TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

But good sir, what is electricity?

410 点作者 rapawel3 个月前

25 条评论

movpasd3 个月前
A point not mentioned by the article: the electrons in a metal at room temperature are already moving very quickly due to their thermal energy (at the order of 100km&#x2F;s) — much faster than the speeds quoted in the article, which is what&#x27;s called the &quot;drift velocity&quot;.<p>This thermal motion is essentially random, and the electrons constantly scatter off the nuclei every which way, so it cancels out and doesn&#x27;t create a net current.<p>So, it&#x27;s less than the electrons gently move under the influence of an electric field, and more that it introduced a slight bias in the existing thermal motion.<p>E: To clarify in case it may have been unclear, this is unrelated to the speed of propagation of the electric field, which as the article says is the speed of light.
评论 #43150311 未加载
评论 #43150032 未加载
评论 #43151331 未加载
评论 #43161770 未加载
评论 #43152891 未加载
评论 #43154050 未加载
评论 #43149672 未加载
评论 #43149590 未加载
评论 #43157660 未加载
alabastervlog3 个月前
On a whim, I bought a book called <i>There Are No Electrons</i> at a used book store, some years ago.<p>The idea of the book is that we spend lots of time teaching students various incorrect and inconsistent models for how electricity works, that also don’t optimally build intuition for <i>working with</i> the stuff.<p>The book’s remedy is to say “forget all that: here’s a wrong model that <i>is</i> good at building intuition for working with electricity, and if you’re not planning to go for a physics PhD, that’s much better for you than the other wrong models”<p>I don’t know enough about electricity to evaluate whether this was a good idea or well executed, but it’s an interesting approach.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;goodreads.com&#x2F;book&#x2F;show&#x2F;304551.There_Are_No_Electrons" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;goodreads.com&#x2F;book&#x2F;show&#x2F;304551.There_Are_No_Electron...</a>
评论 #43151284 未加载
评论 #43152165 未加载
评论 #43154213 未加载
评论 #43157699 未加载
erehweb3 个月前
There is a story of a student taking an oral exam at Oxford or Cambridge many many years ago.<p>Examiner: &quot;What is electricity?&quot;<p>Student: &quot;Oh, I do know, I mean I used to know, but now I&#x27;ve forgotten.&quot;<p>Examiner: &quot;How very unfortunate. In the whole of history only two people have known what electricity is - the Creator and yourself. And now one of the two has forgotten.&quot;
评论 #43151240 未加载
评论 #43157747 未加载
评论 #43166599 未加载
评论 #43151150 未加载
k__3 个月前
I got told what electricity is in primary school, in middle school, in high school, and in university.<p>Every time I understood it less.<p>I even watched some videos where people interviewed physics professors, to explain what it really is, and the explanations only got more convoluted.<p>Seemingly not because those people were bad at explaining, but because if you want to explain it as correctly as possible, it just isn&#x27;t intuitive at all.
评论 #43149982 未加载
评论 #43149517 未加载
评论 #43155282 未加载
评论 #43149375 未加载
评论 #43159467 未加载
评论 #43157759 未加载
ok_dad3 个月前
My favorite thing about electrical theory is that all this business about flow of energy going from + to - is the idea of &quot;electron holes&quot; flowing, instead of the actual electrons! Basically all of electronics and electricity uses hole flow convention. It seems weird to me we don&#x27;t use electron-flow convention (aka: reality), but then again I&#x27;m a weird guy.
评论 #43149023 未加载
评论 #43148971 未加载
评论 #43148953 未加载
评论 #43148973 未加载
评论 #43149112 未加载
评论 #43149238 未加载
评论 #43157792 未加载
评论 #43148974 未加载
TheSpiceIsLife3 个月前
If people are going to bring up Veritasium and AlphaPhoenix, then I&#x27;m going to want to say something like:<p>ElectroBOOM and AvE and bigclive have done more to further my understanding of electricity, both theoretically and practically, than everything else combined.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;@arduinoversusevil2025" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;@arduinoversusevil2025</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;@ElectroBOOM" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;@ElectroBOOM</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;@bigclivedotcom" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;@bigclivedotcom</a>
karaterobot3 个月前
This was pretty clear and readable, I guess. But the most succinct explanation of electricity that I know of is from Stephen Leacock:<p>&gt; Electricity is of two kinds, positive and negative. The difference is, I presume, that one comes a little more expensive, but is more durable; the other is a cheaper thing, but the moths get into it.<p>And that&#x27;s sort of all I need to know.
