Physics Help Forum Definiton VS Assumption VS Different Ways

 Apr 10th 2019, 05:15 PM #1 Senior Member   Join Date: Mar 2019 Location: cosmos Posts: 666 Definiton VS Assumption VS Different Ways There might be one concept several equivalent definitions, people might define current according to positive charge or negative charge. That's the case. "charge pass through unit surface unit time" is the tradtional definition of current. The full name of "Maxwell displacement current" is "Maxwell displacement current assumption". There might be different ways (or say angles) of thinking about the samething, but "charge pass through unit surface unit time" is "able to think about" while "Maxwell displacement current" is "not able to think about" so that "had to assume", IN ORDER TO SOLVE CONTRADICTION.
Apr 10th 2019, 07:16 PM   #2

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,856
 Originally Posted by neila9876 There might be one concept several equivalent definitions, people might define current according to positive charge or negative charge. That's the case. "charge pass through unit surface unit time" is the tradtional definition of current. The full name of "Maxwell displacement current" is "Maxwell displacement current assumption". There might be different ways (or say angles) of thinking about the samething, but "charge pass through unit surface unit time" is "able to think about" while "Maxwell displacement current" is "not able to think about" so that "had to assume", IN ORDER TO SOLVE CONTRADICTION.
This is the second time someone has mentioned Maxwell's displacment current." (I didn't bother to find the other comment.)

What I don't understand is why this is a big deal? Part of the electric displacment ( $\displaystyle \vec{D}$ ) is free charges moving about. (The other part is polarization of the material the electric field is applied to.) This can easily be seen to create a movement of charges through a surface, which is the definiton of current.

So there is no contradiction. Am I missing something?

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.

 Apr 10th 2019, 07:32 PM #3 Senior Member   Join Date: Mar 2019 Location: cosmos Posts: 666 First, Chen's first language is not English. I feel that you take the other part of charge pair into consideration and solve the contradiction. And so you are more excellent than "the standard" and even Maxwell. Isn't it a big deal? Last edited by neila9876; Apr 10th 2019 at 07:34 PM. Reason: correct word
Apr 10th 2019, 09:20 PM   #4

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,856
 Originally Posted by neila9876 First, Chen's first language is not English. I feel that you take the other part of charge pair into consideration and solve the contradiction. And so you are more excellent than "the standard" and even Maxwell. Isn't it a big deal?
Sorry. I'm still not following you.

What other "part of the charge pair"? We have negative charges (electrons) moving so we have a current. The other way to look at it is to say we have a flow of positive charges (holes) and get the same current. (The flow of positives is in the opposite direction of the negatives.)

I still don't see the contradiction!

We do have an advantage over Maxwell, though. Maxwell didn't know what electrons were (At least not rigorously. He and others certainly knew that a stream of negative charges could be created but Thompson officially discovered electrons near the turn of the century.) That gives us a better idea of how the displacement actually works.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.

 Apr 10th 2019, 10:47 PM #5 Senior Member   Join Date: Mar 2019 Location: cosmos Posts: 666 Your are that kind of "genius make himself confused". It 's Maxwell who saw the contradiction, not you. The traditional current concept is unilateral (charge move relative to any frame). Your current concept is bilateral (Charge move relative to charge). Clear? If you hug the electron and move with it (frame established always on the electron), can you get "the same opposite current"? Last edited by neila9876; Apr 10th 2019 at 11:26 PM. Reason: detailed
Apr 11th 2019, 03:47 AM   #6
Senior Member

Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Somerset, England
Posts: 1,035

I think your translation program is missing important words.

For example, topsquark quoted polarisation above.

Charge and current are fundamentally different.

Charge is a real property of of real things (matter).

Current is a theoretical model in circuit analysis.

Most currents do not conform to this definition of yours.

 "charge pass through unit surface unit time" is the tradtional definition of current.
For instance in conductors it is fundamentally incompatible with the observation

"Charge resides on the outside surface of a body"

Have you studied charge distribution in conductors?

 Apr 11th 2019, 03:55 AM #7 Senior Member     Join Date: Jun 2016 Location: England Posts: 1,059 I (like Studiot) think the translation is getting in the way... Are you trying to say that: The current is dependent on the velocity of the electron(s). However the velocity is relative to the "observers" reference frame. Thus the current generated by an electron will be dependent on the reference frame from which it is measured. __________________ ~\o/~
Apr 11th 2019, 04:37 AM   #8
Senior Member

Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Somerset, England
Posts: 1,035
 Originally Posted by Woody I (like Studiot) think the translation is getting in the way... Are you trying to say that: The current is dependent on the velocity of the electron(s). However the velocity is relative to the "observers" reference frame. Thus the current generated by an electron will be dependent on the reference frame from which it is measured.
thanks Woody for trying to help.

I hop you know that this wood (pun intende) be untrue.

 Apr 11th 2019, 07:33 AM #9 Senior Member   Join Date: Mar 2019 Location: cosmos Posts: 666 Woody is very interesting...Why Maxwell had to assume his replacement current?

 Tags assumption, definiton, ways

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Physics Forum Discussions Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post greenwater Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics 4 Jan 13th 2017 05:17 PM assaftolko Advanced Mechanics 11 Oct 9th 2012 05:50 PM