Electrical Potential Energy of three quark system

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the electrical potential energy of a subsystem of two "up" quarks within a proton, which consists of two "up" quarks and one "down" quark. The potential energy formula used is U = (1/2) Σ Σ k (q_i q_j / r_{i,j}), where k is Coulomb's constant. The user initially misapplied the formula by neglecting the sign of the down quark's charge and failing to include units in their calculations. Correctly accounting for these factors is essential for accurate results in potential energy calculations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Coulomb's Law and electrical forces
  • Familiarity with the concept of potential energy in electrostatics
  • Knowledge of quark composition in protons
  • Ability to perform calculations involving scientific notation
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the principles of Coulomb's Law and its application in electrostatics
  • Study the concept of potential energy in multi-charge systems
  • Learn about quark interactions and their implications in particle physics
  • Practice calculating electrical potential energy with varying charge configurations
USEFUL FOR

Students studying particle physics, physicists working with quantum chromodynamics, and educators teaching concepts of electrostatics and potential energy.

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