Apology & Question: Understanding Charge Carriers in Metals

  • Thread starter Thread starter holly
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding why electrons, rather than protons, serve as charge carriers in metals. The key points highlight that electrons are smaller and loosely bound, allowing them to move freely, while protons are confined within the nucleus and do not contribute to electrical conduction. The consensus is that the most relevant factor for charge mobility is the loose binding of electrons, rather than their size or negative charge. Participants clarify that while size may seem significant, it does not impact the conduction process. Ultimately, the answer to the question is determined to be "loosely bound."
holly
Messages
184
Reaction score
0
Apology First: :frown:
I very much regret having a nasty, hair-trigger temper and I apologize to anyone rightfully offended by it, and feel I should indeed read questions more thoroughly and also try to research questions better. Weak excuse: I find it very upsetting to care for dying Alzheimers patients and have very little time. It is a requirement of my program to care for the dying.

Question:
Charge carriers in a metal are electrons rather than protons because electrons are:
Smaller
Negative
Loosely bound
All of the above
None of the above

I know they are smaller (lighter) and also loosely bound. I am not sure the negative fact comes into play, because the book says protons carry a positive charge, and metals do have protons. But since two of them are true, is the likely answer All of the above? This is in the only question out of 84 I can't solve for this chapter. Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think the answer is loosely bound. I don't really see why the others would have an impact.
 
Protons are stuck in the nucleus. They have a lot of trouble moving. Electrons, on the other hand, are relatively free in the electron clouds and easily move.

The size or sign of the charge has nothing to do with it. It is true that electrons are smaller, but it is not relevant to conduction of charge.

Sorry to hear about having to care for the dying. Don't worry about the little outburst. Everybody gets like that every now and then. =]

cookiemonster
 
Thx to both of you. I will go with "Loosely bound" as my answer. I thought "smaller" had something to do with carrying the charge, something about electrons not getting stuck somewhere inside the wires of things, but I guess that's not part of the answer. Thanks again.
 
Thread 'Struggling to make relation between elastic force and height'
Hello guys this is what I tried so far. I used the UTS to calculate the force it needs when the rope tears. My idea was to make a relationship/ function that would give me the force depending on height. Yeah i couldnt find a way to solve it. I also thought about how I could use hooks law (how it was given to me in my script) with the thought of instead of having two part of a rope id have one singular rope from the middle to the top where I could find the difference in height. But the...
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Back
Top