Coulomb's Law and charge quantization

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Coulomb's Law and the concept of charge quantization, exploring how the law applies to different types of particles, including composite particles and charge distributions. Participants examine the implications of charge being quantized and how it affects calculations involving multiple charges.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that Coulomb's Law indicates the force between particles depends on their charge, questioning whether the formula should only require sign changes for protons and electrons.
  • One participant suggests that the force can be expressed in terms of integral multiples of the elementary charge, but acknowledges that charge distributions are often modeled as continuous, allowing for fractional charge values.
  • Another participant emphasizes that "particles" can refer to more than just protons and electrons, introducing the concept of composite particles and fractional charges.
  • A follow-up question arises regarding the interaction between two clumps of protons, with participants discussing the additivity of charges and the complexity of 3D interactions.
  • It is mentioned that if clumps of charges are small compared to the distance between them, they can be approximated as point charges, but larger clumps require more complex considerations.
  • Participants discuss methods for applying Coulomb's Law to point charges and continuous charge distributions, including the use of integral calculus and vector analysis for force calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying views on the application of Coulomb's Law to different scenarios, with no consensus reached on the implications of charge quantization or the treatment of composite particles. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the complexities introduced by larger charge distributions.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include assumptions about the size of charge clumps relative to distances and the treatment of charges as point-like or continuous distributions, which may affect the applicability of Coulomb's Law.

Atomic_Sheep
Messages
18
Reaction score
1
Coulomb's law states that the force between particles depends on their charge. But protons and electrons have equal but opposite charges. Shouldn't the formula simply have constants with the only changes required being the signs?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In Coulomb's Law, the magnitude of the force is normally written as $$F=\frac{1}{4 \pi\epsilon_0}\frac{q_1q_2}{r^2}$$Considering that charges usually come in integral numbers of the electron charge magnitude ##e##, you could write $$F=\frac{1}{4 \pi\epsilon_0}\frac{N_1N_2e^2}{r^2}$$ for the magnitude, where ##N_1## and ##N_2## are positive integers. However, in E&M one usually models charge distributions as continuously smooth, i.e. charges can have fractional values of ##e##.

This idea is analogous to thinking of mass as being continuous without worrying about the "graininess" of atoms.
 
Atomic_Sheep said:
Coulomb's law states that the force between particles depends on their charge. But protons and electrons have equal but opposite charges. Shouldn't the formula simply have constants with the only changes required being the signs?

The flaw here is that you seem to think that "particles" can only be either a proton or an electron. There's nothing that says that those two are the ONLY entities that can use the label "particles". What if the particle is a composite particle, such as the nucleus of an atom? What is the force between a gold nucleus and an electron? What is the charge on an alpha particle? And wait till you hear that there are entities that can have fractional charges!

The word particles are not exclusively reserved only for protons and electrons.

Zz.
 
Last edited:
Forgot about quarks, but I haven't studied them at all.

Ok I think follow. Thanks.

A follow on question... if you have 2 protons, then it's quite trivial to calculate. What if I have 2 clumps of protons. Are the charges simply additive? 3D interactions seem much more complex than individual particles.
 
Atomic_Sheep said:
A follow on question... if you have 2 protons, then it's quite trivial to calculate. What if I have 2 clumps of protons. Are the charges simply additive?
Yes. The charges are additive.

If you have a collection of charges, it becomes important to assign a position to the associated net charge. As long as the clumps are small compared to the distance between the clumps, you can wave your hands and treat the net charge as if it is located in the center of the clump. If the clumps are large compared to the distance between and if the charges are not distributed in a spherically symmetric manner then things get more complex.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Atomic_Sheep
Coulomb's law applies to point-charges. If the clumps are small, and the distance between them is much larger than their size, then it is a very good approximation to consider the clumps as point-charges.

Otherwise, you can proceed in two ways. If the charges in the clumps are themselves point charges, you can apply Coulomb's law to each pair of charges (one in one clump, one in the other), and add the results. If the charges are in a continuous distribution, you have to use integral calculus to perform the addition.

In three dimensions, you have to use vectors, because force is a vector quantity (magnitude and direction). $$\vec F = k \frac {q_1 q_2} {r_{12}^2}\hat r_{12}$$ where r12 is the distance between q1 and q2 and ##\hat r## is unit vector that points in the direction from q1 to q2.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Atomic_Sheep and jbriggs444
Thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K