Electrical resistance ($R$)

Electrical resistance measures the electric potential difference needed to drive a given electric current through a component. For an Ohmic conductor under fixed material conditions, $R=V/I$ is constant and Ohm's law gives $V=IR$. The SI unit is the ohm, $1\Omega =1V/A$. At a fixed positive electric potential difference, increasing electrical resistance reduces electric current. Electrical conductance $G=1/R$ expresses the same response reciprocally. ^[ref].

For a straight uniform wire at rest, with constant electrical conductivity $\sigma >0$, length $L$ and wire cross-sectional area $A$, the uniform Ohmic conductor model givesThe electrical resistivity ${\rho }_{\mathrm{el}}$ characterizes the material; electrical resistance also includes geometry. Doubling length doubles $R$, while doubling wire cross-sectional area halves $R$, with material and temperature fixed. The uniform-field assumption includes insulated sides and equipotential end faces, as explained in uniform current in a straight homogeneous wire. ^[ref].

As a defined wire example, take $L=1\mathrm{m}$, $A=1\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{m}}^2$ and $\sigma =5\times 10^5(\Omega \mathrm{m}{)}^{-1}$. Then $R=2\Omega$; applying electric potential difference $5\mathrm{V}$ drives electric current $2.5\mathrm{A}$. With the same length and material, a second wire of wire cross-sectional area $2\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{m}}^2$ has $R=1\Omega$ and carries $5\mathrm{A}$ at that same electric potential difference. Fixing electric potential difference here differs from fixing electric current in the current density comparison: stating what is held fixed is essential.

The fractional change in electrical resistance per unit temperature change, with geometry and other conditions specified. For a small interval around $T_0$, $R(T)\simeq R(T_0)[1+{\alpha }_R(T-T_0)]$. Low $|{\alpha }_R|$ is useful in stable resistors.

The continuum spreading resistance for current entering a circular aperture of radius $a$ from one uniform semi-infinite reservoir of electrical resistivity $\rho$ is $\rho /(4a)$. Two symmetric reservoirs contribute $\rho /(2a)$ in series with a cylindrical pore resistance $\rho \ell /(\pi a^2)$. Unobstructed access is not the same as zero spreading resistance; molecular-scale pores also require non-continuum transport physics.

The scale $R_K=h/e^2\simeq 25.8\mathrm{k\Omega }$. Spin degeneracy perfectly transmitting channels instead have conductance $2e^2/h$. Suppressing charge fluctuations in a simple tunnel-island picture requires nanowire junction resistances large relative to $h/e^2$.

Electrical resistance introduced by a connection between conducting regions. Interface chemistry, contact geometry and microscopic barriers can dominate over the bulk resistance of the connected materials. Four-terminal measurements help separate contact drops from the resistance of a test section.

The resistance per square of a uniform thin conducting sheet. For bulk resistivity $\rho$ and film thickness $t$, $R_{\square }=\rho /t$ and a rectangular stripe has $R=R_{\square }L/W$. The number of squares is dimensionless and independent of an overall change of lateral scale. Networks and grids use an effective sheet resistance that may depend on finite-size connectivity and contacts.

A change of electrical resistance associated with an applied magnetic field, with material, temperature, measuring electric current and preparation specified. The response can depend on magnetic history as well as the instantaneous field. A magnetoresistance measurement therefore compares defined states, rather than treating every material as a single-valued function of field magnitude.

A large field-induced resistivity reduction in correlated magnetic materials. Double exchange links carrier mobility to spin alignment, while lattice coupling, localization and competing phases can magnify the response.

A junction with magnetic electrodes separated by a thin insulating barrier. Spin-dependent tunnelling can make resistance depend strongly on the relative electrode magnetizations.

tunnelling magnetoresistance is the dependence of a magnetic tunnel junction's electrical resistance on the relative magnetizations of its electrodes. A common convention is $(R_{AP}-R_P)/R_P$, where the subscripts denote antiparallel and parallel alignment. Its magnitude and sign depend on effective spin-polarized transmission through the particular interfaces and barrier.

Assume spin-conserving, low-voltage tunnelling and a spin-independent matrix element. Then parallel conductance is proportional to $D_{1\uparrow }{D}_{2\uparrow }+D_{1\downarrow }{D}_{2\downarrow }$, while antiparallel conductance has the crossed products. Define $P_i=(D_{i\uparrow }-D_{i\downarrow })/(D_{i\uparrow }+D_{i\downarrow })$. The two conductances are $G_0(1\pm P_1{P}_2)$; taking their reciprocals and using the resistance-ratio convention proves the displayed formula. Orbital filtering and interface-dependent matrix elements can invalidate a bulk-density-of-states estimate.

If one temperature-dependent relaxation scale controls a fixed carrier population and fixed orbital geometry, the magnetoresistance ratio can collapse onto a function of $B/\rho (0,T)$. This is Kohler's rule. For the equal-mobility compensated two-carrier magnetoresistance model, $[\rho (B)-\rho (0)]/\rho (0)=(\mu B{)}^2$ and $\mu =[2ne\rho (0){]}^{-1}$. Therefore plotting against $[B/\rho (0){]}^2$ gives a common straight line of slope $1/(4n^2{e}^2)$. A collapse tests the scaling relation; it does not by itself prove this particular microscopic carrier model. Multiple independently varying scattering times or carrier populations can spoil it.