Xcelerate3 个月前
&gt; Most simply, it [electron] just exists as a particular distribution of an electrostatic field in space.<p>Best simple description of an electron I think I’ve heard yet. I wish we would drop all the dumb analogies. From a kid’s perspective (at least what I can recall from high school), these macroscopic analogies mislead you into thinking the laws of physics work differently than what humanity’s best models of physics actually predict.<p>For instance, I never liked the sense of “arbitrariness” I felt while learning about the periodic table in K-12 school. The diagonal rule. Hund’s rule. The exception to Hund’s rule. And so on. Don’t even get me started on organic chemistry. But if someone had told me “Forget about billiard balls and wave&#x2F;particle duality. Our best models consists of solutions to simple and beautiful equations that are extremely difficult to solve”, then that would have made a lot more sense to me.<p>The author of the article describes the truth as “weird math”. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. Unitarity is aesthetic—it just “feels right”. The correspondence of atomic orbitals to irreducible representations of symmetry groups is beautiful. Why don’t we teach that to kids? You don’t have to go into the mathematical details of group theory, but just let them know these odd shapes originate from symmetry constraints. Much better than my reaction to seeing an illustration of a d_z^2 orbital in high school. I remember thinking “What the heck is that? This subject makes no sense.”
评论 #43149760 未加载
评论 #43149412 未加载
评论 #43150583 未加载
评论 #43149116 未加载
评论 #43149465 未加载
评论 #43149010 未加载
iandanforth3 个月前
For introductory articles like this I also find it helpful to know that the whole positive &#x2F; negative thing is arbitrary. In fact the assignment of &quot;negative&quot; to electrons arise due to a mistaken interpretation by Benjamin Franklin of one of his experiments. So if you&#x27;re wondering why gaining the primary mobile charge carrier makes things more negative blame Ben Franklin!
评论 #43150282 未加载
jimbob453 个月前
<i>In pop-science articles and videos, the concept is usually illustrated using the dated but intuitive model developed by Niels Bohr around 1918. The model envisions electrons that travel around the nucleus in circular orbits:</i><p>Please stop teaching the history of what we <i>used</i> to think the atom looked like. We’ve reached the point where we spend 99% of the material teaching what we know the atom <i>doesn’t</i> look like and very little on what it does look like. Even this author offers a picture for what it doesn’t look like and nothing for what it does. Physicists should know the value of a good picture&#x2F;mental model better than anyone else.<p>I challenge you to go on Wikipedia and find the article&#x2F;space for the current understanding of the atom. Was that hard for you to find? Would a curious high schooler have enough information within that article&#x2F;space to learn everything you now know (textbooks are too expensive and inaccessible for high schoolers to rely on, physics websites are hit&#x2F;miss). Is this how you would prefer to have been taught?
评论 #43151894 未加载
doop3 个月前
Why does this otherwise excellent series always depict electrons as red and protons as blue when everybody knows it’s the other way round?
评论 #43154210 未加载
评论 #43149254 未加载
评论 #43149329 未加载
jvanderbot3 个月前
&gt; Pay no mind: it’s enough to say that most nuclei on Earth were formed through nuclear fusion in stars and won’t undergo any change on the timescales of interest to electronics — or to terrestrial life.<p>It&#x27;s impossible for me to understate how awesome this is. And how hard it is for me to truly grok.
评论 #43149984 未加载
simpaticoder3 个月前
Great article! I particularly like this paragraph:<p><i>&gt;It’s important to note that while the charge equalization process is fast, the drift of individual electrons is not. The field propagates at close to the speed of light in vacuum (circa 300,000 km&#x2F;s); individual electrons in a copper wire typically slither at speeds measured in centimeters per hour or less. A crude analogy is the travel of sound waves in air: if you yell at someone, they will hear you long before any single air molecule makes it from here to there.</i><p>So basically electricity flows like a Newton&#x27;s cradle. But this leaves one nagging question: what is the nature of the delay? This question also arises when considering the microscopic cause of index-of-refraction for light[1]. If you take a simple atom, like hydrogen, and shine a light on it of a particular frequency, I understand that the electron will jump to a higher energy energy level, and then fall back down. But what governs the delay between these jumps? And also, how is it that, in general, light will continue propagating in the same direction? That is, there seems to be some state-erasure or else the electron would have to &quot;remember&quot; more details about the photon that excited it. (And who knows? Maybe the electron does &quot;remember&quot; the incident photon through some sort of distortion of the quantum field which governs the electron&#x27;s motion.) The same question applies to electron flow - what are the parameters that determine the speed of electricity in a conductor, and how does it work?<p>1. 3blue1brown recently did a great video describing how light &quot;slowing down&quot; can be explained by imagining that each layer of the material introduces its own phase shift to incoming light. Apparently this is an argument Feynman used in his Lectures. But Grant didn&#x27;t explain the nature of the phase shift! <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=KTzGBJPuJwM" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=KTzGBJPuJwM</a>
评论 #43149404 未加载
评论 #43149423 未加载
aranchelk3 个月前
&gt; We don’t have philosophically satisfying insights into the universe at subatomic scales. We have quantum mechanics: a set of equations that are good at predicting the behavior of elementary particles, but that don’t line up with our intuition about the macroscopic world.<p>Our analogies and intuitions are based off of our macroscopic experienced reality, this seems to be an entirely emergent phenomenon based on those strange behaviors described by quantum mechanics. If those insights ever do come, I don’t believe they’ll correspond to anything prewired into our brains or experienced in our lives, and will never be remotely satisfying.
