38
What have you learned recently? Which rabbit hole have you been digging into?
(discuss.tchncs.de)
this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2024
38 points (97.5% liked)
Casual Conversation
1762 readers
59 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling
- Keep the conversation nice and light hearted
- Encourage conversation in your post
- Avoid controversial topics such as politics or societal debates
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc.
- Respect privacy: Don’t ask for or share any personal information
Casual conversation communities:
Related discussion-focused communities
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes he did. Its the holes. The holes move.
But beyond circuits I, the OC is right. It quickly gets into field theory, where electricity in wires is just a special case.
its 100% in any meaningful sense of the word move the electrons that move, but thanks to ol' benny franks we have an ass-backwards roundabout way of describing the relative motion of stationary proton "holes" compared to electrons which are- well, more teleporting than moving, frequently (if you'll pardon the pun). holes move in the same way that water pressure is analogous to voltage: there may be mathematical and maybe even some physical comparisons to be made, but the conceptual framework is fundamentally an analogy, and in the case of "hole flow" a fudged up cya excuse for not updating the damn convention when the mistake was discovered. hurrumph.
holes flowing... protons with free motion? in a solid wire or semiconductor? you mean a plasma.
is there a physical constraint one could apply to matter to cause "holes" to flow while electrons stay put?