Why do resistors always cause a voltage drop equal to the voltage applied?

[Joker93]

Consider a wire connected to a battery. Now,potential is analogous to the energy of the particles.And potential in a resistor drops because of the friction inside the resistor(considering there is no friction along the wire and outside the resistor).So the friction determines how much energy is lost.So why does the voltage drop to zero when the current passes from the last resistor it encounters along the wire? I mean,if there are two resistors and you have a battery of 6V,why do the resistors ALWAYS drop the voltage from 6V to 0V?Each resistor should cause a voltage drop analogous to the loss of energy due to the friction.I mean that,sometimes I(the current) should become zero(friction in resistors cause more friction than 6V-considering the convention from voltage to work W=q*ΔV) or the voltage will not reduce to zero(friction in resistors cause energy loss less than 6V).

 

[NascentOxygen]

The voltage at the points where you connect the resistor is set by the battery, one end being +6v more than the other. When a resistor is connected between those points the battery maintains the points at +6v and 0v, resp. It is this potential difference which determines the current, controlling it at exactly V/R amperes. No more, and no less.

One volt = 1 Joule per coulomb, so the battery gives a fixed energy to each moving charge and the circuit resistance extracts just whatever energy each charge has, turning it into heat. The electrons that get to the +6v end of the resistor are not the same ones that entered the 0v end. As a result of energetic pushing and shoving that goes on, a different electron emerges into the external circuit.

 

[Joker93]

So i thought of it as I creates the drop of voltage is the resostor,whereas it is the opposite.It is the voltage that determines the current,and with its turn the current determines the voltage drop in the resistor.right?

 

[NascentOxygen]

So i thought of it as I creates the drop of voltage is the resostor,whereas it is the opposite.It is the voltage that determines the current,and with its turn the current determines the voltage drop in the resistor.right?

That's the better way of thinking of it.

 

[Joker93]

thanks @NascentOxygen .But,this all happens when the system reaches a steady-state.Before the steady-state,let's say the FIRST time that the current tries to perform a loop,the battery does not now how much energy to give to each charge(because the battery does not KNOW from the beginning how much energy to give to each charge).So when the charges go on their first loop,how do we know that the energy that they have is enough so that they get through the wire?

 

[NascentOxygen]

The battery does know. It gives each charge the same energy---that's determined by the battery voltage. Each coulomb of charge gets one joule per battery volt, because the definition of a volt is one joule per coulomb.

 

[Joker93]

The battery does know. It gives each charge the same energy---that's determined by the battery voltage. Each coulomb of charge gets one joule per battery volt, because the definition of a volt is one joule per coulomb.

thanks a lot!

 

[XZ923]

I think you're giving the battery too much credit. A 6V battery is essentially just a storage device for a 6V potential difference. If you connect the two ends it will equalize through whatever you're connecting them with (the ultra-simplified definition of a DC circuit lol). To illustrate, just take any battery and measure it with a DC voltmeter, then flip the leads. I've had folks call me in a panic because their battery showed "negative voltage" when it's just the difference between electron and conventional current. The important fact is that it's simply the potential of electrical work to be done.

If your 6V battery is wired with a single resistor, assuming negligible resistance of the circuit conductor itself, a DCV measurement between the negative terminal of the battery and the circuit after the resistor will indeed be 0V since there's no difference between them, whereas going from that point to the positive will give you your 6V measurement. The battery doesn't necessarily know or sense anything; when a means for the potential difference from the "charged" side to the "empty" side to equalize is presented electrons flow along that path until they are equalized, ie no difference in electric force potential. The resistor (or whatever else is in your circuit) is what it has to pass through on the way, with the relationship V=IR if the circuit is purely DC. So if we connect the 6V battery through let's say a 10 ohm resistor, it will create a current of .6 amps. If you make it a 20 ohm resistor, the current will drop to .3, whereas if you make it a 5 ohm resistor the current becomes 1.2.

