Is electric current relative?












10












$begingroup$


Motion as we know is relative. According to this current which is the flow of charges should be also relative . That means that if someone is moving with the same velocity with repsect to the velocity of electrons (current) would he see no current at all ?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Related: Is magnetic field due to an electric current a relativistic effect? and Can Maxwell's equations be derived from Coulomb's Law and Special Relativity?.
    $endgroup$
    – The Photon
    Dec 16 '18 at 17:35






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    One problem is that the speed of the electrons in a conductor isn't the speed of the current. The current propagates at an appreciable fraction of light speed, while the electrons move quite slowly - on the order of a meter per hour, or much slower than walking speed. And that's for a direct current: with alternating current, the electrons just move back and forth a very short distance: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:44






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @jamesqf, To say that "the current propagates..." I think is misleading. What moves down the wire at near light speed is signals. That is, changes in current and voltage.
    $endgroup$
    – Solomon Slow
    Dec 17 '18 at 0:44












  • $begingroup$
    @Solomon Slow: I suppose that's inherent in trying to describe things in English. One can think of it as signal propagation, or (if you've worked in electric power transmission) as the propagation of power. You might think of an analogy with a garden hose: if the hose is empty, it takes a few seconds for water to come out the end after you turn on the faucet; if it's full, water comes out practically instantaneously, but it's not the water that just came out of the faucet.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Dec 17 '18 at 3:40










  • $begingroup$
    @Solomon Slow: But my point was to show the problems with the question. We DO regularly move faster than the electrons in a DC circuit (while in an AC circuit they don't really move at all, just wiggle back & forth), yet we don't see any change in their function.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Dec 17 '18 at 3:44
















10












$begingroup$


Motion as we know is relative. According to this current which is the flow of charges should be also relative . That means that if someone is moving with the same velocity with repsect to the velocity of electrons (current) would he see no current at all ?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Related: Is magnetic field due to an electric current a relativistic effect? and Can Maxwell's equations be derived from Coulomb's Law and Special Relativity?.
    $endgroup$
    – The Photon
    Dec 16 '18 at 17:35






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    One problem is that the speed of the electrons in a conductor isn't the speed of the current. The current propagates at an appreciable fraction of light speed, while the electrons move quite slowly - on the order of a meter per hour, or much slower than walking speed. And that's for a direct current: with alternating current, the electrons just move back and forth a very short distance: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:44






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @jamesqf, To say that "the current propagates..." I think is misleading. What moves down the wire at near light speed is signals. That is, changes in current and voltage.
    $endgroup$
    – Solomon Slow
    Dec 17 '18 at 0:44












  • $begingroup$
    @Solomon Slow: I suppose that's inherent in trying to describe things in English. One can think of it as signal propagation, or (if you've worked in electric power transmission) as the propagation of power. You might think of an analogy with a garden hose: if the hose is empty, it takes a few seconds for water to come out the end after you turn on the faucet; if it's full, water comes out practically instantaneously, but it's not the water that just came out of the faucet.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Dec 17 '18 at 3:40










  • $begingroup$
    @Solomon Slow: But my point was to show the problems with the question. We DO regularly move faster than the electrons in a DC circuit (while in an AC circuit they don't really move at all, just wiggle back & forth), yet we don't see any change in their function.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Dec 17 '18 at 3:44














10












10








10


1



$begingroup$


Motion as we know is relative. According to this current which is the flow of charges should be also relative . That means that if someone is moving with the same velocity with repsect to the velocity of electrons (current) would he see no current at all ?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




Motion as we know is relative. According to this current which is the flow of charges should be also relative . That means that if someone is moving with the same velocity with repsect to the velocity of electrons (current) would he see no current at all ?







electromagnetism electric-current relative-motion






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Dec 16 '18 at 17:31









ado sarado sar

31310




31310












  • $begingroup$
    Related: Is magnetic field due to an electric current a relativistic effect? and Can Maxwell's equations be derived from Coulomb's Law and Special Relativity?.
    $endgroup$
    – The Photon
    Dec 16 '18 at 17:35






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    One problem is that the speed of the electrons in a conductor isn't the speed of the current. The current propagates at an appreciable fraction of light speed, while the electrons move quite slowly - on the order of a meter per hour, or much slower than walking speed. And that's for a direct current: with alternating current, the electrons just move back and forth a very short distance: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:44






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @jamesqf, To say that "the current propagates..." I think is misleading. What moves down the wire at near light speed is signals. That is, changes in current and voltage.
    $endgroup$
    – Solomon Slow
    Dec 17 '18 at 0:44












  • $begingroup$
    @Solomon Slow: I suppose that's inherent in trying to describe things in English. One can think of it as signal propagation, or (if you've worked in electric power transmission) as the propagation of power. You might think of an analogy with a garden hose: if the hose is empty, it takes a few seconds for water to come out the end after you turn on the faucet; if it's full, water comes out practically instantaneously, but it's not the water that just came out of the faucet.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Dec 17 '18 at 3:40










