Journal of Theoretics

Commentary Vol.3-4


by Jacob Ghitis

 [In order to understand this article, it is advised to read A Unified Field Theory]

There is no alternating electricity in nature. It must be artificially generated from macro-kinetic energy by means of generators. Thus, there is only direct electricity in nature. Direct electricity may also be generated artificially by chemical means.

Alternating current uses a "live" wire from which the artificially generated electrical energy flows. The other wire serves to conduct the current back to the generator, and in a very loose sense, because actually the energy goes on to the nearest freely moving electrons in the ground. The fact that the shape of the current alternates is what prevents this artificially generated electricity from acting as "direct," even though the flow is in a single direction, along the conducting wire.

Aside from the direct current flow in living organisms, the direct electricity present in nature is "static" (actually potential) electricity. It becomes flowing (actual electricity) for a very short time when it grows powerful enough to ionize the surrounding gases, it is then able to apparently "jump". Due to the resistance offered by the conducting medium, a sudden electric flow in the atmosphere is marked by intense heat and illumination, known as lightning, and its explosion-like consequence...thunder. 

I have posited that the atomic nucleus contains in each proton one unpaired --"orphan"-- positron; therefore the proton is "positively charged".  This positron is balanced by one extranuclear electron. I posit that when paired, positrons and electrons spin in opposite directions and that the primal energy that generated spin is the fount of some of these basic constituents of matter's properties. Physicists were used to calling "negative" the electron, and when the "positive" counterpart was discovered, it was called positron. However, neither of them is "charged" with "electricity": only molecules are said to be charged, meaning that there is an electron/positron numerical imbalance; when there is only an intrinsic configurational imbalance, the molecule is then said to be "bipolar." 

When atoms suffer nuclear disruptions, as in fusion and fission, the liberated positrons and electrons collide, leading to mutual "annihilation", by which they transform into high-frequency photons. I posit that single positrons outside the nucleons are unstable, easily decaying into their yet unknown component subparticles. Positrons though play no role in the phenomena of static and flowing electrical energy. 

"Static electricity" remains in the outermost electrons of atoms; dynamic, "flowing" electrical energy, moves along the electrons, which serve as a conducting medium. The electrons themselves move slowly compared to the energy itself, which "hops" from electron to another nearby electron; otherwise, flow ceases. 

While "jumping" a few nanometers, electricity may be imagined as being in a "special state", which may be analogized with the brief existence of atoms when dissociated from their paired molecule.  Lightning "travels" long distances by means of these "mini-jumps", moving crookedly through charged thunderclouds and heat-ionized or dissociated air gases, among them oxygen, which will immediately form ozone. These clouds, made of water condensed at low temperatures, are charged (electronically imbalanced) by the friction of wind. Very rarely, lightning may emerge from charged "clouds" composed of fast-traveling dust and small sand particles, from particulate matter either erupted at high speed from volcanoes, or just resulting from massive industrial pollution. Similarly, high-voltage sparks may jump from grains in silos, from accumulations of flour and from large metal objects. It is possible that the sudden death of biblical two son's of Aharon's when approaching the altar was caused by a spark from the large metal objects nearby. Friction from different sources might have caused that electrostatic phenomenon.

Thus, electric energy is "loose", gingerly touching the surface of the outermost atomic electrons along which it "runs." This energy remains in a potential state, becoming effective only when it can run (meaning, when it can do work) causing displacement of its target. When so doing, electricity dissipates as a different type of energy, such as thermal (which is micro-kinetic "in situ"), or motoric (which is macro-kinetic). 

Electricity has no sign: it is just "electrical energy". What we call "negative" is the direction from which it flows along the train of external electrons of atoms and molecules composing objects; we call "positive" the direction in which electricity flows. This situation exists when electrons are free to move, as happens in what are called metals. 

