Quick Question about Electric Fields

AI Thread Summary
Electric field lines do not point directly toward negative charges; instead, they originate from positive charges and terminate at negative charges. The correct answer to the question posed is that electric field lines point toward a region of lower potential, as indicated by the relationship E = -∇V. This means that in the presence of an electric field, positive charges move toward lower potential, similar to how masses move in a gravitational field. The confusion arises when considering multiple charges, where the field's direction can become complex. Overall, understanding the gradient of potential is key to grasping the behavior of electric fields.
jakeowens
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Electric field lines always point toward:

(_) positive charge
(_) a region of higher potential
(_) ground
(_) a region of lower potential
(X) none of these

Now, i thought that electric fields point towards the negative charge. I submitted my homework, and i missed it. I was just wondering if anyone could explain to me why electric field lines don't point toward a negative charge. Everything i read lead me to that conclusion, so i put "none of these" and missed it. Is the correct answer "a region of lower potential"

I'd just like to know cause i thought i did, but apparently didnt.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hmmm. That's a tricky one. I think the most accurate answer would have been that electric field lines always originate on + charges and terminate on - charges, like the lines of an electric dipole. And if you think about the dipole and it's E-field fountains, yeah it's true that the E-field doesn't point directly at a charge for a lot of its shape. So I'd be inclined to say that answer (d) above seems pretty close, since E=-grad[V]. Was (d) the correct answer?
 
I believe that's how many undergrad textbooks (somewhat sloppily) put it: \vec{E}\left(\vec{r}\right)=-\vec{\nabla}V\left(\vec{r}\right) implies that the field lines go from a region of lower potential to a region of higher potential.
 
No, the negative sign means that the E field is pointing down the gradient of the potential V, toward a lower potential. Think about what a positive charge does in the presence of an electric field -- it accelerates in the direction of the E field. That means it gains KE and loses PE. Just like a mass accelerates in the direction of the gravitational field, and gains KE and loses PE.
 
berkeman said:
No, the negative sign means that the E field is pointing down the gradient of the potential V, toward a lower potential.

Big whoops. Thanks. I wrote the opposite of what I meant :/

Gravitation is a good analogy, I like that.

To the OP:
You probably remember from classical mechanics that for conservative forces, \vec{F} = -\vec{\nabla}V. A way to think about this is that things subject to this force "want" to get into a state with the lowest possible potential (think of dropping a ball).
 
jakeowens said:
Now, i thought that electric fields point towards the negative charge. I submitted my homework, and i missed it. I was just wondering if anyone could explain to me why electric field lines don't point toward a negative charge. Everything i read lead me to that conclusion, so i put "none of these" and missed it.
If you just had a single negatively-charged point charge, then the field everywhere would point towards the negative charge. But, when there are other charges around, things get more complicated. (For example, what if there were two negative charges? The field everywhere can't point towards both if the charges are separate.)

Note that they wisely did not list "negative charge" as an option.
Is the correct answer "a region of lower potential"
Yes. As others have pointed out, this is always true and is the right answer.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top