Equation of electric field line

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of the electric field represented by the vector E⃗ =(4iˆ+4jˆ) N/C, specifically whether it can be considered as an equation of electric field lines and the implications of its uniformity. Participants explore concepts related to electric potential, the nature of electric fields, and the mathematical relationships between electric field and potential.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the meaning of the electric field vector E⃗ =(4iˆ+4jˆ) N/C and whether it represents an electric field line.
  • Others clarify that the vector indicates a uniform electric field in the x-y plane directed at a 45-degree angle, with a magnitude of 4√2 N/C.
  • There is a discussion on how to determine the uniformity of the electric field, with some stating it has no dependency on spatial coordinates, while others argue that the presence of unit vectors i and j implies a dependence on coordinates.
  • Participants provide examples of non-uniform electric fields and discuss the implications of vector components on uniformity.
  • Concerns are raised about the understanding of electric potential and its relationship with electric field, with some participants asserting that the potential at two points in a uniform field should be the same.
  • There are questions regarding the interpretation of derivatives in the context of electric potential and electric field relationships, with some participants challenging the mathematical treatment of these concepts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the uniformity of the electric field and the implications for electric potential at different points. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing interpretations and no consensus reached on the correctness of the claims made.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential misunderstandings of vector calculus and the definitions of electric field and potential. The discussion also reflects varying levels of familiarity with the underlying mathematical concepts.

  • #31
Right.

Oh oh Gracy, you really have a knack for threads that stretch seemingly forever :smile:

Take this from #17:
gracy said:
dv/dr is the the derivative of voltage with respect to position. It represents the magnitude of the electric field at a point. r is the position of the point
I think it is clear to you by now that the derivative wrt a vector has components. Because from a point ##\vec r## you can go in different directions ##d\vec r##. Dividing by a vector (and ##d\vec r## is a vector) isn't defined. I know you dislike calculus, but we really can't do without. So browse (or better: study carefully) here and here . And when doing an exercise, make a full stop at a points where you can't -- at least in principle -- distinguish what a derivative or an integral in the expression entails. I grant you it's sometimes difficult to imagine (I, for one, still have that with curl, in spite of all the explanatory examples).

I seem to sense that you have less inhibition with the alternative form: If the force is ##q\vec E##, the work needed to move a charge over a differential ## d\vec r## is ##dW = - q\vec E \cdot d\vec r## . In terms of potential ##dV = - \vec E \cdot d\vec r##
This is in fact still a differential form (i first called this the integral form, but that is after you add the ##\int## left and right).​

Then:
Actually potential is asked not potential difference.
If the sentence says "...VA is more than VB ... " then that really means you are supposed to say something about the potential difference.

And:
Gradually the notion "there is a sentence" in your problem statement evolves into something like "Is the following statement correct:
In the electric field E⃗ =(4iˆ+4jˆ) N/C, electric potential at A(4 m, 0) is more than the electric potential at B(0, 4 m) "​
So why didn't you render the problem statement a bit more faithfully when starting the thread ?

Finally:
Your post #28 shows you have indeed developed mastery of the subject at hand. #27 had some (small) room for improvement: ##
W/q = \Delta V = -\vec E\cdot\Delta \vec r ## , with ##
\Delta \vec r = \vec b-\vec a## would have avoided your confusion. There is only a slight visual difference between a \cdot that stands for the inner product of two vectors and a period (which is a bit lower on the line). (*)

But:
Since your occupation still states "pedantic student", I am glad I still have room to offer for improvement in post #28: ##
dV = \int_A^B \vec E {\bf \cdot } d\vec r\ ## should be ##\Delta V = \int_A^B dV = \int_A^B -\vec E {\bf \cdot } d\vec r\ ##

And if you really want it perfect you also replace ##\vec E. \vec b - \vec a\ ## by ##\vec E\cdot \left (\vec b - \vec a\ \right ) ## (so: \cdot and brackets) !

:smile:

As we know: nobody's perfect...

(*) some pedantic but well meant advice:
  • use right mouse button | show Math as ... | TeX commands a bit more to evolve TeX skills
  • keep math equations left and right sides together inside one single ##\#\# ## ... ## \#\# ## block: the = should be a TeX equals sign ##=## , not a text equals sign.. Same for plus (+ vs ##+##) and minus (- vs ##-##).
--
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gracy and ehild
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
BvU said:
you really have a knack for threads that stretch seemingly forever
If only PF had an award for this type of salience.
BvU said:
use right mouse button | show Math as ... | TeX commands a bit more to evolve TeX skills
Hey, I just realized this feature. Now I don't need to quote the entirety of a certain comment from which I want to just copy one or more equations.
By the way @gracy , are you sure you don't miss any negative signs in the expression for the E field vector? Where did you cite the sentence In the electric field E⃗ =(4iˆ+4jˆ) N/C, electric potential at A(4 m, 0) is more than the electric potential at B(0, 4 m) from? Because if it's a textbook, such a fundamental mistake is very rarely found.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gracy
  • #33
blue_leaf77 said:
Where did you cite the sentence In the electric field E⃗ =(4iˆ+4jˆ) N/C, electric potential at A(4 m, 0) is more than the electric potential at B(0, 4 m) from? Because if it's a textbook, such a fundamental mistake is very rarely found.
No,Actually it was a question itself.State whether the statement is wrong or right?
 
  • #34
BvU said:
I am glad I still have room to offer for improvement
I am always open to improve myself.
 
  • #35
BvU said:
except that you can't take V = 0 at infinity as a reference.
Why can't we take V = 0 at infinity as a reference in here
post #24
 
  • #36
"I am always open to improve myself" I claim the same, but like with these vector derivatives in many dimensions, there are so many directions that I am forced to pick only one to work on, and let the others wait...

gracy said:
Why can't we take V = 0 at infinity as a reference in here
post #24
E.g. along the line y = x the E field is a constant vector, parallel with ##d\vec s## . So ##\vec E \cdot d\vec s = |\vec E|ds## and ##\int |\vec E|ds = |\vec E|\int ds \ \ ##: 'unbounded'.

Other way to look at this: you can't get such an electric field configuration with finite equipment ( an infinitely wide and high flat-plate capacitor).

Same thing happens with infinitely long wires. Didn't we have a thread on that already ?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
476
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K