[McQueen (OP)]

I have seen a post on this subject in the Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology Forum but thought I should post my question here since it does involve some rather controversial ideas.  Paul Drude’s  theory of the propagation of electricity in a wire formulated in 1900 was so intuitively compelling that it was being taught as part of the school curriculum for physics well into the 50’s and 60’s.  It is known as the ping pong ball theory and follows the logic that electrons in an electrical conductor resemble a tube filed with ping pong balls when a ball is pushed into the tube at one end another ping pong ball pops out of the other end.   

In actual fact free electrons within an electrical conductor are separated by immense distances and the chances of hitting one electron with another would be the equivalent of trying to hit one billiard with another ball that is 250,000 km distant.  This along with the fact that electrons in a wire in which a current has been established travel at the extremely slow speed of 10^-3 cm/s contribute to demonstrate that the Drude theory on the propagation of electricity is not tenable.

              However, a closer examination of the present day theory of the propagation of an electric current in a wire , shows that the extant theory is also not an accurate description of how an electric current propagate in a wire. Here is the present day theory for the propagation of electricity in a circuit:

The mechanism of energy transport through a medium involves the absorption and re-emission of the wave energy by the atoms of the material. When an electromagnetic wave impinges upon the atoms of a material, the energy of that wave is absorbed. The absorption of energy causes the electrons within the atoms to undergo vibrations. After a short period of vibrational motion, the vibrating electrons create a new electromagnetic wave with the same frequency as the first electromagnetic wave. While these vibrations occur for only a very short time, they delay the motion of the wave through the medium. Once the energy of the electromagnetic wave is re-emitted by an atom, it travels through a small region of space between atoms. Once it reaches the next atom, the electromagnetic wave is absorbed, transformed into electron vibrations and then re-emitted as an electromagnetic wave. While the electromagnetic wave will travel at a speed of c (3×10⁸m/s ) through the vacuum of inter-atomic space, the absorption and re-emission process causes the net speed of the electromagnetic wave to be less than c.

Although it is tempting to believe in such a scenario it does not fit in with facts as they are known. Max Planck had convincingly demonstrated the particle nature of light wherein each particle has a distinctive energy. The energy of a wave is by its very nature dispersive, it is not possible to talk of individual energy levels. Further in every instance (outside an electrical conductor), the photon has been observed to be the mediator of energy for the electron. The electron mediates its energy levels through the absorption and emission of photons. For instance Max Planck in his experiments on Black Body radiation (Heat & light) found that all of the heat and light was mediated by photons.

The present theory of an electric current states that a current flows when individual electrons get excited and start to vibrate and oscillate, as the electrons in the conductor begin to oscillate they generate an electromagnetic wave that is passed on to the next electron in line and this, in simple terms, is how the propagation of an electrical current is described in terms of present day mainstream physics. Together with this effect the electrons also move in a return to the ping pong theory, the idea being that there are so many free electrons in a copper conductor 8.05 x 10²² that the density ensures that the EMF wave is carried to the end of the wire at almost the speed of light. Proof of this is that the mean free path is equal to the drift velocity of the electron. This means that the sheer density of electrons available in the wire ensure the conveying of an electric current by a generated  Electromagnetic Radiation, that travels from electron to electron. Therefore, according to this theory electrons are the charge carriers of an electric current, since they are physically present to convey the current. 
But there are questions, what is the exact frequency and wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation that electrons in the conductor generate. Surely the frequency wavelength and energy of the generated electromagnetic wave, that supposedly carries the electric current would vary widely with each circumstance that the electron encounters in the confines of the conductor. For instance, changes in temperature, obstructions or occlusions in the metal of the conductor or even the distance to other electros might all qualitatively change the kind of electromagnetic wave being generated.  Further, what is to stop the electromagnetic wave that is generated by the electron from merely travelling to the next electron, which in terms of a wave is an infinitesimal distance away, why can’t it travel several feet or yards, giving part of its energy to electrons along the way.  Finally since it is a wave how does this electromagnetic wave deliver the correct energy component since as it can be seen it can vary widely according to circumstance. In short this theory of electricity being conveyed by an electromagnetic wave generated by electrons and being carried from electron to electron is full of inconsistencies. It is an inaccurate model it completely ignores the findings of Max Planck who after all had to account for all kinds of frequencies and wavelength in his theory and subsequent discovery of the Planck constant. In sum the present mainstream or quantum mechanics explanation for the propagation of an electric current in a wire falls far short of acceptable standards in physics.
 