And if it's an issue of work, wattage=volts*amps, thus also W=(I^2)(R)

 

[Entanglement]

Why does a roller coaster going downhill back to ground lose the same potential energy it gains when it goes uphill to the maximum height?
This may help.

 

[Joker93]

I think you're giving the battery too much credit. A 6V battery is essentially just a storage device for a 6V potential difference. If you connect the two ends it will equalize through whatever you're connecting them with (the ultra-simplified definition of a DC circuit lol). To illustrate, just take any battery and measure it with a DC voltmeter, then flip the leads. I've had folks call me in a panic because their battery showed "negative voltage" when it's just the difference between electron and conventional current. The important fact is that it's simply the potential of electrical work to be done.

If your 6V battery is wired with a single resistor, assuming negligible resistance of the circuit conductor itself, a DCV measurement between the negative terminal of the battery and the circuit after the resistor will indeed be 0V since there's no difference between them, whereas going from that point to the positive will give you your 6V measurement. The battery doesn't necessarily know or sense anything; when a means for the potential difference from the "charged" side to the "empty" side to equalize is presented electrons flow along that path until they are equalized, ie no difference in electric force potential. The resistor (or whatever else is in your circuit) is what it has to pass through on the way, with the relationship V=IR if the circuit is purely DC. So if we connect the 6V battery through let's say a 10 ohm resistor, it will create a current of .6 amps. If you make it a 20 ohm resistor, the current will drop to .3, whereas if you make it a 5 ohm resistor the current becomes 1.2.

And if it's an issue of work, wattage=volts*amps, thus also W=(I^2)(R)

yes,i already know what you are saying,but i am asking for a precise microscopical analysis.Your analysis is the easy macroscopic analysis that everyone knows.

 

[Joker93]

Why does a roller coaster going downhill back to ground lose the same potential energy it gains when it goes uphill to the maximum height?
This may help.

Yes,i understand this,but again,i am looking for a microscopic analysis that tells me WHY is the energy that the resistors turn into heat the same as the voltage difference of the battery(provided you multiply it by the charge)?

 

[nsaspook]

I'll give it a try.

The batteries chemical reaction causes charge separation (ion movements in the electrolyte to each plate) inside the battery that creates an electric field that contains that energy. Once the voltage potential of the field from that charge separation from anode to cathode reaches equilibrium with the voltage of the battery cell reaction voltages the reactions stop as there is no place for energy to be stored and no path for charges to flow (electrons) until an external circuit is made. When a path for electron flow is connected (wire and resistor) across the battery we now also have charge separation on the terminals of the resistor and an electric field across the resistor meaning the resistor (and the wire due to very small surface charge) are no longer electrical neutral so the charges flow to neutralize the fields across them. With charge flow we now have an electric and magnetic field at points in the circuit. If we assume the 'wire' is a good conductor from the 'battery to resistor' the electric/magnetic field power product across those points will be close to zero (low voltage, current with slow speeds, large number of electrons with few collisions) but across the resistor we have the full electric field from the battery and the magnetic field from the charge flow limited (full voltage, same current with faster speeds, smaller number of electrons with many collisions) by the value of the resistor. We now have EM energy (power) moving from the battery electric field (causing chemical energy reactions to restart to maintain voltage equilibrium as charge flows around the circuit), as mainly magnetic fields across the length of both wires and then to the resistor with both fields and power (Watts) into the resistor as Joule_heating

 

[Joker93]

I'll give it a try.

