Electric potential energy due to a point charge

In summary, the conversation is discussing the derivation of electric potential energy due to a charge 'Q' at the origin on a test charge 'q' at point p, and the confusion surrounding the sign of the potential energy. The conversation also touches on the work done by an external agent in moving the charge from infinity to point p, and the contradiction in the definition of electrostatic potential energy. The expert suggests that the original derivation may be off due to too many minus signs, and clarifies the concept of work done by an external force.
  • #1
Ashu2912
107
1
Hey friends, I am stuck up in the derivation of the electric potential energy due to a charge 'Q' at the origin on test charge 'q' at a point p (position vector 'rp'). The derivation is shown below, am just struggling with a minus sign...

Electric Potential Energy at P
= Work done to move 'q' from infinity to P quasi-statically by external agent

=[tex]\int[/tex] kQq/r2 -r[tex]\wedge[/tex].-dr

(Since External Force = - Coulumbic Force and displacement vector = -dr)

=kQq [-1/r][tex]\infty[/tex]rp

=-kQq/r

I know that when Qq is +ve, work done should be positive, but the sign is changing due to the integral.

NOTE : all vectors shown in bold faces, r^ is unit vector along r and dr is infinitesimal displacement in direction of r...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Potential energy is the negative of the work done by the force of a field. Could the be the issue you're having?
 
  • #3
Ya, that's true but here I am considering the work done by an external agent, which provides force just enough to counter-balance the force of the electric field. Therefore, this external agent must do positive work in case of repulsive forces (Qq is positive) as the potential energy of the charge 'q' is increased on it's action...
 
  • #4
Since Qq is positive, the external force must be doing negative work (and the field doing positive work) when allowing the charges to move apart.
 
  • #5
Ya, I got your point. However, my textbook defines electrostatic potential energy as
"Potential energy of a charge q at a point in the presence of field due to any charge configuration is the work done by the external force (equal and opposite to the electric force) in bringing a charge q from infinity to that point".
Now, if we go to see
Work done by external force in moving charge from [tex]\infty[/tex] to the point
= W[tex]\infty[/tex]P
= Uinitial - Ufinal
= -Ufinal

or Electrostatic potential Ufinal = -W[tex]\infty[/tex]P (by external force), which is a contradiction to the definition.

My guess if that the work done by the external force should be positive, in case of let's say Q,q > 0, but it is coming to be negative, equal to -kQq/r. Even though the infinitesimal work is coming to be positive, the net work is coming negative. Don't know why. Please help!
 
  • #6
Looks to me like your original derivation is off a bit. Note that 'dr' points in the direction of increasing r, so the work done against the field is:
dW = -qEdr (dot product, of course)

For a point charge Q, the potential energy at r is the work done against the field from infinity to point r:
[tex]U(r) \equiv -\int_{\infty}^r q\vec{E} \cdot d\vec{r}[/tex]

[tex]U(r) \equiv -\int_{\infty}^r \frac{kQq}{r^2} dr = \frac{kQq}{r}[/tex]
 
  • #7
However, the infinitesimal work done should be
dw = Fext.ds (ds is in the direction of [tex]\infty[/tex] to rp)
Since ds = -dr and Fext is -Felectric
dw = Felectric.dr, which is positive, assuming Q,q>0
 
  • #8
I'm once again showing my complete derivation, with the diagram attached. The diagram is made in MS Paint, so...my apologies. All vectors are shown in bold face.
Consider a charge Q>0 at origin. We bring another charge q>0 from infinity to P, with position vector p. At each instant we apply an external force, equal and opposite to the Coulumbic force, so that the charge q comes from infinity to P quasi-statically, with constant velocity. Now,
Work done in moving the charge q from infinity to P
= w[tex]\infty[/tex]P

=[tex]\int[/tex]Fexternal.ds from [tex]\infty[/tex] to p

=[tex]\int[/tex]-Felectric.-dr (as ds = -dr. Since r is the general position vector at a point directed from the origin, dr too, points away from the origin and is parallel to r, and joins r to r + dr. ds is used in the main equation as we have to integrate along the path followed).

=[tex]\int[/tex]kQq/r2 dr (Felectric and dr are in the same direction, so their dot product is Fdrcos0 = Fdr)

=-kQq/p

I have one more confusion. We know that [tex]\Delta[/tex]U = Ufinal - Uinitial = -Work done by a force. Using this, we get Ufinal = kQq/p, since Uinitial is taken as 0.

