What Makes Electricity Flow in a Circle Around an Inductor

[@charlesschneiter]

As always: Brilliant! Thanks, Bob, for this episode - you re a born teacher! Greetings from Switzerland Charles

[@Vocademy-Electronics-Tech]

Thanks Charles. I appreciate that and thanks for helping support Vocademy.

[@raycarberry1089]

I'm really grateful for the effort you make for those who are eager to learn, thanks for yet another great lesson.

[@bobtarantino4607]

Excellent video! If I'm not mistaken, Lorentz suggested that the null result of the Michelson and Morley ether experiment was due to length contraction! So, the ether may not have been disproved at all. However, at the same time, this explanation for electrical flow in a circle is correct.

[@trevorkearney3088]

The substance of Bob's argument is apparently that the time-varying current in a conductor segment in a solenoid winding, produces a vector force field which acts on a notional unbound charged particle (i.e. electron), present in the space external to the solenoid boundary. At some point prior to the appearance of the time-varying current, this unbound electron is presumably at rest. Since stationary charges can only experience a moving force due to an electric field, we might assume that the force vector aligns with a corresponding electric field vector, which is in reality the origin of the force acting on the free charge. It is this induced electric field that we can presumably relate to the Maxwell-Faraday law. This in turn suggests the origin of the emf which may be deduced for any closed path surrounding the solenoid winding. So following Bob's reasoning we have to infer that the vector E field associated with the time-varying solenoid current is present everywhere in the vicinity of the winding conductor. Hence all conductor infinitesimal elements comprising the solenoid contribute to the closed path emf in the space external to the winding. I wonder then how it is that Bob claims in another video (See kzbin.info/www/bejne/jX3aoJZqaKuim9Efeature=shared), that the emf produced in the space surrounding a toroidal winding carrying a time-varying current is confined to the toroidal window. This earlier claim seems inconsistent with the reasoning in this video.

[@brendawilliams8062]

Professor, persons trying to figure this stuff out are going to have strange questions. You are certainly qualified to answer them. If you can grasp what they are searching for

[@trevorkearney3088]

Bob's approach in his reasoning here raises a deeper question about causality. He initially suggests the expanding magnetic field in the solenoid winding is the cause of the electric force on the unbound external charged particle. However, Bob then makes no further comment regarding the role of the magnetic field and instead focuses on the role of the motion of charge carriers in the inductor winding itself. One can of course note that in a long tightly pitched solenoid winding, there is virtually no magnetic field outside the solenoid winding boundary. This can readily be verified experimentally. So we reasonably might conclude that the time-varying magnetic field is not the cause of the force acting on the charged particle. Rather the magnetic field is an effect, just as the force on the charged particle is an effect.

[@ionix2000]

The best explanation ever! Thanks.

[@trevorkearney3088]

A quote from a recent comprehensive paper by Cassini & Levinas: “…. mechanical waves, such as sound, ocean, or heat waves, consist of vibration in a material medium such as air or water. However, light, unlike sound, could propagate through interstellar space, evidently a vacuum. One way to solve this problem was to assume that the space was not a vacuum but rather filled by a subtle medium called luminiferous ether. Apparently, luminiferous ether was thought of as a type of materialization of the absolute space that Newton required: continuous, homogeneous, and isotropic. The corpuscles or particles were believed to be mutually impenetrable, meaning that one particle could not pass through another. In contrast, it was believed that the ether, as a different type of material medium, could penetrate these particles. Thus, the ether seemed to have both characteristics of a vacuum and as well as those of matter. Like a vacuum, it had the absence of mass, the lack of resistance against motion, and no density at all. Like matter, it had elasticity and the ability to oscillate or vibrate.” Sounds like Unobtanium.

[@jonatan7882]

Thanks, is very didactic you videos, in electronic never finish of learn, from Argentina

[@trevorkearney3088]

In a very long energized tightly pitched solenoid winding, there is negligible magnetic field external to the solenoid boundary. If the solenoid current is increasing at a constant rate, we can assume there is zero magnetic flux external to the long solenoid boundary. This is consistent with Maxwell's equations. In that case we have to offer an alternative explanation as to the origin of the circulating electric field external to the solenoid boundary.