The batteries chemical reaction causes charge separation (ion movements in the electrolyte to each plate) inside the battery that creates an electric field that contains that energy. Once the voltage potential of the field from that charge separation from anode to cathode reaches equilibrium with the voltage of the battery cell reaction voltages the reactions stop as there is no place for energy to be stored and no path for charges to flow (electrons) until an external circuit is made. When a path for electron flow is connected (wire and resistor) across the battery we now also have charge separation on the terminals of the resistor and an electric field across the resistor meaning the resistor (and the wire due to very small surface charge) are no longer electrical neutral so the charges flow to neutralize the fields across them. With charge flow we now have an electric and magnetic field at points in the circuit. If we assume the 'wire' is a good conductor from the 'battery to resistor' the electric/magnetic field power product across those points will be close to zero (low voltage, current with slow speeds, large number of electrons with few collisions) but across the resistor we have the full electric field from the battery and the magnetic field from the charge flow limited (full voltage, same current with faster speeds, smaller number of electrons with many collisions) by the value of the resistor. We now have EM energy (power) moving from the battery electric field (causing chemical energy reactions to restart to maintain voltage equilibrium as charge flows around the circuit), as mainly magnetic fields across the length of both wires and then to the resistor with both fields and power (Watts) into the resistor as Joule_heating

If i understood correctly,your are saying that the energy of the battery is not drained by the wire(approximately) and so the whole energy of the battery(say 6V)are drained in the resistors.
But,there is a problem with that,which is the core of the question of this thread.Why is the exact energy of the battery drained by the resistor?The first time the electrons move through the circuit,they come across the resistor and each charge has some finite amount of energy.Now,the resistor causes collisions inside(much more than outside is the wire is a good conductor) and thus loss of energy.So how do we know that before the system comes into steady-state(current does not change),the energy that a single charge needs to get through the resistance is exactly the voltage of the battery?(assuming that the circuit has only got one resistor)

 

[Joker93]

The battery does know. It gives each charge the same energy---that's determined by the battery voltage. Each coulomb of charge gets one joule per battery volt, because the definition of a volt is one joule per coulomb.

I thought your answer again and something bothers me.Say,the first time that the charges try to make a loop in a circuit,you said that each charge has 1Joule/Voltage of the battery.So,how do we know that that precise energy that the charge has is just enough so that it gets it through the resistor?

 

[sophiecentaur]

Yes,i understand this,but again,i am looking for a microscopic analysis that tells me WHY is the energy that the resistors turn into heat the same as the voltage difference of the battery(provided you multiply it by the charge)?

I think you need to break this down into several different things going on. If you want to know how electrons, passing through a conductor, transfer thermal energy to the molecules of the conductor then you need to look at the quantum mechanics of the process. You can choose whether or not to go into that "microscopic process"! Suffice to say that the energy is conserved, one way or another. PD to Heat out per Coulomb.
There is also the simple logic that a battery will supply a certain amount of energy to each (+) charge that leaves it. The current that flows will depend on the so-called 'resistance' of the resistor and you can guarantee that charges flowing back into the negative terminal will have no energy left (it they were to have any more then simply more of them would flow until they didn't). Every real battery (or any electrical power source) has limited efficiency and there is always some energy dissipated inside it when energy is supplied to a load (described as its Internal Resistance - and it's never '0') this fact 'makes things right' at the end of the process. If you somehow imagine the charges emerging from the end of a wire with some energy left, this would have to be dissipated in the contact resistance / air gap.
You dismissed the model of a roller coaster, earlier on, but a mechanical analogy is valid. If you used the potential energy of the coaster to heat up its brakes (perhaps) . If it got to the bottom of the track and was stationary then all the gpe would have been used up. If it was still moving (corresponding to charges still having some energy) then it would dissipate its energy running into the buffers. But it would still have lost all the gpe it had at the top (which it had been given by the lift engine (corresponding to the battery chemistry).

 

[sophiecentaur]

I thought your answer again and something bothers me.Say,the first time that the charges try to make a loop in a circuit,you said that each charge has 1Joule/Voltage of the battery.So,how do we know that that precise energy that the charge has is just enough so that it gets it through the resistor?

Where would the imbalance come from or go to?
Having just read that, would I be right in thinking that you are expecting the charges to steadily speed up or slow down if there was not equality each time they went round the loop?