  • $begingroup$
    @Solomon Slow: But my point was to show the problems with the question. We DO regularly move faster than the electrons in a DC circuit (while in an AC circuit they don't really move at all, just wiggle back & forth), yet we don't see any change in their function.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Dec 17 '18 at 3:44


















  • $begingroup$
    Related: Is magnetic field due to an electric current a relativistic effect? and Can Maxwell's equations be derived from Coulomb's Law and Special Relativity?.
    $endgroup$
    – The Photon
    Dec 16 '18 at 17:35






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    One problem is that the speed of the electrons in a conductor isn't the speed of the current. The current propagates at an appreciable fraction of light speed, while the electrons move quite slowly - on the order of a meter per hour, or much slower than walking speed. And that's for a direct current: with alternating current, the electrons just move back and forth a very short distance: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Dec 16 '18 at 20:44






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @jamesqf, To say that "the current propagates..." I think is misleading. What moves down the wire at near light speed is signals. That is, changes in current and voltage.
    $endgroup$
    – Solomon Slow
    Dec 17 '18 at 0:44












  • $begingroup$
    @Solomon Slow: I suppose that's inherent in trying to describe things in English. One can think of it as signal propagation, or (if you've worked in electric power transmission) as the propagation of power. You might think of an analogy with a garden hose: if the hose is empty, it takes a few seconds for water to come out the end after you turn on the faucet; if it's full, water comes out practically instantaneously, but it's not the water that just came out of the faucet.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Dec 17 '18 at 3:40










  • $begingroup$
    @Solomon Slow: But my point was to show the problems with the question. We DO regularly move faster than the electrons in a DC circuit (while in an AC circuit they don't really move at all, just wiggle back & forth), yet we don't see any change in their function.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Dec 17 '18 at 3:44
















$begingroup$
Related: Is magnetic field due to an electric current a relativistic effect? and Can Maxwell's equations be derived from Coulomb's Law and Special Relativity?.
$endgroup$
– The Photon
Dec 16 '18 at 17:35




$begingroup$
Related: Is magnetic field due to an electric current a relativistic effect? and Can Maxwell's equations be derived from Coulomb's Law and Special Relativity?.
$endgroup$
– The Photon
Dec 16 '18 at 17:35




1




1




$begingroup$
One problem is that the speed of the electrons in a conductor isn't the speed of the current. The current propagates at an appreciable fraction of light speed, while the electrons move quite slowly - on the order of a meter per hour, or much slower than walking speed. And that's for a direct current: with alternating current, the electrons just move back and forth a very short distance: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
Dec 16 '18 at 20:44




$begingroup$
One problem is that the speed of the electrons in a conductor isn't the speed of the current. The current propagates at an appreciable fraction of light speed, while the electrons move quite slowly - on the order of a meter per hour, or much slower than walking speed. And that's for a direct current: with alternating current, the electrons just move back and forth a very short distance: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
Dec 16 '18 at 20:44




1




1




$begingroup$
@jamesqf, To say that "the current propagates..." I think is misleading. What moves down the wire at near light speed is signals. That is, changes in current and voltage.
$endgroup$
– Solomon Slow
Dec 17 '18 at 0:44






$begingroup$
@jamesqf, To say that "the current propagates..." I think is misleading. What moves down the wire at near light speed is signals. That is, changes in current and voltage.
$endgroup$
– Solomon Slow
Dec 17 '18 at 0:44














$begingroup$
@Solomon Slow: I suppose that's inherent in trying to describe things in English. One can think of it as signal propagation, or (if you've worked in electric power transmission) as the propagation of power. You might think of an analogy with a garden hose: if the hose is empty, it takes a few seconds for water to come out the end after you turn on the faucet; if it's full, water comes out practically instantaneously, but it's not the water that just came out of the faucet.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
Dec 17 '18 at 3:40




$begingroup$
@Solomon Slow: I suppose that's inherent in trying to describe things in English. One can think of it as signal propagation, or (if you've worked in electric power transmission) as the propagation of power. You might think of an analogy with a garden hose: if the hose is empty, it takes a few seconds for water to come out the end after you turn on the faucet; if it's full, water comes out practically instantaneously, but it's not the water that just came out of the faucet.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
Dec 17 '18 at 3:40












$begingroup$
@Solomon Slow: But my point was to show the problems with the question. We DO regularly move faster than the electrons in a DC circuit (while in an AC circuit they don't really move at all, just wiggle back & forth), yet we don't see any change in their function.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
Dec 17 '18 at 3:44




$begingroup$
@Solomon Slow: But my point was to show the problems with the question. We DO regularly move faster than the electrons in a DC circuit (while in an AC circuit they don't really move at all, just wiggle back & forth), yet we don't see any change in their function.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
Dec 17 '18 at 3:44










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















17












$begingroup$

Charge density $rho$ and current density $vec{J}$ form a Lorentz four-vector $(crho, vec{J})$ that transforms under a Lorentz transformation just like $(ct, vec{r})$ does.



