Why Current is Chosen as Base Unit & 2E-7 N/m Force?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter darkar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ampere Coulomb
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the choice of current as a base unit in the International System of Units (SI) rather than charge, as well as the specific force value of 2E-7 N/m associated with the definition of the ampere. Participants explore the implications of these definitions, their historical context, and the challenges in measuring charge versus current.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why current is chosen as a base unit instead of charge, suggesting a need for a clearer explanation.
  • Others propose that the definition of the ampere relates to mechanical quantities, making it a useful measure.
  • There is mention of the historical context of unit definitions, including the previous definition of the ampere based on electrolysis, highlighting the evolution of measurement techniques.
  • Some participants note the difficulty in measuring charge directly, which may influence the choice of current as a base unit.
  • One participant suggests that the choice of current reflects the unification of electric and magnetic fields, linking it to the sources of these fields.
  • Concerns are raised about the practical challenges of producing a constant current from a known charge, emphasizing the technical focus on current measurement.
  • There is curiosity expressed about the small value of the electron's charge, with a historical perspective on the development of the concept of quantized charge.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express uncertainty regarding the reasons for choosing current as a base unit over charge, with multiple competing views and no consensus reached on the matter. The discussion remains unresolved on several points, including the implications of unit definitions and the challenges of measurement.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in measuring charge directly and the historical evolution of unit definitions, which may affect current understanding. The discussion reflects ongoing questions about the relationship between current and charge, as well as the technical challenges involved in their measurement.

darkar
Messages
187
Reaction score
0
Current is the rate of change of current passing through a point each second. 1 ampere is defined as the current in two infinitely long straight wires 1m apart in a vacuum which produces a force of 2E-7 N/m on each wire.

My question is why we choose current as base unit rather than charge?
and why the force needed is 2E-7 N/m but not 1N/m?

Thx
 
Physics news on Phys.org
darkar said:
Current is the rate of change of current passing through a point each second.

You mean "rate of change of charge" !

That is a useful definition of an Amp, because it relates the Amp to mechnical quantities that we may be more familiar with. This is not 1 N because the expression for the force involves a constant called the permeability of space. This constant, unfortunately, is not equal to 1 (or, actually 2Pi).

Another way to define 1 Amp is the current you get when you have 1 Coulomb of charge passing through some plane every second.
 
okay, but i got another question.
I am curious why physicist choose current to be base unit and charge to be derived unit. I need some sort of explanation.

Help is very appreciated.
 
Unit definitions are always based on phenomena that are the most "easy" to measure, i.e. that give the most accurate results. It's quite difficult to measure charge directly!

Those definitions also change with technical developement. Until 1946, the Ampère was defined using the electrolysis of Silver-Nitrate (AgNO_3): 1A is the current that produces 1.11800 mg silver per second at the cathode. This seems a strange way to define the unit of current, but it was the most precise technique to measure current at that time.
 
kuengb said:
Unit definitions are always based on phenomena that are the most "easy" to measure, i.e. that give the most accurate results. It's quite difficult to measure charge directly!

May i know what is the difficulty in counting charge?

Here, i got another question. Why the electron is given such small charge value, that is 1.60E-19 ?
 
darkar said:
My question is why we choose current as base unit rather than charge?
and why the force needed is 2E-7 N/m but not 1N/m?

The use of current as a fundamental unit shows the implicit unification of E and B fields -- i.e. view the definitions as based on the source of fields.

The value of the units are still, however, based on the necessity of having 1C (and hence 1 A) of charge generating the interaction.
 
May i know what is the difficulty in counting charge?
Hmm... I've never done a thing like this, but I suggest you'll need a high DC voltage source (to "produce" the charge you want to measure) which must be perfectly constant...probably isolation problems...don't know. In fact, charge measurement is often done with a galvanometer, which is sort of a measurement apparatus for small currents.

But the point is: what you need for technical application is current measurement, not charge measurement. So, say you have a perfect 1C charge on a capacity, and now you want to adjust an amperemeter with it. You know: This amount of charge flowing through per second, that's 1 Ampère. But how do you produce a constant current with your perfect 1C charge? Not possible.

Here, i got another question. Why the electron is given such small charge value, that is 1.60E-19 ?
The answer is quite simple: Because the unit Coulomb is much older than the electron! I don't know who used "Coulomb" first (I don't think it was Coulomb himself; that would have made him quite an arrogant guy :smile: ). What I know is that the idea of quantized charge came up around 1900 or a bit earlier. Millikan was the first one who measured it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
790
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
9K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K