 

[nsaspook]

If i understood correctly,your are saying that the energy of the battery is not drained by the wire(approximately) and so the whole energy of the battery(say 6V)are drained in the resistors.
But,there is a problem with that,which is the core of the question of this thread.Why is the exact energy of the battery drained by the resistor?The first time the electrons move through the circuit,they come across the resistor and each charge has some finite amount of energy.Now,the resistor causes collisions inside(much more than outside is the wire is a good conductor) and thus loss of energy.So how do we know that before the system comes into steady-state(current does not change),the energy that a single charge needs to get through the resistance is exactly the voltage of the battery?(assuming that the circuit has only got one resistor)

You can't look at one part in isolation. The total energy travels not in charge from the battery (the electrons in the wire have very little kinetic energy) but in the fields of the circuit that cause electron acceleration (kinetic energy into the resistor electrons from those fields) in the resistor causing it to heat from collisions.

 

[Joker93]

Where would the imbalance come from or go to?
Having just read that, would I be right in thinking that you are expecting the charges to steadily speed up or slow down if there was not equality each time they went round the loop?

During steady-state,no the charges have non-changing speed.Before that though,the current is changing(read it in a book of solid state physics).

 

[Joker93]

I think you need to break this down into several different things going on. If you want to know how electrons, passing through a conductor, transfer thermal energy to the molecules of the conductor then you need to look at the quantum mechanics of the process. You can choose whether or not to go into that "microscopic process"! Suffice to say that the energy is conserved, one way or another. PD to Heat out per Coulomb.
There is also the simple logic that a battery will supply a certain amount of energy to each (+) charge that leaves it. The current that flows will depend on the so-called 'resistance' of the resistor and you can guarantee that charges flowing back into the negative terminal will have no energy left (it they were to have any more then simply more of them would flow until they didn't). Every real battery (or any electrical power source) has limited efficiency and there is always some energy dissipated inside it when energy is supplied to a load (described as its Internal Resistance - and it's never '0') this fact 'makes things right' at the end of the process. If you somehow imagine the charges emerging from the end of a wire with some energy left, this would have to be dissipated in the contact resistance / air gap.
You dismissed the model of a roller coaster, earlier on, but a mechanical analogy is valid. If you used the potential energy of the coaster to heat up its brakes (perhaps) . If it got to the bottom of the track and was stationary then all the gpe would have been used up. If it was still moving (corresponding to charges still having some energy) then it would dissipate its energy running into the buffers. But it would still have lost all the gpe it had at the top (which it had been given by the lift engine (corresponding to the battery chemistry).

Yes,i understand what you are saying.I have thought of another way of seeing things.What about saying that potential energy means coulomb forces acting on charges,which in order to get the charges past the resistor,it has to do work equal to the energy dissipated by the battery(V=IR),so the work done by the field is equal to the energy dissipated by all the resistors in the circuit.But,i come to the same paradox in this way of thinking.Why does the resistor dissipate as much energy as the voltage difference of the battery?

 

[nsaspook]

Yes,i understand what you are saying.I have thought of another way of seeing things.What about saying that potential energy means coulomb forces acting on charges,which in order to get the charges past the resistor,it has to do work equal to the energy dissipated by the battery(V=IR),so the work done by the field is equal to the energy dissipated by all the resistors in the circuit.But,i come to the same paradox in this way of thinking.Why does the resistor dissipate as much energy as the voltage difference of the battery?

The resistor only dissipates the amount of power given by the voltage (electric field energy) and current (magnetic field energy) product. If the voltage is steady across the resistor then the value of resistance determines the current and the power delivered into the resistor for heating. Maybe you need to change your way of thinking.

 

[jim hardy]

It is useful to imagine one's self very small and able to walk the circuit along with the charge carriers.
Imagine yourself so small that an electron is the size of a pea and an atom the size of a house*. Then place yourself in your circuit and walk it, noting the changes in potential as you go.

The answer to your question is: when you go around in circles you get back to exactly where you started. (or for that matter around any closed path)

* that scale isn't accurate but we just need a mental image to work with .

 

[sophiecentaur]

The resistor only dissipates the amount of power given by the voltage (electric field energy) and current (magnetic field energy) product. If the voltage is steady across the resistor then the value of resistance determines the current and the power delivered into the resistor for heating. Maybe you need to change your way of thinking.