For example, if two frames are in relative motion in the $z$-direction, with the primed frame having velocity $vhat{mathbf{z}}$ relative to the unprimed frame, then the transformation is



$$begin{align}
crho^prime &= gammaleft(crho - frac{v}{c}J_zright)\
J_x^prime &= J_x \
J_y^prime &= J_y \
J_z^prime &= gammaleft(J_z - frac{v}{c}(crho)right)
end{align}$$



where $gamma=1/sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$.



If you had a beam of electrons in space, and you observed it from a reference frame moving with the same velocity as the beam, there would be no current.



Since charge density and current density are frame-dependent, so are electric and magnetic fields. (For example, in the frame moving along with the beam, there is no magnetic field.) However, the transformation rules for the fields are a bit more complicated; they transform as components of a two-index four-tensor rather than a one-index four-vector.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    But why would there be no current? Or is this answer in the formulas you provided?
    $endgroup$
    – undefined
    Dec 17 '18 at 10:43






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @undefined It's in the formulas but the intuition is pretty obvious. If you are going with the current you don't feel it (if the current speed is not constant you could feel G-force). In water it would be the same as standing in still water. In electricity you would see stationary charges. It's classic relativity of motion.
    $endgroup$
    – luk32
    Dec 17 '18 at 12:00












  • $begingroup$
    @luk32 thank you for your comment. Is this phenomena independent of volt and ampere?
    $endgroup$
    – undefined
    Dec 17 '18 at 12:31






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @undefined The water analogues still hold here, Volt unit are used to describe velocity of the current, and Ampere the amount - as in number of particles in the flow. So I'd say it's not independent, especially relation to Volts seems to be quite direct.
    $endgroup$
    – luk32
    Dec 17 '18 at 12:36



















7












$begingroup$

Typically, we observe current in a solid, such as copper wire. So if you move with the same velocity as the average velocity of electrons in a current-carrying copper wire you will observe current of nuclei and bound electrons.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    This doesn't answer the question, unless the implication is supposed to be that current is frame-independent, which would be incorrect.
    $endgroup$
    – Ben Crowell
    Dec 16 '18 at 22:28






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @BenCrowell : The OP asked: "if someone is moving with the same velocity with repsect to the velocity of electrons (current) would he see no current at all ?" My answer means "no", so it is a direct answer to the OP's question, although a partial one, as it does not answer the question in the title. An answer does not have to be complete. And I did not say that the current is frame-independent.
    $endgroup$
    – akhmeteli
    Dec 16 '18 at 22:37



















2












$begingroup$

$letg=gamma letlam=lambda$
I'd like to expand G. Smith's answer by applying it to a metal wire.



Assume a straight wire along $z$-axis. If it carries a current it will
contain stationary positive charges and moving electrons. The wire is
neutral, i.e. charge densities of positive and of negative charges
balance each other:
$$lam_+ + lam_- = 0.tag1$$
There will be a non-null current carried by electrons $I_-ne0$,
whereas $I_+=0 $ ($I = I_+ + I_-$). Note that by $lam$ here I mean linear charge density, by $I$ the usual electric current.



It's useful to bear in mind signs. Of course $lam_+>0$, $lam_-<0$.
As to currents we may choose. If $I>0$ is taken, i.e. $I_->0$, then
$v<0$ (in order to have a positive current electrons have to move in
the negative direction).



As far as Lorentz transformations along $z$ are concerned, trasformation laws of $lam$, $I$ are the same as for $rho$, $J_z$:
$$eqalign{
lam'_pm &= g left(!lam_pm - {v over c^2},I_pm!right) cr
I'_pm &= g,(I_pm - v,lam_pm).cr} tag2$$



If we transform to average electrons rest frame, where $I'_-=0$, we have
$I_- = v,lam_-$ and substituting into the first of (2)
$$lam'_- = g left(!lam_- - {v^2 over c^2},lam_-!right) =
{lam_- over g}.$$

This is nothing but Lorentz contraction. Charge is invariant, so that
charge density transforms inversely to length. As far as electrons are
concerned, length in the lab frame is contracted wrt length in their
rest frame and charge density increases passing from the latter to the
former: $lam_-=g,lam'_-$. The opposite happens to $lam_+$:
$$lam'_+ = g,lam_+$$
since $I_+=0$ and positive charges are at rest in the lab frame.



Summarizing, in electrons rest frame we have
$$lam' = lam'_+ + lam_- = g,lam_+ + {lam_- over g} =
left(!g - {1 over g}!right) lam_+ =
g,{v^2 over c^2},lam_+ > 0$$

(I've used (1)). In that frame the wire is positively charged. As to current
$$I' = I'_+ + I'_- = -v,g,lam_+ = v,g,lam_- = g,I_- = g,I.$$
Of course this is the second of (2) written for $lam$, $I$ with $lam=0$.
We see that in electrons rest frame an increased current is observed (btw this also implies an increased magnetic field).






