Electrostatics: Understanding this "Work Done" Line Integral Question

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the concept of work done in electrostatics, particularly in evaluating line integrals. The work done in moving a test charge from infinity to a point R is expressed as the integral of the force, leading to confusion regarding the signs and directions of the vectors involved. Participants clarify that the direction of the differential element dR and the force vectors must be consistent, as changing the limits of integration affects the sign of the integral. The key takeaway is that the definitions of the vectors and the path taken in the integral must align to yield correct results. Understanding these relationships is crucial for accurately calculating electrostatic potential energy.
  • #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 Master1022 and PeroK

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · 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