Consider isotropic electrons and electron holes with equal density $n$, charges $\mp e$, equal positive charge carrier mobility $\mu$, and single-species zero-field electrical conductivity ${\sigma }_0=ne\mu$. In a transverse magnetic field, opposite Hall conductivity components cancel, while diagonal components add to $2{\sigma }_0/[1+(\mu B{)}^2]$. Inverting gives ${\rho }_{xy}=0$ and ${\rho }_{xx}={\rho }_{yy}=[1+(\mu B{)}^2]/(2{\sigma }_0)$. Its large-field growth is ${\sigma }_0{B}^2/(2n^2{e}^2)$. The total zero-field resistivity is $1/(2{\sigma }_0)$, half the single-species resistivity; confusing these quantities introduces a factor-of-two normalization error.

A dependence of electrical resistance on the angle between electric current and magnetization.

Giant magnetoresistance connects the relative magnetizations of adjacent magnetic layers to their electrical transport. In a suitable magnetic-metal/nonmagnetic-metal stack, aligning the layers can leave one spin channel with an easy conducting path through both magnetic layers; opposite alignments make each channel encounter a more resistive layer. Albert Fert's account traces the spin-dependent-conduction idea to Nevill Mott and distinguishes the later device geometries.^[ref]

The beauty is that a magnetic arrangement becomes an electrical readout. Preparing reproducible layers, establishing their magnetizations, and measuring electrical resistance are separate parts of that inference. The Fe-Cr giant magnetoresistance experiments show how those parts were joined; the two-current resistor model isolates a simple transport mechanism under stated assumptions.

When spin-flip scattering is weak, two spin populations have separately defined current responses and share a terminal electric field. Their electrical conductivities add: $\sigma ={\sigma }_{\uparrow }+{\sigma }_{\downarrow }$, so $\rho ={\rho }_{\uparrow }{\rho }_{\downarrow }/({\rho }_{\uparrow }+{\rho }_{\downarrow })$. Spin-dependent band structure and scattering set the channel parameters; being the majority population does not universally imply lower channel resistivity. The model is named for Nevill Francis Mott and is the independent-channel basis for many giant magnetoresistance models.

A channel's electrical conductivity weights its density of states by squared velocity and the transport momentum relaxation time. In an elementary spin-conserving $s$–$d$ scattering model, ${\tau }_s^{-1}\propto |V_{sd,s}{|}^2{D}_{d,s}(E_F)$, so available heavy final states can reduce the current carried by light states. Band filling, defects and interfaces affect the asymmetry; total spin population alone does not determine its sign. A density-of-states sketch without scattering matrix elements is not a universal transport prediction.

The 1988 study grew alternating iron/chromium layers by molecular beam epitaxy on gallium arsenide. Magnetization and torque measurements tested the magnetic configuration. An AC electrical resistance measurement passed electric current along the layers while the applied magnetic field changed. Comparing field directions and spacer thicknesses linked the resistance decrease to magnetic saturation. Electron microscopy and surface analysis checked layer formation, while leaving atomic-scale interface roughness unresolved.^[ref]

The independent Jülich study used four-terminal sensing on epitaxial Fe/Cr/Fe strips. A single iron film supplied an anisotropic magnetoresistance comparison. Magneto-optic Kerr effect signals and Brillouin light scattering from spin waves identified the layer alignments, rather than inferring them from resistance alone. Field scans along different magnetic axes connected the optical signatures to the resistance changes.^[ref]

Peter Andreas Grünberg's retrospective explains why the preceding interlayer exchange coupling measurements mattered: coupled spin wave modes supplied signatures of magnetic alignment before that alignment became an electrical signal.^[ref]

A resistance curve alone does not reveal the microscopic direction of every magnetic layer. The optical measurements add a different observable, while the reference film tests an orientation-dependent response that can occur without a multilayer. Sample preparation and cross-checks therefore belong to the physical explanation.

The measuring electric current flows along the layer planes. This is the geometry of the Fe-Cr giant magnetoresistance experiments. Scattering and current paths through an extended stack require a transport description; treating successive layers as ordinary series resistors would not follow from this geometry.

In a model of carriers sampling alternating magnetic and nonmagnetic layers, assume spin conservation, comparable carrier transport weights and negligible extra interface scattering. Averaging relaxation rates by the time spent in each material then gives a channel electrical resistivity $(t_1{\rho }_{\mathrm{FM},\mathrm{s}}+t_2{\rho }_{\mathrm{NM}})/(t_1+t_2)$. Here all constituent resistivities are per spin channel. A long mean free path compared with a period motivates interlayer sampling; it does not by itself prove the other assumptions. This is a homogenized current-in-plane model, rather than an independent parallel-layer limit or a current-perpendicular-to-plane resistor chain.

