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]

HOLES AS CARRIERS (was Narges instead of charges?)



Yes, E would be defined as the force per unit narge,
V would be defined as work per unit narge, etc. No
new physics, only one new word, narge.

But I think that Chuck's issue of "holes as carriers"
is much more interesting. That is real physics of
conductivity (electrical and thermal). I hope there
will be more messages on this.
Ludwik Kowalski

Bob Sciamanda wrote:

Ludwik:
It seems to me that you would also have to change the definitions of
Electric field and potential difference to reflect the behavior of
negative, rather than positive, test charges.

Bob Sciamanda
Physics, Edinboro Univ of PA (em)
trebor@velocity.net
http://www.velocity.net/~trebor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ludwik Kowalski" <kowalskiL@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 7:15 PM
Subject: Narges instead of charges?

The original convention about electric charges (DuFay?) was
arbitrary. Rub glass with silk to produce two unlike charges.
By definition (arbitrary) the charge on glass is positive. An
unknown charge is negative if it is attracted by the glass
rubbed with silk and it is positive otherwise. This rule was
responsible for "negativity" of electrons and "positivity"
of protons (established two centuries after DuFay).

Suppose the original convention was different. In that case
the conventional direction of electric current would coincide
with the direction along which electrons drift in wires under
the influence of DOP. Pedagogically this would be more
convenient than the situation in which the two directions
do not coincide.

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.
Ludwik Kowalski