Is the Definition of Amperes and Epsilon0 Arbitrary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter diagopod
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nature
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the definition of the Ampere and its relationship to Epsilon0, questioning whether defining the Ampere in terms of electrons per second is arbitrary. It is clarified that the Ampere is defined as a Coulomb of charge per second, making the sign of the charge irrelevant. Historically, the assumption was that charge flowed from positive to negative, not knowing that electrons were the primary charge carriers. The definition of current direction is based on positive charge flow, although in practice, it is often the negatively charged electrons that move. The conversation also touches on the historical misinterpretation of electric charge flow direction and its implications for understanding electric fields.
diagopod
Messages
96
Reaction score
3
Learning about the nature of current, the Ampere and its role in Epsilon0. I'm assuming that the fact that the Ampere is defined in terms of electrons per second is arbitrary and that it could just as well have been protons per second? And if it had been protons per second, then Epsilon0 would still have the same value and sign because it makes use of Amperes squared, which will come out positive regardless of whether or not Amperes are defined in terms of negative or positive charge per unit time. Is this true?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Ampere is not defined (yet, it's been proposed) in terms of electrons per second. An Ampere is defined as a Coulomb of charge per second.

It's a quantity of charge; the sign of the charge isn't relevant. In fact, when it was defined they still assumed charged flowed from positive to negative, and didn't know that electrons were the primary charge carriers, or the fact that charge comes in discrete quantities.
 


What alxm said +

By the definition positive current direction is the direction of positive charge flow. However, like alxm said, it turned out that in most case it is the electrons that are moving and making the current. So the current is kinda "negative". Normally, people speak about current absolute value and indicate the direction. Check Khirhoff's rules and their application.
 


alxm said:
Ampere is not defined (yet, it's been proposed) in terms of electrons per second. An Ampere is defined as a Coulomb of charge per second.

It's a quantity of charge; the sign of the charge isn't relevant. In fact, when it was defined they still assumed charged flowed from positive to negative, and didn't know that electrons were the primary charge carriers, or the fact that charge comes in discrete quantities.

that makes perfect sense, thanks for the clarification alxm
 


zeebek said:
What alxm said +

By the definition positive current direction is the direction of positive charge flow. However, like alxm said, it turned out that in most case it is the electrons that are moving and making the current. So the current is kinda "negative". Normally, people speak about current absolute value and indicate the direction. Check Khirhoff's rules and their application.

Thanks, yeah, the bit about positive and negative current has always thrown me - absolute value to the rescue :)
 


alxm said:
Ampere is not defined (yet, it's been proposed) in terms of electrons per second. An Ampere is defined as a Coulomb of charge per second.

Actually, the ampere is defined in terms of the magnetic force between two long straight parallel wires. If the wires have equal magnitude currents, and are exactly 1 m apart, and the magnetic force between them is 4\pi \times 10^{-7} Newtons per meter of wire length, then the current in each wire is exactly 1 ampere.

The coulomb is defined in terms of the ampere, as the amount of charge delivered by a current of one ampere in one second.
 


zeebek said:
By the definition positive current direction is the direction of positive charge flow. However, like alxm said, it turned out that in most case it is the electrons that are moving and making the current.

Blame Benjamin Franklin for guessing wrong about the direction of flow of "electric fluid" when rubbing two objects together to charge them. :smile:
 


jtbell said:
Blame Benjamin Franklin for guessing wrong about the direction of flow of "electric fluid" when rubbing two objects together to charge them. :smile:

Thanks. Would you say it's also arbitrary the direction of the electric field, as in the direction of the arrows we see in field lines diverging from positive charges and converging on negative ones, or is that different?
 
Back
Top