The Gestalt Aether Theory of the propagation of an Electric Current

Before an attempt is made to explain the actual mechanism by which an electric current is transmitted, it is necessary to examine the reference to personal theory removed model for the structure of the photon.  The structure of a photon in reference to personal theory removed is based upon looking at facts rather than statistics as is the case with quantum mechanics. This is much the same as the method used by Watson & Crick to find the structure of DNA, examine the properties of the subject and determine which model best fits all criteria.
 Seeing that the electron is a charged particle that has to constantly mediate its energy, a deduction was made that the electron emitted pulses of electric energy. These pulses of energy became polarised, since the initial pulses of energy are stronger than subsequent ones.

[attachment=1hotonemission1.jpg,msg641477][/attachment]

The result of the polarisation was that a solenoid field is formed. The definition of a solenoid field is that there no open loops exist all loops are closed loops. This structure is in fact an electromagnetic dipole.  The gap between the pulses of electric charge emitted by the electron serve as a capacitor type formation enabling the photon, because this is what this structure is, to maintain its energy forever. This structure now in every way possess a completely stable configuration and is as stable as a particle.

[attachment=1hotonemission (1).jpg,msg641477][/attachment]

 All the properties of a photon are now met:-
1)   The photon has no mass.
2)   The photon always travels at the speed of light in a vacuum
3)   The photon is electrically neutral.
4)   The photon comes in trillions of wavelengths and frequencies.
5)   The photon maintains its identity (energy) forever.
6)   The photon is both a wave and a particle

As can be seen all the properties of a photon are fulfilled. However, one very big problem remains. No it is not the propagation of light (Read my book :”advertising removed, for a full account) it is a question of size. Radio waves, some with wavelengths of 1,000,000m possess identical properties with those of the photons described above. How can this be. In short, it can’t. (For a more complete explanation of radio-waves and how they are formed read my book) There must therefore be some maximum size limit of a photon that an electron can emit. This size limit is the greatest size of photon that an electron can emit and it is called the ‘conduction’ photon since it is used in the conduction of electricity. Conduction photons are emitted only by free electrons. They are the largest photon that an electron can emit they are also the lowest energy photon that an electron can emit. They are the type of photons that are emitted when one picks up a pencil or moves a conductor through the air.
Traditionally, free electrons are banned from emitting or absorbing photons, because, without the massive nucleus to fall back against and absorb recoil, a free electron cannot emit or absorb photons. It is against the conservation of energy and momentum.  Quantum mechanics often prides itself on its out of the box thinking, yet an examination of its fundamental precepts demonstrates that far from being innovative much of quantum mechanics is definitely tradition bound and tied down by doctrine. Even after Max Planck had conclusively proved that energy is conveyed by photons and not electrons they would not consider photons as being the charge carriers in an electric current.

But think for a moment can a free electron absorb and emit a photon?

The most acceptable explanation is that free electrons are able to emit and absorb photons due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle as applied to time and energy:

One consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is that we can take seriously the possibility of the existence of energy non-conserving processes—provided the amount by which energy is not conserved, E_violation , exists for a time less than . Thus it is possible for a free electron to emit a photon provided that it immediately reabsorbs that photon in an extremely short time on the order of 10⁻¹⁵ s. Gestalt Aether Theory states that this is how electromagnetic fields are formed, a free electron within the conductor emits a photon, but in order to avoid violation of the laws of energy conservation, the photon has to be reabsorbed by the same electron within the stipulated time of 10⁻¹⁵ s. In the same way photons that are emitted need to be reabsorbed by an electron needing the correct energy level, the nearest source of such electrons are within the conductor, this process also explains the process of induction. Conditions in a wire at room temperature are chaotic, often the electron that originally emitted the photon has already absorbed another photon before the emitted photon can be reabsorbed! If this happens the original photon leaves the conductor and circles back to be absorbed by another electron. This is why the lines of force form around a conductor. When a photon is emitted by a free electron within a conductor it has to be immediately reabsorbed, often the shortest route for the photon to achieve re-absorption by an electron is to exit the conductor and circle back, when this happens the photons of the 'virtual photon' aether which are present throughout the Universe, line up in the direction of propagation of the real photon resulting in the distinctive lines of force seen around a conductor. This model perfectly explains the right hand rule of current in a wire. The emission and absorption of photons by electrons in a wire offers the perfect solution as to how and why an electric current is conveyed through a wire. It is true out of the box thinking.
Looked at on a time line it would be as follows: At t₁, free electron e₁ emits a photon. In which case, by momentum conservation, e₁ will experience recoil in the opposite direction of the emitted photon. (c) At some time t₂, less than ( and before the recoil can take place), electron e₁ re-absorbs the photon in such a way that the total energy of the electron e₁ is equal to what it was before the intermediate virtual state. In the second scenario at t₁ electron e₁ emits a photon. In which case, by momentum conservation, e₁ will experience recoil in the opposite direction of the emitted photon. At some time t₂, less than ( and before the recoil can take place), the photon exits and re-enters the conductor and is absorbed by electron e₂ which has also emitted a photon, while electron e₁ absorbs a photon emitted by another free electron within the same time period. These transactions take place in such a manner that the total energy of the electron e₁ and electron e₂ is equal to what it was before the intermediate virtual state. Still looking at the time line and applying it to real situations e.g., current in a wire it is found that the time stipulation of 10⁻¹⁵s is well within the limits of the possible.
Thus the theory is advanced herein that the existing explanation of how a current flows in a conductor is unsatisfactory and a suitable explanation for how current propagates in a wire including an explanation for the formation of lines of force is proposed.

[Bored chemist]

Although it is tempting to believe in such a scenario it does not fit in with facts as they are known.

Please show the counter-example.

Together with this effect the electrons also move in a return to the ping pong theory, t

No, it is not.

Proof of this is that the mean free path is equal to the drift velocity of the electron.

That can not be true.The units are wrong.

I stopped reading there.

So, as usual, you are saying things that are wrong.
That probably results from your not having learned what is right.

I think you also need to learn about this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_state

It's the type of excited state found in things like the passage of an EM field and is responsible for refraction.

[McQueen (OP)]

This is purportedly a forum for New Theories, I can understand that some pretty zany ideas are posted but to the best of my knowledge, everything I have posted in my thread is factual and confirmed by science.  Yet, moderators like Bored Chemist don’t seek to evaluate content they just want to push their own views to the forefront. Here is what I have to say to Bored Chemist.
“To Bored Chemist: I don’t know how to say this but to me at least it is by now obvious. You are an internet Troll. Here is the definition:
“an Internet troll — “a person whose sole purpose in life is to seek out people to argue with…. over extremely trivial issues.” “This is typically done by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog), with the intent of provoking readers into displaying anger or denigrating their posts.
As far as you are concerned it is taken even further, since your sole purpose seems to be to denigrate and belittle my posts, totally ruining the whole point of posting. For instance: Look at this  quote:

Bored Chemist said:” Please show the counter-example.”

Surely an insensitive post when considerable time and effort has been spent in putting forward the ”counter’  as clearly as possible.

Bored Chemist said: “That can not be true..The units are wrong.

I stopped reading there.

I could easily prove that the distance that an electron can travel, namely the drift velocity is equal to the mean free path, also a distance.

Bored Chemist said: “So, as usual, you are saying things that are wrong.
That probably results from your not having learned what is right.”

