+- Southperry.net (https://www.southperry.net)
+-- Forum: Social (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: The Speakeasy (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=54)
+--- Thread: Electrons (/showthread.php?tid=16045)
Pages:
1
2
Electrons - Russt - 2009-09-06
Wouldn't it be so much nicer if the chemists from way back when had decided that an electron's charge was positive and a proton's charge was negative?
Then we wouldn't have all this backward-sounding "gain electrons = reduction" nonsense.
Electrons - Kigaz - 2009-09-06
...Then it would be "gain protons = reduction"
How is that any more different in sounding? Besides it being protons and not electrons
Electrons - JoeTang - 2009-09-06
Kigaz Wrote:...Then it would be "gain protons = reduction"
How is that any more different in sounding? Besides it being protons and not electrons
Because electron activity occurs a lot more often than atomic fusion?
Electrons - kingdj333 - 2009-09-06
IDK... it's like saying we should call God = Satan and Satan = God....
Electrons - Kigaz - 2009-09-06
JoeTang Wrote:Because electron activity occurs a lot more often than atomic fusion?
Electrons - Swerve - 2009-09-06
In physics it doesn't matter as long as you make sure that the two charges are opposite. And that you keep in mind that only electrons can be transferred from one object to another. In physics signs are mostly just a convention of organization to keep things in order.
Electrons - Hazzy - 2009-09-06
kingdj333 Wrote:IDK... it's like saying we should call God = Satan and Satan = God....
No... just no...
Gaining electrons reduces an atom's charge.
gaining reduces
That's where the annoyance arises. Nothing to do with swapping the names of two mythical beings' names.
Electrons - Holypie - 2009-09-06
Think of it as gaining a reduction.
Electrons - RideBMX - 2009-09-06
I think of it as "plus negative one".
Electrons - chrome - 2009-09-06
Well...I would have trouble with that, as I associate "pro" with positive.
Electrons - Holypie - 2009-09-07
And therein lies the problem.
Electrons - Turtally - 2009-09-07
Kigaz Wrote:...Then it would be "gain protons = reduction"
How is that any more different in sounding? Besides it being protons and not electrons
...Things typically don't gain/lose protons. They gain/lose electrons. So "lose electrons = reduction".
Electrons - Morgana - 2009-09-07
That doesn't bother me. Chemist for life. Still gains negative charge... It's not that hard.
It does slightly bother me that we don't just redefine the direction of current as the flow of negative charge, since that's what's actually physically happening in 99.99% of cases...
But meh. You can't just change these things... Then no one would know how to read old scientific papers or textbooks, and there would be CHAOS.
Electrons - TøbiasBlack - 2009-09-08
Hazzy Wrote:No... just no...
Gaining electrons reduces an atom's charge.
gaining reduces
That's where the annoyance arises. Nothing to do with swapping the names of two mythical beings' names.
in physics, there is no such thing as reverse, its acceleration in the negative...
science, confusing the dumb since day 1.
Electrons - Moonlapse - 2009-09-08
Pretty much what everyone else has said. Don't try to understand scientific concepts from the wording alone.
Electrons - Swerve - 2009-09-08
Turtally Wrote:...Things typically don't gain/lose protons. They gain/lose electrons. So "lose electrons = reduction".
No. I don't know what perspective you're talking about. But let's theoretically talk about two objects. Object A and Object B. Object A has weak valence electrons hanging out in it's outer shell and Object B just needs one more electron to achieve a full valence shell. When Object B snatches that electron from Object A, Object B is getting reduced by obtaining one more electron. However, Object A is getting oxidized as it just losing an electron to Object B.
Going further to cover all types of confusion, let's discussing which agent is the reducing agent. Object A would be the reducing agent. As it's purpose was to donate an electron and reduce Object B. Therefore components that usually get oxidized due to their weak hold over electrons are known as reducing agents. When discussing oxidizing agent, it is more or less vice versa.
TobiasBlack Wrote:in physics, there is no such thing as reverse, its acceleration in the negative...
I don't know if this comment was directed at me but I never used the word "reverse." I just brought up the point that the signs are used as a matter of convention. In introducing physics, they usually teach such things like using the ground as the bottom is a matter of convention and some difficult problems require you to solve problems using elevated building heights as a reference point.
When discussing things like electric charge or electric force in Physics, I was simply regarding the fact that electric charge in coulombs could be presented as +1.6*10^-19 or -1.6*10^-19 as long as you are consistent and keep track of which one is designated as protons and which one is electrons. It might make things more difficult, but there is always that option in Physics.
I usually have never had to assume acceleration as electric charge. Even though acceleration is key to finding electric charge in some problems. For example using F=ma where the acceleration could be used to find the the total force of an electrostatic charge, or the quantity of the test charge, or what the value of the Electric Field that is surrounding the charged particle.
Electrons - sky54264 - 2009-09-08
But then electrons(+) would have mass, would be in the nucleus, and protons(-) would have no mass.
Odd seeing something "pro" having no mass and is (-).
Electrons - kingdj333 - 2009-09-08
I concur. I now understand.
Electrons - Swerve - 2009-09-08
sky54264 Wrote:But then electrons(+) would have mass, would be in the nucleus, and protons(-) would have no mass.
Odd seeing something "pro" having no mass and is (-).
The convenience is not usually applied to defy atom models or to spread further confusion. It's usually used in the sense of electromagnetism and using charged sticks to induce charges upon other types of matter such as metal spheres and other conducting objects. In such systems it's usually presented that an object of matter has either a completely positive or a completely negative charge. It would be extremely inconvenient to fool around with signs when it's a system that has mixed charges in order to sustain it's constitution such as the Niehls Bohr model of the atom.
If you were to switch up the signs, you wouldn't change the attributes of the elements being discussed. For example, only electrons can be transferred from one object to another. Just because we decide to associate protons with a (-) charge for a certain problem, we are not giving it the ability to hop to different objects. If a problem requires analysis of an object and it's electrons being transferred back and forth, usually it follows common sense not to fool around with signs. In such circumstances it is absolutely unnecessary and only causes more problems.
As I stated before, context is essential not only to Physics but the sciences as a whole. If you were only dealing with all negative electron charge, then you wouldn't need to really bother with the inconvenience of putting a negative sign on every single charge because in the problem, there is only negative charge. That isn't going to change. You just have to remember that for the final solution you have to include the negative sign. And for grading purposes, to just put a negative sign at the end to all the negative electrical charges as an after-thought. Keeping the electrical charge negative isn't necessarily essential to the problem as you are only dealing with a system that is solely composed of negatively charged electrical matter. There's thousands of cases where signs do matter. It's just that there are also cases where you can make life easier for yourself. So why not?
Electrons - TøbiasBlack - 2009-09-08
the best way i learned to understand this stuff is that with an abundance of electrons, the atom has a negative charge, and with a lack, a positive. that ties into the adding on and reduction of the amount of electrons.
eh. then again, i am not in any science courses, and dont aim to be