Help: From Ampere to Coulomb in SI units

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the definitions of Ampere and Coulomb in SI units, highlighting the historical context behind their values. The Ampere is currently defined by the force between two parallel conductors, specifically as the current that produces a force of 2×10^{-7} N at a distance of 1 meter. The choice of the Coulomb constant involves ε₀ due to its relation to the speed of light, c², which raises questions about the rationale behind these definitions. Future changes may redefine the Coulomb based on elementary charges and the Ampere as 1 C/s, maintaining historical values for consistency. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the interplay between historical choices and scientific definitions in unit measurement.
Sunfire
Messages
221
Reaction score
4
Hello,

Could someone help me finish this train of thought? This is how we think in SI units:

First, just because we like the value of 1 Ampere as it is now, we choose the force between two parallel conductors to be exactly

2×10^{-7}N= const ×\frac{1A×1A}{1m}

Then, purely as choice, we decide to formulate a constant from the above relation

μ_{0}=4π×10^{-7} N/A^2

Next comes the Coulomb's law. Why do we choose the Coulomb constant to involve the \epsilon_{0} from the expression c^{2}=\frac{1}{\epsilon_{0}\mu_{0}}? Why not choose something else?

Is this tied to the definition of Ampere?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
These days, the Ampere is defned by the force law - so it is the amount of current that gets you 2x10-7N of force between wires 1m apart.

Normally we'd want to make the force 1N for the definition, that would make the Ampere very large indeed. The funny number was selected for historical reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampere

The Coulomb is defined in terms of the Amp - yes.
This is likely to get reversed in 2014... with the Coulomb getting defined as a specific number of elementary charges and the Amp being defined as 1 C/s.
Then people will ask - "why that exact number" and the reason will be "historical" ... i.e. so that values don't get thrown too far off what people expect. [I mean - the kinds of values that people feel are comfortable to use.]
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top