评论 #43160111 未加载
andrewla3 个月前
Except in extremely exceptional circumstances, it is not useful to try to reason about the behavior of electrons when looking at electricity. Treat it as electrical fields and you&#x27;ll be fine. The fields represent reality at the non-quantum scale much better than attempts to model non-quantum reality.<p>As a notable example, macroscopically electricity is totally symmetric - positive current flows the same as negative current does. There are components that exhibit asymmetric behavior but they can be arbitrarily oriented so it doesn&#x27;t really matter.
评论 #43160360 未加载
netbioserror3 个月前
Electricity finally made some sense to me when I wrote down the basic high school electricity equations and derived the basic energy and charge units from them.<p>That&#x27;s how I finally understood that power is energy rate (Joules per unit time), current is charge rate (electrons per unit time), and voltage is energy per unit charge (Joules per electron). Voltage makes a lot more sense as the excitation of electrons; them wanting to jump gaps and go to a lower energy place feels more intuitive in that framing.
danso3 个月前
Ever since seeing this time traveling meme [0], I&#x27;m constantly thinking about how I would be the worst time traveler ever. Maybe I could explain flight? But not electricity, definitely not the engineering needed to make it usable.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;cheezburger.com&#x2F;9253930240&#x2F;this-electricity-business-sounds-like-bs-to-me" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;cheezburger.com&#x2F;9253930240&#x2F;this-electricity-business...</a>
nayuki3 个月前
&gt; what is electricity?<p>My favorite answers are:<p>* <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;amasci.com&#x2F;miscon&#x2F;whatis.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;amasci.com&#x2F;miscon&#x2F;whatis.html</a><p>* <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.rootsofprogress.org&#x2F;the-significance-of-electricity" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.rootsofprogress.org&#x2F;the-significance-of-electri...</a>
mackman3 个月前
As someone who studied physics and electronics for many years, I still appreciate an article like this for reminding me how profoundly weird science is. Working day to day with the equations and practical applications of electricity gives you a false sense of confidence that we actually have any fucking clue what’s going on.
评论 #43149726 未加载
djsamseng3 个月前
There&#x27;s also the field theory of electricity: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=bHIhgxav9LY" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=bHIhgxav9LY</a><p>It’s an eye opening alternative explanation to the electrons flowing like a chain theory of this article.
benterix3 个月前
&gt; The field propagates at close to the speed of light in vacuum (circa 300,000 km&#x2F;s); individual electrons in a copper wire typically slither at speeds measured in centimeters per hour or less.<p>It would be worth mentioning <i>why</i> it happens as it&#x27;s quite interesting.
评论 #43152305 未加载
anthk3 个月前
I used to read W. Beaty, the guy from <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;amasci.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;amasci.com&#x2F;</a><p>Still, getting electricity right is not easy.
_factor3 个月前
I’ve always wondered if the electrons bound to a nucleus are somehow bound to the element they were attached to.<p>Changing an element from Hydrogen to Helium or any other variant of conversion seems like it breaks an especially solid confluence. Each proton determines the atomic number, and there is a corresponding electron for each proton after all.<p>They may float around the universe, but could they still “belong” to the element they were formed with, bound to be impacted in some way when that element converts to another (in a stellar reactor for example).<p>This would mean electrons are somehow unique most likely, but stranger things have been observed.
评论 #43149096 未加载
CHB04030854823 个月前
Relevant:<p>How Electricity Actually Works by Veritasium ~ <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=oI_X2cMHNe0" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=oI_X2cMHNe0</a>
thetwentyone3 个月前
&gt; A crude analogy is the travel of sound waves in air: if you yell at someone, they will hear you long before any single air molecule makes it from here to there.<p>Isn’t this a very good analogy? What’s so crude about it?