14

Atoms of materials with loosely bound outermost electrons constantly exchange charges between each other over time, and these materials are called conductors. Now, the conducting process is different from the one often described in the electrical engineering textbooks.

Enter image description here

This implies that in order for current to flow in the circuit, an electron has to move from one lead all the way to the other, which is simply not true. Reality is something like this:

Enter image description here

The electron at the far left coming from the negative lead of a battery, for example, is then colliding at the nearest atom and because of its acceleration it's knocking out the electron which is revolving at this shell level. The knocked electron is heading to its closest atom and in turn it's doing the same, knocking out an electron which creates a chain reaction. So, basically, electrons move just a little bit, but the overall outcome is virtually instantaneous.

What I don't understand is if we take a regular conductive wire WITHOUT applied voltage on it, electrons still constantly bounce from atom to atom which means that literally there is "an electron flow" in the wire, but if we connect the wire to a LED diode nothing would happen. So, what I am really asking is how differs "an electron flow WITH applied voltage" from "an electron flow WITHOUT applied voltage" in a wire.

Peter Mortensen
  • 1,676
  • 3
  • 17
  • 23
  • 3
    Voltage is a difference in potential. Thus, electric field. Charged particles tend to move to opposite terminals. In this case, electrons want to move across the wire to a + terminal. If no voltage is applied, there is no potential difference and no electric filed, so electrons are not much effected: they move randomly with no net flow. – Nazar Dec 30 '16 at 16:30
  • 3
    Lady, I suggest you to read up something about the metallic bond. Electrons are not 'knocking out each other'. Not even close. Perhaps the sea of nearly free electrons in a grid of positive ions is a more apt pictorial model at this level. Then you have to ask yourself: why there has to be a preferable direction for electron flow when there is no field applied? - Reading suggestion: "Kip, Fundamentals of electricity and magnetism, 2e" – Sredni Vashtar Dec 30 '16 at 16:37
  • @SredniVashtar That is obviously not a man. )) – Nazar Dec 30 '16 at 16:40
  • @Naz , oops. Thanks for pointing that out. Corrected my comment. :-) – Sredni Vashtar Dec 30 '16 at 16:41
  • 2
    You're talking about the difference between current and drift velocity. I suggest searching on that term – Scott Seidman Dec 30 '16 at 16:43
  • It is true that at any temperature above absolute zero, electrons are indeed jumping from the valence band to the conduction band (and vice versa having given up the extra energy in some way). This does create electrical noise (at a very low level) but statistically the number of electrons moving in either direction is the same. – Peter Smith Dec 30 '16 at 16:49
  • 1
    We don't object to newbies at all. What we frown upon are questions that are for instance poorly worded, asking for opionions rather than facts, or ask us to do the (home)work that the OP should have done. But yours is a good quality question, congrats! – Wouter van Ooijen Dec 30 '16 at 17:19
  • 2
    Thank you so much, guys, for quick reaction, I m sorry that I messed up with the "electron to electron colliding" thing, also, I m sorry that I asked the question in the wrong section, I just thought that Electrical Engineering was the place to ask, anyhow, Wish you much success happy holidays – Nina Vladimirova Dec 30 '16 at 17:34
  • The led will light for 1 nano second in 1 giga year ... approximately. – Chu Dec 30 '16 at 23:07
  • 7
    @SredniVashtar you didn't intend it, but addressing a woman as "Lady..." comes across as rude. Generally you just use their name. – smci Dec 31 '16 at 03:31
  • Flow of electrons happens due to the force of voltage, just as water flow in a tube happens due to pressure (or gravity). No force, no flow. No perpetual motion machine. –  Dec 31 '16 at 13:36
  • @smci Who said I didn't want to be rude? :-) Jokes aside, thanks for the tip. I wonder if "Woman, ..." would have been better or worse... Ah, the subtleness of languages... – Sredni Vashtar Jan 01 '17 at 15:34
  • @SredniVashtar - we do not come to offer you red flowers and scarlet berries, nor even stolen nutmeg for special occasions but to note that intending to be rude (which you may not have been) is contrary the site's prime directive and can lead, depending on the mood of the admins (the which I am not one of) casting temporarily into outer darkness. Gnashing of teeth optional. | Probably more usefully, the subtleness of language can indeed be a stumbling block. I assume you originally commenced "Man ..." and amended this to "Lady ...". While that may perhaps seem or be polite in some ... – Russell McMahon Jan 02 '17 at 05:25
  • @SredniVashtar ... cultures, in the largely Western cultures represented on this list, such form of address **MAY** come across as less polite, although this can depend on wider context. Western cultures have no monopoly on list membership and styles and to some extent we all have to get used to our differences. Maybe not this century, alas :-(. | That aside, your comment is a useful one. | I'd be interested in knowing why you chose that "pen name" - you've added to my education :-). Where are you from, if I may ask. (I'm in NewZealand). – Russell McMahon Jan 02 '17 at 05:30
  • @Nina - this is an OK site to ask your question on. It is closer to Physics than many other EE questions are, but is well enough answerable from an EE mindset, as you can see from the various answers. EE's need to have at least some understanding of the underlying processes - and having more than less is usually useful. There is no clearcut boundary between EE & Physics. – Russell McMahon Jan 02 '17 at 05:36
  • I don't feel myself offended by the guy who initially addressed me as "Man", not at all, that's why I didn't comment. It easy to get confused, since english, unlike many other languages, lacks any hints in verb conjugation to impy the subject's gender, furthermore, MY QUESTION WAS EDITED HALF A DOZEN TIMES SO FAR that i don't even considered as my own :) and the fact that probably most of the people here tend to be men, it's not supprising that such misunderstanding may occur.With all that being said, I wiSH you, guys, HAPPY NEW YEAR :) – Nina Vladimirova Jan 02 '17 at 17:01
  • @NinaVladimirova , glad I did not come out as rude. Your name, though is a dead giveaway (the ending in -a of both name and surname leave no doubt about it). I simply did not look at the name at all and assumed you were a guy, as most of us are in this field (sadly, let me add). To Russel, my nickname comes from a short story of H. H. Munro, one of the best short stories I have ever read - at little more than a page or two... Munro, who went by the nom de plume "Saki" also wrote "The Open Window", the story with the best punchline. :-) You can read both stories online, by googling the titles. – Sredni Vashtar Jan 02 '17 at 22:10
  • I=E/R (ohm's law) so if E=0, then I=0. Pretty simple math. – Tim Spriggs Jan 03 '17 at 19:23