[@copernicofelinis]

You are but a step away from proving that Lewin is right in saying that KVL is for the birds. That circular force (per unit charge) is the induced electric field around a coil. All you need to do now is to put a conductive ring around the coil, don't close it tho, and you will see that electron will accumulate at one end and rarefy at the other. The opposite charges facing at the gap in this 'secondary coil' will produce a strong electric field in the gap that adds to the induced field (you measure a voltage between terminals in this space), while the same charge (plus some interface charge on the lateral surface of the conductor) will create a field that exactly counterbalance the induced field inside the conductor (there is no voltage from one end to the other inside the wire). Et voilá, two different values of voltage along different paths having the same endpoints. The sum of these voltages around the full loop (conductor + gap) is NOT zero. Feed KVL to the birds

[@juanignaciocati6906]

You could also argue that if you have that induced electric field, a radial component of E demands the existence of electric flux across an imaginary cylinder around the solenoid , and that flux demands the existence of charge (by Gauss's law), which there isn't since it is an induced field rather than one generated by charges. So electric flux is 0 and there is no radial component, thus electric field lines are tangential and form concentric circles.

[@martf1061]

That's the why and how of isolation transformers. Voltage applied on one coil, inducing voltage to a physicaly seperated other coil of same size and lenght, and this way, the induced coil's voltage becomes a completely independent unrelated to the source coil's voltage.

[@rebelclause]

Thanks for the video. Really explains it. Let me add some confusion. Because positive and negative charge have been associated with 'hole' and 'electron', respectively, there exists a per q displacement or exchange in conduction your diagram might reflect if the lines of 'opposite' charge, those holes and electrons, is offset by one, then it may be shown by a connecting arrow that when movement occurrs displacement occurrs at whatever length contracted resolution and resultant coulomb value. It might then be easier to explain that though the atoms are on the surface of the metal wire and move topologically along it when conducting (for the most part), that moment by moment, atom by atom displacement of charge by atom by atom displacement of charge skewed in a direction according to the load and the behavior of electrons as 'self leveling' (to an extent), like water, flowing via the easiest path, downward and around barriers for water, coupled as pairs and sharing valence differntiation on encountering barriers of a conductor for electrons (theorized here as under an electron gas model where holes release charge from a surface, movement, then reconnecting, and again), such that the magnetic moment in preserving momentary magnetic to far field effect, preserves momentum which spins by virtue of its being reconstituted for each exchange.... Something like that. I'm sure you can do that better, but there seems a lot missing from the simple lines which, to my mind, also prevent people from seeing them superimposed, as if they exist separately, which, sure, in certain instances they do, as para-phenomenon, clouds of self-similar objects or holes and electrons held in state by material connection. Maybe the positive could be made into a circle and the negative a point, one inside the other, offset at exchange in a material? The visual metaphor might help.

[@miltsen2274]

I'm learning about the 'ethics of science' from this video. Despite criticism, he responded with calmness and took the time to re-explain his points. It's inspiring to see such professionalism and patience in the face of disagreement. Peace be upon you from Algeria

[@Vocademy-Electronics-Tech]

Thank you.

[@MrDoneboy]

Thanks as usual, Bob!

[@trevorkearney3088]

It's unlikely that a free electron external to the inductor winding would follow a circular path in the rather simple way Bob proposes. It would most likely spiral outwards away from the time-varying field centre. Consider the design of a Betatron in which the electrons are constrained to flow in the circular vacuum tube by field shaping which is typically accomplished by the inclusion of an air gap in the magnetic circuit and careful design of the primary field pole faces. The motion of the electrons through the field provides an additional force which ensures electron motion along a circular orbit is sustained within the vacuum tube.

[@johnkuykendall7028]

It’s not surprising how many people have a hard time understanding conductors. I thought that when people (back in the day) referred to the “ether” they were referring to the entropy of the universe. Like the void of existence before the Big Bang… that didn’t seem nearly as unreasonable as the way it’s presented now. I must be misunderstanding the whole “ether” argument…

[@martf1061]

Back then, they called it "aether" .. These days, they call it "dark matter" .. Whatever how it's called, it describes the invisible stuff in between all the visible stuff.

[@ManyHeavens42]

What nobody tells you is you have to run electricity through the wire first, that's Virgin wire =0 potential.

[@sureshlala6462]

Very interesting, makes sense.

[@Mike-op4tb]

Ever considered the possibility that electricity is the oscillation of electrons and not the movement of electrons...this oscillation occurring between the electric and magnetic states of the electron....??

[@K.G.Thyagarajan]

Yes you got it, electricity is indeed oscillation of electrons (oscillation rate is frequency here).

