Does the electric current have a direction?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of electric current, specifically whether it is a scalar or a vector quantity. Participants explore the implications of current having a direction and how this relates to its mathematical representation and physical interpretation.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that electric current is a scalar quantity, noting that it represents the amount of charge passing through a point in a conductor per second.
  • Others argue that electric current has a direction, suggesting it should be considered a vector quantity.
  • A participant mentions the equation i = dq/dt, stating it provides magnitude but not direction, and proposes defining current in terms of surface current density.
  • Another participant explains that while current density is a vector, the total current through a surface is a scalar, emphasizing the relationship between current density and the area through which it flows.
  • There is a discussion about the directionality of current being associated with the length of the wire rather than the current itself when calculating forces on current-carrying wires.
  • Some participants express confusion over the definitions and implications of current being scalar versus vector, particularly in relation to the flow of electrons.
  • One participant highlights that while current is measured in amperes (a scalar), the flow of electrons does have a direction.
  • Another participant notes that units measure magnitude only, and it does not make sense to have vector units.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether electric current is a scalar or a vector. Multiple competing views remain, with some insisting on its scalar nature and others advocating for its vector characteristics based on directionality.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved aspects regarding the definitions of current and current density, as well as the implications of these definitions in practical applications. The discussion reflects varying interpretations of the mathematical relationships involved.

hmalkan
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
We know that the electrical current is scalar. Also we know that a scalar hasn't got a direction but electric current has got a direction. I've confused! Please help me..
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hmalkan said:
We know that the electrical current is scalar. Also we know that a scalar hasn't got a direction but electric current has got a direction. I've confused! Please help me..

How do you know that electric current is a scalar?

Zz.
 
Electric current does have a direction, and, as such, is a vector, and not a scalar.
 
Electic current does have a direction, the problem is the frequent appearance of the equation:

[tex]i = \frac{dq}{dt}[/tex]

which does not really tell exactly what current is; this equation only gives you the magnitude, not the direction. I prefer to define the surface current density:

[tex]\vec{j} = \rho \vec{v}[/tex]

in terms of the charge density and the velocity. Then we have:

[tex]\vec{i} = A \vec{j}[/tex]

where A is the area.
 
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41VHYYJB0KL._SL160_.jpg

This is my book. It says electric current is a scalar at the heading of chapter 2.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The current density [itex]\vec J[/itex] is a vector, but the current I through a given surface is a scalar, as can be seen from the relationship between the two:

[tex]I = \int{\vec J \cdot d \vec a}[/tex]

When you're calculating e.g. the magnetic force on a current-carrying wire, the directionality of the current is properly associated with the length of the wire rather than with the current itself:

[tex]\vec F = I \vec l \times \vec B[/tex]

for a straight wire segment and uniform [itex]\vec B[/itex], or

[tex]\vec F = I \int {d \vec l \times \vec B}[/tex]

otherwise. This assumes that [itex]\vec B[/itex] doesn't vary significantly over the cross-section of the wire. If it does, then you have to calculate the force by using the current density and integrating over the volume of the wire:

[tex]\vec F = \int {(\vec J \times \vec B) dV}[/tex]
 
Last edited:
confinement said:
[tex]\vec{i} = A \vec{j}[/tex]

where A is the area.

You have to allow for the area not being perpendicular to the current. If [itex]\vec J[/itex] is uniform, then you can use

[tex]I = \vec J \cdot \vec A[/tex]

where the direction of [itex]\vec A[/itex] is perpendicular to the surface. If [itex]\vec J[/itex] is not uniform, then you have to integrate.
 
jtbell said:
The current density [itex]\vec J[/itex] is a vector, but the current I through a given surface is a scalar, as can be seen from the relationship between the two:

[tex]I = \int{\vec J \cdot d \vec a}[/tex]

When you're calculating e.g. the magnetic force on a current-carrying wire, the directionality of the current is properly associated with the length of the wire rather than with the current itself:

[tex]\vec F = I \vec l \times \vec B[/tex]

for a straight wire segment and uniform [itex]\vec B[/itex], or

[tex]\vec F = I \int {d \vec l \times \vec B}[/tex]

otherwise. This assumes that [itex]\vec B[/itex] doesn't vary significantly over the cross-section of the wire. If it does, then you have to calculate the force by using the current density and integrating over the volume of the wire:

[tex]\vec F = \int {(\vec J \times \vec B) dV}[/tex]

I don't understand what [itex]\vec B[/itex] stands for.
 
hmalkan said:
I don't understand what [itex]\vec B[/itex] stands for.

Magnetic field.
 
  • #10
hmalkan said:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41VHYYJB0KL._SL160_.jpg

This is my book. It says electric current is a scalar at the heading of chapter 2.


Current is scalar.

Current (in amperes) is the amount of charge that passes through a point on a conductor every second. It is just a number. An "ampere" is a scalar quantity.

But, and this might make it confusing, but the electrons do flow in a given direction.
The electrical current does have a direction, but that information isn't contained in the unit "ampere".

Does that make sense at all? I could try to explain it better...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
The units only ever measure magnitude, not direction.

It doesn't even make sense to have vector units.
 
  • #12
All you are very helpful. Thanks for replies.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K