Mike Hanson
Trying to understand...
I found this quite intriguing:
If I understand correctly, he is saying the speed at which the lightbulb lights is faster than the speed of light in the cable? That cannot be correct. In that case we have a simple signalling system that operates at faster than the speed of light?
The other take-away is that depending on the level at which you learn your physics the (probably universal) practice is that when you get taught certain things, what you are taught can range from "incomplete" to "inaccurate".I remember studying electrical engineering at an introductory level way back in the '90s and the tutor said back then that electricity doesn't flow positive to negative as most people assume. He also said electricity is extremely weird in how it works and that what we know about it isn't completely accurate and nor is what we know definitive. The takeaway learning from that course is that electricity is weird!
Exactly right. We have models of the real world that work well in the right circumstances but they should not be confused with the real world itself....Science is about modelling the world, and the models are proved by how well they predict results. The experiment he is proposing manages to demonstrate a weakness in one model, but that doesn't mean the model is not useful, it just finds it's predictive limit. He doesn't go on to show that the new model he is proposing isn't itself broken in other situations, or for that matter, in one that the other model succeeds. ...
They do make a difference but only very [insert your own word here] people can hear it.So that’s why fancy cables don’t make a difference, runs for cover!
My understanding of electricity is so vestigial that this revelation is not shocking at all.I’ve only just learned that everything I was taught about where money comes from is a lie, now everything I thought I knew about electricity is a lie too.
I need a lie down
My understanding of words like ‘vestigial’ is such that I had to look it up. Still not sure I get it.My understanding of electricity is so vestigial that this revelation is not shocking at all.
When I was studying A levels the Physics guy was very straight about this. It's a model, it works most of the time. Same goes for chemistry and electron orbitals. They're not really confined to an orbital, there's a cloud and it's all about probability. But it lets you understand why chemical elements behave as they do.The other take-away is that depending on the level at which you learn your physics the (probably universal) practice is that when you get taught certain things, what you are taught can range from "incomplete" to "inaccurate".
I twigged this as an A-level physics student when a fellow student asked a detailed question of a physics teacher who was not teaching the A-level course, and that teacher had to enquire first about what he had been taught at a high level before answering the detailed question.
My conclusion was confirmed - in the exact same topic - when I was an undergraduate reading solid-state physics and seeing how incomplete the A-level coverage had been.
I expect it's all linked to MMT.
When I was studying A levels the Physics guy was very straight about this. It's a model, it works most of the time. Same goes for chemistry and electron orbitals. They're not really confined to an orbital, there's a cloud and it's all about probability. But it lets you understand why chemical elements behave as they do.
No, he is saying that the energy moves through the space around the cable. Obviously close to the cable it's stronger, but since there is a 1m gap between the switch and the bulb, the first power reaches the bulb when the field from the battery reaches the bulb, and as they are 1m apart, it takes 1/c seconds (where c is the speed of light). So the energy flows at the speed of light to the bulb. He did however qualify this by saying that not all the power went this route, so it would be measurable, but low in power.