Re:Why does current flow the opposite way from the electrons?
by throwway120385 on Friday June 21, 2024 @07:22PM
(#40754874)
This is pretty much spot on. It sucks after 250 years of hindsight, but I would encourage anyone who wants to think like Franklin to buy an amber rod, a glass rod, a piece of real fur, and a piece of silk, and try experimenting with them and see if you can intuit from physical experiment what the fire is made of and how it passes from one material to another. You can't without the benefit of future knowledge.
This is what it feels like to stand on the shoulders of giants.
Re:Why does current flow the opposite way from the electrons?
by hammock on Friday June 21, 2024 @08:57PM
(#40755322)
What is an amber rod?
Re:Why does current flow the opposite way from the electrons?
by mindcrime on Saturday June 22, 2024 @07:09AM
(#40758092)
Just what it sounds like: a rod made of amber[1].
Re:Why does current flow the opposite way from the electrons?
by mensetmanusman on Friday June 21, 2024 @10:38PM
(#40755767)
Not really, we talk about bubbles moving up, not water moving down.
Current is bubbles.
Re:Why does current flow the opposite way from the electrons?
by remram on Saturday June 22, 2024 @09:20AM
(#40758959)
We do talk about water moving down though. There is no reason current should be bubbles.
A rationalization after the fact is different from a reason.
Re:Why does current flow the opposite way from the electrons?
by mensetmanusman on Saturday June 22, 2024 @12:03PM
(#40760003)
In semi-conductor design discussions around transistors and motion of electrons, it’s often much more convenient to talk about hole (bubble) migration than electron migration.
It’s really a moot point as to whether the abstraction used to solve problems matches with the physicalist interpretation of reality.
So while I agree with the GP's comment that Franklin didn't know anything about electrons, so he arbitrarily picked one as negative and the other as positive, now that we do know about the movement of electrons, it kinda sucks because I think Franklin just "picked wrong".
I.e. it would make much more sense to me if the absence of electrons (i.e. holes) were negative by convention and an abundance of electrons were denoted as positive.