That's good advice. I think Adam is looking at it in a too 'mechanical' way and he is also being surprised by the consequence of Energy Conservation.

 

[Symmetry777]

These laws have to be memorized.Kirchhoff's closed loop rule or Kirchhoff’s second law.Series and parallel circuit electrical theory test question: Kirchhoff’s second law states that the sum of the voltage drops around a closed loop will equal the applied voltage.OrThe voltage source(s) and the resistor voltage drop(s) cancel each other out.
This is a principle across many studies in physics, including circuits.Conservation of energy—the principle that energy is neither created nor destroyed.

 

[Joker93]

These laws have to be memorized.Kirchhoff's closed loop rule or Kirchhoff’s second law.Series and parallel circuit electrical theory test question:Kirchhoff’s second law states that the sum of the voltage drops around a closed loop will equal the applied voltage.OrThe voltage source(s) and the resistor voltage drop(s) cancel each other out.
This is a principle across many studies in physics, including circuits.Conservation of energy—the principle that energy is neither created nor destroyed.

yes,i know these rules!i have practiced them in my first year in college.Now,i want to learn how these rules work in a microscopic scale which is more complicated.Difference in energy comes from work done by forces.So,i am seeking an analysis which has more to do with forces and fields in microscopic scale in order to explain the macroscopic rules(for example Ohm's macroscopic rule is V=IR but it is only an approximation.but these approximations have to be dealt with in a microscopic scale).I hope you all get the idea that i need a more complicated explanation,because i have got the basics covered up!Thanks thought! :)

 

[nsaspook]

So,i am seeking an analysis which has more to do with forces and fields in microscopic scale in order to explain the macroscopic rules(for example Ohm's macroscopic rule is V=IR but it is only an approximation.but these approximations have to be dealt with in a microscopic scale).I hope you all get the idea that i need a more complicated explanation,because i have got the basics covered up!Thanks thought! :)

In the steady state with ohmic resistances like a normal wire and resistor V=IR is a very good approximation for most 'normal' currents and voltages..
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/ohmmic.html

 

[sophiecentaur]

.Difference in energy comes from work done by forces.So,i am seeking an analysis which has more to do with forces and fields in microscopic scale in order to explain the macroscopic rules

You still seem to be insisting on a quasi classical approach to this. That is not reasonable, I think. Force and Work are macroscopic concepts. You want a "microscopic" approach so you have to involve QM and you need all the basics before you can venture into solid state stuff.

 

[Joker93]

You still seem to be insisting on a quasi classical approach to this. That is not reasonable, I think. Force and Work are macroscopic concepts. You want a "microscopic" approach so you have to involve QM and you need all the basics before you can venture into solid state stuff.

