Does equal electric field imply equal potential?

AI Thread Summary
Equal electric field does not imply equal electric potential, as the electric field is the gradient of the electric potential. While the electric field strength may be the same at two points, it does not mean the potential is the same; it only indicates that the derivative of potential is constant. In the given scenario with symmetry, the potential will depend only on the radial distance from the origin, suggesting that points equidistant from the origin are equipotential. The potential difference between two points can be calculated using the integral of the electric field along the path between them. The potential change is defined as V_B - V_A when moving from point A to point B.
fishingspree2
Messages
138
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Given the E field
E = 18/R2 R, R is the radial direction.
Find the electric potential between A and B where A is at +2m and B at -4m, both on the z axis.


The Attempt at a Solution


My question is, since E field depends only on R, the distance between the point and the origin, then E field is the same for point B at -4m and point C at +4m. Therefore they are equipotential. Therefore I can compute the potential difference between A at +2m and C at +4m. Is this reasoning correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, equal electric field does not imply equal electric potential. The electric field is the gradient of the electric potential: E = -∇V, or in one dimension, E = -dV/dr.

So, if the electric field strength and direction are the same at two points, it doesn't mean that V is the same at those two points, it just means that the derivative of V is the same at those two points.

Example: electric field between two large parallel plates of uniform surface charge, is the same everywhere between the two plates, but electric potential increases linearly as you move from one plate to the other.

(The approximately uniform gravitational field close to the surface of the Earth is a totally analogous situation. The gravitational field strength is the same at two points at two different heights, but the gravitational potential is definitely different between those two points.)
 
Hmm...what I said above was the most general answer. HOWEVER in this case, it seems like the problem posesses some symmetry. If dV/dr depends only on r, then V will depend only on r as well. So V is the same at all points that are equidistant from the origin.
 
cepheid said:
Hmm...what I said above was the most general answer. HOWEVER in this case, it seems like the problem posesses some symmetry. If dV/dr depends only on r, then V will depend only on r as well. So V is the same at all points that are equidistant from the origin.
Some questions...
I'm trying to compute V between two general points for the given E field, just to see what it will give and also for the sake of it.
We know that

Vb-Va = -\int_{A}^{B}\overrightarrow{E}\cdot d\overrightarrow{l}

any idea how I could express d\overrightarrow{l}...?
also, should d\overrightarrow{l} be from A to B or from B to A?
is Vb-Va called the potential difference between A and B or the potential difference between B and A?
 
fishingspree2 said:
Some questions...
I'm trying to compute V between two general points for the given E field, just to see what it will give and also for the sake of it.
We know that

Vb-Va = -\int_{A}^{B}\overrightarrow{E}\cdot d\overrightarrow{l}

any idea how I could express d\overrightarrow{l}...?
also, should d\overrightarrow{l} be from A to B or from B to A?
is Vb-Va called the potential difference between A and B or the potential difference between B and A?
I found that d\overrightarrow{l}=dR\overrightarrow{R}+Rd\phi \overrightarrow{\phi}+dz\overrightarrow{z}

so
V_{B}-V_{A}-\int_{A}^{B}\overrightarrow{E}\cdot d\overrightarrow{l}=-\int_{R_{A}}^{R_{B}}\frac{18}{R^{2}}dR=\frac{18}{R_{B}}-\frac{18}{R_{A}}
is that correct? in that case it seems my initial assumption that -4 and 4 are equipotential is correct since it depends only on R which is 4 in both cases.
is that the potential change when you go from B to A or is it the potential change when you go from A to B?
 
fishingspree2 said:
I found that d\overrightarrow{l}=dR\overrightarrow{R}+Rd\phi \overrightarrow{\phi}+dz\overrightarrow{z}

so
V_{B}-V_{A}-\int_{A}^{B}\overrightarrow{E}\cdot d\overrightarrow{l}=-\int_{R_{A}}^{R_{B}}\frac{18}{R^{2}}dR=\frac{18}{R_{B}}-\frac{18}{R_{A}}
is that correct? in that case it seems my initial assumption that -4 and 4 are equipotential is correct since it depends only on R which is 4 in both cases.
is that the potential change when you go from B to A or is it the potential change when you go from A to B?

Obviously V_B - V_A is the potential change when you go from A to B. You're taking the difference between the final value and the initial value to compute the change.
 
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
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