Which direction does current flow?

It's entirely possible that what we take for "reality" is just something that was made up for us, to keep us entertained.

Well not so much entertained as allow us to survive and evolve in the world we find ourselves in.

And all Math and Science do is piece together the delusion.

No not at all. Maths is the way the universe can be described in a consistent and correct manner. There is nothing delusional about mathematics.

It is, when scientists talk like current "knowledge" is fact.

Scientists never do this only slack jawed journalists, politicians and pseudo scientists do this.

Facts that often become yesterday's can-you-believe-we-used-to-think-that?

This is a line that pseudo scientists use to justify their crackpot theories.

ReverseEMF: Is it not suspect, that we are measuring the Universe with the same stuff the Universe is made of? A bunch of atoms trying to work out what atoms are. Kind of like a ruler trying to measure itself, or a glass of water trying to drink [or grok] itself.

It's not suspect if nobody actually knows how far we can go and what the universe has to offer. People are making measurements of quantities that people (ie. us) define(d). Many of these quantities and relations we came up with have certainly been useful .... it gave us internet and Arduino.

Yeah.... but we should take this to the general discussions area..... as it has gotten away from the OP's question.

Grumpy_Mike: ... pseudo scientists ...

Would that be those on retainer by Fox News or employed by a pharmaceutical development company?

ChrisTenone: Would that be those on retainer by Fox News or employed by a pharmaceutical development company?

Those, plus all of those Donald Trump appoints to his "science" bodies - I heard something like the EPD has been ordered to produce research that proves that global warming is not caused by people... I've always been taught that the research comes first, and that the conclusion is a result of what has been found in the research...

We try not to think about that.

Thread name is about current not electrons, holes ....

ted: Thread name is about current not electrons, holes ....

Water current?

ted: Thread name is about current not electrons, holes ....

To be able to answer the question "in which direction does current flow" you first have to figure out what current actually IS.

Southpark: Yeah.... but we should take this to the general discussions area..... as it has gotten away from the OP's question.

Yeah, the OP must be thinking "geeze, I'm sure glad I didn't ask something more complex, like how current flow relates to magnetism!"

ChrisTenone:
Water current?

Context is the key, here. Electronics related forum – therefore we can assume electronics related question.

Then how about current in water vs. current in metals? Electric charge is transported very differently in the two media.

Is the speed of an electric signal the same in water and metal? Not very far from the speed of light? The electric current is not that different, is it? Water only has a much higher resistance and depends highly on how much stuff there is in water forming ions.

ReverseEMF:
Context is the key, here. Electronics related forum – therefore we can assume electronics related question.

Yeah, I know. I was reacting to the statement that this thread was about current, not electrons or holes. But electrical current is movement of electrons and holes. Electrons flow from negative towards positive charge, while holes flow in the opposite direction. Ya can’t speak of current without mentioning electrons and holes, as they are the thing flowing.

Transfer of Electrical Energy is a reality. The transfer takes place via the movement of electrons in metals is a concept supported by mathematical reasoning, and it is studied in Electrical Engineering.

Electronic Engineering deals with the movement of electrons and holes in semiconductor. Signal processing takes place via the On/OFF conditions of the transistors is a reality. These ON/OFF conditions of the transistors happen due to accumulation/removal of charges (due to electrons/holes) in the base region of a transistor is a concept established by rigorous mathematical reasoning.

If they want to get into current and electron movement relationship in classical conductors, then they need to read up on electron scattering, where they'll encounter words like 'average', 'net' etc, and discussions on collisions, and 'electrons' moving in various directions in applied electric fields.

Or you just use the "filled pipe" concept. Electrons in a WIRE is like a pipe full of something... let's say Jello. If you "transfer" a charge in (or add some jello to the pipe) some will now fall out the other side... It won't be the EXACT item you pushed in... but a TRANSFER gets created that moves its way through. The pipe or conductor remains essentially the same even though there was some "flow" or "transfer" that occurred.

