-3

In a DC circuit through a wire, is saying:

" Electrons are a flow of matter and electric charge. Protons are a flow of electric current and matter. "

the same as saying Electric Current/Electric Energy flows from the positive terminal through/by protons to the negative terminal while at the same time electrons with their electric charge flow from the negative terminal to the positive terminal.

If so, then an extension question the first is; why then is it said that in a DC circuit through a wire, it doesn't matter which way the current is said to flow as long as you are consistent with which ever one you pick in using it in the circuit,

if very clearly it is true that electric current and energy start from the positive terminal and flow to the negative.

EDIT:

" Electrons and protons are matter, not energy. A flow of electrons is NOT a flow of energy, it is a flow of matter and a flow of electric charge. Same goes for protons: moving protons are electric current, but they're also a matter-flow.

Max R.
  • 33
  • Where are you taking the quote from? Where "is it said that..."? Where are you getting your ideas from? – sammy gerbil Jun 11 '16 at 19:53
  • @sammygerbil 3. Electrons are a kind of energy particle? Wrong.

    Electrons and protons are matter, not energy. A flow of electrons is NOT a flow of energy, it is a flow of matter and a flow of electric charge. Same goes for protons: moving protons are electric current, but they're also a matter-flow. And most important: if you have a certain amount of charge in one place, you'll have no clue about the amount of energy present. Charge is not energy. And if charge is flowing along, you won't know anything about the energy's flow or direction.

    – Max R. Jun 11 '16 at 19:56
  • @sammygerbil Coulombs are not Joules, and knowing the amount charge does not tell you the amount of energy you have. A moving electron does not carry electrical energy along with it, any more than a moving air molecule carries a sound wave with it. – Max R. Jun 11 '16 at 19:56
  • Yes, I see that you have made exactly the same comments to Kari below. So you are trying to teach people? Then you don't have a question which can be answered. – sammy gerbil Jun 11 '16 at 20:03
  • @sammygerbil how so. when " is saying X statement the same as Y statement " ASKED, then I don't see why I have answerless question. – Max R. Jun 11 '16 at 20:10
  • I think that you are asking for a discussion about the Misconceptions in K6 Textbooks document. This is not the appropriate place for a discussion. I suggest that you visit the ChatRooms section of the website : http://chat.stackexchange.com/. – sammy gerbil Jun 11 '16 at 20:11
  • @sammygerbil No, you misunderstood. I am not asking for a discussion about misconceptions. I took a text from a article about misconceptions and ASKING what I asked above. – Max R. Jun 11 '16 at 20:16
  • I am sorry, I do not understand what question(s) you are asking. Please can you edit your question to make it clear what you do not understand about physics. – sammy gerbil Jun 11 '16 at 20:32
  • @sammygerbil Is the sentence in quotations the same as the sentence under it. And if so, then what is the answer to the extension question under all of them. – Max R. Jun 11 '16 at 20:43
  • @sammygerbil the question is self explanatory and will not be rewritten differently. The question is about the electrodynamic area of physics. – Max R. Jun 11 '16 at 20:54
  • @sammygerbil question has been edited. – Max R. Jun 11 '16 at 22:34
  • @MacR. "A flow of electrons is NOT a flow of energy" Well, strictly speaking, an object or particle in motion has kinetic energy - so a moving electron contains kinetic energy and so in this sense, energy does flow along with the electron flow. – Steeven Jun 11 '16 at 22:47
  • I have some agreement with you there, but it would be of some clarity if you look further where all this has originated from. And i know that this is in a different direction of the topic but it still holds water. http://amasci.com/miscon/eleca.html#frkel question question #3 – Max R. Jun 11 '16 at 22:53

3 Answers3

0

I think you need to rethink your first statement, "Electrons are a flow of matter and electric charge. Protons are a flow of electric current and matter," because it's simply wrong. Electrons are fundamental particles with various properties and protons are a combination of up and down quarks. They both have a charge and create a current when in motion but they are not "flows of matter" nor electric charge or current.

As for your second question, the reason it doesn't matter which way you say the current flows as long as you're consistent, is that a flow of positive charges in one direction is (as far as charge distribution is concerned) equivalent to a flow of negative charges in the opposite direction.

  • Electrons are a kind of energy particle? Wrong.
  • Electrons and protons are matter, not energy. A flow of electrons is NOT a flow of energy, it is a flow of matter and a flow of electric charge. Same goes for protons: moving protons are electric current, but they're also a matter-flow. And most important: if you have a certain amount of charge in one place, you'll have no clue about the amount of energy present. Charge is not energy. And if charge is flowing along, you won't know anything about the energy's flow or direction.

    – Max R. Jun 11 '16 at 19:54
  • Coulombs are not Joules, and knowing the amount charge does not tell you the amount of energy you have. A moving electron does not carry electrical energy along with it, any more than a moving air molecule carries a sound wave with it. – Max R. Jun 11 '16 at 19:54
  • That' was taken from this site http://amasci.com/miscon/eleca.html#frkel
  • – Max R. Jun 11 '16 at 19:55
  • 1
    None of what you are saying is even remotely relevant to the question or my answer. – fixgoats Jun 11 '16 at 19:55
  • @MacR. : Are you asking about something you do not understand? Or are you trying to teach people that their way of thinking is incorrect? – sammy gerbil Jun 11 '16 at 19:59
  • @MacR. You seem to be very confused about this subject in general, I suggest reading a coherent and comprehensive text about this subject such as Jackson or Zangwill, or the relevant chapters of a reliable freshman's physics book. – fixgoats Jun 11 '16 at 20:00
  • @V.KáriDaníelsson of course it is. If you are saying not it's not and this is saying yes it is, then it is relevant to your answer. And of course it's relevant to the question because it's in reference to whether or not electric current does or does not flow with protons from the positive terminal to the negative terminal. – Max R. Jun 11 '16 at 20:00
  • @sammygerbil I am trying to get to bottom of something. Whether it teaches someone (me included) something or not is irrelevant. – Max R. Jun 11 '16 at 20:02
  • @V.KáriDaníelsson so you are saying that the text I provided you was in incoherent and uncomprehensive. Alright then. I'm going to ask you to prove it. – Max R. Jun 11 '16 at 20:13
  • @MacR. Indeed, the resource you have been linking is not a comprehensive account of it's subject nor does it attempt to be. Incoherent isn't really the right way to describe it, but no, the website does not have a well structured narrative nor does it intend to. It is supplementary reading to address several misconceptions many people might develop when learning electrodynamics, and does this quite well. What you're asking for is not something that can be put down in a Q/A format, I think the best thing you can do is take your time with an actual textbook. – fixgoats Jun 11 '16 at 20:22
  • @V.KáriDaníelsson I have and do. But the site does bring about things that are factual in it's direction of the subject. Either way, what I am asking for is valid even if the text is in another direction about the subject because it has stated X, Y, Z points about the subject that if hold to be factual bring us back to my question. If the statement in quotations are true then is it the same as the statement under it. If the statement is not, alright then, but why not. – Max R. Jun 11 '16 at 20:52
  • I believe the point here is that the linked website adresses certain specific issues, but it doesn't give a very good overview. For a good overview and general understanding, this might not be the best source. – Steeven Jun 12 '16 at 06:24