From the four-layer CIP sheet resistance, $R_P=ab/[2D^2(a+b)]$ and $R_{AP}=(a+b)/(8D^2)$. Subtraction gives $R_{AP}-R_P=(a-b{)}^2/[8D^2(a+b)]\ge 0$ for positive channels. The ratio in the title normalizes by the low-resistance state; normalizing by the high-resistance state instead gives $(a-b{)}^2/(a+b{)}^2$. Common spacer scattering adds equally to $a,b$, diluting the contrast. The result assumes identical magnetic layers; arbitrary materials need not have the same sign of spin asymmetry.

Let $D=t_1+t_2$, $a=t_1{\rho }_L+t_2{\rho }_N$ and $b=t_1{\rho }_H+t_2{\rho }_N$. A square of four layers has total thickness $2D$. For parallel moments its channel sheet resistances are $a/(2D^2)$ and $b/(2D^2)$; for antiparallel moments both are $(a+b)/(4D^2)$. Adding parallel spin conductances gives the title. The factor of four-layer thickness is essential; changing the normalization changes the prefactors. The nonmagnetic bulk resistivity would be ${\rho }_N/2$ when ${\rho }_N$ is this model's per-spin value.

The measuring electric current crosses the layer planes. This geometry motivates the serial-layer paths in the two-current resistor model. A quantitative material calculation can also require interface electrical resistances, spin relaxation and spin accumulation; the circuit below intentionally isolates a smaller set of assumptions.

Consider two identical magnetic layers separated by a nonmagnetic layer, between reservoirs that impose the same terminal electric potential difference on both spin channels. Neglect spin-flip scattering and assume each layer obeys Ohm's law. In a magnetic layer, define positive channel electrical resistances $a,b>0$. Let the spacer contribute $r\ge 0$ to each channel. These are circuit parameters, not measured iron or chromium resistivities.

For parallel layer magnetizations, one channel meets $a,r,a$ and the other $b,r,b$. For opposite layer magnetizations, each meets one $a$, one $b$, and the spacer. The two channels share the same terminal electric potential difference and run in parallel. Writing $x\parallel y=xy/(x+y)$ givesThe inequality is algebra, given the specified network. It shows how a difference between spin-channel responses can yield a difference between magnetic configurations even though all the constituent resistors are ohmic.

For chosen $a=1\Omega$, $b=4\Omega$, $r=1\Omega$, the parallel channels have total electrical resistances $3$ and $9\Omega$, while the opposite-alignment channels each have $6\Omega$. Thus $R_P=2.25\Omega$ and $R_{AP}=3.00\Omega$. At a common terminal electric potential difference $1\mathrm{V}$, the total electric currents are $4/9\mathrm{A}$ and $1/3\mathrm{A}$, respectively.

A quoted percentage needs its denominator. Define the resistance increase relative to the low-resistance state by $m=(R_{AP}-R_P)/R_P$. The decrease relative to the high-resistance state is instead $d=(R_{AP}-R_P)/R_{AP}$. For $R_P,R_{AP}>0$,The chosen example has $m=1/3$ and $d=1/4$: a $33.3\%$ increase and a $25\%$ decrease describe the same pair of resistances. A paper reporting a field-induced drop relative to its zero-field value need not be using the same percentage convention as a plot normalized by $R_P$.

Define a dimensionless channel contrast $p=(b-a)/(a+b)$ and spacer ratio $s=r/(a+b)$. Positive $a,b$ give $|p|<1$, and substitution gives the displayed expression. Equal channel responses, $p=0$, eliminate the model's magnetic-configuration signal. Increasing the common spacer resistance at fixed $a,b$ increases the denominator and decreases $m$.

This is a controlled comparison within the model. In an actual multilayer, changing a spacer thickness can change the magnetic coupling and the interfaces as well as electrical transport. Spin-flip scattering also mixes the channels that the calculation kept independent.

Let the first layer have channel resistances $a_1,b_1>0$ and the second $a_2,b_2>0$, with a common spacer $r\ge 0$. Define $\Sigma =a_1+b_1+a_2+b_2+2r$. The same circuit rules giveSubtracting their numerators gives $(a_1-b_1)(a_2-b_2)$. The sign therefore depends on whether the two layers favor the same global spin channel. With $(a_1,b_1)=(1,4)\Omega$, $(a_2,b_2)=(4,1)\Omega$ and $r=1\Omega$, the values reverse: $R_P=3.00\Omega$, $R_{AP}=2.25\Omega$. The model's ratio $m$ is then $-1/4$. Positive magnetoresistance was a consequence of the identical-layer assumptions, not a theorem about every two-channel network.

A device with a reference magnetic layer whose magnetization is comparatively fixed and another layer whose magnetization responds more readily to an applied field. The resistance reads their relative alignment. Fert's account describes how such giant magnetoresistance sensors entered hard-disk read heads in 1997.^[ref]

A spin valve detects a small field by rotating a free layer relative to a pinned magnetic reference. The chain rule separates transport angular response from the magnetic rotational susceptibility. An angular response proportional to $1-\cos \theta$ has zero slope at perfect parallel and antiparallel alignment but a nonzero slope near perpendicular alignment. The smallest detectable field also depends on electronic and magnetic noise, thermal stability, hysteresis and the chosen bias current; a large magnetoresistance ratio alone does not determine sensitivity.

