[HN Gopher] Strange Metals: Where electricity may flow without e... ___________________________________________________________________ Strange Metals: Where electricity may flow without electrons Author : digital55 Score : 48 points Date : 2023-11-27 19:18 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.quantamagazine.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.quantamagazine.org) | rafram wrote: | Bad edit on the title - electricity doesn't flow without | electrons in all metals, but rather only in some specific | "strange" metals that they studied. | MattRix wrote: | yeah the edit seems unnecessary, though the title still | includes "may". | Animats wrote: | So what happened to the discoverer? _" In the end, Chen, who | successfully earned his doctorate in the spring and has since | gone to work in finance..."_ | rafram wrote: | He got his doctorate and now he's getting paid, presumably, the | big bucks as a research data scientist at Barclays. Not | everyone who gets a PhD actually wants to be an academic! | KRAKRISMOTT wrote: | I am sure he would stay in academia too if they gave him | tenureship immediately after graduation and paid him as much | as a quant (academia does pay decently, but only if you are a | senior tenured professor). | spacecadet wrote: | Came for the images of the nanowire | miika wrote: | Some good conversations on the topic here | | https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/560853/is-electr... | allemagne wrote: | Not a huge fan of the top answer and pretty disappointed by it | being voted so highly: | | >The idea that electricity "does not exist" is just verbal | sophistry along the same lines as "matter does not exist, it is | frozen energy" or, "you do not exist, you are a figment of your | own imagination". At best these are all just over-dramatic and | misleading ways of saying that what these things actually are | is not what you probably think they are. At worst, misguided | eccentrics create "straw" definitions of such well-known words | just so they can burn them and trump them with their own | untenable notions. | | "You do not exist" or "matter does not exist" might be | unhelpful sophistry or they might be thought-provoking | invitations to a deeper discussion. It depends on the context | and the intent. | | If this blogger is "basically sound at an experimental and | phenomenological level", isn't demanding public denouncements | and retractions from everyone using the term "electricity", and | has no shortage of thoughts and elaboration about his | "eccentric" thoughts on the subject then what exactly is the | harm here? Where is this user's uncharitability and hostility | coming from? | | Drilling into definitions, or "quibbling over semantics" if you | prefer, isn't always fun for everybody but that doesn't mean | there's an inherent need to come in and break up the party. | dekhn wrote: | There is only one electron in the universe. Also, positrons | are electrons travelling backwards in time. | johndunne wrote: | I remember one of my physics professors at uni explaining | this theory and for some reason, I had this weird anxiety | at the thought. A lonely electron doing all the work of | every electron in the universe. Semifun fact, Feynman used | the electron traveling back in time analogy to help teach | the principles of QED. | johndunne wrote: | I think the top answerer had a few electric bugbears they | wanted to get off their chest. Best skipped over, and time | spent looking for simple and thoughtful answers. It's a shame | the stackoverflow model isn't proving effective for that oft- | asked question. | bilsbie wrote: | I believe electricity flows in water through ions instead of bare | electrons. So that's another example. | | Did you know pure water is an insulator? | robocat wrote: | Pure water is an insulator until it breaks down. | the minimum breakdown voltage of distilled water under negative | impulse at 2mm inter electrode gap spacing is 27kV with 14us | breakdown time. The breakdown strength of distilled water is | higher under positive impulse than negative impulse at same | electrode gap spacing. | | If the breakdown voltage for air were 10kV/cm, then that would | imply pure water is a better insulator than air. Don't bet your | life on it though! | | https://digitalxplore.org/up_proc/pdf/149-143254025539-45.pd... | bilsbie wrote: | I've always wondered if you tried to run a current through a | metal belt moving in the opposite direction of electron flow at a | speed higher than the drift velocity if the circuit would | complete? | | (For the sake of argument let's says it's not connected like a | belt would be. ) | feoren wrote: | Put yourself in the frame of reference of the moving belt. An | electric current is running through you, and also some other | machinery around you is moving very slowly in the same | direction as the current. So? Why should the movement of some | background stuff affect the near-speed-of-light energy | propagation passing through you? | bilsbie wrote: | That was my first thought. But if it's not connected like a | belt it physically can't replace any electrons it loses. | adolph wrote: | Isn't current an instantiation of an electro-magnetic field and | so the movement of the belt wouldn't matter? It all lights up | at the same time. Considering a conveyer belt portion that is | part of a circuit, doesn't the portion of