[@shlomoattia7706]

thank you for the answer. i fill normal " again "

[@martf1061]

Finally, someone that makes sense!! 👍 Everything, at all sizes/scales, has electromagnetic polarisation. Meaning that it has "positive and negative" / "attraction and repulsion" properties. It's impossible to only be negative or only positive. Let's take the so-called electron for example..and let's pretend that it's the only particule that interact's with the external Alternative voltage applied to a wire.. Alternative Current ( AC ) is generated by spinning a permanent magnet very close to coils of conductive material like copper. What this does is that the magnet's poles alternate from one pole to the other at 60 times per seconds, in front of the coil of wire. Electrons dont jump from an atom to the other, they just change theyre Orientation in reaction to the stronger magnetism of the permanent magnet close to it. That constant magnetism orientation changing, is what generates the AC voltage across the wire.

[@K.G.Thyagarajan]

@@martf1061 Great bisection on AC - sadly most of the engineers don't know anything about what is AC.

[@martf1061]

Are you describing chemical reaction creating direct current or permanent magnet moving and creating Alternative current

[@clarencegreen3071]

In a #12 copper wire carrying a current of 20 A, the average drift velocity of an electron is only a millimeter or so per second, which is about as fast as a snail can crawl. Seems to me that relativistic effects at such low velocities would be very, very small. Therefore, I'm somewhat skeptical . . .

[@martf1061]

1:50 By assuming that it's possible for a moving particule to have only one pole/charge, like saying that electrons are negative and protons positive, you are taking the wrong path. Everything in all scales/sizes have both polarities. It's all about electromagnetism interactions. Best way to picture it, is to observe solar systems. BTW, "gravity" is just an other word for electromagnetism "attraction" .

[@eitantal726]

The magnetic field is still real. In these examples in particular, you can convert the magnetic field entirely into an electric field by switching frames of reference. You cannot do that for a photon, though. When you have a wave (both Electric and Magnetic fields), no amount of reference shifting will leave you with nothing but electric fields

[@BeneficenceTV]

The Aether is real, the Michelson Morley experiment was done incorrectly. We had a guy replicated it correctly and obtained the predicted drift pattern caused by the aether. You're welcome to try and replicate the experiment to prove us wrong.

[@szymek7794]

Dear Professor, I'm majoring Electronic and Computer Engineering at university in Wrocław, Poland. Could you recommend a book to learn electronics? I would like one book with logical and easy explanations as yours, and other one with academic approach containing theory, formulae etc. Thanks in advance!

[@trevorkearney3088]

Whilst the Lorentz contraction seems an unnecessary consideration, the physical explanation of the presence of an electric field in the space surrounding an energized inductor presents a challenge. The reasoning is often overlooked or ignored in advanced standard texts. The notion that a uniform induced E field lies along circular ‘orbits’ at any location in a widely pervasive but finite time-varying magnetic field, can be difficult to swallow. One must address the issue of boundary conditions. The case of a confined time-varying magnetic field may present less of a challenge but the justification of the E field nature typically resorts to an argument based on physical symmetry or a more complicated alternative analysis based on retarded potentials. One can have the situation in the case of a very long, tightly pitched energized solenoid winding, where there is a negligible magnetic field external to the solenoid boundary whilst there is a non-conservative electric field in that same region. The winding must of course be energized by a time-varying current for the external electric field to arise. That induced electric field accounts for Faraday induction along an external closed path encircling the solenoid, even though the time-varying magnetic field is confined within the solenoid winding.

[@ManyHeavens42]

The magic is the wire has potential energy, another magic we have potential energy, how do I know this? 🌌🌌🌌🌌🌌🌌🌌🌌🌌 It's a Battery too

[@richardgreene7198]

Doesn't Maxwell's equations handle that ?

[@larryevans2806]

Great! And proven in everyday life. Apparently Ethereal ya da ya da doesn't get out much!

[@MrMikeEdie]

Love this

[@lowersaxon]

Based on the solipsism of SRT nothing right can result.

[@mikejones-vd3fg]

Im all for new theories, its how science progresses, but of course its going to ruffle the feathers of the established theories and those that teach it, but i dont come here for new theories i come here to learn whats known so thank you for that, youre one of the best! Heres my new theory while we're at it, electroncs have free will, its how we have our own, its described with quantum mechanics and their probablity. All electrons basically have a personality and behave differntly but most behave the same according to certain conditions, with extremes, its just like sociology, how we behave, in predictable patterns with extremes, thats what quantum mechanics is showing us, the free will of the electrons, and therefore us, what we'ere made of. Its just their free will is so basic and from our perspective bascically predictable, but not so if you look closely. Some electrons must go faster then the rest to find resistance and then inform the rest to slow down, otherwise the resistor placement would matter but it doesnt, they dont smash the LED before they current limit, they knw to before hand, some scout electroncs must go ahead. Such a miniscule amount we cant detect. They must have that kind of communciation between each other which is sort of being shown with super conductors and how electrons behave as one there. As you build up these elecroncs the free will becomes more complex and you have us and our actions.

