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] |
It seems that John is trying to say holes as charge carriers is just a
viewpoint. It is just a way of viewing something just like we can choose
any coordinate system we want.
But how do we explain the Hall Effect? If "moving holes" is just an
artifact or just another way of viewing electrons in motion, why isn't the
Hall Effect the same sign for all materials?
And what about semiconductor devices? The language we hear when people talk
about junctions includes "depleted of charge carriers" and similar wording.
People are referring to holes as something more than just a viewpoint,
aren't they? If so, is this wrong?
John says bubbles in shampoo is a good idea. I thought that was what I was
describing. When bubbles are rising in a shampoo bottle, the shampoo is
mostly everywhere. It is not localized. The bubbles are localized... not
diffuse... they are identifiable "objects"... and that is what we see
moving. An opposite example would be rain. The water vapor and air are
everywhere... not localized. The raindrops are localized entities,
identifiable objects that we see moving.