International Change Electric Charge Day

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the hypothetical proposition of the international scientific community changing the conventions of electric charge, specifically switching negatively charged particles to positive and vice versa. The scope includes conceptual considerations and the implications of such a change on scientific documentation and communication.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes the idea of changing the charge conventions and questions if there are circumstances under which this should have been done.
  • Another participant expresses skepticism about the practicality of such a change, citing the extensive rewriting of documents and software that would be required.
  • A different participant humorously attributes the confusion over charge conventions to historical decisions made by Benjamin Franklin.
  • Some participants clarify that the original question is speculative and not a statement of fact, emphasizing the "what if" nature of the proposition.
  • One participant suggests that the discussion may not be productive, leading to a closure of the thread.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement on the feasibility and utility of the proposed change in charge conventions. There is no consensus on the merits of the idea, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the potential confusion and complications that could arise from changing established scientific conventions, but does not delve into specific technical implications or historical context beyond the mention of Benjamin Franklin.

fedaykin
Messages
136
Reaction score
3
Hello.

What would you think of the international scientific community calling to change all negatively charged particles to positive and vice versa? Do you think there's a circumstance where we should switch or should have switched?

The only reason I brought this up is that it came up when describing an electron microscope to one of our IT personnel, and I got confused as to the disk held connected to ground (the anode). I suspect it would be too difficult to do this as millions of documents would need to be rewritten, software rewritten, etc. In other words, it would still cause more confusion than good even if there were widespread awareness of the change of convention.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
fedaykin said:
Hello.

What would you think of the international scientific community calling to change all negatively charged particles to positive and vice versa?

What "international scientific community" is calling to do this dumb thing?

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Evo
fedaykin said:
I suspect it would be too difficult to do this as millions of documents would need to be rewritten, software rewritten, etc.

Bingo. It's a lot easier just to tell people, "It's Ben Franklin's fault" when they get confused.
 
fedaykin said:
Hello.

What would you think of the international scientific community calling to change all negatively charged particles to positive and vice versa? Do you think there's a circumstance where we should switch or should have switched?

The only reason I brought this up is that it came up when describing an electron microscope to one of our IT personnel, and I got confused as to the disk held connected to ground (the anode). I suspect it would be too difficult to do this as millions of documents would need to be rewritten, software rewritten, etc. In other words, it would still cause more confusion than good even if there were widespread awareness of the change of convention.
Please post the source for this.
 
Evo said:
Please post the source for this.
He's asking what would people think, not what do people think. It's a "what if" proposition, not a statement of fact.
 
zoobyshoe said:
He's asking what would people think, not what do people think. It's a "what if" proposition, not a statement of fact.
Ah, ok, thread closed, we don't do idle speculation. See post #2.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
716
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K