Fluctuations that limit the detectable field of a magnetoresistive read sensor. Thermal magnetization noise, domain jumps, electronic thermal noise and resistance fluctuations compete with the field-dependent signal; magnetic bias and adequate anisotropy stability are important.

A spin valve with two ferromagnetic layers of different magnetic coercivities, allowing separate reversal without requiring one layer to be rigidly exchange-pinned. A continuous weakly coupling spacer permits a controllable antiparallel state.

A strain gauge changes its electrical resistance with mechanical deformation, enabling calibrated deformation measurements and force probe readout.

The ohm is the SI unit of electrical resistance, one volt per ampere. A component of electrical resistance $2\Omega$ needs an electric potential difference of $2\mathrm{V}$ to carry electric current $1\mathrm{A}$ under Ohm's law. ^[ref].

A resistor is an electrical circuit component whose intended behavior is electrical resistance. An ideal ohmic resistor obeys Ohm's law, $V=IR$, and converts electrical energy into heat at power $P=I^{2}R$ through Joule heating. It provides the dissipative term in a series RLC circuit.

A carbon composition resistor uses a bulk mixture of carbon and insulating binder. The conducting network sets its electrical resistance. Its compact geometry has little winding inductance, but composition and contact fluctuations can cause excess electronic noise and changes of electrical resistance with temperature and aging. It differs from a carbon-film resistor.

A wirewound resistor uses resistive metal wire wound on an insulating former. Suitable alloys and heat-resistant construction provide stable electrical resistance and substantial electrical dissipation; parasitic inductance and interturn capacitance limit the frequency range over which it behaves as a pure resistor.

Resistor tolerance specifies the permissible manufacturing deviation of a resistor's electrical resistance from its nominal value under stated conditions. For nominal electrical resistance $R_{\mathrm{nom}}>0$ and fractional resistor tolerance $0\le \tau <1$, the specified range is $R_{\mathrm{nom}}(1-\tau )\le R\le R_{\mathrm{nom}}(1+\tau )$. This differs from measurement uncertainty: resistor tolerance describes a component specification, while measurement uncertainty describes knowledge of a measured value; the tolerance alone is not a probability distribution for that value.

Two nominally equal resistors can have different actual electrical resistances, changing their voltage divider ratio even without an external electrical load. In a loaded voltage divider, use the actual electrical resistances to calculate both the unloaded output and the Thévenin resistance governing voltage divider loading error. A mismatch from resistor tolerance and a change from voltmeter loading are distinct effects that can occur together.

Ohm's law states that an Ohmic conductor has electric current proportional to its applied electric potential difference, with constant electrical resistance under fixed material conditions:Here $V=\varphi (A)-\varphi (B)$ is the terminal electric potential difference, and positive $I$ enters at $A$ and exits at $B$. This sign convention makes $VI$ the electrical power absorbed. The straight-line relation through the origin lets one constant predict the response at many applied electric potential differences. Merely defining $R=V/I$ at one nonzero operating point does not establish Ohm's law: a component may have a ratio that varies with applied electric potential difference. Material and temperature must be specified and held fixed; many components have a nonlinear response. ^[ref].

For the ideal resistor model $R=2\Omega$ at electric potential difference $V=5\mathrm{V}$,This power is converted to internal energy by Joule heating; a watt is a joule per second. If the model holds for time $10\mathrm{s}$, the transferred energy is $125\mathrm{J}$. Doubling electric potential difference doubles electric current and quadruples power for the same fixed $R$. The model keeps material temperature fixed even while calculating Joule heating; appreciable changes in temperature may require a changing electrical resistance. ^[ref].

In 1827, Georg Ohm published his mathematical account of electrical transport in Die galvanische Kette, mathematisch bearbeitet. On printed page 36, his relation $S=A/L$ expresses electric current in terms of total driving tension and a reduced length incorporating electrical conductivity and geometry. This is historical notation: his $A$ is not the wire cross-sectional area used here, and his $L$ is not simply the wire's physical length. The striking idea is that material response and geometry can be combined into one quantity governing an electrical circuit. ^[ref].

Author of the 1827 treatise developing the electrical transport relation now called Ohm's law. ^[ref].

Electrical conductivity $\sigma$ measures the local response of current density to electric field. In the rest frame of an isotropic Ohmic conductor, the local form of Ohm's law isLarger positive electrical conductivity gives larger current density at the same electric field. It is a bulk material coefficient, distinct from the geometry-dependent electrical conductance of a whole component and from a sheet's surface conductivity. Electrical resistivity is ${\rho }_{\mathrm{el}}=1/\sigma$ in this scalar model. ^[ref].

The local and whole-wire forms fit together particularly neatly. For uniform current in a straight homogeneous wire, with length $L$, wire cross-sectional area $A$, constant electrical conductivity and terminal electric potential difference $V$, the axial electric field has magnitude $E=V/L$. ThusFor the defined electrical resistance example $\sigma =5\times 10^5(\Omega \mathrm{m}{)}^{-1}$, $L=1\mathrm{m}$, $A=10^{-6}{\mathrm{m}}^2$ and $V=5\mathrm{V}$, the local values are $E=5V/m$ and $j=2.5\times 10^{6}A/{\mathrm{m}}^2$; integrating gives $I=2.5\mathrm{A}$. One material law therefore supplies both a spatial description and a terminal relation.