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "151"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f448706%2fis-electric-current-relative%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    17












    $begingroup$

    Charge density $rho$ and current density $vec{J}$ form a Lorentz four-vector $(crho, vec{J})$ that transforms under a Lorentz transformation just like $(ct, vec{r})$ does.



    For example, if two frames are in relative motion in the $z$-direction, with the primed frame having velocity $vhat{mathbf{z}}$ relative to the unprimed frame, then the transformation is



    $$begin{align}
    crho^prime &= gammaleft(crho - frac{v}{c}J_zright)\
    J_x^prime &= J_x \
    J_y^prime &= J_y \
    J_z^prime &= gammaleft(J_z - frac{v}{c}(crho)right)
    end{align}$$



    where $gamma=1/sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$.



    If you had a beam of electrons in space, and you observed it from a reference frame moving with the same velocity as the beam, there would be no current.



    Since charge density and current density are frame-dependent, so are electric and magnetic fields. (For example, in the frame moving along with the beam, there is no magnetic field.) However, the transformation rules for the fields are a bit more complicated; they transform as components of a two-index four-tensor rather than a one-index four-vector.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      But why would there be no current? Or is this answer in the formulas you provided?
      $endgroup$
      – undefined
      Dec 17 '18 at 10:43






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @undefined It's in the formulas but the intuition is pretty obvious. If you are going with the current you don't feel it (if the current speed is not constant you could feel G-force). In water it would be the same as standing in still water. In electricity you would see stationary charges. It's classic relativity of motion.
      $endgroup$
      – luk32
      Dec 17 '18 at 12:00












    • $begingroup$
      @luk32 thank you for your comment. Is this phenomena independent of volt and ampere?
      $endgroup$
      – undefined
      Dec 17 '18 at 12:31






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @undefined The water analogues still hold here, Volt unit are used to describe velocity of the current, and Ampere the amount - as in number of particles in the flow. So I'd say it's not independent, especially relation to Volts seems to be quite direct.
      $endgroup$
      – luk32
      Dec 17 '18 at 12:36
















    17












    $begingroup$

    Charge density $rho$ and current density $vec{J}$ form a Lorentz four-vector $(crho, vec{J})$ that transforms under a Lorentz transformation just like $(ct, vec{r})$ does.



    For example, if two frames are in relative motion in the $z$-direction, with the primed frame having velocity $vhat{mathbf{z}}$ relative to the unprimed frame, then the transformation is



    $$begin{align}
    crho^prime &= gammaleft(crho - frac{v}{c}J_zright)\
    J_x^prime &= J_x \
    J_y^prime &= J_y \
    J_z^prime &= gammaleft(J_z - frac{v}{c}(crho)right)
    end{align}$$



    where $gamma=1/sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$.



    If you had a beam of electrons in space, and you observed it from a reference frame moving with the same velocity as the beam, there would be no current.



    Since charge density and current density are frame-dependent, so are electric and magnetic fields. (For example, in the frame moving along with the beam, there is no magnetic field.) However, the transformation rules for the fields are a bit more complicated; they transform as components of a two-index four-tensor rather than a one-index four-vector.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      But why would there be no current? Or is this answer in the formulas you provided?
      $endgroup$
      – undefined
      Dec 17 '18 at 10:43






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @undefined It's in the formulas but the intuition is pretty obvious. If you are going with the current you don't feel it (if the current speed is not constant you could feel G-force). In water it would be the same as standing in still water. In electricity you would see stationary charges. It's classic relativity of motion.
      $endgroup$
      – luk32
      Dec 17 '18 at 12:00












    • $begingroup$
      @luk32 thank you for your comment. Is this phenomena independent of volt and ampere?
      $endgroup$
      – undefined
      Dec 17 '18 at 12:31






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @undefined The water analogues still hold here, Volt unit are used to describe velocity of the current, and Ampere the amount - as in number of particles in the flow. So I'd say it's not independent, especially relation to Volts seems to be quite direct.
      $endgroup$
      – luk32
      Dec 17 '18 at 12:36














    17












    17








    17





    $begingroup$

    Charge density $rho$ and current density $vec{J}$ form a Lorentz four-vector $(crho, vec{J})$ that transforms under a Lorentz transformation just like $(ct, vec{r})$ does.



    For example, if two frames are in relative motion in the $z$-direction, with the primed frame having velocity $vhat{mathbf{z}}$ relative to the unprimed frame, then the transformation is



    $$begin{align}
    crho^prime &= gammaleft(crho - frac{v}{c}J_zright)\
    J_x^prime &= J_x \
    J_y^prime &= J_y \
    J_z^prime &= gammaleft(J_z - frac{v}{c}(crho)right)
    end{align}$$



    where $gamma=1/sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$.



    If you had a beam of electrons in space, and you observed it from a reference frame moving with the same velocity as the beam, there would be no current.