In semiconductor materials, a confusing name for "positive" is "hole", as being applied to the place abandoned by an electron; to this place an electron may move, and now a more confusing situation occurs, because an "exciton" is generated. All these phenomena are part of a technology called "semiconductor electronics", in which semiconductors are made especially reactive by the addition of electronic-imbalancing molecules called "dopants". This technology is based on driving the external electrons of the electricity conducting wire --attached to the semiconductor-- to become the actuators for multiple functions. In other words, it is not "electricity" but the electrons themselves that are acting in the technology called "semiconductor electronics". 

In order to understand what seems to be a very complicated situation, the following scheme is suggested:  

I posit that electrons are the atomic base unit dealing with micro-kinetic (subatomic) energy, and that the external electrons are the generators of heat, electricity, and low-energy photons (below the UV range). All phenomena dealing with external electrons are therefore, "electronic." Thus, heat, electricity, and photonics, are branches of "electronics", yet there is a confusion that has been created by the semiconductor electronic industry based mainly on transistors. Such devices, which are by definition artificial in nature, have become mentally associated with "gadget wizardry." I therefore postulate that electricity is generated in the external electrons of conductors (metals), and that it is composed of a few "electron quanta"
possessing a particular form of vibration which gives electricity its idiosyncratic nature. These electric particles or units, which I call "electricons", must move along the external electrons of conducting materials, hopping along, whether the electrons themselves are actually moving or not. It is therefore the electricons, and not the electrons, that are acting as "electrical energy"; this means that "electronic energy" refers to the whole electron acting as bearer of its proper micro-kinetic energy. 

*  *  *  *

From Encarta: "Electrons form electric currents by flowing in a stream and carrying their negative charge with them. All electrical devices, from flashlights to computers, depend on the movement of electrons."

I posit that it is electric energy what "flows" (hopping along electrons) while flowing electrons are part of electronic phenomena. Electronic phenomena include also those manifested by static and slow moving electrons, so that actually there is no "electronic energy" that contrasts with electric energy, as I wrongly said in our conversation.

Fast electrons, unimpeded by surrounding matter (i.e. air), as in the "cathode rays", have a kinetic energy, resulting from the electric energy expelling forcibly the electrons of the metallic cathode. The physical particularities of the electrons allow them to transmit that kinetic energy the way they do. This can be analogized to the peculiar strong heating capabilities of infrared, compared to more energetic, visible waves. Most of "electronic" phenomena are artificial, as in alternating current electricity. 

The "negative charge" of the electrons (which has been determined) is bothersome. I wonder if electrons just have their basal energy (bE), as I previously posited in A Unified Field Theory, "BASAL ENERGY (bE): is the immanent one in mass (all "particles"); it can not be removed, being perhaps a remnant of the component PVs' spins. It forbids temperature to reach absolute zero and movement to cease, thus perhaps being related to the principle of indeterminacy." 

Electric energy is made of quanta, no doubt, yet I've not read about this. An appropriate name could be "electricon".  By the way, I insist in the existence of the "thermon," as a quantum of heat. (Curiously, I just read for the first time about "thermion," a name no longer in use, since it was applied to the electrons ejected from the cathode of the vacuum tubes, which no longer are in use.) The phonon would be a quantum of "infra-thermic" energy, also a manifestation of vibrating electrons. 

The photons emitted by electrons "excited" in a peculiar way manifested by allegedly jumping to a higher orbit, are peculiar electric manifestations, which I have posited can do very peculiar things because their energy is associated with PVs, perhaps just one PV. Perhaps a PV is a quantum of mass, deserving to be considered as "primal mass." It is now known that electricity flows in a very "peculiar" way through nanotubes, and one-molecule-wide chain of DNA and similar structures are helical by force of being one-molecule-wide. Therefore, 'peculiarities' are one of the reasons for things being the way they are. I was thinking this morning that the proportions of different types of energy generated (not "created," as is sometimes said) in atomic and nuclear bombs vary according to the 'peculiar' place of the explosion. Such as interred surfaces, and various atmospheric or spatial surroundings. This latter thought is trite, of course, yet is not so trite when applied to micro-phenomena.


Journal Home Page

© Journal of Theoretics, Inc. 2001  (Note: all submissions become the property of the Journal)