7 Answers7

31

Statistically, there are as many electrons moving in one direction as there are in the 180º opposite so there is effectively no net current. What we know as "current" is the movement of more electrons in one direction than all the others (1D, 2D or 3D through a piece of metal). That's how you can have "tons of free electrons" but no net currents flowing or measurable.

The random agitation of those electrons has a name: thermal noise. This agitation is proportional to temperature so you get more of it as you heat things up. However, the average motion is always zero so you can never do any useful "work" or equivalently extract usable energy from the process.

This is in agreement with the laws of thermodynamics.

Dave Tweed
  • 168,369
  • 17
  • 228
  • 393
user134468
  • 394
  • 2
  • 2
  • The average motion may be zero, but that does not mean that you can't do useful work or extract useful work from the process. Only when the temperature is constant everywhere does it become impossible to extract energy from thermal noise. – Dietrich Epp Dec 31 '16 at 17:28
  • And then there were superconductors. – Jack Creasey Dec 31 '16 at 23:47
22

Short answer: some textbooks are infected with a misconception, the idea that electrons always orbit the individual metal atoms. Nope. They'll also tell you that electrons only jump between atoms when a voltage is applied along the wires. Wrong.

In metals, the outer electron(s) of each metal atom have left their original atom. This happens when the metal is first formed. If electrons kept sticking to each atom, then the metal would be an insulator, and at low values of current, the ohms wouldn't be constant. In reality, the outer or "conduction band" electrons are orbiting among all the metal atoms, all the time. A metal wire resembles a kind of "solidified plasma." Metals are weird.

Physicists call the metal's mobile electron-population by the name "electron sea" or "ocean of charge." In chemistry it's called the "metallic bond."

From a non-quantum viewpoint, we can view metal objects as being like containers filled with an "electric fluid," Ben Franklin-style! The metal's electrons are jittering around at high speed, wandering all around, much like the molecules of gas inside a hose. But this electron-motion is in random directions. It's a storehouse for thermal energy, but it has no single direction, so it's not "wind;" not electric current. For every electron going one way, there's another going backwards.

Therefore, an actual DC electric current in a metal is a slow average drift of this electron cloud. Individual electrons don't move slow of course. Instead they wander around at nearly the speed of light all the time. But during a DC current, their average wandering path has a tiny DC drift superimposed. Earth's atmosphere does the same: each molecule is moving at nearly the speed of sound, even in dead still conditions; no wind. We regard the wandering as "thermal," as Brownian Motion. Same with individual electrons in a metal.

A correct animation of atoms/electrons of metals would depict the electrons jumping in both directions for zero current. Or, show them wiggling back and forth across several atoms, with random motion during zero amperes. (Or, show the inside of the wire looking like 'television snow,' like flickering white-noise.) Then, during a DC current, the entire pattern of electrons will slowly slide along as a unit. The higher the amperes, the faster the flow. The "liquid white-noise" moves slow, like water in a pipe, but the individual particles never remain still.

Note that this picture DOES NOT APPLY TO ALL CONDUCTORS. It only applies to solid metals (the most common form of conductor used in electrical engineering), but not to salt water, acids, ground currents, human tissue/nerves, liquid metals, moving metals, plasma, sparks, etc. Electricity isn't electrons, that's why engineers and scientists use the "Conventional Current" which applies to all types of conductors. Electron-flow within metals is a special case of electric currents in general.