    Since charge density and current density are frame-dependent, so are electric and magnetic fields. (For example, in the frame moving along with the beam, there is no magnetic field.) However, the transformation rules for the fields are a bit more complicated; they transform as components of a two-index four-tensor rather than a one-index four-vector.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    Charge density $rho$ and current density $vec{J}$ form a Lorentz four-vector $(crho, vec{J})$ that transforms under a Lorentz transformation just like $(ct, vec{r})$ does.



    For example, if two frames are in relative motion in the $z$-direction, with the primed frame having velocity $vhat{mathbf{z}}$ relative to the unprimed frame, then the transformation is



    $$begin{align}
    crho^prime &= gammaleft(crho - frac{v}{c}J_zright)\
    J_x^prime &= J_x \
    J_y^prime &= J_y \
    J_z^prime &= gammaleft(J_z - frac{v}{c}(crho)right)
    end{align}$$



    where $gamma=1/sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$.



    If you had a beam of electrons in space, and you observed it from a reference frame moving with the same velocity as the beam, there would be no current.



    Since charge density and current density are frame-dependent, so are electric and magnetic fields. (For example, in the frame moving along with the beam, there is no magnetic field.) However, the transformation rules for the fields are a bit more complicated; they transform as components of a two-index four-tensor rather than a one-index four-vector.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited Dec 16 '18 at 18:16

























    answered Dec 16 '18 at 17:55









    G. SmithG. Smith

    5,6661021




    5,6661021












    • $begingroup$
      But why would there be no current? Or is this answer in the formulas you provided?
      $endgroup$
      – undefined
      Dec 17 '18 at 10:43






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @undefined It's in the formulas but the intuition is pretty obvious. If you are going with the current you don't feel it (if the current speed is not constant you could feel G-force). In water it would be the same as standing in still water. In electricity you would see stationary charges. It's classic relativity of motion.
      $endgroup$
      – luk32
      Dec 17 '18 at 12:00












    • $begingroup$
      @luk32 thank you for your comment. Is this phenomena independent of volt and ampere?
      $endgroup$
      – undefined
      Dec 17 '18 at 12:31






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @undefined The water analogues still hold here, Volt unit are used to describe velocity of the current, and Ampere the amount - as in number of particles in the flow. So I'd say it's not independent, especially relation to Volts seems to be quite direct.
      $endgroup$
      – luk32
      Dec 17 '18 at 12:36


















    • $begingroup$
      But why would there be no current? Or is this answer in the formulas you provided?
      $endgroup$
      – undefined
      Dec 17 '18 at 10:43






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @undefined It's in the formulas but the intuition is pretty obvious. If you are going with the current you don't feel it (if the current speed is not constant you could feel G-force). In water it would be the same as standing in still water. In electricity you would see stationary charges. It's classic relativity of motion.
      $endgroup$
      – luk32
      Dec 17 '18 at 12:00












    • $begingroup$
      @luk32 thank you for your comment. Is this phenomena independent of volt and ampere?
      $endgroup$
      – undefined
      Dec 17 '18 at 12:31






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @undefined The water analogues still hold here, Volt unit are used to describe velocity of the current, and Ampere the amount - as in number of particles in the flow. So I'd say it's not independent, especially relation to Volts seems to be quite direct.
      $endgroup$
      – luk32
      Dec 17 '18 at 12:36
















    $begingroup$
    But why would there be no current? Or is this answer in the formulas you provided?
    $endgroup$
    – undefined
    Dec 17 '18 at 10:43




    $begingroup$
    But why would there be no current? Or is this answer in the formulas you provided?
    $endgroup$
    – undefined
    Dec 17 '18 at 10:43




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @undefined It's in the formulas but the intuition is pretty obvious. If you are going with the current you don't feel it (if the current speed is not constant you could feel G-force). In water it would be the same as standing in still water. In electricity you would see stationary charges. It's classic relativity of motion.
    $endgroup$
    – luk32
    Dec 17 '18 at 12:00






    $begingroup$
    @undefined It's in the formulas but the intuition is pretty obvious. If you are going with the current you don't feel it (if the current speed is not constant you could feel G-force). In water it would be the same as standing in still water. In electricity you would see stationary charges. It's classic relativity of motion.
    $endgroup$
    – luk32
    Dec 17 '18 at 12:00














    $begingroup$
    @luk32 thank you for your comment. Is this phenomena independent of volt and ampere?
    $endgroup$
    – undefined
    Dec 17 '18 at 12:31




    $begingroup$
    @luk32 thank you for your comment. Is this phenomena independent of volt and ampere?
    $endgroup$
    – undefined
    Dec 17 '18 at 12:31




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @undefined The water analogues still hold here, Volt unit are used to describe velocity of the current, and Ampere the amount - as in number of particles in the flow. So I'd say it's not independent, especially relation to Volts seems to be quite direct.
    $endgroup$
    – luk32
    Dec 17 '18 at 12:36