The scalar form requires isotropy. In an anisotropic material the response can instead be a tensor, $J_i={\sum }_j{\sigma }_{ij}{E}_j$, and current density need not be parallel to electric field; uniaxial conductivity tensor is one existing example. These statements concern the material's rest frame. A moving electrical conductor instead uses the moving-conductor Ohm law.

In a steady series circuit, both electron and hole conventional currents contribute in the intrinsic semiconductor, while one electron population carries the metal current. Taking magnitudes along the current direction gives the displayed relation, with $n=p=n_i$ in the intrinsic region. The large metal carrier density can yield a much smaller drift speed despite its smaller cross-section. Interface conversion between electron and hole transport does not violate total current continuity.

Electrical conductivity arising from motion of ions. In a dilute, uncorrelated vacancy model, a mobile oxygen vacancy has effective charge $+2e$ and moves opposite to the oxygen ions that fill it.

With the explicitly stated convention $H_R=D_{\mathrm{tr}}/D_{\sigma }$, the tracer and collective diffusion coefficients are related by $D_{\sigma }=D_{\mathrm{tr}}/H_R$. The Nernst-Einstein relation then gives $\sigma =n{q}^2{D}_{\mathrm{tr}}/(H_R{k}_{B}T)$. State the convention, since reciprocal definitions can otherwise cause confusion.

The activation free-energy barrier for an ion to hop between sites. ionic conductivity also depends on the concentration of mobile defects and correlations between successive hops.

For dilute, independently migrating carriers of number density $n$, charge $q$ and diffusion coefficient $D$, balancing drift with diffusion gives mobility $D/(k_{B}T)$ per applied force. Multiplying drift velocity by charge density yields $\sigma =n{q}^{2}D/(k_{B}T)$. State which species defines $n$ and $D$: a vacancy diffusivity must be combined with vacancy density. Correlated motion requires a correction rather than automatic use of a tracer diffusivity.

The density and diffusivity in $\sigma =n{q}^{2}D/(k_{B}T)$ must refer to the same carrier species and correlation convention. Oxygen vacancy diffusivity belongs with vacancy density; tracer diffusion of oxygen atoms is not automatically the vacancy diffusivity. A transport inversion may determine an effective density without uniquely determining a chemical defect concentration.

An alternating electric current and its electromagnetic field concentrate near a conductor's surface. For a local isotropic good conductor with real electrical conductivity $\sigma$, magnetic permeability $\mu$, and $\sigma \gg \omega ϵ$, the field penetrates over the skin depth $\delta =\sqrt{2/(\mu \sigma \omega )}$.

With fields proportional to $e^{i(kz-\omega t)}$, a homogeneous Ohmic medium obeys the displayed relation by combining the two curl Maxwell equations. The physical passive branch has $\mathrm{Im}k\ge 0$. For real positive conductivity much larger than $\omega ϵ$, it reduces to $k=(1+i)/\delta$ with skin depth $\delta =\sqrt{2/(\mu \sigma \omega )}$. Field amplitude and intensity then decay with respective lengths $\delta$ and $\delta /2$. A frequency-dependent conductivity must be retained when charge-carrier inertia matters.

A coating substantially thinner than the skin depth does not screen the substrate as a bulk conductor would. Thickness of a few skin depths suppresses the field reaching the substrate exponentially. A unique required thickness additionally needs an allowed residual field or loss criterion.

In the normal skin-effect regime of a good conductor, $\delta =\sqrt{2/(\mu \sigma \omega )}$ and the surface resistance is $R_s=1/(\sigma \delta )=\sqrt{\mu \omega /(2\sigma )}$. For identical geometries, resistance ratios depend on the square root of magnetic permeability divided by conductivity.

For a wave penetrating a nonmagnetic good conductor in the $+z$ direction with time convention $e^{-i\omega t}$, its wavenumber is $k=(1+i)/\delta$, with skin depth $\delta =\sqrt{2/({\mu }_0\sigma \omega )}$. If $\mathbf{E}\parallel \hat{\mathbf{x}}$, Faraday's law of induction gives $\mathbf{H}=[k/({\mu }_0\omega )]E_x\hat{\mathbf{y}}$. Thus the field ratio is $Z_s=E_x/H_y=(1-i)/(\sigma \delta )$, equal to the displayed expression. Magnetic and electric fields have equal exponential penetration lengths but a phasor phase difference $\pi /4$; $H_y$ has the positive phase relative to $E_x$ in this convention.

The skin depth is the distance over which a field amplitude falls by $e^{-1}$ inside a conductor. In the local good-conductor limit, $\delta =\sqrt{2/(\mu \sigma \omega )}$. Intensity then falls by $e^{-2}$ over one skin depth; amplitude and intensity penetration lengths differ by a factor two.

The tensor relating local current density to electric field. Its inverse, when it exists, is the electrical resistivity tensor; sheet conductivity uses surface current density instead.

