Pig Head Award 2023
No. 7 position:
That “authentic” rabbit Dandan (Toppy Sir)’s research on current in PHF:
“We have negative charges (electrons) moving so we have a current. The other way to look at it is to say we have a flow of positive charges (holes) and get the same current. (The flow of positives is in the opposite direction of the negatives.)”
Piggy’s additional comment here:
The definition of current nowadays is "the amount of charges pass through unit surface in unit time". This traditional conception of current is unilateral (charge moves relative to any reference frame)
Dandan’s conception of current is actually bilateral (Charge moves relative to charge). A bit different.
If Dandan always hugs his “holes” (reference frame established always on his “holes”), can he get "the same opposite current"? Nope.
Actually that “authentic” rabbit broke through the “standard” limitation and became an “eccentric” rabbit. He himself wasn’t AWARE of it. That’s fun.
Next, we resort to some thought experiments to analyze which conception of current could be more sufficient in science.
1. A circular dish is charged with an iron rod in the center. When the dish rotates, a guy on the ground considers that there is current and generates magnetism and the iron rod becomes a magnet; while another guy standing on the dish considers that there is no current and no magnetism generated and the iron does not become a magnet...
Is the iron rod a magnet or not?
Someone might say that although the guy on the disc would observe he was not rotating and the charges don’t move, but he would experience rotation evident by centrifugal forces he feels. So, he will consider the iron rod becomes a magnet too. Sounds reasonable too. But this explanation has deviated from the original topic of conception of current.
If we use bilateral conception of current (charge moves relative to charge) to analyze, no matter that guy standing on the ground or the disc, he would observe charges move relative to charges. So, he will consider the iron rod becomes a magnet no matter standing on the ground or the disc. This explanation works too, and doesn’t deviate from the original topic of conception of current.
2. Okay, maybe situation of acceleration is a bit complicated. Next, simplified the researching method.
If an electron moves to you in constant velocity (reference frame built on you), you will feel that magnetism occurs because you observe current; if the electron is fixed over the ground (reference frame built on the ground / electron) and you move to it in constant velocity, you will feel no magnetism occurs because you observe no current.
According to the relative movement principle, these two cases are equivalent. Why difference occurs in our sense?
Take the remaining positive charge (because charge conservation, there must be a positive charge elsewhere) into consideration and employ the bilateral conception of current (charge moves relative to charge), the answer appears.
In the former case, the electron might move relative to the remaining positive charge, while in the latter case, the electron might not move relative to the remaining positive charge. They might be different cases logically.
3. Okay, a guy and a partner research together.
Fix a plastic ball over the ground and brush it with a piece of cloth or leather, which one is appropriate (charged by friction). Put a compass beside the ball. Put the cloth or leather on a table nearby. Walk to ball and watch if the compass turns. The guy and the partner walk to the ball in the opposite side and watch the compass.
(Assume the ball, the cloth and the compass are relatively static. The guy always set the reference frame on himself, while the partner always set the reference frame on herself.)
The guy and his partner will see the compass turns in opposite directions. That’s obvious contradiction in logic.
If they take the cloth into consideration and employ the bilateral conception of current (charge moves relative to charge), they both would not observe current, then magnetism occur, then they both would not observe the compass turn. No contradtion.
4. Talk about the Stern-Gerlach experiment again.
(This diagram is a bit inexplicit, sorry. But that’s all piggy can do with my extreme limited resource at present.)
Below is piggy’s humble opinion:
Assume the electron turns around the nucleus counterclockwise on the paper,
A. If view from the point of the nucleus, we got a single current clockwise. (Figure 1)
B. If view from the point of the electron, we got a single current counterclockwise. (Figure 2)
That will result in two different orbital magnetic moments in counter directions.
What will nature do? To be FAIR.
That’s why those atoms separated into two symmetric parts.
Because the electron can be in different energy levels of the atom, that means different orbital angular momentums and different orbital magnetic moments might occur. So, piggy estimates the spectrum will separate further step on the base of those two symmetric parts.
With the bilateral conception of current (charge moves relative to charge), piggy understand it better and simply.
In one hand, the traditional definition of current is “the amount of charges pass through unit surface in unit time”. A question here is that where does the unit surface establish? It’s not defined. That’s to say the traditional conception of current is charge moves relative to any reference frame. It’s unilateral.
While In another hand, the rule for deciding the direction of current is “the moving direction of positive charge”. A question here is that relative to what? Ether? It’s relative to the free electrons. For example, in a section of wire in a DC circuit, the free electrons moves rightward, the cations move leftward relatively, then we got the same amount of counter current…When we say “the free electrons moves rightward”, it’s relative to the cations. When we say “the cations move leftward relatively”, it’s relative to the free electrons. Actually, it’s a conception of charge moves relative to charge. It's bilateral.
There is an obscure flaw in the traditional conception of current.
Those “authentic” guys often contradict themselves. 呵呵
Perhaps piggy has to accept the First Limitation claimed by the First Logic (the First Order) to do a security guard in the Jiangmen city. Unfortunately, piggy is old and is in bad health (due to the cruel and all around dark sanction of the First Order for so many years), piggy even is not able to secure his own old bones. That means piggy die hard logically. Bounce…
Nonetheless, today piggy, an alive - dead man of the Jiangmen city can still PRESENCE in this world and do something meaningful in science as well as meaningful in piggy’s own life too. Piggy feels very glory.
Thanks G*. Thanks a2k. Thanks America.