Is positive and negative electricity nomenclature arbitrary?

[Mitko Gorgiev]

NO, it absolutely cannot be arbitrary.

(in this answer I will use the words “plus” and “minus” instead of “positive” and “negative”)

“Plus” is the effect towards outside (expansion, blowing, explosion, yang), “minus” is the effect towards inside (reduction, suctioning, implosion, yin). For example, the act of inhaling is plus, because our chest expands; the act of exhaling is minus, because it reduces in size.

From the history of electromagnetism it is known that Benjamin Franklin (1705-1790) is the man who was the first to introduce the terms “positive” and “negative”, i.e. “plus/minus” in the field of electricity in the middle of the 18th century. Previously, the different types of electricity had been called “vitreous” (meaning “glass”) and “resinous” (meaning “amber”), since the glass and the amber were the most often rubbed objects to produce the opposite electricities. At the time when Franklin gave his contribution, people had actually spoken of two types of electric fluids; however, Franklin argued that there is only one electric fluid, and the excess and the shortage of it in the objects he called “plus” and “minus”. He said that bodies in normal condition have medium amounts of this fluid and are therefore neutral. When two objects are rubbed against each other, one allegedly transfers a part of its fluid to the other and thus the first becomes minus-, and the second object plus-electrified.

That these things (i.e. plus and minus in the electricity and in the magnetism) are not arbitrary, I have a proof which I call an ultimate proof. A proof is ultimate when we perceive the truth immediately (directly, unmediated) with our senses, in this case, with our eyes.

If we rotate the discs of a Wimshurst machine by turning the crank manually to the right in a dark room (the most noticeable results can be seen at night in a room with a little exterior street light entering it), and if we do this for at least 10-15 seconds to let the eyes get used to the feeble light, we will notice that the horizontal quadrants emit a light flicker, whereas the vertical are completely dark. On turning the crank to the left the flicker relocates to the vertical quadrants, whereas the horizontal ones now remain dark. Looking even more attentively at the scene, we will notice an essential qualitative difference between what happens in the left and the right quadrant (i.e. the upper and the lower one when the crank is turned to the left). The flicker in one horizontal quadrant is directed from the metal sectors outwards, in the other one inwards. In other words, in the left quadrant the metal sectors are dark and the flickering light glows around them, but in the right quadrant the metal sectors are illuminated and around them it is dark.

The metallic sectors in the image are drawn as a whole, and not individually, because the light phenomenon appears as a whole; more precisely, as two wholes, one left and one right, and not individually in the sectors.

The electricity of the left quadrant (picture on the left) is the same as the vitreous electricity; the electricity of the right quadrant is the same as the resinous electricity. I will not explain how this is determined, because this answer will become much longer (you can check it out here https://newtheories.info). So, Benjamin Franklin did it right.

If we fill the middle of a ring magnet (taken out of a small loudspeaker) with iron filings, then we tap the magnet to allow the iron powder to freely take its shape, a difference between the one and the other side becomes clearly visible. At the pole which points North a form of blowing is evident (as if we put the lips forward), and at the pole that points South a form of suction (as if we put the lips inwards). Hence, the plus-pole with an effect outwards is the magnetic South pole of the Earth, and the minus-pole with an effect inwards is the magnetic North pole of the Earth.

As a further evidence I want to share an interesting experiment I came across in the book Physik, Volume 2, from the author Hermann von Baravalle (pages 83–84).
Look please at the setup below.
When high DC voltage is connected to it, then sparks start to jump across the upper part of the circuit.

As soon as the poles of the voltage source are reversed, then sparks start to jump across the lower part of the circuit (circuit below).

The two different kind of ends where the sparks jump are a thick sharpened wire (or a nail) and a round metal plate. The distance between the nails and the plates in both branches is the same. 

In this experiment we see that the sparks appear only in the branch where the Plus is connected to the nail, while the Minus to the metal plate. Since the Plus means blowing, the Minus means suctioning, it is much easier for the electricity to bridge this gap than the other, because very high pressure is created at the sharpened point. We all know that the water-jet which comes out of a pipe will reach farther if we narrow the pipe. This comparison is valuable for understanding of what happens. At the same time, the suctioning is greater if the suctioning area is bigger.

Here is another evidence that the electricity flows de facto from the Plus to the Minus pole of the battery. When a carbon arc lamp is connected to a DC source, the positive carbon electrode dissipates, while the negative electrode remains pretty intact. When this lamp was used in the 19th century as a street lamp, they had to move the positive electrode closer from time to time, since the positive electrode's dissipation had as a result increased distance between the electrodes and the lamp stopped to shine (i.e. with the increased distance the applied voltage was not sufficient to make an arc).
This is approximately the form of the carbon electrodes before and after some time of use:

When the electrodes are connected to an AC source, then the electrodes dissipate equally and there develops no difference in their form.

