, not when they are powering a load. Anticrank knows nothing about batteries.

<<1) First, an antenna does not have zero resistance,>>

Yeah, but it has the SAME RESISTANCE EVERYWHERE. Now tell me how that allows a point on the conductor to have a constant standing voltage while a point centemeters away has no potential. By his own admission, differences in potential cause current to flow, but the current everywhere in the feed line is uniform, there is no special current in a standing wave proportional to the voltage potential difference. His strawman BS about resistance is stupid and irrelevent.

 

[misogynisticfeminist]

his extensive use of "his bull****" and his continual bashing of anti-crank is already unscientific in itself.

 

[DaveC426913]

"If that were true, connecting the positive pole of one battery to the negative pole of another battery would cause current to flow, but in the real world it doesn't."

Yes it does.

This guy is just spouting off. No need to dignify his ignorance with a rebuttal, just tell him to pick up a introductory book on the subject before thinking he has an opinion on it.

 

[cronxeh]

Basically that guy missed a course called "General Physics 2" which deals with Electricity, Magnetism, Flux, Fields, Capacitors, Waves, etc etc etc.

 

[polyb]

Electrons only "probably" exist!

 

[pmb_phy]

I've seen one guy claim there's no such thing as electrons. Not wanting to disbelieve my physics textbooks, can anyone help me here?

When someone makes claims like this its due to a poor understanding of the physics involved. People like this usually think that they're the only ones in the universe to have considered these questions or that if they can't figure it out then it can't be figured out. It can prove a useful exercise to address these things to some extent so as to solify the concepts in your own mind. But at one point you need to not bother anymore.

Standing wave in a feed line or antenna means that there is a voltage and a charge at one point and not at another even though the two places are connected by a conductor. If there were electrons, this would imply that one spot in a conductor had many electrons clustered and snother spot a few inches away had none. Even though no resistance inhibits the flow of electrons from the point of maximum charge to the point of no charge. This is contrary to electron behavior according to electron theory.

It's pretty interesting how he thinks this contradicts electron theory whereas one uses the notion of charge to make these predictions. Notice that his argument does not address whether electrons exist, but whether charge itself exists and the properties of charge etc.

A standing wave on a conductor for which the energy flow is parallel tothe x-axis means that the fields are of the form

E = E₀(y,z)cos\omega t sin \beta xj

The field is not really inside the wire, its outside for the most part. There is a surface charge density which is not static and charge is shuffled back and forth resulting in a finite surface current. Your friend has the wrong idea of what a standing wave is. He probably thinks that a standing wave is time independant when it really isn't.

What (according to electron theory) is the difference between those atoms in the outer layer and those in the inner part of a conductor?

There is nothing different about the atoms. There is everything different about the location of the atoms. The atoms at the outer layers are subjected to the electric field which impinges on the conductor form an EM wave that impinges on it. The deeper the wave penetrates into the conductor the more the wave is atenuated due to the charges rearranging themselves due to the electric field. Very hard to explain in words. That's why we have equations.

Electron theory says that the positive pole of a battery has a deficiency of electrons and the negative pole has an excess. If that were true, connecting the positive pole of one battery to the negative pole of another battery would cause current to flow, but in the real world it doesn't.

Its easier to answer this in terms of capacitors since batteries require an understanding of chemistry and this is physics. Therefore take as an example two identical capacitors with identical charge on them; Let the negative pole of one cap be connected to the positive pole of another cap. Current will flow in order to balance out the charges between the plates in order to reduce the net charge to zero. The charges will then rearrange themselves on the conductor and the surface charge density of the conductors will not be zero, although the total charge will be equal to zero.

Now, explain to me in terms of electron theory why lead-acid batteries have internal resistance and NiCad batteries don't?

Invalid claim. NiCad batteries have extremely low internal resistance, not zero internal resistance.

The most up-to-date and recent findings on electron research find that there is no discernable estension, no shape, no size. They are point sources, and the theory says if they are point sources they would have infinite energy, but in the real world they don't.

Invalid assumption. We don't know that the size of an electron is zero. We just can't measure the size its so small. Classically the electron does have a radius. Quantum mechanics is a different theory made to fill in the inadequacies of classical theory so I'm sure quantum field theory has more to say on this point.

Re - infinite energy of point charge - I've never liked that idea. Consider where this notion comes from. The energy in an electric field is defined as the potential energy of the charge configuration which is equal to the work done to construct the charge configuration from charges which start out at infinity. But a point charge is not something which is assembled. Consider the derivation of the relation for energy and energy density in such a field. One starts out with the discrete case and takes a limit. The discrete case starts off with a single charge and the energy of the configuration is taken to be zero - by definition. One then brings charges in from infinity to finite distances from each other charge already there. One then obtains a relationship for a number of charges etc. One then assumes that the value of each charge goes to zero while the number of each charge goes to infinity - an unreal assumption with finite point charges - i.e. electrons.

Once again, anticrank says "all batteries have internal resistance". Bull. No batteries have internal current.

Clearly an unfounded claim. He seems to have the idea that if he writes/says something then it is automatically true. I think not. Batteries which are, say, lighting a bulb do have an internal current in them.

Alkali electrolyte batteries can be modeled as if they had a resistor in parallel, meaning that under load the voltage remains the same, but current will decrease.

This statement is quite unclear. What is he talking about? If I model the internal resistance of a battery with a parallel resistor (which is how its done actually) then current flows when a load is attached. The internal resistance remains unchanged but the external resistance will depend on what is attached, i.e. will depend on what the battery is powering. The voltage of the ideal battery is constant but the voltage of the real battery will decrease with increase in current.

Tell anticrank to explain how his famous internal resistance changes with the load.

Tell the crank that he's wrong.

I bet he'd love the book There Are No Electrons by Kenn Amdahl

Pete

 

[Manchot]

Don't forget about the results of Millikan's oil-drop experiment. How would he explain the observation that every single amount of charge ever observed is a multiple of 1.6 x 10^-19 C?

 

[pmb_phy]

Don't forget about the results of Millikan's oil-drop experiment. How would he explain the observation that every single amount of charge ever observed is a multiple of 1.6 x 10^-19 C?

Lord only knows.

Its not clear that he accepts the notion of charge - period. Almost all of his comments do not refer to electrons, they refer to charge.

Pete

 

[anti_crank]

He has still not explained how his monitor works; or more to the point how a CRT works. But since he has decided to bring out the insults, there is no point in arguing further. Have a look here for ideas if you care to continue the conversation on such terms. Officially, however, I suggest disengaging while not conceding anything. For my part, I have my hands full with keeping a watchful eye here and minding certain projects outside PF to debate an off-site crank.

Edit: I do feel compelled to add that this crank knows as little chemistry as physics. I have personally conducted a water electrolysis experiment by running a current through (very diluted) sulfuric acid. I make nu illusions, however, that he will understand redox potentials or chemical reaction rates more than he understands batteries.

 

[delton]

Yeah, Theres a physics teacher who says there are no electrons in our school: the idea being they are just concentrated energy. Under that philosophy, every thing is just radiation, in different forms. Actually, I've seen physics defined as "radiation and the study of it's forms and interactions between these forms".

 

[Gokul43201]

Haven't read what people have had to say so far, but it looks like the OP is questioning the existence of electrons.

The simple answer would involve a CRT or thermionic cell or a photovoltaic cell, but I can imagine objections to these too.

So, I'll leave you (OP) with the following two examples that you may google at your convenience :

1) SETs : single electron transistors

2) MRFM detection of single electron spin by Rugar, et al at IBM-Almaden (just a few months ago).