    $begingroup$
    @undefined The water analogues still hold here, Volt unit are used to describe velocity of the current, and Ampere the amount - as in number of particles in the flow. So I'd say it's not independent, especially relation to Volts seems to be quite direct.
    $endgroup$
    – luk32
    Dec 17 '18 at 12:36











    7












    $begingroup$

    Typically, we observe current in a solid, such as copper wire. So if you move with the same velocity as the average velocity of electrons in a current-carrying copper wire you will observe current of nuclei and bound electrons.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      This doesn't answer the question, unless the implication is supposed to be that current is frame-independent, which would be incorrect.
      $endgroup$
      – Ben Crowell
      Dec 16 '18 at 22:28






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @BenCrowell : The OP asked: "if someone is moving with the same velocity with repsect to the velocity of electrons (current) would he see no current at all ?" My answer means "no", so it is a direct answer to the OP's question, although a partial one, as it does not answer the question in the title. An answer does not have to be complete. And I did not say that the current is frame-independent.
      $endgroup$
      – akhmeteli
      Dec 16 '18 at 22:37
















    7












    $begingroup$

    Typically, we observe current in a solid, such as copper wire. So if you move with the same velocity as the average velocity of electrons in a current-carrying copper wire you will observe current of nuclei and bound electrons.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      This doesn't answer the question, unless the implication is supposed to be that current is frame-independent, which would be incorrect.
      $endgroup$
      – Ben Crowell
      Dec 16 '18 at 22:28






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @BenCrowell : The OP asked: "if someone is moving with the same velocity with repsect to the velocity of electrons (current) would he see no current at all ?" My answer means "no", so it is a direct answer to the OP's question, although a partial one, as it does not answer the question in the title. An answer does not have to be complete. And I did not say that the current is frame-independent.
      $endgroup$
      – akhmeteli
      Dec 16 '18 at 22:37














    7












    7








    7





    $begingroup$

    Typically, we observe current in a solid, such as copper wire. So if you move with the same velocity as the average velocity of electrons in a current-carrying copper wire you will observe current of nuclei and bound electrons.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    Typically, we observe current in a solid, such as copper wire. So if you move with the same velocity as the average velocity of electrons in a current-carrying copper wire you will observe current of nuclei and bound electrons.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Dec 16 '18 at 17:41









    akhmeteliakhmeteli

    17.7k21841




    17.7k21841












    • $begingroup$
      This doesn't answer the question, unless the implication is supposed to be that current is frame-independent, which would be incorrect.
      $endgroup$
      – Ben Crowell
      Dec 16 '18 at 22:28






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @BenCrowell : The OP asked: "if someone is moving with the same velocity with repsect to the velocity of electrons (current) would he see no current at all ?" My answer means "no", so it is a direct answer to the OP's question, although a partial one, as it does not answer the question in the title. An answer does not have to be complete. And I did not say that the current is frame-independent.
      $endgroup$
      – akhmeteli
      Dec 16 '18 at 22:37


















    • $begingroup$
      This doesn't answer the question, unless the implication is supposed to be that current is frame-independent, which would be incorrect.
      $endgroup$
      – Ben Crowell
      Dec 16 '18 at 22:28






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @BenCrowell : The OP asked: "if someone is moving with the same velocity with repsect to the velocity of electrons (current) would he see no current at all ?" My answer means "no", so it is a direct answer to the OP's question, although a partial one, as it does not answer the question in the title. An answer does not have to be complete. And I did not say that the current is frame-independent.
      $endgroup$
      – akhmeteli
      Dec 16 '18 at 22:37
















    $begingroup$
    This doesn't answer the question, unless the implication is supposed to be that current is frame-independent, which would be incorrect.
    $endgroup$
    – Ben Crowell
    Dec 16 '18 at 22:28




    $begingroup$
    This doesn't answer the question, unless the implication is supposed to be that current is frame-independent, which would be incorrect.
    $endgroup$
    – Ben Crowell
    Dec 16 '18 at 22:28




    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    @BenCrowell : The OP asked: "if someone is moving with the same velocity with repsect to the velocity of electrons (current) would he see no current at all ?" My answer means "no", so it is a direct answer to the OP's question, although a partial one, as it does not answer the question in the title. An answer does not have to be complete. And I did not say that the current is frame-independent.
    $endgroup$
    – akhmeteli
    Dec 16 '18 at 22:37




    $begingroup$
    @BenCrowell : The OP asked: "if someone is moving with the same velocity with repsect to the velocity of electrons (current) would he see no current at all ?" My answer means "no", so it is a direct answer to the OP's question, although a partial one, as it does not answer the question in the title. An answer does not have to be complete. And I did not say that the current is frame-independent.
    $endgroup$
    – akhmeteli
    Dec 16 '18 at 22:37











    2












    $begingroup$

    $letg=gamma letlam=lambda$
    I'd like to expand G. Smith's answer by applying it to a metal wire.



