An interesting question about the divergence of a current density

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the divergence of current density, specifically the equation ##\nabla \cdot J = -\frac{\partial p}{\partial t}##, where J represents current density and p represents charge density. Participants explore the implications of this equation in the context of continuous loop circuits without capacitance, questioning how varying values of ##\nabla \cdot J## can still yield a zero volume integral.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that while the volume integral of ##\nabla \cdot J## can be zero, individual infinitesimal volumes may exhibit varying values, such as +10 or -8, raising questions about the physical interpretation in continuous circuits.
  • Others argue that circuit theory assumes uniformity in current density, leading to the conclusion that the integral of ##\nabla \cdot J## over a closed surface must be zero without capacitors.
  • A participant mentions that Gauss's law can be applied to relate the divergence of current density to the charge flow, suggesting that the assumptions of circuit theory may not hold in all scenarios.
  • Some participants express a desire to understand circuit analysis deeply, questioning the adequacy of Maxwell's equations alone for practical circuit analysis.
  • There is a suggestion that understanding conductance may be more relevant than just circuit analysis, with a reference to the Drude Model for further study.
  • One participant questions the usefulness of performing volume integrals of ##\nabla \cdot J## without a clear purpose, emphasizing the need for a firm grasp of Maxwell's equations.
  • Another participant expresses skepticism about the extent of variation in current density that could lead to significant divergence in practical scenarios, hinting at the role of quantum fluctuations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of varying values of ##\nabla \cdot J## in continuous circuits. There are competing views on the applicability of circuit theory assumptions and the relevance of Gauss's law versus Stokes' theorem in this context.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the assumptions made in circuit theory, particularly regarding uniformity and the treatment of current density in practical applications. The relationship between charge density and current density remains a point of contention, with unresolved mathematical steps regarding the divergence of current density.

mertcan
Messages
343
Reaction score
6
Hi, maybe as you know ##\nabla. J = -\frac {\partial p} {\partial t}## where J is current density p is charge density.
But also we know current density flux outward the circuit is 0 because current density does not flow out of circuit an this actually volume integral of ##\nabla. J## is zero ( stokes theorem ). NOW here we say that ##\nabla. J## must be zero to make integral 0. But for some infinitesimal volume ##\nabla. J## may be +5, for another infinitesimal volume ##\nabla. J## may be -5 OR for some infinitesimal volume ##\nabla. J## may be +10 for another infinitesimal volume ##\nabla. J## may be -8 and for another infinitesimal volume ##\nabla. J## may be -2. As you see volume integral of ##\nabla. J## is zero in total (10+(-8+(-2)) or +5+(-5)). Could you express to me how the situation that for some infinitesimal volume ##\nabla. J## may be +10 for another infinitesimal volume ##\nabla. J## may be -8 and for another infinitesimal volume ##\nabla. J## may be -2 exists in CONTINUOUS LOOP CİRCUIT (NO CAPACITANCE)?? It seems mathematically valid but I can not imagine the reflect on real world I HAVE NOT COME ACROSS such a (continuous) loop circuit...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
anorlunda said:
You can extend that down to individual electrons. But in large scale analysis, we make simplifying assumptions. For example, see this PF Insights article. https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/circuit-analysis-assumptions/
I see that maxwell equations at specific point are really accurate, but in order to make great accurate circuit analysis using computational electromagnetism including ONLY maxwell equations is sufficient??
ıf not sufficient what do we do to make real life circuit analysis and what kind of equations are employed??
 
Last edited:
mertcan said:
ıf not sufficient what do we do to make real life circuit analysis and what kind of equations are employed??

Did you read the article linked in post #2? Your question is the topic of the article.

My own profession is analysis of the world's power grids including connected loads. There are no circuits larger than that. The primary tools needed are Ohm's Law and Kirchoff's Laws plus conservation of energy.
 
mertcan said:
As you see volume integral of ∇.J∇.J\nabla. J is zero in total (10+(-8+(-2)) or +5+(-5))
Why are you doing a volume integral of ##\nabla \cdot J## ? As far as I know that is not a useful quantity.

As @anorlunda mentioned, the continuity equation leads to Kirchoffs current law.
 
Dale said:
Why are you doing a volume integral of ##\nabla \cdot J## ? As far as I know that is not a useful quantity.

As @anorlunda mentioned, the continuity equation leads to Kirchoffs current law.
Just I would like to understand circuit analysis in a deep way I do not want to know shallowly.
 
mertcan said:
Just I would like to understand circuit analysis in a deep way I do not want to know shallowly.
Doing random integrals without a firm purpose will not help with that.

Do you have already a firm grasp of Maxwell’s equations?
 
mertcan said:
Just I would like to understand circuit analysis in a deep way I do not want to know shallowly.

It sounds like you want to understand conductance more than circuits. Try studying The Drude Model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drude_model
 
In the OP, you can use Gauss's law to write ## \int\limits_{V} \nabla \cdot \vec{J} \, d^3 x=\int\limits_{V} \vec{J} \cdot \hat{n} \, dA=-\frac{dQ}{dt} ##. Circuit theory assumes ## \vec{J} ## is uniform everywhere, and without any capacitors you will have ## \int\limits_{V} \vec{J} \cdot \hat{n} \, dA ## will be zero in all cases: what flows into any enclosed volume also flows out of it. (I believe it is Gauss's law that you are needing in the OP, and not Stokes' theorem). ## \\ ## Of course, in the case of capacitors, you can choose a volume for the integral in such a way, with one of the surfaces between the capacitor plates, so that the integral ## \int\limits_{V} \vec{J}\cdot \hat{n} \, dA=-\frac{dQ}{dt} ## gives minus the rate of change of the charge that is collecting on one plate of the capacitor.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mertcan
  • #10
Charles Link said:
In the OP, you can use Gauss's law to write ## \int\limits_{V} \nabla \cdot \vec{J} \, d^3 x=\int\limits_{V} \vec{J} \cdot \hat{n} \, dA=-\frac{dQ}{dt} ##. Circuit theory assumes ## \vec{J} ## is uniform everywhere, and without any capacitors you will have ## \int\limits_{V} \vec{J} \cdot \hat{n} \, dA ## will be zero in all cases: what flows into any enclosed volume also flows out of it. (I believe it is Gauss's law that you are needing in the OP, and not Stokes' theorem). ## \\ ## Of course, in the case of capacitors, you can choose a volume for the integral in such a way, with one of the surfaces between the capacitor plates, so that the integral ## \int\limits_{V} \vec{J}\cdot \hat{n} \, dA=-\frac{dQ}{dt} ## gives minus the rate of change of the charge that is collecting on one plate of the capacitor.
@Charles Link, you also agree that for some infinitesimal volume ##\nabla. J## may be +10 for another infinitesimal volume ##\nabla. J## may be -8 and for another infinitesimal volume ##\nabla. J## may be -2 in real life in given continuous loop circuit (without capacitors for instance...)?
 
  • #11
mertcan said:
@Charles Link, you also agree that for some infinitesimal volume ##\nabla. J## may be +10 for another infinitesimal volume ##\nabla. J## may be -8 and for another infinitesimal volume ##\nabla. J## may be -2 in real life in given continuous loop circuit (without capacitors for instance...)?
I'm not sure that unless you are referring to quantum fluctuations that you would have that much variation in the current density ## \vec{J} ## to cause ## \nabla \cdot \vec{J} ## to show that kind of variation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
993
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
971
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K