Every time I post a thread, Bored Chemist is immediately on the scene, policing the site, flaunting his opinion  and at the same time ruining the effect of my post. . Is this how a new theory thread is moderated. Bored Chemist. I am asking you?  I can understand such an intervention if I had posted my theory in one of the other forums, say 'General Science' or 'Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology' . But that isn't the case. Your sole intention seems to be to prevent any meaningful discussion from taking place. This is wrong. You could for instance wait for someone else to post for a change and then have your say. Just a suggestion.

[jeffreyH]

This is purportedly a forum for New Theories, I can understand that some pretty zany ideas are posted but to the best of my knowledge, everything I have posted in my thread is factual and confirmed by science.  Yet, moderators like Bored Chemist don’t seek to evaluate content they just want to push their own views to the forefront. Here is what I have to say to Bored Chemist.
“To Bored Chemist: I don’t know how to say this but to me at least it is by now obvious. You are an internet Troll. Here is the definition:
“an Internet troll — “a person whose sole purpose in life is to seek out people to argue with…. over extremely trivial issues.” “This is typically done by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog), with the intent of provoking readers into displaying anger or denigrating their posts.
As far as you are concerned it is taken even further, since your sole purpose seems to be to denigrate and belittle my posts, totally ruining the whole point of posting. For instance: Look at this  quote:

Bored Chemist said:” Please show the counter-example.”

Surely an insensitive post when considerable time and effort has been spent in putting forward the ”counter’  as clearly as possible.

Bored Chemist said: “That can not be true..The units are wrong.

I stopped reading there.

I could easily prove that the distance that an electron can travel, namely the drift velocity is equal to the mean free path, also a distance.

Bored Chemist said: “So, as usual, you are saying things that are wrong.
That probably results from your not having learned what is right.”

Every time I post a thread, Bored Chemist is immediately on the scene, policing the site, flaunting his opinion  and at the same time ruining the effect of my post. . Is this how a new theory thread is moderated. Bored Chemist. I am asking you?  I can understand such an intervention if I had posted my theory in one of the other forums, say 'General Science' or 'Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology' . But that isn't the case. Your sole intention seems to be to prevent any meaningful discussion from taking place. This is wrong. You could for instance wait for someone else to post for a change and then have your say. Just a suggestion.

Firstly, Bored Chemist is not a moderator AFAIK. Secondly, Bored Chemist is a scientist who has every right to contradict falsehoods and misinformation. If your feelings are hurt go and visit a therapist. This is a science forum where ideas will be challenged.

[Bored chemist]

Every time I post a thread, Bored Chemist is immediately on the scene,

It is easy to avoid having your mistakes pointed out.

But don't take it personally.
I pick holes in plenty of other people's nonsense too.

[Bored chemist]

I could easily prove that the distance that an electron can travel, namely the drift velocity is equal to the mean free path,

Go ahead.
I will prove that you are wrong.

[Bored chemist]

“an Internet troll — “a person whose sole purpose in life is to seek out people to argue with…. over extremely trivial issues.” “This is typically done by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community

It doesn't mention correcting errors, which is what i was doing.

[jeffreyH]

I think you also need to learn about this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_state

I doubt McQueen will bother, but thanks for posting this. I hadn't come across this before

[McQueen (OP)]

Go ahead.
I will prove that you are wrong.

The average distance the electron travels between collisions is called the mean free path l. It is the product of the average speed 〈v〉 and the average time between collisions

[McQueen (OP)]

Firstly, Bored Chemist is not a moderator AFAIK. Secondly, Bored Chemist is a scientist who has every right to contradict falsehoods and misinformation. If your feelings are hurt go and visit a therapist. This is a science forum where ideas will be challenged.

