2
$\begingroup$

I've seen a definition of Polarization Current Density (usually given when explaining displacement current) given by:

$$\vec{J}_P=\frac{d\vec{P}}{dt}$$

But this seems to not contain all the information I may want. If we picture charge current as a flow of charges, then Polarization current would be viewed as a flow of dipoles. The above definition assumes that the dipole moments are flowing in the direction of the polarization. But why can't the be pointed other ways? If we are trying to be truly analogous to current and charge, where the continuity equations are defined:

$$ \nabla\cdot\vec{J}=-\frac{d\rho}{dt}$$

$$I =\int{ \vec J }\cdot d\vec a$$

Then I think it would be more general to define a Polarization Current Density tensor (I'll call it H for no particular reason) and Polarization Current vector (I'll call it G):

$$ \nabla\cdot\textbf{H}=-\frac{d\vec{P}}{dt}$$ $$\vec G =\int{ \textbf H }\cdot d\vec a$$

This would allow one to account for a current of dipoles oriented in any direction. I don't think this would particularly be useful for describing displacement current, but I've encountered a modeling problem where this could be a useful analysis. Is anyone aware of this tensor formulation? Or is there a good reason why it is not needed or useful? Does continuity still make sense in this case?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

To avoid overcomplicating the situation, think about just one dipole, with a positive charge $+q$ and a negative charge $-q$. Let the vector pointing from $-q$ to $+q$ be $\vec{l}$, so the dipole moment is $\vec{p}=q\vec{l}$. When the dipole's center of mass moves, so long as the vector $\vec{l}$ remains constant, the motion will contribute no net flow of charge. It's a dipole. So any current has to come from the change of $\vec{l}$, i.e. relative motion between the opposite charges $\pm q$.

There are two ways the vector $\vec{l}$ can change: it can change its magnitude and orientation. When the relative motion $\dot{\vec{l}}\parallel\vec{l}$ is along the direction of $\vec{l}$, the magnitude $|\vec{l}|$ changes. And when the relative motion $\dot{\vec{l}}\perp\vec{l}$ is perpendicular to $\vec{l}$, the orientation $\hat{l}$ changes. Either motion would cause $\vec{l}$ to change and thus change the dipole moment $\vec{p}=q\vec{l}$. So in writing down $\vec{j}=d\vec{p}/dt$, we are not assuming $\dot{\vec{l}}\parallel\vec{l}$. We have considered all possible currents.

Since $\vec{p}$ is a vector, so is $\vec{j}=d\vec{p}/dt$. The moment contributed by all dipoles per unit volume gives the current density. The current due to dipoles is always a vector. Quadruples may contribute more complicated currents.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Ahh I understand, so the current density expression is fully descriptive when defining the charge current from moving dipoles. Thank you, that makes sense. \Looking at my units, I suppose what I define as G has Am and H has Am/m^3. I suppose what I'm still wondering is if people ever define a moment current instead of a charge current. $\endgroup$
    – kthaxt
    Commented Nov 8, 2017 at 17:56
  • $\begingroup$ Yes. I have heard of the electron spin current in spintronics. This is a subfield of condensed matter physics with the hope of saving tremendous amount of energy for our electronic devices used nowadays. $\endgroup$
    – Zhuoran He
    Commented Nov 8, 2017 at 18:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.