Electrical Potential Energy of three quark system

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the electrical potential energy of a subsystem of quarks within a proton, specifically focusing on two "up" quarks. The original poster expresses confusion regarding the correct application of formulas and the inclusion of charge signs in their calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to apply the formula for total electrical potential energy but questions their understanding of the signs associated with charges and the correct interpretation of the potential energy formula. Some participants question the necessity of including charge signs in calculations and the implications of using absolute values.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing guidance on the importance of charge signs in calculations. There is recognition of the original poster's misunderstanding, and suggestions are made to consider the reasoning behind including or excluding signs in their calculations.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of units in calculations and the potential confusion arising from the use of absolute values in the context of Coulomb's law. The original poster's misunderstanding of the charge signs is highlighted as a key issue in their approach.

Physics2341313
Messages
53
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A proton is composed of three quarks: two "up" quarks, each having charge +2e/3, and one "down" quark, having charge -e/3. Suppose that the three quarks are equidistant from one another. Take the distance to be 3×10-15 m and calculate the potential energy of the subsystem of two "up" quarks. (MeV)

At first I confused the formula below with \phi(P) = \Sigma^N_{i = 1} \frac{q_i}{r_i} but this is the potential instead of potential energy at a point P with \phi=0 taken at infinity?

Homework Equations



Total electrical potential energy

U = \frac12 \Sigma_{i=1}^N \Sigma_{j \ne i}^N k \frac {q_i q_j}{ r_{i,j}}

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
For three charges in this arrangement I should just be able to do

U = k\frac{q_1q_2}{r_{12}} + k \frac{q_1q_3}{r_{13}} + k\frac{q_2q_3}{r_{23}}

For the total potential energy should I just not be able to do this? It says this is incorrect but I'm not seeing how given that the total potential energy is just the summation of the potential energies individually and the potential between q_2 and q_3 should be the same as the potential between q_1 and q_3 because they have the same radii and charge proportions?

U = [(8.99 * 10^9) \frac{(\frac23 (1.6 * 10^{-19}))^2}{3 * 10^{-15}}] + 2[(8.99 * 10^9) \frac{(\frac23 (1.6 * 10^{-19})\frac13(1.6 * 10^{-19}))}{3 * 10^{-15}}]

Then for the potential energy between both "up-quarks" I should be able to do:

U = (8.99 * 10^9) \frac{(\frac23 (1.6 * 10^{-19}))^2}{3 * 10^{-15}}

Both of these are incorrect, I'm not understanding what I'm doing wrong?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Why do you think it is wrong apart from the fact that you missed the sign of the down quark charge and that you are missing units?
 
I was missing the sign! That was it. I always get confused about whether to include signs or take the absolute value/magnitude. In columb's law we don't use the signs do we? Every time I've tried to use negatives in coulumbs law it came out wrong, or maybe I'm just doing it wrong. That's why I assumed the negatives were not to be included here.
 
This is something you really need to work on then. Usually you should include signs unless there is an explicit reason not to such as the thing being sought is the magnitude of the force. If you are taking absolute values on a hunch you are doing it wrong, you need to think through the reasons behind. (And you need to write out the units!)
 
MeV !
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
9K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
14K