the belt that is | energized change as fast as the belt moves? | | https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/707402/veritasiu... | | https://www.reddit.com/r/engineering/comments/qxrsrp/the_big... | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-WCZ8PkrK0 | tzs wrote: | My first impression is that yes, the circuit would complete. | | Keep in mind that the metal has both negatively charged | electrons which are reasonably free to move around within the | metal _and_ positively charged protons that are generally in | the nuclei which are fairly fixed within the metal. | | If you have the metal belt moving so that the electrons are not | actually moving (from the point of view of a stationary | observer outside the belt) that observer would see the protons | moving. | | You've still got, from the outside observer's point of view, a | current. It just is now a proton current instead of an electron | current. | Workaccount2 wrote: | Yes, because the circuit is an alignment of charges that | creates a electric field. The fact that electrons drift along | it is immaterial to the circuit functioning. | | For things to get weird you would need to have the belt moving | at relativistic speeds, >80% the speed of light. | rcxdude wrote: | It is very material: the movement of charge is necessary for | electricity. In this case electrons are still moving into and | out of the belt, even if the bulk is not moving in the | direction of the flow of current. | jocaal wrote: | > Canonically, electric current results from the collective | movement of electrons, each carrying one indivisible chunk of | electric charge. But the dead steadiness of Chen's current | implied that it wasn't made of units at all. It was like finding | a liquid that somehow lacked individually recognizable molecules | | In maxwell's equations, current density J is defined in terms of | the E-field. When talking about electricity, people make the | typical quantum mechanical wave-particle mistake. Electricity | refers to two things, photons and electrons and how they interact | with eachother. Both act as wave-particles, but photons act more | like waves and electrons more like particles. The thing that gets | people is that photons are the things that move energy around. A | photon is an electromagnetic wave. In a wire, you can have an | electromagnetic wave traversing the wire at some proportion of | the speed of light, while the electrons are moving at speeds | closer to meters per second. We defined current to be | proportional to the E-field (because that is what is moving the | energy) and thus we shouldn't refer to the movement of electrons | as current. | orra wrote: | > while the electrons are moving at speeds closer to meters per | second | | Plus, with AC, the electrons move back and forth, instead of | just moving forward! | XorNot wrote: | It is however still movement, which is important because | _static_ electric fields don 't produce magnetism, whereas | moving charges do - which is the principle benefit of AC | current. | swayvil wrote: | Does the thing at one end of the wire get heavier and the thing | at the other end lighter? | | Because of the mass of the electrons moved from one thing to | the other. | mike_hock wrote: | An electron has .05% the mass of a proton, and only a small | imbalance of electrons and protons is necessary to generate | extremely strong electric fields by earthly standards. | swayvil wrote: | That's fabulous man, but it doesn't actually answer my | question. | | If the answer is yes then we have moving electrons. | | If the answer is no then maybe we don't. | rcxdude wrote: | Yes, but to an unmeasurably small degree. Electromagnetism is | _very_ strong, so you never see the density of electrons | change by very much, or the situation will correct itself | quite violently. | swayvil wrote: | So there is a small but measurable difference. Ok. | calamari4065 wrote: | No. | | Imagine a simple circuit, say a light bulb and a battery. | Electrons move from the negative terminal, through the bulb, | and back to the battery. The net change in number of | electrons at any one point is zero. The energy isn't in the | electrons themselves, but in the _motion_ of those electrons. | Electrons in must equal erlctrons out. | | Even a battery doesn't store electrons. It uses the energy | carried by those electrons to reverse a chemical reaction. | The energy is stored chemically. | | If you think about it, the electrons belong to the physical | materials in the circuit. You can't really add or remove | electrons* as electron count is a fundamental property of | those atoms. If you somehow removed electrons from the | system, you'd be changing those atoms and the system would no | longer be able to pass current at all. | | *you can, of course ionize atoms by adding or removing | electrons, but that's not exactly what happens in electric | circuits | | Electrons are not electricity, they just _carry_ it. Kind of. | It 's really complicated. | ekianjo wrote: | > Canonically, electric current results from the collective | movement of electrons, each carrying one indivisible chunk of | electric charge | | It has been false for a long time since we know electrons dont | move that fast. Electricity is a wave. | Workaccount2 wrote: | Its travels in waves but it is actually a field. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-11-27 23:00 UTC)