MHB How do you find the direction of a displacement current?

AI Thread Summary
The displacement current, defined as i_d = ε₀ ∂Φ_e/∂t, has a direction despite being a scalar. To determine its direction, one can analyze the displacement current density, j_d, which incorporates the time derivatives of the electric field and polarization. By integrating j_d over a chosen surface, the displacement current can be expressed in terms of its components relative to the surface normals. Measuring i_d across three perpendicular surfaces provides the directional components of the displacement current. Identifying the surface with the highest i_d can also indicate the direction of the displacement current.
Ackbach
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,148
Reaction score
93
We know that the so-called displacement current is defined as
$$i_d=\varepsilon_0 \, \frac{\partial\Phi_e}{\partial t}.$$
Like regular current which is the movement of charges, $i_d$ has a direction, even though it's technically a scalar. How do we find its direction?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Ackbach said:
We know that the so-called displacement current is defined as
$$i_d=\varepsilon_0 \, \frac{\partial\Phi_e}{\partial t}.$$
Like regular current which is the movement of charges, $i_d$ has a direction, even though it's technically a scalar. How do we find its direction?

Hi Ackbach,

From wiki, the displacement current density is:
$$\boldsymbol{j}_d = \pd {\boldsymbol{D}} t = \varepsilon_0 \frac{\partial \boldsymbol{E}}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial \boldsymbol{P}}{\partial t}$$

If we pick some surface, through which we want to know the displacement current, this is:
$$i_d=\iint \boldsymbol{j}_d \cdot d\boldsymbol S
= \iint \Big(\varepsilon_0 \frac{\partial \boldsymbol{E}}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial \boldsymbol{P}}{\partial t}\Big) \cdot d\boldsymbol S
= \varepsilon_0 \iint\frac{\partial \boldsymbol{E}}{\partial t}\cdot d\boldsymbol S + \iint \frac{\partial \boldsymbol{P}}{\partial t} \cdot d\boldsymbol S
$$
For a fixed surface in a medium with constant polarization (such as vacuum), it simplifies to:
$$i_d = \varepsilon_0 \frac{\partial \Phi_e}{\partial t}$$

By doing this, we have "lost" the direction.
If we want to get the direction back, we can measure $i_d$ through 3 perpendicular surfaces of unit size.
The corresponding results are the components of the vector with respect to the normals of those surfaces.
Alternatively, we can search for the surface that has the greatest $i_d$. Its normal is the direction.

Btw, I think this topic belongs in Other Advanced Topics, so I've moved it there.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top