[@richardsardini5585]

Now that is getting way overly complicated. Electrons have no free will, they obey the physics of the universe around them. That is why we can control electrons to amazing accuracy. There are no messenger electrons. Resistors simple slow the rate electrons can flow, forcing it to go back and elsewhere. Remember, the metals we use to transport electricity are happy with the number of electrons they already possess, so if you offer up more and more resistance, the metal has no free spaces for electrons to pass through and actually will turn and go back, not consciously obviously but because they have to. That is why we use diodes, so we don't accidentally force electrons back through our circuit.

[@mikejones-vd3fg]

Actually i think the universe has the most free will Incomparison we look like predictable electrons. Low forms of energy have less when you combine them you have more is my intuitive guess with the universe as a whole having the most. This would be hard to test because what we call laws of physics could very well be dynamic and changing but we're on too short of a time scale to see the lawa change. Already they found a different electromagnetic constant in a far off uiverse, so the basis of physics that physics is the same everywhere is also likely incorrect. Isn't that exciting g, the very basis of physics is wrong, that sound familiar, when we finished physics class at the end of the year our teacher said , everything we just learned is wrong referring to newton's physics we learned then introduced us to quantum mechanics. I hope you get to experience and appreciate a lesson like that one day.

[@railgap]

I sure hope that's an elaborate joke.

[@richardsardini5585]

@@railgap Yes, in fantasy land.

[@brendawilliams8062]

If I had the engineering in mind. The Professor is very knowledgeable

[@CanuckBeaver]

I happen to be an aether supporter. But this relativity stuff is not reality. (1) You draw wires parallel and next to another, explaining nothing about how the electrons know the MF exists or physically and mechanically moves the electrons. (2) I had electrons accelerating and decelerating in my amateur radio 20 meter, 14 MHz band antenna. I was in Canada talking with another amateur in Australia. The radio photons carried the EM field of individual electrons in my antenna, around the curve of the Earth by individual photons bouncing off the ionosphere and Pacific Ocean changing direction and polarity, yet still enough photons reached his antenna to induce an identical acceleration in his antenna electrons. (3) Light is the same with the antenna sizes at the atomic scale. Individual light and radio photons from galaxies at Z = 1, travelled for 1 billion years, a distance of 1 billion light years, yet still were so exact Webb could see spiral shapes. The redshift at Z=1 just moves the Hydrogen red spectra into the Infrared wavelength. I calculated the energy lost over that trip was only 0.1 electron volts, roughly a dead AA battery. Those individual photons carried zero information about relativity like you drew, yet it was real induction of accelerating electrons at each end.

[@dynapb]

The problem with this video is that his "explanation" only works for the duration of time while the electrons are "accelerating". In the real world, when the current is in a steady state condition the Real Magnetic Field is still there and the electron will still follow the magnetic field around the solenoid. In his magic world, the electron would suddenly not go around the solenoid when the current reaches the steady state. That does not match reality!

[@trevorkearney3088]

There are probably more problems than the one you propose. Regarding the issue you raise. Suppose there is an isolated secondary loop linking the primary flux which originates with the solenoid current. If the solenoid flux is changing with time there will be a Faraday induced EMF in the secondary loop and current will flow in the loop. Once the solenoid current reaches a steady state value the secondary loop induced EMF drops to zero as there is zero time-varying flux linking the secondary loop, and the secondary loop current will rapidly decay to zero.

[@dalenassar9152]

NICE WORK BOB!!! Toward the end of the video, you stated that no one has proved the 'existence' of the ether. Concerning the famous "Michelson Morley experiment"...which supposedly 'thoroughly proved' the NON-existence' of the ether...do you think it can actually exist at "some" level?? --dalE

[@Vocademy-Electronics-Tech]

Well, you can't prove a negative. There is something out there. Cosmologists simply call it spacetime. Nevertheless, something exists that can be warped by mass, thus creating gravity. Current quantum field theory seems to lean toward something like an electric field or fields (which I haven't looked very deeply into so far). However, something like a luminiferous aether doesn't need to exist to explain how the universe works.