No,there is certainly a microscopic classical approach and it is indeed an approximation of the truly detailed quantum mechanical approach but it is still ok bacause this approximation in contrast to the macroscopic to microscopic approach,is really close to the reality.Yes,the macroscopic approach of Kirchoff's and Ohm's laws are goof approaches for an engineer,but for a physicist who wants to dig into the microscopic analysis without quantum mechanics knowledge they are simply not enough.And to support this,i have found the answers to nearly all the question about circuits in a great book that is called Matter and Interactions which digs into the micro classical approach before giving you the macroscopic laws.Check the book out guys,although i believe some of its subjects are more of a "graduate's stuff",and that is the reason that most of the people that tried to answer my question were not as accurate as i wanted them to be.The final answer is that even in the wire that has no resistance(theoretically a perfect conductor) you have a very little drop of voltage(moving away from the source of the electric filed causes voltage drop-electrostatics(only for the battery which maintains-approximately-its charge throughout)).So,the resistors do not in fact drop the voltage to zero all by themselves,but with the help of the electric field that is the gradient of voltage.The remaining voltage drop is due to the resistors which indeed by Ohm's law drop the voltage in a way that is determined by the resistances(like each resistor drops as much percentage of voltage as the percentage that its resistance has over the whole resistance of the system) and in such a way as to satisfy the conservation of energy(as many of you said) and make the integral over a closed loop of the electric field(also like some of you said).Now,this is semi-microscopic view(micro because the analysis that i read explained the electric field part in detail).Now,the truly microscopic approach comes in the vicinity of the resistors.There is accumulation of charge near the resistors which tends to drive the system into a steady state(current is invariant with time) so that charge sets up a "secondary" electric field at both ends of a resistance causing THAT voltage drop through the resistor,which explains the semi-microscopic's approach(above i said that "The remaining voltage drop is due to the resistors which indeed by Ohm's law drop the voltage in a way that is determined by the resistances").Only with two types of analysis do the two ways agree.So,you see the the macroscopic approach is indeed an approximation.
Note:1)before steady state,the drop in voltage due to resistors is for the same exact reasons-->accumulation of charge at the ends of the resistor.
2)And about the analysis for the collisions inside the resistors,they are the reason that you have accumulation of charge.They stop charges from going in before the phase of steady-state.The work that has to be done to get the current through that "collision-full" resistor is the same as the potential drop from the accumulation of charge at the two ends multiplied by the charge.The accumulation of charge is analogous of the time passes for a charge to go from one collision to the next.And this is analogous to resistivity.So,again we see how the micro and macro approach leads to the same things.
3)Exact calculations of some phenomenon MUST use quantum mechanics as some said,but as a classical explanation this is as far as it goes.The time from collision to collision is not yet determined with accuracy,that is why we have tables for resistivities for each material and not a way of easily calculating it in each exercise or situation.
To close this subject,i hope that you know understand what kind of an explanation i was looking for and sorry for the trouble guys!And by the way,most of the answers were correct,but some referred to the macro approach and others referred to the micro but were incomplete or supposed some things that were wrong!
Thanks to you all!

 

[sophiecentaur]

So,you see the the macroscopic approach is indeed an approximation.

Of course it is. But what is the point of your idea of a half way house, based on similar approximations but applied in a 'sort of' microscopic world? The only reason for it can only be to make one feel better about it and to kid oneself that it gives a better understanding. If you are talking microscopic then you have to talk in terms of statistics and that is no nearer a good model than plain old Oh's Law.

Exact calculations of some phenomenon MUST use quantum mechanics

But QM is not "exact". It is based totally on the fact that things are not ever "exact". QM just let's you include a wider range of circumstances and scales.

 

[Joker93]

W

Of course it is. But what is the point of your idea of a half way house, based on similar approximations but applied in a 'sort of' microscopic world? The only reason for it can only be to make one feel better about it and to kid oneself that it gives a better understanding. If you are talking microscopic then you have to talk in terms of statistics and that is no nearer a good model than plain old Oh's Law.But QM is not "exact". It is based totally on the fact that things are not ever "exact". QM just let's you include a wider range of circumstances and scales.

Well,i did not study Quantum mechanics yet,so you can understand that right now i can only dig as deep as classical mechanics let me.You have to understand classical mechanics in full in order to compare classical and quantum mechanical approaches in the best way possible.And that will offer a great insight in both approaches and further develop intuition.So,digging as deep as i can is certainly not fooling myself,but building intuition on a model(classical).When i get to quantum mechanics things are going to change in the approach and everything,but doing what is absolutely possible with the tools that you have right now(until the right time comes to develop your tools-QM) is the best thing to do in my opinion.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Imo, it is true to say that it is very easy to 'intuit' inappropriately by taking classical ideas too far. (19th Century Physicists made that mistake)
If you want to be confident about your ideas then you really have no option but to get into QM. Comparing classical and QM methods can be interesting, of course - but only when you appreciate both approaches. This is why there were such momentous advances in Physics, once QM was developed.
I know it is not necessarily good to quote how the present teaching of Physics is carried out (it may not be optimal) but people are introduced pretty early on, these days, into QM (some might say too early- I'm playing devil's advocate here).