    Assume a straight wire along $z$-axis. If it carries a current it will
    contain stationary positive charges and moving electrons. The wire is
    neutral, i.e. charge densities of positive and of negative charges
    balance each other:
    $$lam_+ + lam_- = 0.tag1$$
    There will be a non-null current carried by electrons $I_-ne0$,
    whereas $I_+=0 $ ($I = I_+ + I_-$). Note that by $lam$ here I mean linear charge density, by $I$ the usual electric current.



    It's useful to bear in mind signs. Of course $lam_+>0$, $lam_-<0$.
    As to currents we may choose. If $I>0$ is taken, i.e. $I_->0$, then
    $v<0$ (in order to have a positive current electrons have to move in
    the negative direction).



    As far as Lorentz transformations along $z$ are concerned, trasformation laws of $lam$, $I$ are the same as for $rho$, $J_z$:
    $$eqalign{
    lam'_pm &= g left(!lam_pm - {v over c^2},I_pm!right) cr
    I'_pm &= g,(I_pm - v,lam_pm).cr} tag2$$



    If we transform to average electrons rest frame, where $I'_-=0$, we have
    $I_- = v,lam_-$ and substituting into the first of (2)
    $$lam'_- = g left(!lam_- - {v^2 over c^2},lam_-!right) =
    {lam_- over g}.$$

    This is nothing but Lorentz contraction. Charge is invariant, so that
    charge density transforms inversely to length. As far as electrons are
    concerned, length in the lab frame is contracted wrt length in their
    rest frame and charge density increases passing from the latter to the
    former: $lam_-=g,lam'_-$. The opposite happens to $lam_+$:
    $$lam'_+ = g,lam_+$$
    since $I_+=0$ and positive charges are at rest in the lab frame.



    Summarizing, in electrons rest frame we have
    $$lam' = lam'_+ + lam_- = g,lam_+ + {lam_- over g} =
    left(!g - {1 over g}!right) lam_+ =
    g,{v^2 over c^2},lam_+ > 0$$

    (I've used (1)). In that frame the wire is positively charged. As to current
    $$I' = I'_+ + I'_- = -v,g,lam_+ = v,g,lam_- = g,I_- = g,I.$$
    Of course this is the second of (2) written for $lam$, $I$ with $lam=0$.
    We see that in electrons rest frame an increased current is observed (btw this also implies an increased magnetic field).






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      2












      $begingroup$

      $letg=gamma letlam=lambda$
      I'd like to expand G. Smith's answer by applying it to a metal wire.



      Assume a straight wire along $z$-axis. If it carries a current it will
      contain stationary positive charges and moving electrons. The wire is
      neutral, i.e. charge densities of positive and of negative charges
      balance each other:
      $$lam_+ + lam_- = 0.tag1$$
      There will be a non-null current carried by electrons $I_-ne0$,
      whereas $I_+=0 $ ($I = I_+ + I_-$). Note that by $lam$ here I mean linear charge density, by $I$ the usual electric current.



      It's useful to bear in mind signs. Of course $lam_+>0$, $lam_-<0$.
      As to currents we may choose. If $I>0$ is taken, i.e. $I_->0$, then
      $v<0$ (in order to have a positive current electrons have to move in
      the negative direction).



      As far as Lorentz transformations along $z$ are concerned, trasformation laws of $lam$, $I$ are the same as for $rho$, $J_z$:
      $$eqalign{
      lam'_pm &= g left(!lam_pm - {v over c^2},I_pm!right) cr
      I'_pm &= g,(I_pm - v,lam_pm).cr} tag2$$



      If we transform to average electrons rest frame, where $I'_-=0$, we have
      $I_- = v,lam_-$ and substituting into the first of (2)
      $$lam'_- = g left(!lam_- - {v^2 over c^2},lam_-!right) =
      {lam_- over g}.$$

      This is nothing but Lorentz contraction. Charge is invariant, so that
      charge density transforms inversely to length. As far as electrons are
      concerned, length in the lab frame is contracted wrt length in their
      rest frame and charge density increases passing from the latter to the
      former: $lam_-=g,lam'_-$. The opposite happens to $lam_+$:
      $$lam'_+ = g,lam_+$$
      since $I_+=0$ and positive charges are at rest in the lab frame.



      Summarizing, in electrons rest frame we have
      $$lam' = lam'_+ + lam_- = g,lam_+ + {lam_- over g} =
      left(!g - {1 over g}!right) lam_+ =
      g,{v^2 over c^2},lam_+ > 0$$

      (I've used (1)). In that frame the wire is positively charged. As to current
      $$I' = I'_+ + I'_- = -v,g,lam_+ = v,g,lam_- = g,I_- = g,I.$$
      Of course this is the second of (2) written for $lam$, $I$ with $lam=0$.
      We see that in electrons rest frame an increased current is observed (btw this also implies an increased magnetic field).






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        2












        2








        2





        $begingroup$

        $letg=gamma letlam=lambda$
        I'd like to expand G. Smith's answer by applying it to a metal wire.



