Electrostatic Potential Energy with Constant Electric Field vs NonConstant Field

AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights the differences between calculating electrostatic potential energy (PE) in constant versus non-constant electric fields. It emphasizes that the equation PE = E*q*d is applicable only in scenarios with a constant electric field, such as between parallel plates, while it cannot be used when the electric field varies, like when two like charges approach each other. The importance of voltage differences in calculating work done in varying fields is also noted, as potential energy relates to the work done between two points rather than a single point to infinity. The conversation suggests that understanding these concepts is clearer through calculus, where the relationship between voltage and electric field can be expressed in integral form. Overall, the distinction between constant and varying electric fields is crucial for accurate calculations of potential energy and work.
Hereformore
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
When determining potential energy we have the relationship:

PE = V*q = E*q*d

But depending on the scenario we can't use them interchangeable right?

If you want to calculate the work needed to be done by a particle going from a distance Y to right next to another particle of the same charge, then you couldn't use PE = E*q*d since the electric field wouldn't be the same as the particle got closer and closer.

But you could use the voltage relationship here if you calculated the voltage difference between the two points.

In what situation would you be able to use the PE= E*q*d? Where there is a constant electric field between two particles? (so not between a parallel plate capacitor).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hereformore said:
In what situation would you be able to use the PE= E*q*d? Where there is a constant electric field between two particles? (so not between a parallel plate capacitor).
In situations where constant external field acts on a particle
 
Hereformore,
don't u think that with the change in the electric field, there is also a change in the distance... so the net result of E*d*q can be constant. So why do u need to have a constant electric field to use the equation ?
 
Hereformore said:
If you want to calculate the work needed to be done by a particle going from a distance Y to right next to another particle of the same charge, then you couldn't use PE = E*q*d since the electric field wouldn't be the same as the particle got closer and closer.
You cannot calculate the work of the electric force which cause the movement of a charge between two points with PE = E*q*d, not because the not uniform field, but because the work you are looking for, is the work between two points, and the PE is the work between a point and infinit.(were we set for convenience zero (Nullpunkt), and every value of potential is measured with respect to that zero)
 
Basically, your equations are the same, except that V is replaced by E*d.
That's because V = E*d, (or more conventionally, V = -E*d) for cases in which E is constant. Actually, a parallel plate capacitor is a good example of where you can use this equation, since a parallel plate capacitor has a roughly constant E field between the plates, as long as you stay away from the edges.

This should all become very clear with calculus-based physics, where V = -E*d is just a special case of
##V = -\int \mathbf{E} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{s}##
which is valid when E is varying along the path.
 
Susskind (in The Theoretical Minimum, volume 1, pages 203-205) writes the Lagrangian for the magnetic field as ##L=\frac m 2(\dot x^2+\dot y^2 + \dot z^2)+ \frac e c (\dot x A_x +\dot y A_y +\dot z A_z)## and then calculates ##\dot p_x =ma_x + \frac e c \frac d {dt} A_x=ma_x + \frac e c(\frac {\partial A_x} {\partial x}\dot x + \frac {\partial A_x} {\partial y}\dot y + \frac {\partial A_x} {\partial z}\dot z)##. I have problems with the last step. I might have written ##\frac {dA_x} {dt}...
Thread 'Griffith, Electrodynamics, 4th Edition, Example 4.8. (Second part)'
I am reading the Griffith, Electrodynamics book, 4th edition, Example 4.8. I want to understand some issues more correctly. It's a little bit difficult to understand now. > Example 4.8. Suppose the entire region below the plane ##z=0## in Fig. 4.28 is filled with uniform linear dielectric material of susceptibility ##\chi_e##. Calculate the force on a point charge ##q## situated a distance ##d## above the origin. In the page 196, in the first paragraph, the author argues as follows ...
Back
Top