Griffiths E&M and Convention of the Sign of Potential

  • Thread starter kq6up
  • Start date
  • #1
kq6up
368
13
I am reviewing in Griffith's E&M, and I find that potential is defined as zero at infinity (that bits fine). However, should not an object that distance from a charge be less than zero (negative) if it is closer than infinity? It seems it should as it has lost P.E. However, he doesn't seem to use this convention.

Another thought: I have just finished Mechanics in where these inverse square law problems are always attractive. I guess if my test charge was positive and the charge in question was also positive, my forces would be repulsive, and actually increasing potential as I move closer -- maybe that is why I am confused.

Thanks,
Chris
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Doc Al
Mentor
45,425
1,876
I guess if my test charge was positive and the charge in question was also positive, my forces would be repulsive, and actually increasing potential as I move closer -- maybe that is why I am confused.
Sounds like you figured it out for yourself! ;)

The potential about a positive charge is zero at infinity and increases as you get closer. Imagine that positive test charge being repulsed.
 
  • Like
Likes kq6up
  • #3
kq6up
368
13
Yes, as I was writing the question it dawned on me :D

Chris
 

Suggested for: Griffiths E&M and Convention of the Sign of Potential

Replies
3
Views
845
Replies
55
Views
711
Replies
8
Views
248
Replies
10
Views
392
Replies
9
Views
8K
Replies
5
Views
169
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
526
Replies
4
Views
278
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
435
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
260
Top