        Assume a straight wire along $z$-axis. If it carries a current it will
        contain stationary positive charges and moving electrons. The wire is
        neutral, i.e. charge densities of positive and of negative charges
        balance each other:
        $$lam_+ + lam_- = 0.tag1$$
        There will be a non-null current carried by electrons $I_-ne0$,
        whereas $I_+=0 $ ($I = I_+ + I_-$). Note that by $lam$ here I mean linear charge density, by $I$ the usual electric current.



        It's useful to bear in mind signs. Of course $lam_+>0$, $lam_-<0$.
        As to currents we may choose. If $I>0$ is taken, i.e. $I_->0$, then
        $v<0$ (in order to have a positive current electrons have to move in
        the negative direction).



        As far as Lorentz transformations along $z$ are concerned, trasformation laws of $lam$, $I$ are the same as for $rho$, $J_z$:
        $$eqalign{
        lam'_pm &= g left(!lam_pm - {v over c^2},I_pm!right) cr
        I'_pm &= g,(I_pm - v,lam_pm).cr} tag2$$



        If we transform to average electrons rest frame, where $I'_-=0$, we have
        $I_- = v,lam_-$ and substituting into the first of (2)
        $$lam'_- = g left(!lam_- - {v^2 over c^2},lam_-!right) =
        {lam_- over g}.$$

        This is nothing but Lorentz contraction. Charge is invariant, so that
        charge density transforms inversely to length. As far as electrons are
        concerned, length in the lab frame is contracted wrt length in their
        rest frame and charge density increases passing from the latter to the
        former: $lam_-=g,lam'_-$. The opposite happens to $lam_+$:
        $$lam'_+ = g,lam_+$$
        since $I_+=0$ and positive charges are at rest in the lab frame.



        Summarizing, in electrons rest frame we have
        $$lam' = lam'_+ + lam_- = g,lam_+ + {lam_- over g} =
        left(!g - {1 over g}!right) lam_+ =
        g,{v^2 over c^2},lam_+ > 0$$

        (I've used (1)). In that frame the wire is positively charged. As to current
        $$I' = I'_+ + I'_- = -v,g,lam_+ = v,g,lam_- = g,I_- = g,I.$$
        Of course this is the second of (2) written for $lam$, $I$ with $lam=0$.
        We see that in electrons rest frame an increased current is observed (btw this also implies an increased magnetic field).






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        $letg=gamma letlam=lambda$
        I'd like to expand G. Smith's answer by applying it to a metal wire.



        Assume a straight wire along $z$-axis. If it carries a current it will
        contain stationary positive charges and moving electrons. The wire is
        neutral, i.e. charge densities of positive and of negative charges
        balance each other:
        $$lam_+ + lam_- = 0.tag1$$
        There will be a non-null current carried by electrons $I_-ne0$,
        whereas $I_+=0 $ ($I = I_+ + I_-$). Note that by $lam$ here I mean linear charge density, by $I$ the usual electric current.



        It's useful to bear in mind signs. Of course $lam_+>0$, $lam_-<0$.
        As to currents we may choose. If $I>0$ is taken, i.e. $I_->0$, then
        $v<0$ (in order to have a positive current electrons have to move in
        the negative direction).



        As far as Lorentz transformations along $z$ are concerned, trasformation laws of $lam$, $I$ are the same as for $rho$, $J_z$:
        $$eqalign{
        lam'_pm &= g left(!lam_pm - {v over c^2},I_pm!right) cr
        I'_pm &= g,(I_pm - v,lam_pm).cr} tag2$$



        If we transform to average electrons rest frame, where $I'_-=0$, we have
        $I_- = v,lam_-$ and substituting into the first of (2)
        $$lam'_- = g left(!lam_- - {v^2 over c^2},lam_-!right) =
        {lam_- over g}.$$

        This is nothing but Lorentz contraction. Charge is invariant, so that
        charge density transforms inversely to length. As far as electrons are
        concerned, length in the lab frame is contracted wrt length in their
        rest frame and charge density increases passing from the latter to the
        former: $lam_-=g,lam'_-$. The opposite happens to $lam_+$:
        $$lam'_+ = g,lam_+$$
        since $I_+=0$ and positive charges are at rest in the lab frame.



        Summarizing, in electrons rest frame we have
        $$lam' = lam'_+ + lam_- = g,lam_+ + {lam_- over g} =
        left(!g - {1 over g}!right) lam_+ =
        g,{v^2 over c^2},lam_+ > 0$$

        (I've used (1)). In that frame the wire is positively charged. As to current
        $$I' = I'_+ + I'_- = -v,g,lam_+ = v,g,lam_- = g,I_- = g,I.$$
        Of course this is the second of (2) written for $lam$, $I$ with $lam=0$.
        We see that in electrons rest frame an increased current is observed (btw this also implies an increased magnetic field).







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Dec 18 '18 at 11:17









        Elio FabriElio Fabri

        2,4171112




        2,4171112






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f448706%2fis-electric-current-relative%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Bressuire

            Cabo Verde

            Gyllenstierna