Untitled attachment

Notices where this attachment appears

1. Embed this notice
   John Carlos Baez (johncarlosbaez@mathstodon.xyz)'s status on Saturday, 22-Jun-2024 08:48:09 JST John Carlos Baez

   Why do we call electrons 'negative' and protons 'positive'? It's an arbitrary convention but it's annoying: it means that when electrons flow through wires, the current is defined to flow in the OTHER DIRECTION.

   If you ask people why electrons got called 'negative', you get a bunch of crap answers:

   "Electrons are referred to as negative because of their behavior in an electric field. In an electric field, an electron will move from the negative pole to the positive pole, giving it a negative charge by convention."

   Yes, but why THAT convention?

   "If we re-designate all positive electric charges as negative and vice versa, while keeping their absolute value, the resulting physics would be the same. So exact choice is merely a matter of convention."

   Yeah, it's a convention - but why THAT convention?

   "In quantum theory of elementary particles (in a sense of irreducible representation of Poincare group with mass m and spin (helicity) s) if some operator Q of internal symmetry commutes (like electric charge charge) with Hamiltonian H...."

   Irrelevant crap which never leads up to an answer.

   The answer is that Benjamin Franklin chose this convention and nobody knows why.

   In Franklin's day there was a 'two-fluid' theory of electricity saying electricity comes in two kinds. Around 1750 he developed a 'one-fluid' theory after showing that a rubbed glass receives an equal but opposite charge as the cloth used to rub the glass. He decided that electrical fluid was going into the glass. So he said the charge of the glass was 'positive' and the cloth was 'negative'.

   Unfortunately it turns out that that electrons are going into the cloth.

   The whole history is interesting:

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge#History

2. Embed this notice
   🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 05-Mar-2024 12:46:57 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

   in reply to

   @lonelyowl13

   So the two party system hoax, is bore out but an illusion that does lend to this thinking, and it can be understood why.

   In FPTP voting systems there is a strong tendency for each election for there to be at most 2 parties that collect most of the votes. What a FPTP system does not do is cause the same 2 parties to consistently win during each election.

   But its an illusion because it is not reflection actually support from the people. They will vote for someone other than who they want as a compromise. Sot eh actual "real" support is usually wildly different than the public manifestation of support in the form of votes.

   In other words if parties have A: 35% B: 33% C:32% in terms of peoples preferred candidate, what you will see is the actual vote will turn out to be A:51% B: 49% C: 2%

   However the very next year if C gains 1% support and B looses 1% support then the very next year you will see a sudden shift in votes at A: 51% B: 2% C: 49%

   So while there isnt **really** a two party system this illusion tends to make people thing it is. Then once they think it is it becomes self reinforcing people people are idiots.

   @MySideIsHumanity @Mary625