Griffiths E&M and Convention of the Sign of Potential

  • Thread starter kq6up
  • Start date
  • #1
366
11

Main Question or Discussion Point

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
44,912
1,170
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
366
11
Yes, as I was writing the question it dawned on me :D

Chris
 

Related Threads on Griffiths E&M and Convention of the Sign of Potential

  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
825
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
911
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
10K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
836
Top