Equation connecting potential and potential energy of a distribution

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the equations for calculating potential energy in electric charge distributions, specifically highlighting the relationship between potential energy and electric potential. The first equation presented allows for the calculation of potential energy from the electric field, while the second equation connects potential energy to charge density and electric potential. A derivation method using vector calculus identities, particularly a product rule, is discussed to relate these equations. The identity used is recognized as a product rule in vector calculus, facilitating the derivation process. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the mathematical connections between electric fields, potential energy, and potential.
Leo Liu
Messages
353
Reaction score
156
Homework Statement
.
Relevant Equations
.
The equation below allows us to calculate the potential energy of a continuous distribution of electric charge.
$$U=\frac {\epsilon_0} 2 \iiint\limits_\text{Entire electric field}\vec E^2\,dV$$
In my textbook, the author states
$$U=\frac 1 {8\pi\epsilon_0}\iiint\limits_\text{Entire electric field}\rho\phi\, dV$$
which relates the potential energy of the distribution to its electric potential. I wonder how it is derived from the first equation.

Edit: It looks like the equation is actually a special case of the following formula for a discrete configuration of charges:
$$U=\frac 1{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac 1 2\sum_{j=1}^Nq_j\sum_{k\neq j}\frac{q_k}{r_{jk}}$$
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The trick is to write ##\displaystyle{\int} E^2 dV = - \displaystyle{\int} \mathbf{E} \cdot \nabla \phi dV = -\displaystyle{\int}\nabla \cdot (\mathbf{E} \phi) dV + \displaystyle{\int} \phi \nabla \cdot \mathbf{E} dV##, where the integral is taken over all space. The first term vanishes by Gauss' theorem since ##\mathbf{E}## is zero at infinity.
 
  • Love
  • Wow
  • Like
Likes Steve4Physics, Leo Liu and Delta2
ergospherical said:
The trick is to write ##\displaystyle{\int} E^2 dV = - \displaystyle{\int} \mathbf{E} \cdot \nabla \phi dV = -\displaystyle{\int}\nabla \cdot (\mathbf{E} \phi) dV + \displaystyle{\int} \phi \nabla \cdot \mathbf{E} dV##, where the integral is taken over all space. The first term vanishes by Gauss' theorem since ##\mathbf{E}## is zero at infinity.
Can you tell me what the indentity $$\vec E\cdot\nabla\phi=\nabla\cdot(\vec E\phi)+\phi\nabla\cdot\vec E$$ is called? I am not very familiar with the del operator. Ty!
 
In suffix notation (with the ##x_i## Cartesian coordinates),\begin{align*}
\nabla \cdot (\mathbf{E} \phi) = \sum_i \dfrac{\partial}{\partial x_i} \left( E_i \phi \right) &= \sum_i \phi \dfrac{\partial E_i}{\partial x_i} + \sum_i E_i \dfrac{\partial \phi}{\partial x_i} \\

&= \phi \nabla \cdot \mathbf{E} + \mathbf{E} \cdot \nabla \phi
\end{align*}
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Likes Delta2 and Leo Liu
  • Like
Likes Leo Liu and Delta2
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Correct statement about a reservoir with an outlet pipe'
The answer to this question is statements (ii) and (iv) are correct. (i) This is FALSE because the speed of water in the tap is greater than speed at the water surface (ii) I don't even understand this statement. What does the "seal" part have to do with water flowing out? Won't the water still flow out through the tap until the tank is empty whether the reservoir is sealed or not? (iii) In my opinion, this statement would be correct. Increasing the gravitational potential energy of the...
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Back
Top