I could not agree more.  This is a science forum and everyone has a right to question everyone else (just [hopefully] not the same person all the time). The point is, I hope I have raised some valid questions regarding an electric current. My question as to why electromagnetic radiation is not suitable as the mode of electricity transport in a wire is valid. EM waves DO disperse, hence energy is not fixed. I have put forward a valid alternative in the form of photons emitted by free electrons. I have explained how such an interaction can take place.  Consider the advantages of such a theory. The energy involved in an electric current that is mediated by photons is extremely precise and never varies from conduction photon to conduction photon. The amount of energy per conduction photon does not vary.  Look at how energy is conveyed by the sun.  I  have calculated  the energies and wave-lengths of the ‘conduction’ photons mentioned in my theory, and have written an example of how current is conducted using such photons.  If the argument is still made that electrons are the charge carriers.  Think of an AC current instead of a DC current. In an AC current the electrons appear to be frozen in place, there is no drift velocity, the electrons are stationary in one place and therefore the idea that they are the charge carriers can be legitimately questioned.

[Bored chemist]

Go ahead.
I will prove that you are wrong.

The average distance the electron travels between collisions is called the mean free path l. It is the product of the average speed 〈v〉 and the average time between collisions

Yes.
We know that.
But you were trying to tell us something else.
You said

Proof of this is that the mean free path is equal to the drift velocity of the electron.

And the mean free path is not equal to the velocity because one is a distance, and the other is a speed.

So you are still wrong.

And, since you were relying on that false idea as "proof" of something, you can't say for sure that the thing is true, can you

So, stop going on about me, and fix your mistake.

[charles1948]

Bored Chemist must be a moderator in disguise.  This is evident from the frequency of his appearances on here.  He's all over the place, popping up far more often than any other ordinary posters.

Could he be a "Mr Hyde" created by the very kind and gentle "Dr Jekyll" moderators, in order to surreptitiously vent their spleen?

[Kryptid]

Bored Chemist must be a moderator in disguise.  This is evident from the frequency of his appearances on here.  He's all over the place, popping up far more often than any other ordinary posters.

That's not evidence that he's a moderator. Some people just happen to be more dedicated than others.

[McQueen (OP)]

And the mean free path is not equal to the velocity because one is a distance, and the other is a speed.

So you are still wrong.

And, since you were relying on that false idea as "proof" of something, you can't say for sure that the thing is true, can you

So, stop going on about me, and fix your mistake.

Fine let’s get done with recriminations. The only request I have is for you to reserve any observations for a while; you can come in later and make all the corrections you want. My intention was  to underline the close relationship between the mean free path and the drift velocity.  I think it is common sense and fairly easy to see; that how fast an object is able to travel depends on there being no obstructions in its path.  One can be obtained  from the other:

Drift velocity = 4.3 x 10^-4 m/s ;  Mean free Path = 3.9 x 10^-8m ;  Average time between collisions =

3.9 x 10 ^-8 /4.3 x 10^-4 = =   9.06 x 10^-5 s   and  3.9 x 10^-8 / 9.06 x 10^-5   = 4.3 x 10^-4m/s   and so on.

[McQueen (OP)]

                 The model for the propagation of an electric current proposed by Gestalt Aether Theory within a wire fits observed phenomena very accurately and precisely, there is no room for error. The theory establishes on a very sound basis that the electromagnetic force both inside and outside the wire is transmitted by photons.

                  Digressing for a moment, both standard theory and quantum mechanics postulate that from the time at which the electromagnetic wave (radiation) originates to the time of detection, that the electromagnetic radiation exists as an abstract mathematical wave function in multiple dimensions.  How can this statement be interpreted? What is an abstract mathematical wave function? Surely, something that is abstract is not real? Again what are multiple dimensions? In the Universe we live in there exist only three dimension, length, breadth and height to this can be added time. But it is almost impossible to think of more dimensions, physicists have been trying for ages without really succeeding. Therefore, these multiple dimensions that light is travelling in within the abstract mathematical wave-function are also not real, they are imaginary.  Think about it a simple tangible physical manifestation is made into such a hugely complicated and convoluted process. Is such a theory justified or even epistemologically correct from the point of view of the study of physics? Most definitely it is not.