So in my opinion... things "moving" isn't as exact as saying that things are "transferring".

Note: I'm not any sort of a scientist but I also "poo poo" all the commentary that says, scientists lock on to what they call facts and are immovable about them. If there are enough data points and tangible proof, a scientist would agree that "clouds are made of fairies", but until that data comes in... they will all agree that clouds are made of water vapor. This is what they figured out a while ago... but some would be willing revisit that conclusion if new data gets presented and can be independently confirmed by others. What they won't do is agree that clouds are fairies without a source of new data.

pwillard: If there are enough data points and tangible proof, a scientist would agree that "clouds are made of fairies", but until that data comes in... they will all agree that clouds are made of water vapor.

Most of the replies to my comments indicate a misunderstanding of what I'm saying. But, I'm not surprised. It's a difficult thing to convey. For instance, I'm not saying, necessarily, that those in the science fields, tend to be "scientists [who] lock on to what they call facts and are immovable about them". Only that they tend to shoot down things that are not proven. For instance, can a scientist really, credibly say, there's no such thing as telepathy, or precognition, or ghosts, or fairy dust, or...? Have they proven these thing don't exist? Sure, they can say that statistically the likelihood is unlikely. But to emphatically disallow such things, is unscientific!

And, really, can we be sure reality remains the way it has appeared, when we aren't looking? Isn't it possible that reality intentionally behaves a certain way when an experiment is performed--i.e. that there is some intelligence, intentionally tweaking the experiment so the result meets some arcane agenda? And, if we're all being deluded, then isn't science merely a study of that delusion--without awareness of the delusive quality. Sure, the math is valid--as applied to the delusion [i.e. it describes the delusion very well]. I mean, if it's all a delusion, then it has demonstrated a high degree of consistency--unless your weird Uncle Steve, who claims to see a different reality, is the one on the right track.

Why is this even worth considering? Maybe it's not. But, I've had my share of experiences... empirical, yes, but so compelling as to defy the usual, science based explanations. I probably can't prove it. But, I've "seen" enough to wonder. So, all I'm saying is, consider a world beyond the perceived world, where plays a greater physics. Quantum mechanics is just the beginning. There is more to be discovered, and science will get there, if it removes the stick it has up it's butt.

ReverseEMF: Why is this even worth considering? Maybe it's not. But, I've had my share of experiences... empirical, yes, but so compelling as to defy the usual, science based explanations. I probably can't prove it. But, I've "seen" enough to wonder. So, all I'm saying is, consider a world beyond the perceived world, where plays a greater physics. Quantum mechanics is just the beginning. There is more to be discovered, and science will get there, if it removes the stick it has up it's butt.

The thing here is ..... a lot of these perceptions that you were talking about appear to be conjured up in your own mind. You just have to remember, that in most relatively large populations - there are variations. Some people have tendencies and behaviours you describe. Others do not. This just means, regardless of 'scientists' or whatever group we're talking about, not every 'scientist' has the features or characteristics you described. The comment about 'removing the stick' is based on your own conjured view (of science..... what you think it is). Science is basically about gaining knowledge and building up on it, and applying it to further our knowledge, or to further understand the behaviour of the universe, or to benefit ourselves. Sure, there are always negative impacts - like scientific outcomes or developments or applications can be turned against people and animals and environments. We could say it is still a part of 'nature'.

I reckon the OP's question about current flow direction has been thoroughly addressed by the members. So perhaps time for time-out on this one?

For instance, can a scientist really, credibly say, there's no such thing as telepathy, or precognition, or ghosts, or fairy dust

Well ghosts, if they existed, would violate the laws of thermodynamics so they can not exist.

Precognition would imply some form of time travel so there is no mechanism for that and telepathy has yet to be demonstrated although it remains a possibility.

Telepathy, precognition, ghosts, fairy dust... why are the examples always about things that are as far as possible from reason, from the world of myths? What does even fairy dust mean?