Negative and Positive Charges: A Deeper Look

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the arbitrary assignment of negative and positive charges to electrons and protons, questioning whether this convention was a mistake. Participants argue that while the names are arbitrary, the mathematical implications are significant, as they affect fundamental physics theories. The consensus is that eliminating the concept of plus and minus is impractical due to the essential role these concepts play in physics, particularly in calculations involving forces and interactions. The historical context of charge designation is also highlighted, noting that the terms were established before the true nature of electric charge was understood.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic electrical charge concepts
  • Familiarity with fundamental physics principles
  • Knowledge of historical context regarding the discovery of the electron
  • Basic mathematical skills for interpreting physical equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the historical development of electrical charge terminology
  • Explore the implications of charge conventions on electrical engineering
  • Study the role of charge in atomic structure and interactions
  • Investigate the mathematical frameworks used in physics to describe forces
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators in science, electrical engineers, and anyone interested in the foundational concepts of electricity and charge interactions.

Swapnil
Messages
459
Reaction score
6
Can we, in principle, consider electrons as positive charges and protons as negative charges? How would our laws change if that was the case?

Do you guys think that the convention of choosing electrons as negative charges and protons as positive changes was a mistake?

Do we really need the concept of plus and minus? Can't we just get along fine with "bill" and "bob"? For example, two bills will repel each other and a bill and a bob would attract each other?

Also, is it possible to eliminate the concept of plus/minus from physics? Just like we eliminated negative temperatures (in the celsius scale) by creating a new scale (the Kelvin scale) that only had positive temperatures.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Well we cant, at least not now say that electrons are positive, because it is decided to call its charge negative. Could we have called an electron positive? Of course! "Positive" and "negative" are simply names to describe two phenomena.
The rule is that for atoms to exist, the nucleus and the "shells" must have opposite signs, that's all. We could say that nucleus could me made of anti-protons (instead of protons) and the shells could have positrons instead of electrons - its the same principle.
 
Well, it isn't quite as simple. A little before the time of J. J. Thompson, the discoverer of the electron, electrons was a phenomena known as cathode rays. The cathode is the negative electrode from which the electrons originate, suggesting that the +/- was in use even before the official discovery of electrons. It was even in use at the time of Benjamin Franklin, although unfortunately he chose to call "positive" the charge opposite that carried by the usual charge carriers.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/NegativeCharge.html
 
We could theoretically call them positive or negative. We could call them yin and yang if we want, alpha and omega, we could even call them simon and garfunkel.
 
Swapnil said:
Can we, in principle, consider electrons as positive charges and protons as negative charges? How would our laws change if that was the case?
Sure, the laws would be slightly simpler, since electrons would flow in the direction of conventional current.
Swapnil said:
Do you guys think that the convention of choosing electrons as negative charges and protons as positive changes was a mistake?
It was a fair mistake. They had a 50% chance of guessing correctly, and their choice was established long before any experiment existed to determine which part really actually formed the current.
Swapnil said:
Do we really need the concept of plus and minus? Can't we just get along fine with "bill" and "bob"? For example, two bills will repel each other and a bill and a bob would attract each other?
Sure, the names are arbitrary, but the mathematics is not (note two bills and a bob is the same as one bill).
Swapnil said:
Also, is it possible to eliminate the concept of plus/minus from physics? Just like we eliminated negative temperatures (in the celsius scale) by creating a new scale (the Kelvin scale) that only had positive temperatures.
No, because there isn't a bound on charge (in either direction), and because there is a great physical significance to neutrality (like absolute zero, unlike zero Celsius). Moreover, the concepts of addition and subtraction are fundamental to physics, and just clumsy without the concept of negative numbers.
 
cesiumfrog said:
Sure, the names are arbitrary, but the mathematics is not (note two bills and a bob is the same as one bill).

What exactly do you mean?
 
The signs were given just for identification of the charges. But the names had to be such that we could also do some math on the subject. That is why, + & -. Now, since it is one of the fundamental theories of physics, we cannot swap + & -, as then we will require a change(though slight)in all the other theories(more particularly, the formulas).

Note: If I have gone wrong somewhere, please correct me.
 
When you start applying it to force and other equations, i you get a negative answer then you know its an attractive force, if its a positive answer its a repulsive force. Yes, calling electrons negative and protons positive is arbitrary, but they need to be positive and negative, not one unit or the other.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K