Physics Forums

## Relationship between current and current density for a volume conductor

(I'd like to preface this with the warning that the following question may be a very dumb one.)

My understanding is that current density (or flux) $\vec{J} = \vec{J}(x, y, z)$ is the rate of flow of charge (or the current) per unit area. (Units of $\frac{\text{C/s}}{\text{cm}^2}$.)

Say we know that in an irregularly shaped volume conductor (e.g. a nerve fiber, where the irregularity is due to some sort of biological obstruction), the current density $\vec{J}$ has the form given in Figure 1 (see attachments).

The current $I$ is --- I think --- given from Ohm's law: specifically, if the potential difference across the ends of the fiber and the total resistance of the fiber are known, then

[tex]
\begin{equation*}
I = \frac{V}{R},
\end{equation*}
[/tex]

which is a scalar quantity. I believe this value is constant for each point $(x, y, z)$ in the fiber, assuming no build-up of current anywhere (by the law of conservation of charge).

Now I know that the surface integral of a flux gives a flow rate, so the surface integral of $\vec{J}$ should give a current. But is the current equal to $I$? I mean, does

[tex]
\begin{equation*}
\iint_S \vec{J} \cdot \vec{n} dS = I
\end{equation*}
[/tex]

for every $S$, or only for $S$ = cross-sectional area of the conductor? The reason I ask is because, if I draw three example surfaces $S_1, S_2, S_3$ (Figure 2), the surface integral of $\vec{J}$ over $S_1$ is obviously not equal to that over $S_2$.

So I guess what I am asking is: is
[tex]
\begin{equation*}
I = \iint_{S_1} \vec{J} \cdot \vec{n} dS_1 = \iint_{S_3} \vec{J} \cdot \vec{n} dS_3 \neq \iint_{S_2} \vec{J} \cdot \vec{n} dS_2
\end{equation*}
[/tex]
true, where $I$ is current as found from Ohm's law? And if so, does this mean that any current $I$ through a conductor is not simply the rate of flow of charge, but a rate of flow of charge implicitly with respect to the cross-sectional area?

Thanks
Attached Thumbnails

PhysOrg.com  physics news on PhysOrg.com  >> Promising doped zirconia>> New X-ray method shows how frog embryos could help thwart disease>> Bringing life into focus

Recognitions:
Science Advisor

Quote by Cole A. 					 				 				(I'd like to preface this with the warning that the following question may be a very dumb one.)  My understanding is that current density (or flux) $\vec{J} = \vec{J}(x, y, z)$ is the rate of flow of charge (or the current) per unit area.  (Units of $\frac{\text{C/s}}{\text{cm}^2}$.)    Say we know that in an irregularly shaped volume conductor (e.g. a nerve fiber, where the irregularity is due to some sort of biological obstruction), the current density $\vec{J}$ has the form given in Figure 1 (see attachments).  The current $I$ is --- I think --- given from Ohm's law:  specifically, if the potential difference across the ends of the fiber and the total resistance of the fiber are known, then   $$\begin{equation*} I = \frac{V}{R}, \end{equation*}$$  which is a scalar quantity.
Fine up to here.

Quote by Cole A. 					 				 				I believe this value is constant for each point $(x, y, z)$ in the fiber, assuming no build-up of current anywhere (by the law of conservation of charge).
No, this is wrong. Current I is a total amount, that is, it's the integral of J across a surface as you've written below. It doesn't make sense to talk about I at an infinitesimal point (x,y,z).

Quote by Cole A. 					 				 				Now I know that the surface integral of a flux gives a flow rate, so the surface integral of $\vec{J}$ should give a current.  But is the current equal to $I$?  I mean, does  $$\begin{equation*} \iint_S \vec{J} \cdot \vec{n} dS = I \end{equation*}$$  for every $S$, or only for $S$ = cross-sectional area of the conductor?
In your example, it is the second option.

Quote by Cole A. 					 				 				The reason I ask is because, if I draw three example surfaces $S_1, S_2, S_3$ (Figure 2), the surface integral of $\vec{J}$ over $S_1$ is obviously not equal to that over $S_2$.  So I guess what I am asking is:  is  $$\begin{equation*} I = \iint_{S_1} \vec{J} \cdot \vec{n} dS_1 = \iint_{S_3} \vec{J} \cdot \vec{n} dS_3 \neq \iint_{S_2} \vec{J} \cdot \vec{n} dS_2 \end{equation*}$$ true, where $I$ is current as found from Ohm's law?
Yes.

Quote by Cole A. 					 				 				And if so, does this mean that any current $I$ through a conductor is not simply the rate of flow of charge, but a rate of flow of charge implicitly with respect to the cross-sectional area?  Thanks
Yes. Usually it's obvious what that surface is (current in a wire refers to the area of the wire), but if the surface isn't obvious then you need to specify it.

Thank you for clearing things up.

Thread Tools

|                                                                                              |                                              |         |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|---------|
| Similar Threads for: Relationship between current and current density for a volume conductor |                                              |         |
| Thread                                                                                       | Forum                                        | Replies |
|                                                                                              | Engineering, Comp Sci, & Technology Homework | 8       |
|                                                                                              | Advanced Physics Homework                    | 1       |
|                                                                                              | Advanced Physics Homework                    | 0       |
|                                                                                              | Quantum Physics                              | 8       |
|                                                                                              | Classical Physics                            | 4       |
{"extraction_info": {"found_math": true, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 30, "mathjax_display_tex": 3, "mathjax_asciimath": 0, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 0, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0}, "config": {"markdown_headings": true, "markdown_code": true, "boilerplate_config": {"ratio_threshold": 0.18, "absolute_threshold": 10, "end_threshold": 15, "enable": true}, "remove_buttons": true, "remove_image_figures": true, "remove_link_clusters": true, "table_config": {"min_rows": 2, "min_cols": 3, "format": "github"}, "remove_chinese": true, "remove_edit_buttons": true, "extract_latex": true}, "english_confidence": 0.9287439584732056, "perplexity_flag": "head"}