Let me jump to the question what a battery is. A battery can be regarded as a container of dissolved agent (acid, base or salt) wherein two plates of different metals are partly immersed. Instead of one metal plate, a graphite rod can also serve. Just as there is an exception to every rule, so it is in the electromagnetism. Carbon is a special and unique case of a non-metal that is conductor of electricity. Consequently, it is also a good electrode in a battery.

When two rods (say graphite and zinc) are partly immersed in a dissolved agent, then the part of the graphite rod which is outside the liquid is polarized in one sense (plus), the immersed part in the opposite sense (minus). For the zinc plate applies the opposite. The two rods of the battery can be imagined as two fans. The one that is blowing outside the liquid (positive electrode = graphite), it is suctioning inside the liquid; the one that is suctioning outside the liquid (negative electrode = zinc), it is blowing inside it. When the electrodes are connected with a metal wire, a closed flux is created.
And look now: if we open a "dead" carbon-zinc AA battery, we will see that the zinc jar is completely dissolved, while the carbon rod in the middle is quite good. Why so? Because the part of the zinc jar which is in contact with the acidic solution behaves as positive and the movement is always from the positive to the negative.

I have recently found an evidence that also Franklin, contrary to the claims of many people, didn't assign the positive sign to the vitreous and the negative sign to the resinous electricity completely randomly. Here is a quotation from the book "THEORIES OF AETHER AND ELECTRICITY - FROM THE AGE OF DESCARTES TO THE CLOSE OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY" from E.T.Whittaker (1910)

Quote

Some curiosity will naturally be felt as to the considerations which induced Franklin to attribute the positive character to vitreous rather than to resinous electricity. They seem to have been founded on a comparison of the brush discharges from conductors charged with the two electricities; when the electricity was resinous, the discharge was observed to spread over the surface of the opposite conductor "as if it flowed from it." Again, if a Leyden jar whose inner coating is electrified vitreously is discharged silently by a conductor, of whose pointed ends one is near the knob and the other near the outer coating, the point which is near the knob is seen in the dark to be illuminated with a star or globule, while the point which is near the outer coating is illuminated with a pencil of rays; which suggested to Franklin that the electric fluid, going from the inside to the outside of the jar, enters at the former point and issues from the latter. And yet again, in some cases the flame of a wax taper is blown away from a brass ball which is discharging vitreous electricity, and towards one which is discharging resinous electricity. But Franklin remarks that the interpretation of these observations is somewhat conjectural, and that whether vitreous or resinous electricity is the actual electric fluid is not certainly known." (pages 44-45)

The bolding of the text stems from me. As I found in the dictionary, a "wax taper" means a candle. Therefore, the flame of the candle is blown away from a vitreously electrified object; however, it is blown towards a resinously electrified one.

Franklin's remark that his interpretation of the observations is somewhat conjectural can only mean that he was not completely sure and wanted even more experimental evidence.

Please watch this interesting video:

When the plus-end of the cable was immersed in the water, then the lightning was outside the cable (as pictured in my figure (a) below.
When the minus-end of the cable was immersed in the water, then the lightning was inside the cable (figure (b)).

 

and the end of this video:

 

 

Please watch also this video about the Lichtenberg's dust figures:

The only “evidence” of the contemporary physics, that the electricity flows from the negative to the positive, is the cathode ray tube. I will start soon a topic about the cathode rays.

Edited January 3, 2021 by Mitko Gorgiev

[studiot]

8 minutes ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

NO, it absolutely cannot be arbitrary.

Actually the plus and minus conventions are more subtle than you perhaps imagine.

There are actually two binary (  +/- )  sign conventions involved in electricity which have opposing sense, and yet another if magnetic effects are also included.

 

The net result of this opposition of sense is that whichever way round you choose there will always be this difficulty.

 

[joigus]

As @studiot said, there are two sign criteria. One for charges and another for magnetic fields with respect to currents --the right-hand rule--.

It is a technical difficulty to be sure, but nothing measurable depends on it.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

As @studiot said, there are two sign criteria. One for charges and another for magnetic fields with respect to currents --the right-hand rule--.

It is a technical difficulty to be sure, but nothing measurable depends on it.

 

I think I said there are two electrical sign conventions and one magnetic    -   which makes 3 in all.

 

Since I posted my reply within a few minutes of Mitko posting his OP, I am disappointed he has not responded.

[joigus]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

I think I said there are two electrical sign conventions and one magnetic    -   which makes 3 in all.

You're right. You did say so. I'm missing the second purely electrical one...

[Bufofrog]

3 hours ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

NO, it absolutely cannot be arbitrary

Sure it is.  In the US Navy at least in the 80s and before the polarity of electrical diagrams were reversed VS civilian.  IOW what civilians called positive the Navy called negative.  It could be very confusing, but since the designation is arbitrary it didn't make any dfference.  As long as everyone agrees on which way the current is moving it will all work out.

[studiot]

13 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Sure it is.  In the US Navy at least in the 80s and before the polarity of electrical diagrams were reversed VS civilian.  IOW what civilians called positive the Navy called negative.  It could be very confusing, but since the designation is arbitrary it didn't make any dfference.  As long as everyone agrees on which way the current is moving it will all work out.