Complex conductivity relates the complex amplitudes of current density and electric field at an angular frequency $\omega$ in sinusoidal response. Its modulus gives the amplitude ratio, while its argument encodes their relative phase. Both the exponential time convention and whether amplitudes are peak or root mean square values must be stated when interpreting phase or average power.

Electrical resistivity is the inverse of scalar electrical conductivity in an isotropic Ohmic medium. In its rest frame, $\mathbf{E}={\rho }_{\mathrm{el}}\mathbf{j}$, so the electric field does work per unit volume $\mathbf{j}\cdot \mathbf{E}={\rho }_{\mathrm{el}}|\mathbf{j}{|}^2$. In Gaussian units, finite conductivity gives magnetic diffusivity $\eta =c^2/(4\pi \sigma )$; neglecting this diffusion is a distinct approximation from neglecting electron inertia in Hall magnetohydrodynamics.

A phenomenological label for metallic responses that depart from ordinary Fermi-liquid expectations, commonly including a broad approximately temperature-linear resistivity regime in some cuprates. The observed range depends on doping, field and material. A linear law alone does not uniquely identify the scattering mechanism, and the ordinary metal's high-temperature phonon-linear resistivity is not by itself evidence of the same regime.

The resistivity tensor is the matrix relating electric field to current density in linear local transport. It is the matrix inverse of the conductivity tensor, not the componentwise reciprocal. A Hall response produces antisymmetric off-diagonal components. In a multicarrier system, the conductivities add because each species sees the same electric field; invert only after summing the species' conductivity tensors.

The residual resistivity is the low-temperature electrical resistivity remaining in a normal metal when thermally excited scattering becomes negligible. Static disorder, impurities and boundaries can relax carrier momentum without requiring a thermal population of phonons. Its value depends on sample purity and structure; a superconducting transition is a different phenomenon.

Matthiessen's rule approximates the total electrical resistivity of a metal by the sum of separate scattering contributions. For a common parabolic energy band, approximately independent scattering mechanisms give $1/\tau ={\sum }_{j}1/{\tau }_j$ for the respective momentum relaxation times, and hence ${\rho }_{\mathrm{el}}=m/(n{e}^2\tau )={\sum }_{j}m/(n{e}^2{\tau }_j)$. Correlated scattering, strongly angle-dependent processes or a complicated changing energy band structure can invalidate the simple addition.

The sheet resistivity tensor relates tangential electric field to surface current density: ${\mathbf{E}}_{\parallel }={\mathbf{\rho }}_s\mathbf{K}$. It is the matrix inverse of the sheet conductivity tensor, when that inverse exists. Its SI unit is the ohm, rather than the ohm times metre used for bulk electrical resistivity. With a transverse response, individual tensor components are not generally reciprocals of the corresponding sheet conductivity components.

For a spin-degenerate parabolic two-dimensional band, the Drude model gives $\tau =m^{\ast }/(n{e}^2{\rho }_{\square })$ and $v_F=\hslash k_F/m^{\ast }$. Their product is the displayed mass-independent mean free path. A Fermi-surface transport interpretation requires a sufficiently degenerate electron gas; a quantum lifetime need not equal the transport relaxation time.

The in-plane dissipative response along an imposed sheet current. In an isotropic Hall system, matrix inversion gives ${\rho }_{xx}={\sigma }_{xx}/({\sigma }_{xx}^2+{\sigma }_{xy}^2)$. It is a sheet quantity in ohms, while a homogeneous strip's measured longitudinal resistance additionally includes its length-to-width ratio.

A uniaxial electrical conductivity has one distinguished direction $n$ and equal response in its orthogonal plane. Its eigenvalues are $\alpha$ in $n^{\perp }$ and $\alpha +\gamma$ along $n$, so it is invertible precisely when $\alpha (\alpha +\gamma )\ne 0$. For an electric field perpendicular to $n$, the electric current density is $J=\alpha E$. Positive dissipation requires both eigenvalues to be nonnegative, a physical constraint separate from algebraic invertibility. For $D_{ij}={ϵ}_{ijk}{n}_k$, one has $D^2=n{n}^{\mathsf{T}}-I$, and $\sigma D^2=-\sigma$ is equivalent to $\gamma =-\alpha$; the conductivity then vanishes along $n$.

An electrical conductor supports mobile charge carriers and hence an electric current under a field. In a band description, a partially filled band or available overlapping bands supply nearby accessible states. The contrast with a band insulator depends on band filling as well as spectral gaps; semiconductors provide carriers through thermal excitation or doping.

An ideal planar conductor is an equipotential boundary in electrostatics. The electric field just outside is normal to it, while the electric field inside its metal vanishes. If grounded and infinite, the method of images implements the boundary by reflected opposite electric charges.

A material whose current density is proportional to its electric field, with proportionality given by its electrical conductivity.

In a homogeneous Ohmic conductor, a steady electric current density obeys $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{j}=0$ and $\nabla \times \mathbf{j}=0$. Uniform axial current in a straight cylinder follows if its side is insulated and its flat end faces are equipotentials. The electric potential then solves Laplace's equation with those boundary conditions, and uniqueness makes it linear in the axial coordinate. Steadiness alone does not impose these contact conditions: nonuniform end potentials can produce nonuniform current even with an insulating side. Bending also generally redistributes current; in an annular conductor the azimuthal current density is proportional to the inverse radius.

