Electrostatics
During the course of examining the difference between the measurements of charged and uncharged electrons in a conductor, something unusual turned up: electrostatic theory. The equations for electrostatic relationships in space-time units are very different from the conventional “electric current” units described by Larson in “Basic Properties of Matter.”
| Electric Current (flow of uncharged electrons) | Electrostatic (flow of charged electrons) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Space-time | Conventional | Mechanical | Space-time | Conventional | Mechanical | |
| Voltage | t/s2 | volts | force | s/t | statvolts | speed |
| Current | s/t | amps | speed | t/s | statamperes | energy |
| Resistance | t2/s3 | ohms | mass/time | s2/t2 | statohms | speed2 |
| V = IR | t/s2 = (s/t) (t2/s3) | s/t = (t/s) (s2/t2) | ||||
Also, examine the electrostatic unit values, as compared to the natural units. Notice any numerical similarity? (The values for the conventional electrostatic units were taken from Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, 1966.)
| Space-time | Static Component | Natural Units | Conventional Electrostatic Units | Difference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| s/t | voltage | 2.99792458×108 | m/s | 2.9979×102 | statvolts | 1×106 |
| t/s | current | 3.33564095×10-9 | s/m | 3.3356×10-10 | statamperes | 1×101 |
| s2/t2 | resistance | 8.98755179×1016 | m2/s2 | 8.9876×1011 | statohms | 1×105 |
As the table shows, the significant digits between natural and electrostatic units are identical, except for scaling. The measurement for statamps is low by a factor of 10, the measurement for resistance is low by 105 and the measurement for statvolts is also too low by 106. But the scaling relationship is identical... if you increase the statampere measure by 10, and increase the statohm measure by 105, statvolts (according to V=IR) adjusts by 106. We are dealing with the same relationship in conventional electrostatics that we are with the Reciprocal System’s natural units!
But what does it mean, and how does it relate to electric current? From the equations, it looks like we are dealing with an entirely different phenomenon. What is being measured as electrostatic voltage, appears to actually be current! Let’s examine the difference:
| Static Component | Space-time | Electrical Property Actually Being Measured | Units Should Be |
|---|---|---|---|
| voltage | s/t | current | t/s2 |
| current | t/s | energy | s/t |
| resistance | s2/t2 | conductivity | t2/s3 |
The question is: what are we actually looking at, when we look at electrostatic units versus conventional ones? First, it appears that a dimension of “space” has been removed from the equation--in other words, the electric quantity has disappeared. Let’s add it back in, by multiplying the equation V=IR on both sides by (s), which will not change the numerical outcome:
(s) (s/t) = (t/s) (s2/t2) (s)
- reduces to -
(s2/t) = (t/s) (s3/t2)
Low and behold, the typical V = IR equation reappears--but it is inverted! It is actually (1/V) = (1/I) (1/R). When viewed in the inverse sense, the unit measurement returns to non-static conventions, voltage is again a force, current a speed, and resistance a mass per unit time.
I believe legacy science adopted this electrostatic convention for two reasons:
- When the electron acquired a charge and became electrostatic, the spatial rotation (q) became immeasurable, and was removed from the equations (hence the loss of the “s” term required for force and resistance).
- Normal current is based on electric quantity, s, and is measured as speed, s/t. But electrostatics measures the associated charge, t/s, instead. Therefore, normal current, “space per unit time” (or speed) suddenly turned into electric charge, “time per unit space” (inverse speed, or energy). In order to keep the equations working, it had to be viewed from the inverse perspective--that of energy, versus speed.
- Printer-friendly version
- Login or register to post comments