                Leaving this observation aside for the moment and returning to the proof of GAT. It is as follows. Consider a wire through which an AC current is flowing, close to the conductor the quality of the EM radiation is different from that further out. Thus it is possible to hold a coil close to a wire carrying an alternating electrical current and draw off a considerable current through means of induction taking place in the coil. Yet further out, at a distance of 50 cms from the conductor there is a qualitative difference and it will be impossible to detect even a small induced current in the coil. According to the wave function of quantum mechanics this difference should not occur, or at the very least if it does occur it should follow the inverse square law for intensity. The fact that it doesn't do so shows that the present quantum mechanics theory for an electric current is faulty and in need of change.

             Gestalt Aether Theory states that electricity is carried neither by electrons nor by an electromagnetic wave but by 'conduction photons' that are emitted by free electrons within the conductor. These ‘conduction’ photons (the designation is introduced here for the first time) are the longest wave-length photon that an electron can emit. It possesses a wave length of  1.2 x 10^-6 m and a frequency of 2.489 THz and an energy of 1.6 x 10 ¹⁹J. The free electrons are only allowed to emit 'conduction photons' if by the conditions of Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle   they reabsorb a photon of the same energy within a given time period. In the case of a current being established in a wire it signifies a time of about 10⁻¹⁵s, for the electron in question to reabsorb a photon of the same energy as was emitted. This means that the emitted 'conduction photons' often have to exit the conductor and re-enter it in order to be absorbed by an electron. The emitted 'conduction photons' also having a need to be absorbed by a receptive electron. The exit and re-entry of the 'conduction photons' in the conductor results in the lining up of the 'virtual photons' of the aether around the conductor which in turn are manifested as the lines of force around the wire. The fact that the lines of force around a conductor carrying an electric current are lines of aligned virtual photons forms an important part of Gestalt Aether Theory.  Present day mainstream physics, as in quantum mechanics and standard theory do not offer a compelling explanation for what the lines of force are, how they are formed, or what role they play in the conduction of an electric current, although it is tacitly understood that a large part of the energy in an electrical current is stored in the lines of force surrounding an electrical conductor, no explanation is made as to how or why this is so.

             Take as a practical example a copper conductor in which a current of  1 amp has been established. The concentration of free electrons in a cubic centimetre of copper is approx. 8.05 x 10²². When a current of 1 ampere is established in the wire, it results in innumerable lines of force being formed around the conductor. Each of these lines of force carries 1.6 x 10^-19 J of energy. Quantum mechanics has no explanation as to how many lines of force might form around the electrical conductor, merely stating that they are too numerous to enumerate. With the GAT theory it is possible to estimate the number of lines of force from the current flowing in the conductor.

             The photons emitted by free electrons under such conditions are ‘relatively’ low energy photons and have been named ‘conduction’ photons as opposed to visible or optical photons in the 390 nm to 700 nm range which are emitted and absorbed by bound electrons in the atom and have larger energies.

                  In the near field the ‘conduction’ photons are connected in series and each line of force holds the energy of one ‘conduction’ photon, so that in effect each line of force has an energy of  1.6 x 10^-19J.  This fits in  well with observed data and conforms with the flow of an electric current. Note that here the drift velocity of the electrons plays little part in this process. The ‘conduction’ photons each deliver 1.6 x 10^-19 J. Since 1 coulomb of charge represents 6.24 x 10¹⁸ charge carriers it is possible to see how an electric current is delivered by means of lines of force that are connected in series. In this case 6.24 x 10¹⁸ x 1.6 x 10^-19 = 0.9984 J or 1 ampere of current approx. Delivered at near to the speed of light.

[Bored chemist]

My intention was  to underline the close relationship between the mean free path and the drift velocity. 

Then why didn't you simply state the correct relationship?

In particular, why didn't you do so after I pointed out that you were wrong, rather that trying to complain about me?

I think it is common sense and fairly easy to see; that how fast an object is able to travel depends on there being no obstructions in its path. 

The whole point of the modern interpretation of refractive index is that how fast a photon can travel is independent of objects in its path, though it's a matter of definition.