However my textbook says that work done by external force to move charge from A to B =
UB - UA.

Please solve my big confusion. My exam's on Monday. Pls. help as fast as you can...
 

Attachments

  • untitled.bmp
    266.7 KB · Views: 657
  • #9
Ashu2912 said:
I'm once again showing my complete derivation, with the diagram attached. The diagram is made in MS Paint, so...my apologies. All vectors are shown in bold face.
Consider a charge Q>0 at origin. We bring another charge q>0 from infinity to P, with position vector p. At each instant we apply an external force, equal and opposite to the Coulumbic force, so that the charge q comes from infinity to P quasi-statically, with constant velocity. Now,
Work done in moving the charge q from infinity to P
= w[tex]\infty[/tex]P

=[tex]\int[/tex]Fexternal.ds from [tex]\infty[/tex] to p

=[tex]\int[/tex]-Felectric.-dr (as ds = -dr. Since r is the general position vector at a point directed from the origin, dr too, points away from the origin and is parallel to r, and joins r to r + dr. ds is used in the main equation as we have to integrate along the path followed).

=[tex]\int[/tex]kQq/r2 dr (Felectric and dr are in the same direction, so their dot product is Fdrcos0 = Fdr)

=-kQq/p
Too many minus signs.

The work done would be:
[tex]\int_\infty^r \vec{F_{ext}}\cdot d\vec{s}[/tex]

Since s points toward the charge, the force Fext is positive, not negative.

[tex]\int_\infty^r \frac{kQq}{r^2} ds = -\int_\infty^r \frac{kQq}{r^2} dr[/tex]

I have one more confusion. We know that [tex]\Delta[/tex]U = Ufinal - Uinitial = -Work done by a force. Using this, we get Ufinal = kQq/p, since Uinitial is taken as 0.

However my textbook says that work done by external force to move charge from A to B =
UB - UA.
I guess I don't understand the question. The work required to move a charge quasi-statically from A to B will equal ΔU = UB - UA.
 
  • Like
Likes Sunanda
  • #10
Doc Al said:
Work done =
[tex]\int_\infty^r \frac{kQq}{r^2} ds = -\int_\infty^r \frac{kQq}{r^2} dr[/tex]
In the above equation, Fext and ds are in the same direction. The above integral shouldn't therefore contain |Fext||ds|cos0
=kQq/r2 X dr, as ds = -dr => |ds| = |dr|. Therefore, shouldn't the final expression contain a minus sign? I understand that since Fext and ds are in the same direction, thus the work done by the external force should be positive. However, the infinitesimal work is coming to be positive, but the total work is coming to be negative, just because of integration...

In my second question, I meant that [tex]\Delta[/tex]U = -W, right? So, Ui - Uf = Wi to f, as per the work - PE relation. But in my book, it is given that Uf - Ui = W. So, which of them is correct?
 
  • #11
Doc Al said:
Work done =
[tex]\int_\infty^r \frac{kQq}{r^2} ds = -\int_\infty^r \frac{kQq}{r^2} dr[/tex]
Ashu2912 said:
In the above equation, Fext and ds are in the same direction. The above integral shouldn't therefore contain |Fext||ds|cos0
=kQq/r2 X dr, as ds = -dr => |ds| = |dr|. Therefore, shouldn't the final expression contain a minus sign?
I'm not sure what you mean by 'final expression', but the last expression in the quoted segment does have a minus sign.
I understand that since Fext and ds are in the same direction, thus the work done by the external force should be positive.
Right.
However, the infinitesimal work is coming to be positive, but the total work is coming to be negative, just because of integration...
No. How can the sum of positives end up negative?

In my second question, I meant that [tex]\Delta[/tex]U = -W, right?
That depends on what force is doing the work. In the definition of potential energy that we are discussing above, it's an external force doing the work. Thus ΔU = W, not -W.
 
  • #12
The last expression i meant was:
dW = kQq/r2ds
In this, kQq/r2ds is a scalar expression, a dot product. Since ds=-dr (please check my diagram again) so |ds| = |dr|. Thus, dW is coming to be +ve.
How can the sum of positives end up negative?
Thats what I am thinking.
Thanks, I got the second part. Thanks a lot!
 
