Why proton test charges and not electrons?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the choice of using positive test charges, specifically protons, in the context of electric fields, as opposed to negative test charges like electrons. Participants explore historical reasons, implications for understanding electric currents, and the nature of charge flow in various contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why electric fields are based on positive test charges, suggesting that it seems inconsistent with the fact that electrical currents are based on electrons.
  • Another participant attributes the use of positive charges to historical definitions, mentioning confusion in terminology regarding current direction.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that the initial belief in positive charge flow has led to a series of derived concepts that may not accurately reflect the nature of electricity.
  • Another participant points out that positive charges can also flow and create currents in various contexts, such as in solutions and semiconductors, arguing that this challenges the notion that electrons are uniquely significant in electrical currents.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the historical and conceptual basis for using positive test charges. There is no consensus on whether this choice is justified or whether it leads to confusion in understanding electrical phenomena.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the historical context of charge definitions and the implications for understanding current flow, but there are unresolved questions regarding the accuracy and clarity of these definitions.

AKBrown
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
When picturing electric fields, they are always based on a positive test charge. As you move on to potential difference and electrical currents, it is based more on electrons/negative charge. So, why aren't electric fields and fields lines based on a negative test charge instead of a positive test charge?

Thank you for your help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is just historical. For some reason one has defined what's now known to be carried by protons as the positive charge. There is a lot of confusion in the literature, talking about "technical direction of current" vs. "real direction of current" and similar gibberish.

It's way easier to just use the vector-field concept to understand these issues. The best is to use even relativistic four-dimensional notation right away. E.g., the electric four-current of a fluid with number density n_0 of charge carriers is given by

j^{\mu}=q n_0 u^{\mu}=q n_0 \gamma \begin{pmatrix}c \\ \vec{v} \end{pmatrix}, \quad \gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\vec{v}^2/c^2}}.

Here, q is the charge of one particle (+e >0 for protons, -e<0 for electrons), c the speed of light, n_0 the density of the fluid as measured in the local rest frame of the fluid cell, and \vec{v} the flow-velocity field.

The sign of the total current through a cross section then is uniquely defined by the spatial components of this current-density vector and the orientation of the cross-sectional area:

I=\int_{A} \mathrm{d}^2 \vec{A} \cdot \vec{j}.
 
They originally thought that electricity in wires was a flow of positive charges. I guess everything else derives from that erroneous conclusion.
 
Positive charges can also flow and create currents, for instance in solutions, in your body, in the ionosphere. Even in semiconductors, positive charges (holes) can flow and create currents. Just because electrons are the ones moving in metals and humans like to make useful electronic devices out of metals does not make the electrons special when in comes to electrical currents.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
974
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K