Griffiths E&M and Convention of the Sign of Potential

  • Thread starter kq6up
  • Start date
366
11
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
 

Doc Al

Mentor
44,681
1,000
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.
 
366
11
Yes, as I was writing the question it dawned on me :D

Chris
 

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top