One can be obtained  from the other:

OK, the drift velocity is 10^-1 m/s what's the mean free path.

You can't actually answer that, can you?

Telling people that speed = distance / time is  fine, (if pointless, since we know it).
Telling us that speed = distance suggests that you do not know what you are talking about.

The model for the propagation of an electric current proposed by Gestalt Aether Theory within a wire fits observed phenomena very accurately and precisely,

So, it's equivalent to Maxwell's equations etc.

The theory establishes on a very sound basis that the electromagnetic force both inside and outside the wire is transmitted by photons.

That's good.
Can you show how it explains this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect

Surely, something that is abstract is not real?

Love and Thursday are real.

But it is almost impossible to think of more dimensions,

As an analytical chemist I commonly did maths in 512 dimensions- or rather, I got the computer to do it for me.

the electromagnetic radiation exists as an abstract mathematical wave function in multiple dimensions.  How can this statement be interpreted?

The usual interpretation is that the product of the wave function with its complex conjugate gives you the probability distribution of the photon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation#Probabilities_via_the_Born_rule

Is such a theory justified

Yes, because it gives the right answer.

According to the wave function of quantum mechanics this difference should not occur,

Show your calculations.

The fact that it doesn't do so shows that the present quantum mechanics theory for an electric current is faulty and in need of change.

You need to demonstrate that the problem lies with the theory, rather than with your understanding of it.

Since
(1) you have already stated that you do not understand it,

How can this statement be interpreted?

and
(2) the people who do understand it do not see that there is a problem with it,

is it not much more likely that teh error lies with you than with the science?

Gestalt Aether Theory states that electricity is carried neither by electrons nor by an electromagnetic wave but by 'conduction photons'

If you start calling these "virtual photons" you will be getting quite close to how modern science interprets electricity without needing an "ether".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Which says
" Virtual photons are the exchange particle for the electromagnetic interaction."

With the GAT theory it is possible to estimate the number of lines of force from the current flowing in the conductor.

Does it also allow you to count the angels on the head of a pin?

[Bored chemist]

The only request I have is for you to reserve any observations for a while;

I request that you follow the rules of the site which encourage debate; not soapboxing.

[McQueen (OP)]

I request that you follow the rules of the site which encourage debate; not soapboxing.

             I requested you to stay away but you couldn’t do it!  There were 42 views when I posted and 226 till the time you posted, meaning that 184 people, all of them interested in science, read or skimmed through my post and were content to think about it.  They are all capable of making up their own minds and certainly do not need your guidance and misdirection.

            Your sole aim seems to be to stop people reading and thinking about what I have written.  In order to advance  a new theory it should be obvious to anyone, except perhaps someone very hard headed and very thick skinned, that the new theory has been put forward because the old theory was found to be unsatisfactory. I have written clearly and concisely, the reasons that I find existing theories unsatisfactory. Instead of accepting that, you try to justify those theories by quoting things that are already common knowledge, and claiming that I find them to be unsatisfactory because I don’t understand what those theories are.  The sole reason that you do these things seems to be to cloud and obscure the subject matter of my post.

Instead of making the claim that I don’t understand what those present theories are, how about giving me your version of how you think a current propagates in a wire. That would be a more productive use of my time and everyone else’s, than the mudslinging you involve in. 

[Bored chemist]

I have written clearly and concisely, the reasons that I find existing theories unsatisfactory.

You forgot to include evidence.
It's not too late; you could post it now.

Like I asked you to...

Show your calculations.

But,instead, you went off on a rant about your silly ideas about my motivation.

[Bored chemist]

Instead of making the claim that I don’t understand what those present theories are, how about giving me your version of how you think a current propagates in a wire.

That would be a bigger waste of time, principally because nobody cares what I think, but they do care about the consensus view of the evidence..

If you want to know what science currently says about it, you can google it or check out the Khan academy or something.

There's nothing to be gained from me copying it and pasting it here for you.