[@4pharaoh]

“Net charges” are still charges. And charges do not behave the same way as magnetic fields with respect to dielectrics (insulators) or conductors. Electric fields are blocked by dielectrics but magnetic fields are not. (We all know why) So why, pray tell, if the relativistic explanation is correct, aren’t the magnetic fields if caused by “net charges” blocked by insulators?

[@Vocademy-Electronics-Tech]

Electric fields are unaffected by insulators.

[@4pharaoh]

@@Vocademy-Electronics-Tech Assume we have a lenght coaxial cable. Connect both ends of the cable's shield to a DC negative source, (call it ground) and connect both ends of the center conductor to the positive of the same DC source. _(No Current flows of course)_ Attempts to measure the electric field with respect to ground will fail because the center conductors electric field is shielded and grounded. Now; connect one end of the center conductor of the coax to ground, so that a current is flowing in the center conductor, while no current flows in the shield. The magnetic field is easily detected. _(a compass will do)_ If this magnetic field due to current flow is truly a product of the relativistic lenght contraction and was actually any sort of "Net electric field" wouldn't the shield of the coax have stopped? (shielded against the magnetic field) Thus: how can a magnetic field be the result of "net relativistic electric fields", when their behaviors are so different? The two fields behave differently with insulators, conductors and ferrous materials. BTW An AC source instead of a DC source would have worked just as well. However Near Field Magnetics behavior VS Radio Frequency Behavior can confuse things even more since they also do not behave the same.

[@trevorkearney3088]

Whilst the Lorentz contraction seems an unnecessary consideration, the physical explanation of the presence of an electric field in the space surrounding an energized inductor presents a challenge. The reasoning is often overlooked or ignored in advanced standard texts. One can have the situation in the case of a very long, tightly pitched energized solenoid winding, where there is a negligible magnetic field external to the solenoid boundary whilst there is a non-conservative electric field in that same region. The winding must of course be energized by a time-varying current for the external electric field to arise. That induced electric field accounts for Faraday induction along an external closed path encircling the solenoid, even though the time-varying magnetic field is confined within the solenoid winding.

[@A3Kr0n]

If you feed the trolls they'll keep coming back. Some people like that, some don't.

[@MagnetoFreako]

Aether is real. Skipping past the inner workings of what happens within the source terminals, doesn't do you any justice. Your mistake is right at the start, in not realizing (or not stating if you do know) that each polarity also has a zero point. At face value, It only appears that the so called electron moves towards positive, when it actually moves towards the zero point. Same for the positive moving towards the negative, the negative also has a zero point. The zero point at each terminal ensures the wire charges, tunnel THROUGH the terminal voltages, to a point behind the terminal voltage, both inside and outside. Please look deeper, think of the positive, the zero point, and the negative as being in their own direction and or dimension, and think about the order in which each dimensional plane comes to exist. For example, you physically cannot have left and right before you have a front (forward) and back (rear). Now think about the relation to top, bottom, inside & outside, and the integrated virtual state (string theory) where they first must be predefined before becoming a physically defined real thing. I don't know how deep your understanding goes, but I think there's more for you to learn, no disrespect intended. Aether is real.

[@stanpikulski4007]

BOB THANKS! Why I did not have ever such a teacher like you? You are excellent teacher THANKS!! All the best in 2025 for YOU!!!

[@assabjorn]

❤❤❤

[@martf1061]

Let me guess... You are absolutlely not trying to proove that everyone is wrong, besides you..?!?

[@Vocademy-Electronics-Tech]

You have it backward. The circular impetus around a solenoid with a changing current is a well-documented scientific phenomenon. It's part of Faraday's Law. The proponents of ethereal mechanics say mainstream science cannot account for it. I just explained how mainstream science does account for it.

[@richardsardini5585]

