>conventional current is positive particle flow >in reality,

>>7789750
Because Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, how would you know they are moving or not moving, they could be moving and not moving at the same time. They are there, they may not be there. They can be everywhere at the same time, do you understand? You've brought this upon yourself, you've brought quantum mechanics into this.

>>7789750
It's called a *convention* for a reason. It affects nothing and everyone uses it.

>>7789767
Much like how the geocentric model was a convention that everybody used affecting nobody.

File: 1430679645122.jpg (90KB, 847x944px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 847x944px

>>7789750
Electrons flowing in one direction is equivalent to positive particles flowing in the other.

At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter. The key is to stay consistent with how current flow down a wire (or whatever) is defined.

>>7789750
Benjamin Franklin guessed wrong and assigned positive charge to what was in fact the sink of the current. Because this makes basically no difference as far as circuit design goes and electrons wouldn't even be discovered for another century, by the time we realized that current was made of negative electrons, it had already become convention and switching would be confusing.

>>7789750
Go study QFT, QED, and QCD.

>>7789750

Right hand rule > Left hand rule

>>7789813
Unfortunately, all arrows on semiconductor device schematics point the wrong way, which confuses me.

>>7789810
This
As long as it's quantified correctly it doesn't really matter