Difference between Coulomb's and E-static?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter QuestionMarks
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Difference
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the differences between Coulomb's Law and electrostatic potential energy, particularly in the context of chemistry education. Participants explore the mathematical relationships and conceptual implications of these two principles, questioning their interchangeable use in teaching.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that Coulomb's Law describes a force with an inverse-square relationship, while electrostatic potential energy is proportional to 1/r, expressing confusion about the mathematical basis for this difference.
  • Another participant suggests that the work done by a force is related to the potential energy, indicating a possible connection between the two concepts.
  • A later reply explains that the potential energy at a point in space is defined by the work done when moving a charge within an electric field, emphasizing the integral form of work and its dependence on the varying force.
  • One participant introduces the mathematical relationship between force and potential energy, stating that the force can be derived from the potential energy function.
  • There is a question about the appropriateness of using Coulomb's Law to justify phenomena in a high school classroom, with a participant expressing interest in the historical context of the two concepts.
  • Another participant argues that the equivalence between force and potential energy can be demonstrated, suggesting that while it is acceptable to refer to Coulomb's Law when discussing forces, it may be clearer to specify the potential energy relationship separately to avoid confusion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether it is appropriate to use Coulomb's Law and electrostatic potential energy interchangeably in educational contexts. While some see a clear relationship between the two, others caution against potential confusion in their usage.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of the relationships between force and potential energy, noting the need for careful definitions and the potential for misunderstanding in educational settings.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to educators in chemistry and physics, students exploring the concepts of electrostatics, and anyone interested in the foundational principles of electric forces and potential energy.

QuestionMarks
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
Coming from a Chemistry background, we seem to flippantly explain away chemical phenomena using "Coulomb's Law" but are often specifically mentioning the equation for electrostatic potential energy due to their similarity. The explanatory power for us is about the same, but one is an inverse-square law and the other just proportional to 1/r. Why is this?

I recognize one is describing a force, and the other an energy, but I'm having difficulty finding any way to mathematically discover why there's the difference in denominator beyond just hand-waving or beyond stepping quite out of my knowledge set to derive it myself hah.

Also, is it appropriate for us as Chemistry instructors to use the terms interchangeably when explaining phenomena, or is this bad bad practice?

Thanks much!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you know how work done by a force is computed?
 
Orodruin said:
Do you know how work done by a force is computed?

Well naievly I might say w=Fd then substitute that into internal energy assuming no term for heat, calling that something like the estatic potential and hoping the the d in work would cancel one of our d's in the inverse square... is that what youre getting at? I've thought of something like this but felt I was making too many assumptions.
 
QuestionMarks said:
Well naievly I might say w=Fd then substitute that into internal energy assuming no term for heat, calling that something like the estatic potential and hoping the the d in work would cancel one of our d's in the inverse square... is that what youre getting at? I've thought of something like this but felt I was making too many assumptions.

It is something like that, but the first law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with this.

It is by definition that the potential energy at a point A in space, where there is electric field due to a source charge Q, is equal to the work done by the force of the electric field when we move a hypothetical charge q from point A to another fixed point of reference. The fixed point of reference sometimes is taken to be a point at infinite distance from the source Q, so that the electric field is zero there.

The work done is defined as the integral \int_{r_A}^{\infty}Fdr=\int_{r_A}^{\infty}K\frac{Qq}{r^2}dr. If we do the math that integral equals K\frac{Qq}{r_A}, where r_A is the distance of point A from the source Q.

We use integral in the formula for work because the force of the electric field varies inversely proportional to the square of the distance r from the source. The formula W=Fr is valid only if F is constant with respect to distance r.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Let me just add that the relation between the force and the potential may also be written as
$$
{\bf F} = - \nabla V.
$$
Constrained to the radial direction, this would be
$$
F_r = - \frac{\partial V}{\partial r}.
$$
Now if ##V = K \frac{Qq}{r}## we would obtain
$$
F_r = -KQq \frac{d r^{-1}}{dr} = \frac{KQq }{r^2}.
$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Alrighty, makes sense. Thanks you two!
 
Wait one more question though:
Is it alright in say a high school classroom to justify the relevant phenomena to these equations by broadly talking about them as Coulomb's Law (I would guess historically one led to the other nigh simultaneously)? Subjective question perhaps but still interested in other thoughts.
 
Well it is right because as you see from our posts we prove the equivalence
(Force obeys Coulomb's law)<=>(Potential energy follows inverse distance )i.e:

1)when we have an electric field force that obeys Coulombs Law (that is the force inversely proportional to the square of the distance), then the potential energy is inversely proportional to the distance,

and vice versa that is:

2) if the potential energy is inversely proportional to the distance then the force of field follows Coulomb's law.

But maybe it would be more accurate to avoid confusion to refer to Coulomb's Law when we talk about the forces of a static E-field, and when we talk about potential energy to refer to the potential energy proportional to 1/r as a consequence of a force that follows the Coulomb's Law.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
7K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K