"To begin with"...
1) these are ionized hydrogens with delocalized electrons. 2) Capacitors build up voltage, which is differential rotation of their metal's e-shells. 3) In the vacuum, there is such low pressure on the atoms that their surfaces expand to fill the void. There is no such thing as a true vacuum. This is also how cathode ray tubes work under this model. 4) See above. The orbitals are in contact. 5) All those cyclotron measurements are electric at the end of the day. 6) Batteries charge the terminals electro-chemically. chemistry will follow in an additional video after magnetism. Basically, it is the same concept. Enmeshment of surfaces. 7) What dynamos? 8) All materials resist current to certain extent; this has to do with how conductive they are, which is a direct result of how their orbitals are configured/ how the atom is shaped. Capacitors are just terminals separated by insulating resistors. All these details deserve a follow-up blog at some point for sure. Thanks. 9) light is coming. Heat is chaotic motion, while electricity is a particular rotatory type. heat also involves translation/vibration in addition to shell rotation. 10) Hydrogens that are ionized are not empty protons, they simply have delocalized shells. 11) We don't think the limitless extension of the electron is mathematical gibberish. We think that those structures are essential to other atomic phenomenon, including light and gravity. videos to follow. 12) the locked up gear thing isn't a problem for the multi-polar orbitals of actual metals. It would be a problem for a hydrogen lattice, unless it had a hexagonal crystal, with bent geometry...hm.
> Hydrogen is a great place to start
It is an insulator, so a terrible place to start. Simplicity doesn't help if it's oversimplified to the point of being totally wrong.
> In the vacuum, there is such low pressure on the atoms that their surfaces expand to fill the void.
I don't think you realise just how absurdly distorted the orbitals would have to be for this to make sense. The gap in a classic Leidenjar capacitor is about 1mm, or something like 4 million times the inter-atomic spacing. You seriously want me to believe that the surface atoms have electrons whizzing out to orbits shaped like a 4,000,000-to-1 ratio ellipse and then coming back to whip around a specific nucleus? You're... kidding, right?
> All those cyclotron measurements are electric at the end of the day
What I mean is that cyclotrons have individual, loose particles circling around. Like isolated electrons, muons, protons, or whatever. They're not atoms, but there's a definite current that you can measure in Amperes. The beam makes a magnetic field and everything. How does your "atomic orbitals meshing together" explain currents that don't involve atoms!?
> Batteries charge the terminals electro-chemically... Basically, it is the same concept.
The same concept as what? You haven't explained how chemicals can produce the electron shell rotations.
> What dynamos
It's another word for generators. How does an AC generator generate your current? Use equations please that predict the output current using numbers based on the geometry of the coils and the rotation.
> All materials resist current to certain extent
That's just plain false, superconductors exist.
> All these details deserve a follow-up blog at some point for sure.
They deserve treatment in the first post, the first paper, the first video. It's like saying "I've got this wonderful idea for fusion power! The actual fusion and power bit I might cover later, I'm going to start by waffling on about how the vacuum chamber has no air in it."
> Hydrogens that are ionized are not empty protons, they simply have delocalized shells
In no way is this true. You can separate protons from electrons and move them meters apart and they'll just sit there. This happens all the time in interstellar space where plasmas can have mean inter-particle distances measured in meters. There is no meaningful way in which you can point at a particle in one room and say that it "belongs" to a particle in another room and that this makes up a hydrogen atom.
> We don't think the limitless extension of the electron is mathematical gibberish
Mathematically it's perfectly fine. You can define fields however you like. Infinite extent, infinite precision, infinite whatever you like. The physical universe just doesn't work that way, there are no known physical infinites.
> We think that those structures are essential to other atomic phenomenon, including light and gravity.
If you can solve the problem of gravity, you can collect your Nobel prize. Unfortunately you have to start with baby steps, such as explaining how capacitors work without hand-waving. Use numbers. Run a simulation or two.
> the locked up gear thing isn't a problem for the multi-polar orbitals of actual metals. It would be a problem for a hydrogen lattice, unless it had a hexagonal crystal, with bent geometry...hm.
