Derivation of electric potential due to point charge

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of electric potential due to a point charge, focusing on the mathematical formulation and conceptual understanding of electric potential, electric fields, and the integration process involved in calculating potential from infinity to a point in the field.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant defines electric potential as the work done in moving a unit charge from infinity to a point in an electric field, presenting the integral formulation.
  • Another participant questions the direction of the differential element ds in relation to the electric field E, specifically when the angle is 180 degrees.
  • A participant clarifies that ds is directed from infinity towards the point charge Q.
  • There is a discussion about the relationship of the direction of ds with the term 1/r² in the equations presented.
  • One participant introduces the concept of a "ray" as the straight line from a point to infinity, suggesting that ds can be represented as dr along this radial direction.
  • Another participant expresses confusion regarding the signs and directions of ds, dr, and the test charge, as well as the relationship between the work done by external elements and the electric field.
  • A later reply critiques the notation used in tensor calculus for line integrals, suggesting that a more straightforward approach would be beneficial.
  • One participant offers reassurance that the signs and angles can be simplified by using the formula for moving a charge through an electric field.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and confusion regarding the integration process, signs, and directions involved in the derivation of electric potential. There is no consensus on the best approach to clarify these concepts, indicating ongoing uncertainty and multiple viewpoints.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential limitations in understanding due to the complexity of the notation and the assumptions made in the derivation process. The discussion does not resolve these issues, leaving some mathematical steps and conceptual connections unclear.

Sumedh
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
Electric potential is the work done in moving a unit charge from infinity to a point in an electric field.

Electric potential due to point charge:
V=-\int \vec{E}\cdot d\vec{s}
V=-\int E\cdot ds cos \vartheta
if the stationary charge is positive and
if the test charge is is moved from infinity to point P
then
V=-\int E\cdot ds cos 180
V=-KQ \int \frac {1}{r^2} ds cos 180

now how to solve further
as stationary charge is positive the electric field is outward i.e. from p to infinity
and movement of charge is from infinity to P
specially the signs and the direction of the field and the direction of ds
and definite integration from P to infinity or from infinity to P?
please give some imaginary picture or idea of how the test charge moves
I am confused with it please help.
 

Attachments

  • d.png
    d.png
    691 bytes · Views: 1,434
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
If the angle between E and ds is 180o, then, where in what direction is ds directed?
 
from infinity towards Q
now i have attached an image in the original post
 
Yes, but how do we call this direction? It has a "special relation" to one of the variables in your equations.
 
it should have relation with
\frac {1}{r^2}
 
Yes. How do we call a straight line starting from a point a going to infinity?
 
i imagined that it may be a straight line i.e. the shortest distance between infinity and P
 
This straight line is called a ray, and the direction is called radial direction. On it, ds = dr. You need to use this.
 
I am confused with the signs and directions of ds ,dr and test charge and also
how work done by external element is negative of work done by electric field.
 
  • #10
I never understood, why integration in tensor calculus is obscured by some awkward notation. I guess, many textbook writers think, it's more intuitive to work with angles instead of vectors, but that's not true. To calculate a line integral, it's much more convenient to use the definition of that type of integral. Let \vec{V}(\vec{x}) be a vector field, defined in some domain of \mathbb{R}^3 and C: \lambda \in \mathbb{R} \supseteq (a,b) \mapsto \vec{x}(\lambda) \in \mathbb{R}^3 with values in the definition domain of \vec{V}. Then the line integral over the vector field along the path C is defined as

\int_C \mathrm{d} \vec{x} \cdot \vec{V}(\vec{x})=\int_{a}^{b} \mathrm{d} \lambda \frac{\mathrm{d} \vec{x}(\lambda)}{\mathrm{d} \lambda} \cdot \vec{V}[\vec{x}(\lambda)].
 
  • #11
The lines of forces are very simple in this case.
Fhsst_electrost25.png

Now you don't have to worry about the signs and angles here. Just simply use the formula for moving a charge through an electric field and you'll get it.
I hope this helps.
Thank you.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
276
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
213
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K