Inquiry to do with conservative forces

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the formula r = (1/(2πε₀))(Z₁Z₂/(mv²)), derived from Coulomb's law, which describes the forces between two charges. It highlights that for like charges, the force is repulsive, while for opposite charges, it is attractive, yet the equation's form remains unchanged. The inquiry questions why the equations for both scenarios do not differ by a negative sign, as one might expect given their opposing nature. It is suggested that the lack of a minus sign is due to the arbitrary choice of the zero point of potential, which can be adjusted for convenience. The conversation concludes with the acknowledgment that the general formula may require an absolute value to ensure positive distance when dealing with opposite charges.
AStaunton
Messages
100
Reaction score
1
r=\frac{1}{2\pi\epsilon_{0}}\frac{Z_{1}Z_{2}}{mv^{2}}

The above formula is derived from coulomb's law. If we are talking about two same charges, then the force is repulsive, if two opposite charges, then attractive.
either the form of the above equation remains the same, only the meaning of the variables is slightly different, if two same charges the "r" in the equation stands for distance of closest approach and the "v" stands for initial velocity. if two opposite charges, r is the initial distance between the charges and v is the escape velocity needed (it is also the initial velocity as well I suppose).

My question is, how is it that the equation for both cases has the exact same form, since case 1 is pretty much the exact opposite of case 2, I would intuitively expect that the equations that describe them should differ by at least one minus sign, for example:

case 1:

r=\frac{1}{2\pi\epsilon_{0}}\frac{Z_{1}Z_{2}}{mv^{2}}

case 2:

r=-\frac{1}{2\pi\epsilon_{0}}\frac{Z_{1}Z_{2}}{mv^{2}}

<----i know case 2 equation is not correct, just to for illustrative purpose.

Looking at the correct equation it is clear to me that it is correct and it works and so on...
My question is what happened to the extra minus sign? is it because we can choose the zero point of potential arbitrarily for convenience and so the zero point is chosen for case 1 and case 2 so that there is no minus sign?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi,

You're totally right. Obviously if Z_1 Z_2 &lt; 0, then the "general" formula is wrong since it gives a negative distance. I would guess that the general formula needs an absolute value to ensure that r &gt;0 which is equivalent to your minus sign in case where charges are of opposite sign.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top