  • #13
Ashu2912 said:
The last expression i meant was:
dW = kQq/r2ds
OK.
In this, kQq/r2ds is a scalar expression, a dot product.
Right. And F and ds point in the same direction, so Fds is positive.
Since ds=-dr (please check my diagram again) so |ds| = |dr|. Thus, dW is coming to be +ve.
This is confusing. Fds is positive. Now you want to change your variable of integration from s to r, so use ds = -dr (not ds = dr).
 
  • Like
Likes Sunanda
  • #14
Ya, but in terms of magnitude, ds = dr, since ds = -dr, right? Thanks so much for your time...
 
  • #15
Ashu2912 said:
Ya, but in terms of magnitude, ds = dr, since ds = -dr, right?
Well, sure. The magnitude of ds and dr are equal. But you cannot ignore the sign!
 
  • #16
I have finished with my exam, but still have one doubt in my mind...
When we have a limit of integration like [-1/r] from [tex]\infty[/tex] to let's say any positive number, we get a negative number, even though the infinitesimal quantity is positive, since the direction of integration also matters. So do you mean that we will have to change the sign of the integration variable so that the work done comes to be positive??
However, if this is the case, then why do we get a negative sign even when we integrate from -[tex]\infty[/tex] to a positive number?
I'm oinfused totally in this matter. Please help!
 
  • #17
Ashu2912 said:
I have finished with my exam, but still have one doubt in my mind...
When we have a limit of integration like [-1/r] from [tex]\infty[/tex] to let's say any positive number, we get a negative number, even though the infinitesimal quantity is positive, since the direction of integration also matters.
I assume you mean to integrate -1/r^2, not -1/r. In any case, why do you think the integral from ∞ to some positive number would be negative?
 
  • #18
Bumping this because I have exactly the same doubt, and reading through this thread didn't help me clear it :/

We know that F(ext) = -qE, where E is the field due to a positive charge along 'r' vector. Also, our displacement in moving the test charge near the original charge is along 'r' vector, but in the opposite direction, hence '-dr'.

Now dW = F(ext).ds = (-qE) * (-dr), integration of which gives me a negative quantity. Where have I made a mistake of a minus sign?
 
  • Like
Likes Sunanda
  • #19
Hey dreamlord, I think I have understood this now!
Fext(vector) =- qE(vector) like you said. However, while integrating you have to consider dr(vector) only, the integration limits being from 0 to infinity!
 
  • #20
dreamLord said:
We know that F(ext) = -qE, where E is the field due to a positive charge along 'r' vector. Also, our displacement in moving the test charge near the original charge is along 'r' vector, but in the opposite direction, hence '-dr'.

Now dW = F(ext).ds = (-qE) * (-dr), integration of which gives me a negative quantity. Where have I made a mistake of a minus sign?
The sign of dr is taken care of by your limits of integration. You move in the '-dr' direction by integrating from ∞ to r.
 
  • #21
Ashu2912 said:
Hey dreamlord, I think I have understood this now!
Fext(vector) =- qE(vector) like you said. However, while integrating you have to consider dr(vector) only, the integration limits being from 0 to infinity!
Sorry I mean infinity to zero! And what doc al said is absolutely correct!
 

1. What is electric potential energy due to a point charge?

Electric potential energy due to a point charge is the potential energy that a charged particle possesses by virtue of its position in an electric field created by a point charge. It is a measure of the work that must be done to bring a test charge from infinity to a specific point in the electric field surrounding the point charge.

2. How is electric potential energy affected by distance?

Electric potential energy is inversely proportional to the distance between the two charges. As the distance between the charges increases, the electric potential energy decreases. This is because the electric force between the two charges decreases as the distance increases.

3. What is the equation for electric potential energy due to a point charge?

The equation for electric potential energy due to a point charge is U = kQq/r, where k is the Coulomb's constant, Q is the magnitude of the point charge, q is the magnitude of the test charge, and r is the distance between the two charges.

4. Can electric potential energy be negative?

Yes, electric potential energy can be negative. This occurs when the two charges have opposite signs and the test charge is brought from infinity to a point closer to one of the charges. In this case, work is done by the electric field to bring the test charge closer, resulting in a negative potential energy.

5. How does the sign of the charges affect electric potential energy?

The sign of the charges affects electric potential energy in two ways. First, charges with the same sign have a positive potential energy, while charges with opposite signs have a negative potential energy. Second, the magnitude of the potential energy is greater for charges with larger magnitudes, regardless of their sign.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
436
Replies
1
Views
747
Replies
2
Views
749
Replies
11
Views
853
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
1
Views
716
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
33
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
704
Replies
1
Views
849
Back
Top