[ List Subjects ][ Current Board ][ Post Message ]
[ View Followups ][ Post Followup ]

Date: 12/20/01 at 4:07 PM
Posted by: Pat McMahon
E-mail: film.vac@verizon.net

In Reply to: Re: Current flow in a vacuum vs. current flow in cryogenic material posted by Pat McMahon on 12/19/01 at 10:47 PM:

Thank you for the thoughtful and interesting reply. The reason for my question was that I do not understand why a current cannot be transmitted without loss through an evacuated tube. Since the temperature is irrelevant in a vacuum, ambient temperature should be of no concern. I don't see why a vacuum is not the best high temperature superconductor. I think it's easier to maintain a vacuum than to maintain cryogenic temperatures.

Considering electrons in a vacuum in two forms:

1. As a particle - In a vacuum I would expect an electron in motion, as any body with mass, to continue on its course forever unless acted upon by an external force. Very much like a celestial body.

2. As a wave - Again, like light, I would expect the radiation to continue until absorbed.

I hadn't heard of the energy level that you referred to and the spontaneous appearance of sub-atomic particles. Thank you. I will look into that, it sounds like it has interesting implications. I'm still not sold on the "big bang"

Follow Ups:

  Re: Current flow in a vacuum vs. current flow in cryogenic material Pat McMahon   Posted at: 12/20/01 (0)

Post a Follow-up:

Name:
E-Mail:
Subject:

Message to Post: