Talk:Conserved current

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please define the symbols

I believe this is a very important topic, but... What does the symbol "j" mean, what does the symbol mu mean, etc. Can whoever wrote this please take some responsibility and define the terms they used, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a document containing undiscoverable terms represented by single characters that have many different usages in different contexts. If this author defines the meaning of these terms in words then they can be hyperlinked to other references in Wikipedia. Without that, the article is only of use to people who are already familiar with the concepts, surely Wikipedians deserve more than this? If the original author of that section is not available, it would be great if anyone else who is familiar with the terms could define them, as is now becoming de rigeur in all Wikipedia articles - jjalexand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.66.203 (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tautology alert

I came across this page following a link from "Noether's Theorem" and found this definition. I think I can intuit from the example what is meant, but can anybody come up with something pithy to define it without reference back to the theorem? Please forgive any breaches of etiquette, I'm very new. Toospaice 05:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest and participation. The lead is talking about why the notion of conserved current is important. The definition is given by the formula below that:

{\frac {\partial \rho }{\partial t}}+\nabla \cdot \mathbf {J} =0

In words, there is a quantitative attribute (like electric charge or energy) which can move around, but can never appear from nothing nor disappear to nothing. OK? JRSpriggs 09:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 09:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of Conserved current and Conserved quantity

Someone, (not me) added merge templates to these two articles. They did not cite any reason for thye merge proposal, so let me provide those words. Besides overlapping with each other, both overlap somewhat with the article charge (physics). My knee-jerk reaction is that the merge proposal sounds reasonable, although I get the feeling that perhaps the wisest choice is to redirect both of these to Noether's theorem. However, leave charge (physics) alone: that deals with a bigger set of topics and issues than merely conserved quantities. (viz it goes into the virasoro algebras and into operators, etc. which these articles don't get into, and which are inappropriate for Noether's theorem) 03:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose the idea of merging all to Noether's theorem on the grounds that a conservation law is a better commonly understood that Noether's theorm. Oppose also the merge of the current and quantity pages as there are aspects of the current page with are distinct and, I feel, distinctly notable. The direction of the proposed merge also surprises me, as quantity seems more fundamental than current. Overall, I see no point in the merge. Klbrain (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]