 

[Joker93]

Imo, it is true to say that it is very easy to 'intuit' inappropriately by taking classical ideas too far. (19th Century Physicists made that mistake)
If you want to be confident about your ideas then you really have no option but to get into QM. Comparing classical and QM methods can be interesting, of course - but only when you appreciate both approaches. This is why there were such momentous advances in Physics, once QM was developed.
I know it is not necessarily good to quote how the present teaching of Physics is carried out (it may not be optimal) but people are introduced pretty early on, these days, into QM (some might say too early- I'm playing devil's advocate here).

Yes,i agree with you,but educating myself with a more detailed explanation in the classical world is not a bad thing to do.If you know that this is the classical approach and know the difference between this and QM,then in my opinion i do not "'intuit' inappropriately".I only know classical mechanics now,and saying that i do not fully agree with something and trying to find a better answer is a good thing to do.My professor taught us the macroscopic rules but did not mention the approximations.So it is my duty to intuit myself in every way possible by saying "no,i do not agree with you" and trying my best to think or find a good answer.Next stage is QM though!but intuition is intuition.If you build a great intuition in classical mechanics,then this great way of thinking and questioning things sticks with you all the way to QM.So,i will stick to seeking deep answers on whichever approach!thank you for your insight and answers though,they were truly helpful!

 

[jim hardy]

Our circuit laws were derived before discovery of electron and invention of QM. So they're macroscopic and work very well for practical purposes.But it's always interesting to examine everyday things under a microscope.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/ohmmic.html#c2

I was always fascinated by the idea of Barkhausen effect

and have long wondered if some similar phenomenon exists for conduction in metals.
I think one does.
Here's a couple of interesting articles on electrical noise that, i think, touch on your questions.

http://in4.iue.tuwien.ac.at/pdfs/iwce/iwce3_1994/pdfs/pp029-032.pdf
http://users.ece.gatech.edu/phasler/Courses/ECE6414/Unit1/Rahul_noise01.pdf

The myriads of random events that happen at microscopic scales cause fluctuations in the values of macroscopic variables such as voltage, current, and charge. These fluctuations are referred to as noise.

We've got meters nowadays so much more sensitive than those available to the pioneers we can measure things they could only dream of. So it becomes possible to study microscopic effects.

The macroscopic view solves 99.9% of everyday problems. So that's why everyday folks like me aren't much concerned with the micro view except as intellectual curiosities.

No offense intended, indeed you can do science a favor by explaining esoteric subjects clearly.
My old favorite science guy Lavoisier said "By improving our language we reason better."

Good luck in your studies.

 

[Joker93]

Our circuit laws were derived before discovery of electron and invention of QM. So they're macroscopic and work very well for practical purposes.But it's always interesting to examine everyday things under a microscope.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/ohmmic.html#c2

I was always fascinated by the idea of Barkhausen effect

and have long wondered if some similar phenomenon exists for conduction in metals.
I think one does.
Here's a couple of interesting articles on electrical noise that, i think, touch on your questions.

http://in4.iue.tuwien.ac.at/pdfs/iwce/iwce3_1994/pdfs/pp029-032.pdf
http://users.ece.gatech.edu/phasler/Courses/ECE6414/Unit1/Rahul_noise01.pdf
We've got meters nowadays so much more sensitive than those available to the pioneers we can measure things they could only dream of. So it becomes possible to study microscopic effects.

The macroscopic view solves 99.9% of everyday problems. So that's why everyday folks like me aren't much concerned with the micro view except as intellectual curiosities.

No offense intended, indeed you can do science a favor by explaining esoteric subjects clearly.
My old favorite science guy Lavoisier said "By improving our language we reason better."

Good luck in your studies.

thank you for your links!appreciate it!My question was clearly to satisfy my own curiosity and to develop a microscopic intuition.
As for the language,english is not my first language and the subject was a bit hard to explain even for someone whose english is great!
Sorry for the obscureness of the question and thank you for your answers!