Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Narges instead of charges?



At 7:15 PM -0400 10/5/01, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:
Suppose a decision is made to satisfy those who want to
eliminate the century old discrepancy between the two
directions. How can this be accomplished without creating
new conflicts? By introducing a new physical quantity to
be called NARGE. (Call it "new charge" if you wish.) By
definition NARGE is the same thing as charge, except
the sign is opposite. Thus the NARGE of an electron is
+1.6*10^-19 C while the NARGE of a proton is ?1.6*10^-19 C.

An electric current is a flow of NARGE; its direction
coincides with the direction in which electrons are flowing.
The narge of an electron is positive, we can say that an
electron is an ideal probe charge for any macroscopically
charged setup. Why is this approach more desirable that
redefining positive and negative? Because it would not
turn the old textbooks obsolete. The concept of narge,
used in all new textbooks, would coexist with the old
concept of charge, for a decade or two. Then, with the
help of the "establishment" it could become dominant,
like SI became dominant.

Wouldn't you run into all the old problems when the current is due to
movement of positive (charge) holes rather than electrons?

Larry