Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: "Charged" capacitor mis-terminology



I think I'm about to cross, what is in my opinion, semantic swords with
David, (perhaps the swords are more philosophical than semantic).

I think it boils down to this: does a flux of something necessarily involve
the flow of a corporal entity through a surface? I interpret what David
says as implying "yes"; and I take the opposite viewpoint. I gather from I
read below that David objects to my using the same term for flux of
something that is non-corporal that has been used for a flux of corporal
entities, i.e. "current". Unless I misread what he wrote, that is the crux
of disagreement.

Is displacement current a current of anything?; yes, its a current of
changing electric flux; which happens not to be corporal, but so what. And
calling it a current I believe to be quite appropriate, because it produces
physically observable effects in the same fashion as conduction current.

David mentions in part: " It is true that a time-changing magnetic flux
mathematically acts as a source for a non-longitudinal (non-irrotational,
maybe rotational?) electric field (EMF), but that doesn't give us license
to call it a current."

I'd say why not?; it gave whoever came up with the term "displacement
current" the license to call that a current. I'd have no trouble talking
about a magnetic displacement current.

Joel Rauber
----------
From: David Bowman
To: QuistO; RAUBERJ; phys-l
Cc: dbowman
Subject: Re: "Charged" capacitor mis-terminology
Date: Thursday, February 19, 1998 3:43PM

If John Ertel's comments on displacement current had showed up in my
mail box just a little sooner I wouldn't have posted my comments on the
subject because I agree with so much of what he said. Unfortunately,
our posts have somehow crossed in the mail. BTW, I haven't seen my post
show up yet. I guess the list is still hiccuping. In any event I
wanted to respond to a couple of things that Joel Rauber said in
response to John's post.

I see nothing wrong with your equation above, and it represents a
generalization of current from simply being charges in motion.

It is very much a generalization--so much so that it can be misleading.
Displacement current does not represent anything close to a current in
the sense of its usual meaning as the rate of flow of some sort of
stuff. (It's time for Leigh to chime in here about reification.)
Nothing flows in a displacement current. Rather it is just a time rate
of change of the flux of electric field (or displacement field if one
is inclined to use that macroscopic notion). I have never heard anyone
call the time rate of change of the flux of magnetic induction in
Faraday's law a 'magnetic displacement current' analogous to the
electric displacement current in Ampere's law--yet this term is just
what the symmetry of Maxwell's equations says it is. There is a good
reason for this; nothing necessarily flows when a magnetic field changes
in a region of space. It is true that a time-changing magnetic flux
mathematically acts as a source for a non-longitudinal (non-irrotational,
maybe rotational?) electric field (EMF), but that doesn't give us license
to call it a current. Since we do not regard a time-changing magnetic
flux as the flow of some kind of magnetic displacement current, then
neither should we regard a time-changing electric flux as the flow of some
kind of electric displacement current, even though it mathematically
acts as a source for a non-longitudinal magnetic field.

... . But Displacement
current is quite real, because it has manifestly physical effects. It is a

source of real magnetic fields that have physically observable effects on
compass needles; Therefore it is not *only* and *purely* a mathematical
crutch.

It certainly does exist when an electric flux changes; its just not a
*current* of anything. It is the pretending of it *as a current* that is
the mathematical crutch.

Displacement current is not virtual and is not made up; it has physically
observable affects and consequences.

I doubt that John meant the word virtual as somehow unreal or ontologically
nonexistent (although I should let him speak for himself here). I suspect
that he meant it only so far as its status functioning as a *current* is
concerned, not in terms of its status as what it actually is, namely, a
time rate of change of electric flux.

David Bowman
dbowman@gtc.georgetown.ky.us
------------------------- Original message header:
MAIL FROM:<owner-phys-l@atlantis.uwf.edu>
RCPT TO:<RAUBERJ@mg.sdstate.edu>
RCPT TO:<QuistO@mg.sdstate.edu>
DATA
Received: from atlantis.uwf.edu ([143.88.1.202]) by fafhrd.SDState.Edu
(AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id PAA06708; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 15:06:30 -0600
(CST)
Received: from atlantis.cc.uwf.edu (atlantis.uwf.edu [143.88.1.202]) by
atlantis.uwf.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA23218; Thu, 19 Feb 1998
15:06:35 -0600
Received: from tiger.gtc.georgetown.ky.us (dbowman@[207.93.189.6]) by
atlantis.uwf.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id OAA22992 for
<phys-l@atlantis.uwf.edu>; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 14:53:02 -0600
Received: (from dbowman@localhost)
by tiger.gtc.georgetown.ky.us (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id PAA29932;
Thu, 19 Feb 1998 15:43:54 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199802192043.PAA29932@tiger.gtc.georgetown.ky.us>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 15:43:53 EST
Reply-To: phys-l@atlantis.uwf.edu
Sender: owner-phys-l@atlantis.uwf.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: David Bowman <dbowman@tiger.gtc.georgetown.ky.us>
To: phys-l@atlantis.uwf.edu
Cc: dbowman@tiger.gtc.georgetown.ky.us
Subject: Re: "Charged" capacitor mis-terminology
X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 212.3]
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
------------------------- End of message header.