Hmm indeed. Look at the crystal structures of common metals: https://www.ggspdt.com/uploads/8/1/0/4/81043910/8970374_orig...
The close-packed hexagonal structure cannot transmit rotations in the sense of enmeshed gears, because it's made up of a bunch of triangles! Last time I checked, zinc, magnesium, and cadmium are all conductors.
Again, with actual metals, the "polar" orbits don't participate in conduction. Loose electrons do, and they don't mesh like gears. They can't possibly, because hexagonal lattices still conduct electricity.
Yes, ionization is interpreted as thinned, extended outer surface of the atom (e-shell). No physical reason it cannot fill a room if depressurized sufficiently.
Otherwise, show me a single electron. And then use it explain the concept of charge, not quantitatively but mechanistically. What other than magic holds it in it's path?
Until then, ionization is delocalized surface of the atom because that's the only way to rationalize the idea with physical objects (aka the atom), which physics ought start with. It IS the study of objects that exist. If you consider ionization this way, it clears up the rest of your concerns & I will happily walk you through the details. If you're not willing to take that interpretation we have nothing more to discuss, eh?
You may have misunderstood a few aspects of QED. It is true that the U(1) field of QED and gauge theory says that there are "little circulations" that explain all known electromagnetic phenomena, but this is at a completely different scale than electron orbits, and doesn't require atoms in general.
It has nothing to do with electricity in any sense. There's no matching theory that this is visualising.
To begin with:
1) This doesn't explain why in general only metals conduct electricity. You used the example of Hydrogen, which is a nonconductive gas. It might become metallic under certain circumstances, but nobody has a firm grasp on exactly how that works! Using the conditions found only in the cores of giant planets for a "simplified" example is absurd.
2) This doesn't explain why capacitors build up charge (literal excess electrons on one plate, and missing electrons on the other plate.) That is, your theory inside the wires has to also mesh well (heh) with what happens outside the wires, such as the buildup of static electricity.
3) It doesn't explain how electrons conduct electricity through the vacuum, where there are no atomic orbitals.
4) It doesn't explain how rarefied plasmas conduct electricity, where for the majority of the time atomic orbitals are not in contact.
5) It doesn't explain other types of current, such as charged fundamental particles in cyclotrons.
6) You haven't explained how batteries produce the rotations.
7) You haven't explained how dynamos produce the rotations.
8) You haven't explained how resistors, capacitors, and inductors work in this model.
9) You haven't explained how the rotations produce heat, light, or any other useful work done by with electric machines or with electronic devices.
10) You said that ionised hydrogen atoms are required for this to work! But they are just isolated protons. They have no electrons or electron shells!
11) This is actually a flaw of other models too, but I'll throw it on the pile: The infinite extent of the QM electron field is just a simplification of the QM mathematical model. Clearly, this is physical nonsense. A hydrogen atom can never have an electron orbiting it meters away, or light years away. That's just gibberish.
12) And the final nail in the coffin: You'll find that in general an extended 2D or 3D grid of gears will often get "locked up" and cannot transmit rotations. This is practically a meme at this point: https://www.reddit.com/r/CrappyDesign/comments/2hwwy0/those_...
For comparison, the liquid flow model is actually relatively accurate in terms of representing what's really going on (electron fluid flowing freely), and is also intuitive.
1) Resistors are like an constriction of the pipe. Flow is allowed but impeded.
2) Capacitors are like a wide section of the pipe, but blocked by a rubber sheet. Bulk flow through a capacitor is not possible, but vibrations can be transmitted.
3) Inductors are like a heavy propeller in the flow. The propeller resists flow while it's being "spun up", but then it no longer resists the flow when its speed matches the flow. If the flow in the pipe is reduced the momentum of the propeller provides pressure to keep the liquid flowing longer than it would have otherwise.
4) Transistors are like a soft rubber section of an otherwise inflexible pipe surrounded by a container with an input. Pressure in the container squeezes the flexible section and prevents flow through the pipe.
Etc...