Electrostatics: Understanding this "Work Done" Line Integral Question

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of work done in electrostatics, particularly focusing on line integrals in the context of electric fields and electrostatic potential energy. The original poster questions the relationship between different expressions for work done when moving a test charge within an electric field.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the definitions of work done in electrostatics, questioning the direction of the line element and the implications of the dot product in their calculations. They discuss the relationship between the force exerted by the electric field and the work done when moving a charge from infinity to a point in space.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing insights into the directionality of vectors involved in the integral and the implications of changing limits of integration. There is a recognition of the complexity surrounding the signs in the dot product and the definitions of the forces involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants are grappling with the definitions and assumptions related to the work done in electrostatics, particularly the implications of integrating from different limits and the orientation of the vectors involved. There is a noted confusion regarding the treatment of the dot product and the substitution of forces.

  • #31
haruspex said:
There may be scope for ambiguity here. There's keeping the direction of the vector ##d\vec r## constant, and there's keeping constant the direction defined as positive for it.

Viewing the integral as an ordered sum, each ##d \vec r## is a step along the path from the lower bound to the upper bound. If the direction from R to ∞ is defined as positive, and R is the lower bound, then each ##d \vec r## is a positive step. If we reverse the bounds then we are stepping from ∞ to R, so each vector element is a negative step.Following my reasoning above, setting the lower bound as R and the upper as infinity determines that ##d \vec r ## is outwards.

Okay, I think this makes more sense to me now. To see if I am understanding what you mean: I should keep the d \vec r vector pointing in the same way as the parameter r increases (i.e. outwards)?
PeroK said:
If you are using ##\vec r## as the vector from the origin, then this is different from using ##d \vec r## as the inwards line element.

Swapping between them could be the root of your problem.

Yes, thinking about this a bit more, that does seem to be the problem.

Is this also true for general line integrals? For example, if we want to integrate along a path, parameterized by p, then we ought to have dp in the direction of (or tangential to the path at that point) of p increasing regardless of which direction we want to go (from high to low p or vice versa)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
All this confusion can be avoided by following this procedure when doing line integrals.
1. Write the field vector in the coordinate system of your choice using unit vector notation.
Here, ##\vec E=\frac{kQ}{r^2}~\hat r##
2. Write the element ##d\vec l## in standard unit vector notation ignoring the path direction. The convention is that ##d(something)## is positive when the ##(something)## is increasing.
Here, ##d\vec l=dr~\hat r##. In Cartesian coordinates it will always be ##d\vec l=dx~\hat x+dy~\hat y+dz~\hat z##.
3. Take the the dot product as suggested by the integrand.
Here, ##\vec E \cdot d\vec l=\frac{kQ}{r^2}~\hat r \cdot (dr~\hat r)=\frac{kQ}{r^2}dr##.
4. Integrate using the starting point as the lower limit and the end point as the upper limit. The limits define the sign of the integral.

If you follow this procedure, you cannot go wrong because it's based on the formal definition of the inner product and not on the ##AB\cos\theta## thing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Master1022 and PeroK

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K