 

Therein lies the twist in the tale.

which way does current flow in a complete circuit?

[joigus]

6 hours ago, studiot said:

which way does current flow in a complete circuit?

Round?

[studiot]

23 minutes ago, joigus said:

Round?

Indeed it does, all the way round.

Because if it doesn't there would be an accumulation of charge somewhere.

Now consider this.

Consider a submarine's battery (since bufofrog likes naval examples)

Say 12 feet between the negative and positive terminals.

So I connect a one inch test resistor between the terminals.

Conventional current flows from negative to positive in 8.5% of the circuit and from positive to negative in 91.5%.

[John Cuthber]

On 1/3/2021 at 1:16 PM, Mitko Gorgiev said:

NO, it absolutely cannot be arbitrary.

It was an arbitrary choice.

We know who made the decision.

And we even make jokes about him getting it wrong.
https://xkcd.com/567/

The biggest problem with your "evidence" is that it involves currents flowing through things like air or water where the situation is more complex because both charges are involved- the current is carried by both positive and negative ions.

You have been told this before.

Please do not keep posting the same mistakes.

[joigus]

41 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

It was an arbitrary choice.

We know who made the decision.

And we even make jokes about him getting it wrong.
https://xkcd.com/567/

I was to within a smidgeon of a thought of mentioning Ben Franklin.  

That's where the convention came from.

Edited January 6, 2021 by joigus

[Mitko Gorgiev]

8 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

It was an arbitrary choice.

We know who made the decision.

And we even make jokes about him getting it wrong.
https://xkcd.com/567/

Look at this figure from Wikipedia's article "Electric charge":

The arrows at the Plus charge point away from it, whereas at the Minus charge toward it. Is this arbitrary, a convention? Can we change the "convention" and adopt this "convention":

We can do it neither now nor ever. Do you know why? Because Plus means an effect or force toward outside and Minus means an effect or force toward inside. And exactly the presented figure from Wikipedia you can see when you turn the Wimshurst generator in the dark. Find a Wimshurst generator, see the described phenomenon and then tell me, which side would you call Plus and which Minus?
The electricity, where the light flicker is toward outside, is the same as the vitreous electricity, while the electricity, where the light flicker is toward inside, is the same as the resinous electricity. It is very easily provable ( I can explain how, if you are interested). 

The carbon rod in a carbon-zinc battery has the same polarity as the vitreous electricity, while the zinc jar has the same polarity as the resinous electricity (it is also very easily provable). 
The electricity flows from the carbon terminal toward zinc terminal through the outer conductive path. That is the truth. 

8 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Please do not keep posting the same mistakes.

I will keep posting the TRUTH and you can do nothing about it. Do you know why? Because the truth is stronger than anything. 

[John Cuthber]

37 minutes ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

Find a Wimshurst generator,

I already explained why that gives the wrong answer.

9 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

The biggest problem with your "evidence" is that it involves currents flowing through things like air or water where the situation is more complex because both charges are involved- the current is carried by both positive and negative ions.

 

37 minutes ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

the truth is stronger than anything.

And that's why you can't demonstrate your claim.

It isn't true.

The decision about positive and negative was arbitrary.

37 minutes ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

Plus means an effect or force toward outside

And a positively charged object will attract bits of fluff because, no matter what you say, both positive and negative charges attract things.

 

37 minutes ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

I will keep posting the TRUTH and you can do nothing about it.

If you keep posting stuff that's just plain wrong, the mods might do something about it.
 

Edited January 6, 2021 by John Cuthber

[Mitko Gorgiev]

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

If you keep posting stuff that's just plain wrong, the mods might do something about it.

You have zero arguments, pal. You can only threaten, it is the only thing left to you.

[John Cuthber]

Just now, Mitko Gorgiev said:

You have zero arguments, pal. You can only threaten, it is the only thing left to you.

I'm not in a position of power, so I can not be making threats.
So your post is childish nonsense.

On the other hand, I still have a very simple and useful thing I can do.
I can keep on pointing out that you are wrong, and why you are wrong.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

You have zero arguments

And, let's try counting them.
 

 

11 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

The biggest problem with your "evidence" is that it involves currents flowing through things like air or water where the situation is more complex because both charges are involved- the current is carried by both positive and negative ions.

One

11 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

The decision about positive and negative was arbitrary.

Two
 

 

11 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

a positively charged object will attract bits of fluff because, no matter what you say, both positive and negative charges attract things.

Three.
So, it looks like, in addition to not knowing science, you can't count to three.
Isn't it time you faced the fact that you are wrong?

[Mitko Gorgiev]

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

So your post is childish nonsense.

The time will tell. Don't get very upset.
 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

The argument if whether positive and negative is arbitrary must be addressed using mainstream physics, not a speculation. To frame it this way is an end run around our rules.

If you have a speculation, present it and support it with evidence. You can’t just assume it’s true to buttress some other argument