In a homogeneous Ohmic conductor, the charge continuity equation and Gauss's law imply exponential decay of the bulk charge density, $\rho (t)=\rho (0)e^{-\sigma t/ϵ}$. For an isolated finite body, bulk charge moves to its boundary; the accumulating surface charge density preserves total electric charge. The formula uses a constant permittivity $ϵ$ and the corresponding free-charge convention, or ${ϵ}_0$ for total charge in the vacuum form of Gauss's law.

A uniform cylindrical volume charge relaxes exponentially under Ohm's law and the continuity equation for electric charge. In a cylinder of radius $R$ initially carrying no surface charge, the radial conduction current deposits ${\rho }_s(t)=R{\rho }_0(1-e^{-\sigma t/{ϵ}_0})/2$ on its surface. Total charge per unit length remains $\pi R^2{\rho }_0$, so the exterior radial electric field is time independent even though the interior field decays. Neglecting the deposited surface charge violates charge conservation.

The Drude model explains finite electrical conductivity by balancing charge carrier acceleration in an electric field against loss of directed momentum through collisions. Its useful surprise is that continuous microscopic motion can produce a constant macroscopic current density: the applied electric field continually restores the directed momentum lost to the material. The simplest version has one mobile species, constant number density $n$, electric charge $q$, mass $m>0$, and momentum relaxation time $\tau >0$, in a stationary, homogeneous, isotropic material. At zero magnetic field, its mean drift velocity and current density obeyFor electrons, $q=-e$ with positive elementary charge $e$, so ${\sigma }_0=n{e}^2\tau /m$. The electron drift velocity points against a constant electric field, whereas conventional current points along it. Random microscopic velocities can have zero mean without being zero individually; drift velocity is this population mean, rather than each particle's speed.^[ref]

The same first-order linear differential equation predicts both Drude current relaxation after switching an electric field and the Drude frequency response to a sinusoidal electric field. Together they let a measured electrical conductivity be interpreted in terms of a density, a mass, and a time scale; a single constant-field measurement determines only their combination $n{q}^2\tau /m$.

The original 1900 paper Zur Elektronentheorie der Metalle by Paul Drude sought a common account of electrical transport and heat transfer using mobile charged particles and ideas from the kinetic theory of gases. Its introduction, especially printed pp. 568–569, explains that comparing different transport phenomena could constrain the populations of free and bound charged particles. The modern momentum relaxation time formulation above is a useful presentation of the model, not a verbatim translation of the original notation or its historical assumptions about mass.^[ref]

The momentum relaxation time is the exponential relaxation time of mean directed momentum after the driving electric field is removed. In the simplest Drude model, independent collisions occur with probability $dt/\tau$ during a short time interval $dt$ and reset the mean velocity of the collided population to zero. The remaining fraction preserves its previous mean momentum. To first order in $dt$, averaging gives $d⟨\mathbf{p}⟩/dt=q\mathbf{E}-⟨\mathbf{p}⟩/\tau$. This is a population equation: it does not assert that every particle stops at equally spaced instants.^[ref]

For real materials, a collision that changes a particle's direction only slightly need not erase its directed momentum, so the momentum relaxation time need not equal the time between all scattering events. This transport time is also distinct from the bulk charge relaxation time $ϵ/\sigma$: one describes loss of directed motion, the other redistribution of charge density.

Switch on a constant electric field ${\mathbf{E}}_0$ at $t=0$. For prescribed initial current density $\mathbf{J}(0)$, the exact Drude model solution is the displayed formula. For electrons, the corresponding drift velocity isStarting from zero drift velocity, the current density reaches $1-e^{-1}\approx 0.632$ of its limiting value after one momentum relaxation time. Switching the electric field off at $T$ instead gives $\mathbf{J}(t)=\mathbf{J}(T)e^{-(t-T)/\tau }$ for $t\ge T$. A finite step of electric field changes the acceleration immediately but leaves drift velocity and current density continuous.

More generally, multiplying the current density equation by an integrating factor givesThis is the causal response of a first-order relaxation equation: only earlier electric fields enter the integral. It also shows why instantaneous Ohm's law is an approximation when the electric field changes appreciably during a momentum relaxation time.

Use physical electric fields $\mathbf{E}(t)=\mathrm{Re}[\hat{\mathbf{E}}{e}^{-i\omega t}]$ and current densities $\mathbf{J}(t)=\mathrm{Re}[\hat{\mathbf{J}}{e}^{-i\omega t}]$, with peak complex amplitudes. After the initial transient has decayed, substitution into the Drude model equation gives the complex conductivityHere the mobile species is electrons. With the alternative $e^{+i\omega t}$ convention, the denominator is $1+i\omega \tau$ and the imaginary part changes sign; the physical response is identical.^[ref]

For $E_x(t)=E_0\cos \omega t$ with $\omega >0$, the real-time current density isThus a positive argument of complex conductivity in the $e^{-i\omega t}$ convention means that current density lags the electric field. At $\omega \tau =1$, its real part and imaginary part are both ${\sigma }_0/2$, its modulus is ${\sigma }_0/\sqrt{2}$, and the lag is $\pi /4$.

For $\omega \tau \ll 1$, complex conductivity tends to the positive constant ${\sigma }_0$: current density nearly follows the electric field. For $\omega \tau \gg 1$ within this model,The current density amplitude decreases and its response becomes predominantly inertial. Average power absorbed per volume is $\overline{p}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Re}\sigma |\hat{\mathbf{E}}{|}^2\ge 0$. These limits describe the material response to a specified local electric field, not the complete electromagnetic response of a finite specimen with contacts. The Drude response has its pole at $\omega =-i/\tau$, consistent with the decaying causal response of a first-order relaxation equation.

The simple Drude model does not predict the microscopic momentum relaxation time. It neglects electronic band structure and Fermi-Dirac statistics; a useful semiclassical extension replaces $m$ by an appropriate band effective mass, but neither a single scalar mass nor one constant momentum relaxation time describes every material. Several charge carriers, energy-dependent scattering, and transitions between electronic bands can spoil the simple Drude frequency response. A successful low-angular frequency fit does not justify extrapolation to arbitrarily large angular frequencies.

For charge $-e$, field $B\hat{z}$, time dependence $e^{i\omega t}$ and circular components $E_{\pm }=E_x\pm i{E}_y$, the active positive-frequency response is the plus component and its denominator contains $\omega -{\omega }_c$. Reversing the field or exchanging helicity labels swaps the signs. A printed circular conductivity must state those conventions together.

A doped semiconductor at frequencies far below its bound-electron resonances can haveFor a weakly absorbing nonmagnetic half-space adjacent to vacuum, the normal-incidence optical reflectance is minimized near refractive-index matching, ${ϵ}_r\simeq 1$. When ${ϵ}_b>1$ and ${\gamma }_c$ is small this gives ${\omega }_{\min }\simeq {\omega }_{pc}/\sqrt{{ϵ}_b-1}$. The zero of the real part of ${ϵ}_r$, near ${\omega }_{pc}/\sqrt{{ϵ}_b}$, is a distinct frequency. Increasing the carrier density shifts the minimum to shorter wavelength if the carrier effective mass and background response remain fixed. With appreciable loss, the minimum must be found from the full complex Fresnel equations.

For a weakly absorbing doped semiconductor with one dominant carrier species and approximately constant background dielectric function ${ϵ}_b>1$, the Drude model gives a normal-incidence reflectivity minimum near ${ϵ}_r=1$. Thus ${\omega }_{pc}^2=({ϵ}_b-1){\omega }_{\min }^2$, with ${\omega }_{pc}^2=n{e}^2/({ϵ}_0{m}^{\ast })$ and ${\omega }_{\min }=2\pi c/{\lambda }_{\min }$. Eliminating the plasma frequency proves the displayed mass estimate. The real-dielectric zero instead has ${\omega }_0\simeq {\omega }_{pc}/\sqrt{{ϵ}_b}$ and is the nearby screened plasma edge, so its wavelength requires a different denominator. With appreciable loss, fit the full complex Fresnel equations rather than identifying the minimum with an exactly real dielectric value.

A motivating laboratory realization is The Hall Effect and Conductivity in Germanium by Rex Tayloe. The handout specifies a germanium sample holder with temperature and magnetic field control, a low-voltage supply, digital meters, and a current-reversing switch. Measure the sample dimensions, map the contacts, and establish the directions of electric current, magnetic field, and transverse voltage. At fixed temperature and zero magnetic field, sweep positive and negative electric currents and record longitudinal electric potential differences. A straight voltage-versus-electric current relation tests Ohm's law; sample geometry converts its slope to electrical resistivity. For the Hall effect, minimize the zero-field transverse offset and measure transverse voltage at all four combinations of $\pm I$ and $\pm B$, repeating for several electric currents. The readouts test longitudinal proportionality, transverse polarity, and transverse proportionality to electric current. These are protocol instructions, not reported measurement outcomes.^[ref]

For interpreting such measurements, an ideal uniform bar of wire cross-sectional area $A$ with longitudinal sensing contacts separated by $L$ gives $\sigma =LI/(A{V}_L)$. Four-terminal sensing suppresses voltage drops in current contacts when the voltage meter draws negligible electric current; it does not fix uncertain dimensions or a nonuniform current density. Reverse electric current and use $[V_L(+I)-V_L(-I)]/2$ to reject a constant voltage offset. Keep temperature stable, allow the current density to settle, and reduce electric current to test for Joule heating. Those are controls for interpreting the material coefficient, rather than reasons to assume every measured curve is linear.

For the transverse measurement define $\mathbf{J}=J_x\hat{\mathbf{x}}$, $\mathbf{B}=B_z\hat{\mathbf{z}}$, width $w$ along $y$, and thickness $d$ along $z$. Define $V_H=V(y=-w/2)-V(y=+w/2)=E_{y}w$, so $J_x=I/(wd)$ givesExtract the part odd in both electric current and magnetic field usingThis combination rejects a constant offset and longitudinal pickup even in magnetic field. It cannot reject another signal with the same two reversal symmetries. Check field polarity and magnitude independently; a sign error in the contact map changes the inferred Hall coefficient.