Electric Potential: Questions & Answers

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of electric potential, specifically why it is defined in terms of bringing a unit positive charge from infinity to a point in an electric field, rather than a negative charge. Participants explore the historical context, conventions, and implications of this definition, along with its impact on understanding electric potential in various scenarios.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why the definition of electric potential specifies a positive charge, suggesting that it could also apply to negative charges.
  • Others argue that defining potential in terms of positive charge is a convention that has historical roots, and changing it could lead to confusion.
  • A participant mentions that the choice of positive charge is consistent with the nature of electric forces, which can be attractive or repulsive.
  • Some contributions highlight that the definition could be simplified by stating it in terms of 'like' charges, which might alleviate confusion regarding charge polarity.
  • There is a discussion about the flow of charge in conductors, with some emphasizing that electrons are the actual charge carriers in many materials, while others argue that the concept of charge should not be limited to electrons.
  • A participant notes that Maxwell's original definition did not distinguish between positive and negative charges, suggesting that the current convention may perpetuate confusion.
  • Some participants express that the historical context of charge definitions complicates the understanding of electric potential, advocating for a more straightforward approach that does not prioritize one type of charge over another.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the definition of electric potential, with no consensus reached. Some agree on the historical context of the positive charge convention, while others challenge its necessity and propose alternative perspectives.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reveals limitations in understanding due to the historical choice of charge definitions and the implications of using positive versus negative charges in the context of electric potential. There is also mention of the complexity introduced by the flow of charge carriers in different materials.

jeekeshen
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Electric Potential !

Am getting confuse with the definition, why does the definition says "workdone is bringing unit POSITIVE charge from infinity to that point" and not NEGATIVE charge? can it be negative also in the definition or is it because we always use positive test charge...
 
Physics news on Phys.org


If you defined it the other way around, a collection of negative charges would produce a positive potential. That just seems less intuitive. That said, at the end of the day, it's just a definition.
 


Ya its just a definition... but everything is base on it. Just wanted to know if it was the positive test charge that was causing that.
 


Causing what?
 


Positive charge is used only because when electricity was first discovered it was thought it was positive, scientists got used to that convention, then electrons were discovered as the actual component of current flow...so for example, the standard current flow arrow in a circuit is still usually referenced as from plus to minus...arrow head toward the minus terminal.

How far is the moon from the earth??

everybody says about 384,000 km...Hardly anybody says "The Earth is about 384,000 km from the moon."...so it's just a convention .
 


In an attractive situation (electric or gravity - or even a spring under tension), work can be 'got out' as the distance decreases and is 'put in' as the distance increases. The choice of positive charge in the definition of the electric potential is based on that - for consistency, I think.
 
Equations of motion...

What are the conditions that enable the equations of motion to be used except from the fact that acceleration must be uniform ?
 


Naty1 said:
it was thought it was positive

Well, they weren't wrong.

Electricity is the flow of charge, which can be positive or negative. Sometimes it's one (metals and n-type semiconductors) sometimes the other (p-types).

Just because we discovered later that the electron carries negative charge doesn't mean we have to change our minds about the polarity of charge.

It's the textbook that's not terribly good - It should say it's the work done in bringing a 'like' charge from infinity - then there's no problem.
 


AJ Bentley said:
Well, they weren't wrong.

Electricity is the flow of charge, which can be positive or negative. Sometimes it's one (metals and n-type semiconductors) sometimes the other (p-types).

Just because we discovered later that the electron carries negative charge doesn't mean we have to change our minds about the polarity of charge.

It's the textbook that's not terribly good - It should say it's the work done in bringing a 'like' charge from infinity - then there's no problem.

It would certainly be convenient given that it results in the current being defined as flowing opposite to the majority carriers in most devices. The textbook is probably giving the definition for work done in an electric field. This is defined as being referencing a positive charge with respect to the applied electric field.
 
  • #10


Maxwell defined potential in his treatise.
He made no distinction between positive and negative in his definition.

http://www.archive.org/stream/treatiseonelectr01maxwrich#page/14/mode/2up"

Since that date, a (large) number of muddy thinkers have elected to specify everything with relation to positive charge.
Every time someone defends it, the confusion perpetuates.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11


It's all self-referenced, though. Nothing to worry about. In an attractive field the potential is negative and in a repulsive field, the potential is positive.

It would certainly have simplified the lives of millions of students if we hadn't had to tell them "it just happens to be the other way round" (edit - when talking about electron and charge flow).
 
  • #12


btw, it's electrons that flow through n and p type material 'really'. After all, it's electrons that are fed in one end and come out of the other! 'Holes' are only a way of thinking (allbeit a useful one). Now, if it were Ions flowing, that would be a different thing but that could only happen in a fluid.
 
  • #13


sophiecentaur said:
"it just happens to be the other way round"

When I was a student, the subject was taught classically - there was no mention of electrons.

Somehow the discovery of the electron as the dominant charge carrier in metals has come to dominate thinking on the subject as though that particular polarity were somehow 'more important' than the other.

Aside from that, there's a good reason not to equate charge with electrons. When you study it at the quantum level, you start to talk about 'charge' as particles - and the particle in question is generally the coulomb - not the electron.

I prefer to think as I was taught - that the coulomb is the primary particle of EM theory and the electron is just a fancy modern gadget that can safely be ignored.

The point is (and you mentioned it yourself as did others) - doing it that way makes it utterly independent of the carrier. Why make life difficult?
 
  • #14


jeekeshen said:
Am getting confuse with the definition, why does the definition says "workdone is bringing unit POSITIVE charge from infinity to that point" and not NEGATIVE charge? can it be negative also in the definition or is it because we always use positive test charge...

There may be some historical reason why positive charge was chosen but that aside the choice is arbitary.Since positive charge was chosen originally and is used in the definitions then it makes sense to stick with it.In defining electrical potential it is useful to define the nature of the charge because unlike gravity the electrical force can be attractive or repulsive.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K