PS
Note that electrons aren't invisible! (In fact, electrons are about the only things that are visible.) So, whenever we look at a bare wire, we're seeing its electron-sea. The mobile electrons are extreme reflectors of EM waves. The "metallic" look of a metal surface is our view of the free electrons. So, electrons are like a silvery fluid. During electric currents in a metal, it's the silvery stuff that flows along. But there's no dirt or bubbles in this flow, so although we can see the "fluid," we can't see its motion. (Heh, even if we could see something moving, the charge-drift would be too slow to notice; like the minute hand on a clock!)

Sredni Vashtar
  • 4,008
  • 2
  • 15
  • 25
wbeaty
  • 10,761
  • 23
  • 39
  • But why is that so, why do studying materials that are supposed to ensure accurate expanations turn out providing false conclusions about a certain topic . However, what is even more dangerous is the fact that they delude the reader of imaginary understanding? As one of the people earlier today pointed out my ignorace regarding the statement I made about "electron to electron collision", but I didn't come up with it on my own, though, instead I read it in a book – Nina Vladimirova Dec 31 '16 at 04:22
  • 1
    @Nina Vladimirova In the USA, textbooks are not reviewed by scientists and engineers, they are only reviewed by local "textbook committees," non-experts. The purchases of the largest state (Texas) dominate. Result: corruption of all textbooks. No checks/balances! Also, slow errors cannot be repaired, because publishers ignore teachers' complaints because *ALL TEXTBOOKS* have identical error. (Who are you to say you are correct, when all textbooks say different?) See http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm & http://www.textbookleague.org/ttlindex.htm and my http://amasci.com/miscon [Edited] – wbeaty Dec 31 '16 at 05:48
  • All understanding is imaginary. –  Dec 31 '16 at 13:39
  • @wbeaty. Great answer. – Jack Creasey Dec 31 '16 at 23:50
  • @wbeaty Thank you, sir, May I ask you for any suggestions regarding study materials(textbooks) with deep particularity and yet accurat explanations about electronics. Starting from the very basics, book/books which is going to give me strong foundations and prepare me for some advanced topics? – Nina Vladimirova Jan 02 '17 at 17:11
0

If the wire is a superconductor, current can indeed flow without voltage.

Ecnerwal
  • 5,594
  • 17
  • 24
  • 3
    Well, it can drop without a voltage dorp. You still need something to get the current flowing in the first place. A superconductor with no current and no voltage will not spontaneously exhibit a consistent current flow (i.e., lightening up a diode as per the question). – AnoE Dec 30 '16 at 21:13
  • @AnoE: Have you ever seen a superconductor in a magnetic field? Plenty of current, still no voltage. – Dave Tweed Dec 31 '16 at 23:46
  • "You still need something to get the current flowing in the first place." and back to the question, a superconductor certainly does not count as "regular conductive wire". – AnoE Dec 31 '16 at 23:56
0

There was this example one of my teacher gave me.

Electrons without voltage are simply like independent people liking at some random city. They happily move freely but they aren't part of any movement. They are individual that don't matter.

Now all of a sudden a foreign party establishes the rule. That makes electrons march to the establishment of the foreign party(Not the conventional current) in revolt , rebel etc etc. They are the part of the movement and that is called Current.

MaNyYaCk
  • 1,448
  • 1
  • 13
  • 28
0

Current requires electrons in the conduction band to flow, and without voltage (or pressure as an flow analogy), there is no energy to excite the electrons into the conduction band. Resistance is always present due to atomic properties, and the voltage drop must be the total voltage as resistance becomes essentially infinite as the valence shells in metals are much different than conduction bands in that they are bound to the lattice structure of the metal. They require excitation and a gradient to break their bond with the valence she'll. Valence electrons can interact but they are not uniformly directional and are not free flowing like they would be if excited into the conduction band. This is of course for simple conductive metals.

0

From your question, it is clear that you don't know the distinction between random electron movement and directional electron movement. Random electron movement is not current. Directional electron movement is.
It is the voltage that gives direction to the electrons, thus causing directional electron flow - the "electron current."

Your assertion that "an electron has to move from one lead... to the other, is simply not true," is wrong. The fact is that for every electron that "enters" into the wire, another electron must "exit" from the other end. If this doesn't happen, then you don't have current flow! This is exactly why "nothing happens when you connect the LED to the wire" with no voltage applied.

Guill
  • 2,430
  • 10
  • 6
-2

We are told to not bother because there is more physics in it and less practical importance.

In physics the wire is not a dead short but has resistance, capacitance and inductance.When you apply voltage in a wire many thinks happens.

When there is no voltage applied there are not enought electrons jumping from atom to atom to make the LED light.

A physisist could answer that better than an EE. There is a physics section in the stack exchange.

Tedi
  • 404
  • 3
  • 16