Current: Why It's the Fundamental Unit & What Defines It

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ajay mahajan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fundamental Unit
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of electric current as a fundamental quantity, its definition, and the implications of defining the unit of current in terms of force. Participants explore the relationship between current, force, and the definitions of SI units, as well as the historical context of these definitions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why current is considered a fundamental quantity, noting that its definition involves force.
  • Others argue that current is simply the flow of electrons passing a point per second, and emphasize that voltage is analogous to force rather than current.
  • A participant points out that the SI ampere is defined based on the force between two parallel wires, which complicates its classification as a fundamental quantity.
  • Another participant suggests that the definitions of SI units are based on practical measurement capabilities rather than purely logical foundations, citing the historical context of the kilogram's definition.
  • One participant discusses the convenience of defining the ampere first and then deriving the coulomb from it, highlighting the relationship between current, charge, and time.
  • Several participants express surprise at the historical definitions and their implications for understanding electrical concepts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether current should be classified as a fundamental quantity. There are multiple competing views regarding the definitions and implications of current and its relationship to force.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reflects varying interpretations of the definitions of current and force, as well as the historical context of SI unit definitions. There are unresolved questions about the logical consistency of these definitions and their practical implications.

ajay mahajan
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Why the current is fundamental quantity?
Why the unit of fundamental quantity current is defined in terms of force?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Current is not defined in terms of force, it is simply the number of electrons that passes a certain point every second.

Voltage is analagous to force.
 
russ_watters said:
Current is not defined in terms of force, it is simply the number of electrons that passes a certain point every second.
The SI ampere is defined in terms of the force between two parallel wires.
 
ajay mahajan said:
Why the current is fundamental quantity?
Why the unit of fundamental quantity current is defined in terms of force?
Your two questions show why the SI attempt to call current a fundamental unit is illogical. Current should not be considered a fundamental quantity because it is defined in terms of force.
In the Gaussian system, current is also defined in terms of force, but is not considered a fundamental quantity.
 
SI units are defined the way they are because the definitions can be implemented precisely in the real world, not because they are ideally logical. With our technology it's probably easier to measure forces between currents precisely than it is to measure forces between charges precisely, or to count electrons directly.

Similarly, the kilogram is defined as the mass of a certain specific lump of metal stored in a basement in Paris, rather than as the mass of a certain number of hydrogen atoms (or some other atom, or some elementary particle).
 
russ_watters said:
Current is not defined in terms of force, it is simply the number of electrons that passes a certain point every second.

russ, i think i have to agree with Meir.

they could have, in a more orderly world, define the unit charge to be a fixed number of electrons, possibly 6 241 509 479 607 717 888 elementary charges per Coulomb, but they didn't. they defined the Coulomb to be the amount of charge that passes in 1 second in a conductor carrying 1 Ampere of current. so the Ampere had to be defined first and they defined it in such a manner that the permeability of free space is exactly [itex]\mu_0 \equiv 4 \pi \times 10^{-7} N/A^2[/itex]:

The ampere is that constant current which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circular cross-section, and placed 1 metre apart in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force equal to 2×10–7 Newton per metre of length.

so my answer to the OP is that it seemed more convenient to physicists about a century ago to define the unit of current first with a mechanical definition and then define the unit charge in terms of the unit current and the unit time (the second).

someday they could redefine the kilogram so that the Coulomb is precisely 6 241 509 479 607 717 888 elementary charges and keep [itex]\mu_0 \equiv 4 \pi \times 10^{-7} N/A^2[/itex], but i am rooting for defining the kg so that Planck's constant is a defined constant.
 
russ_watters said:
I didn't realize they did that.

the world is full of things to learn. it wasn't until i took a Real Analysis course in the math department and learned about Lebesgue integration, that i found out that the way that Electrical Engineering texts and classes define the Dirac delta function is faulty. (but it works fine for engineering and physical science.)
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Two ways of constructing electromagnetism, which is correct?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Undergrad Transmission Line EM Wave vs EM Wave in Free Space
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
Undergrad Why is the Ampere a base unit?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Undergrad Why is length considered a fundamental (base) quantity?
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Undergrad Restoring S.I. units to a Lagrangian in natural units
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
High School Fundamental Units and Supplementary Units — What are the differences?
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
Undergrad Planck's Impedance: Exploring the Mystery of a Fictional Measurement System
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Graduate Why isn't CHARGE a fundamental quantity rather than CURRENT?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
17K
Undergrad Fundamental - Magnetic fields generated by moving electrons
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
Fundamental quantities and derived quantities
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
761