Why is an electric current a fundamental quantity instead of the charge that gives rise to the current?

Subtle, the idea that “Amperes seem more real” is also present in non-science electronics texts. Authors focus on current, and amperes. The flowing motion of current is what they talk about, but the flowing charge is not mentioned. Our textbooks tell us about current carriers and the law of “conservation” of current in circuits. Both exist. Charge-carriers exist. The conservation of charge is important. However, electric current can disappear and appear at any time and is not protected by conservation laws. Conservation of current? Are there particles made from current? It’s bizarre!
The same distortion is evident in widespread belief that charge is ghostly, unimportant, and electric current is real, substance-like.
It is evident in the notion that electric charge applies only to “static electricity”, which is a phenomenon considered to be mostly unusable (static cling, doorknob sparkeds, or even dangerous (lightning). Electric Current, on the other hand, is meant to be applicable to almost every type of modern technology.
I have been wondering for a long time why these misconceptions have arisen. But, recently, I have come to believe that they all have a common source. My belief is that the standardization of physical units may be the reason. These misconceptions have one common theme: the fallacy that amperes can be more fundamental than coulombs. The misuse of the term “fundamental”, which refers to standard physical units, is a mistaken usage.
We would use the common meaning of “fundamental” to say that rates are more fundamental than conserved quantities in our everyday lives. For example, KGs/second is fundamentally more than Kilograms, volume is fundamentally more than flow rate, speed is fundamentally more than distance, and Joules are fundamentally more than Watts of energy flow. It would be absurd to introduce speed to students who don’t understand distance or time. Oder introduce gallons/second for someone who has never seen water.
Many people believe that electricity is an abstract concept and that current is real. They will fight to defend their beliefs. Amperes are fundamental units. Some authors refer to Coulombs as derived from Amperes. Students may not be familiar with the Coulomb, so they might introduce the Ampere. While they write that “electricity” can always be measured in Amperes and that charge is an abstract concept that involves a strange unit called the Ampere second, instead of the Coulomb, they also claim that it is hard to understand. Charge, it’s amperes TIMES second, so charge must be an abstract mathematical concept?
I disagree. Coulombs are fundamental while Amperes can be simplified to mean “Coulombs per Second.” Yes, the Coulomb unit can be considered a Derived Standard while the Ampere unit can be considered a Fundamental Standard. Electric charge is fundamental and electric current is the flow-rate. Coulombs can be described as a conserved quantity or “stuff”, while Amperes cannot.
This seems to contradict the statement that Amperes and Coulombs are fundamental. This statement actually states that the physical standard for Amperes can be directly measured while the standard for Coulombs can be derived from Amperes or Seconds. This doesn’t mean that Amperes have to be fundamental. It only talks about which unit is more precise and easy to measure.
It is important to avoid trying to explain electricity to students other than the “fundamental” definition. I also recommend that you avoid teaching students about Derived versus Fundamental units (at the very least, in the lower grades). It is best to stick to the “fundamental” definition that most students are familiar with. The statement will make more sense to an inexperienced learner, I believe.

CHARGE IS FUNDAMENTAL MORE THAN CURRENT. COULOMBS are a FUNDAMENTAL entity, but the “AMPERE”, which stands for “COULOMBS per second,” is not.

It is the charge that is “real”, while the current is a rate, a flow, an abstract concept.
I believe students would benefit if “Ampere”, the term, was not used until the later grades. This would allow elementary electricity to be taught based on charge and the value of charge per second. Additional terms should not be introduced. They should be “Coulomb” or “Coulombs per sec.” Students who are skilled in engineering should not be allowed to use the term “Ampere”. It is a shorthand for engineering and should only ever be used by those with a lot of experience in thinking in terms “coulombs per sec.”

Leave a Comment