I don't buy any of this. The atoms are the atoms. You are way way overthinking the whole thing. All that is really happening is you are forcing electrons into one end of a metal that doesn't really want it, but you are forcing it in with a generator or battery. The atoms have no choice but to pass these electrons to the next atom as it tries to maintain its shell balance. The protons move nowhere. They go nowhere. They maintain the structure of the atom and your wire doesn't disintegrate or degrade into another element. You are giving sight to an electron. You are insinuating that electrons have sight like you have sight. You are also insinuating that an electron can remain still when we all know electrons don't ever stop, they move at close to the speed of light. Even under extremely low temperatures, the electrons join together in Cooper pairs to achieve the status of a boson and thus is no longer restrained. Under cold temps, the lattice in the metal forms such a perfect structure that electrons can move straight between the metal atoms, no bouncing or forcing other electrons to the next atom to reach your desired location. Remember, the electrons are doing what you are forcing them to do, nothing more. There is nothing magical going on in the background. This doesn't involve Einstein, relativity or any kind of mysterious ether. It's just electrons doing what we make them do. Magnetic fields are just a side effect that we use to our advantage to reverse the process and generate electricity. But don't kid yourself, anyone delving deeper is looking to invent ideas and then try to pass them off as valid and new. Keep it simple and it is easy to understand, try and pick it apart into other explanations and processes, and you will be confused forever, not to mention embarrassed by all those people out there so desperate to prove you wrong. I kept this explanation so simple, it cannot be picked apart. I on the other hand can listen to you and this is when I realize electrons have sight and can sit still. You are jumping into a whole bunch of stuff that is speculative and half you can't even explain or understand, just theorizing. You can't argue with anything I pointed out, but I can question you all day and still I probably won't get the answers you are telling me are there.

[@notaras1985]

The electrons do bounce and produce thermal noise. Also the electron is an abstract concept not a literal marble. It's a mathematical reductionist tool. All the big electric giants of the previous century like Steinmetz, Tesla, Heavyside etc knew that

[@richardsardini5585]

@@notaras1985 Please, come back from fantasy land. OK, now I am supposed to believe electrons have no mass. You people are so ignorant. Just follow the electrons. Follow the electrons. They move places, and in this case the places we want them to go. Follow the electron and you will see that we toss them like marbles all over our electrical circuits. The problem is you can't accept the simplicity of it, you are convinced there has to be something more. Well I got news for ya, there isn't.

[@richardsardini5585]

@@notaras1985 Please come back from fantasy land. Reductionist tool. You don't even know what you are talking about much less actually explain it. Electrons don't have mass or really exist is what that insinuates. And yes they are like marbles and we toss them around our electrical circuits and control them with precision. Your problem is you can't accept the simple cogent explanation and thus dig for deeper explanations that just doesn't exist. Then you start saying crap that makes no sense, I guess to make yourself feel smarter than others. Let me tell you, when I was an avionics electronics technician in the Marines where I worked on the Harrier Jump Jet, and I took 220VAC from my arm pit I had resting on coaxial cables for the AN-ALR45 radar warning system. I was on the Arizona base MCAS Yuma and it was hot. I was checking for 220 on a cannon plug connection when my hand slipped down the meter lead making contact and completing the connection to my arm pit, I felt that 220 rushing through my body, and there was nothing arbitrary about those electrons passing through my body. Electrons are real, they do exist, they have mass, they can travel and we can control them. We are smarter than the electron. But snooze for 1 second when working with it and you could be in big trouble. Luckily for me the connection was from my hand to my arm pit. So most electrons didn't make it through my whole body, many did, but certainly no all. Don't let these people pollute your brain with a bunch of non proven facts theories and word play. Start an electronics hobby, build yourself several different circuits, and you will start to understand better how electrons actually work. Once you start using resistors to push electrons around your circuit to get the reaction you want from a transistor or capacitor or led or IC it will start to make sense to you.

[@richardsardini5585]

@@notaras1985 Also, as far as not bouncing, I was talking about cold superconductive metals that form a perfect lattice that the electrons don't interact with the atoms, they just pass through in what is called a Cooper pair. Two electrons join together. Since two electrons is joining 1/2 integer spin particles together they end up with the same status as a boson with whole integer spin and thus travel faster than normal. Cooper is from the last century also and I believe his discovery of the Cooper Pair won him a Nobel prize. Not sure on that.

[@martf1061]

Who brainwashed you ? Some of what you say is totally possible, but you been told a lot of non-sense also..

[@gosdeCarrer]

Nah, but this only works in a round planet, and we all know that earth is flat. It's already demonstrated, in a youtube video. By the way, I heard that that ethereal youtuber has good chances of becoming minister of science of a big country, that I can't remember now 😄

[@undernetjack]

Also surprising how dogmatic people can be, to the point of hypocrisy. Tell us again, does the electric charge travel inside the conductor or outside? If it is outside, the what is the medium, in air? in water? in the vacuum of space ? Does it still travel along the conductor or inside it? Seriously, what do you believe is the medium for light? For gravity? Uh-huh. I thought as much. Go back to Heavyside and Steinmetz... read the original works, ask the obvious questions. Because I said so only works on children...

[@undernetjack]

Call it quantum foam so we can all laugh....