[Hei-Tai (OP)]

 []

I have thinking question " What is electric current?"

Wire,,,,lead electric current flow.

When electric current dont flow wire construction is stable.

When current flow,,,,i make question to my self.

:?:

When current flow, is the construction of this wire?;

A.With in,,means that do electric current push the construction of wire?

B.Go-between,,means that do electric current to jump atom to atom?

C. or canal,,,means that is the electric current flow that kind of small material flow which flow through wire,,,without using any kind of wire atoms.


Sorry my english,,i hope that you understand my question?

[Pumblechook]

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/g_knott/elect15.htm

[Pumblechook]

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/circuits/u9l2c.html

[lyner]

The second link is pretty good - comprehensive.
It talks about the 'conventional current' and the direction of flow of the electrons. People ask why the two do not agree. The reason is that they decided (arbitrarily) to put a + sign on the first battery long before anyone had discovered the electron and actually how current is carried in wires. Having done that, they were stuck with it. It would have made life so much easier for every student if they had chosen things the other way round. I recommend never thinking about the electrons when you do ordinary circuit problems; there is seldom any point and you can get mixed up if you are not careful.

[Hei-Tai (OP)]

The second link is pretty good - comprehensive.
It talks about the 'conventional current' and the direction of flow of the electrons. People ask why the two do not agree. The reason is that they decided (arbitrarily) to put a + sign on the first battery long before anyone had discovered the electron and actually how current is carried in wires. Having done that, they were stuck with it. It would have made life so much easier for every student if they had chosen things the other way round. I recommend never thinking about the electrons when you do ordinary circuit problems; there is seldom any point and you can get mixed up if you are not careful.

 []

Thanks the links and opinions.

My question is deeper that electric-cirtuit and how i say daily work at electricity.
Of cource ohm-law is enough accurace do understand electricity.

My question is deeper,,goes smaller to matter-particles word.

We known that electricity is matter-movement process, because it cannot be non-matter flow.

We try to explain that using atom-theory.

My question is to try to understand that matter-flow.

My thought is that atom-theory dont tell us yet exactly what is electric current flow.

 []

[lyner]

My thought is that atom-theory dont tell us yet exactly what is electric current flow.

Electric current flow is flow of charge. In a solid, the charge is carried by the mobile electrons. Is there a problem with that? In an ionised gas or a liquid, the current may be carried by positive or negative ions. Isn't that ok?

What more did you want?

[Hei-Tai (OP)]

My thought is that atom-theory dont tell us yet exactly what is electric current flow.

Electric current flow is flow of charge. In a solid, the charge is carried by the mobile electrons. Is there a problem with that? In an ionised gas or a liquid, the current may be carried by positive or negative ions. Isn't that ok?

What more did you want?

[]

Hmm,, i dont want,,,it is not my issue,,,issue is understand electricity more deeply than todays atom-theory try to says.

You wrote,,,flow of charge,,, what kind of material particle is charge?

Or, what is the positive or negative charge?,,,what kind of material particle is positive or negative?

 []

[Vern]

It seems to me that the answers are pretty comprehensive and do explain current flow. Current flow is the movement of charged bodies.

I'm trying to understand what else is it that you might feel the need to understand.

[Vern]

Or, what is the positive or negative charge?,,,what kind of material particle is positive or negative?

Okay; I think I'm getting your drift; you're wondering about charge itself; what is that spooky action-at-a-distance stuff that Newton rejected out of hand. Modern physicists try to think of the electric and magnetic fields as being mediated by photons. But that don't work in every case; so they came up with another trick; virtual photons.

Playing with photons and virtual photons to understand nuclear interactions is pretty hefty stuff. Richard Feynman spent a lifetime worrying about it. His books on the subject are a pretty good read.