Does the electric current have a direction?

In summary, electric current is a scalar, meaning it is only a number and does not have a direction. However, the movement of electrons does have a direction. The units for current, amperes, only measure magnitude and do not indicate direction.
  • #1
hmalkan
4
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
  • #2
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.
 
  • #3
Electric current does have a direction, and, as such, is a vector, and not a scalar.
 
  • #4
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.
 
  • #5
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:
  • #6
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:
  • #7
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.
 
  • #8
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.
 
  • #9
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.
 

What is electric current?

Electric current is the flow of electric charge through a conductive material, such as a wire. It is measured in units of amperes (A).

Does electric current have a direction?

Yes, electric current has a direction. It flows from a higher potential to a lower potential, similar to the flow of water from a higher elevation to a lower elevation.

What is the direction of electric current?

The direction of electric current is determined by the direction of the flow of positive charge. This is opposite to the direction of the flow of electrons, which are negatively charged particles.

How is the direction of electric current represented?

The direction of electric current is typically represented by an arrow pointing in the direction of the flow of positive charge. Alternatively, it can also be represented by the conventional current flow, which assumes that current flows from positive to negative.

Can the direction of electric current change?

Yes, the direction of electric current can change. In alternating current (AC) circuits, the direction of current changes periodically, while in direct current (DC) circuits, the direction remains constant. Additionally, the direction of current can also be changed by using electronic components such as diodes and transistors.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
417
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
399
Replies
15
Views
736
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
4
Views
969
Replies
73
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
704
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
5
Views
315
Back
Top