Is there a formula in electrostatics analogous to escape velocity?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the concept of escape velocity in electrostatics, drawing parallels with gravitational escape velocity. Participants examine how to derive a formula for the velocity required for a charged object to escape the electrostatic force of a charged sphere, and they also consider analogous concepts in atomic physics, such as ionization energy.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how to derive an escape velocity formula for a negatively charged rocket escaping a positively charged sphere, suggesting an initial formula of sqrt(2KeQ/R) but noting it lacks units of velocity.
  • Another participant derives a formula for escape velocity, stating that the potential energy at a distance R equals the kinetic energy at infinity, leading to the expression v=sqrt(2k_e(q/m)(Q/R), emphasizing the importance of the charge-to-mass ratio.
  • A participant highlights the difference between gravitational and electrostatic scenarios, noting that in gravity, mass cancels out, while in electrostatics, the charge-to-mass ratio is significant.
  • One participant introduces the concept of ionization energy in atomic physics, suggesting it parallels the escape velocity concept, where the energy difference between an electron's state and infinity must equal the kinetic energy for escape.
  • Another participant speculates that if the orbital velocity of an electron is doubled, it could escape the electrostatic potential, relating this to the concept of escape velocity in gravitation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the application of escape velocity concepts to electrostatics and atomic physics. There is no consensus on the exact parallels or the implications of the derived formulas, and some points remain speculative.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the limitations of their analogies, particularly in the context of atomic physics, where classical concepts may not fully apply. The discussion also reflects uncertainty regarding the relationship between kinetic energy and potential energy in different contexts.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying electrostatics, gravitational physics, atomic physics, or anyone exploring the parallels between different physical concepts.

diagopod
Messages
96
Reaction score
3
I was trying to understand the similarities and differences between electrostatics and standard Newtonian mechanics, in particular gravitational formulas. One thing I was curious about is escape velocity. For gravity I've learned that it's sqrt(2GM/R). But for electrostatics, suppose I was trying to determine the equivalent formula. For example, suppose one wanted to know the velocity a negatively charged rocket on the surface of a positively charged sphere would have to attain in order to escape the electrostatic force of that sphere. How would one go about that? At first I'd think it would be sqrt(2KeQ/ R), but that doesn't have units of velocity, so was wondering what the right formula would be? Thanks for any guidance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let's see what we can derive.

First you set the potential energy at R equal to the kinetic energy at infinity:

[tex]KE(r=\infty) = PE(r=R)[/tex]

Or,

[tex]\dfrac{1}{2}mv^2=k_e\dfrac{Qq}{R}[/tex] (assuming escape from a spherical charge)

[tex]v=\sqrt{2k_e\dfrac{q}{m}\dfrac{Q}{R}}[/tex]

So assuming I did the math right, it looks like your answer was correct, except that you neglected the charge to mass ratio of the object. The quantity q/m appears often in mechanics calculations involving electrostatic or magnetostatic forces. The reason it doesn't appear in the formula for gravity is because the mass of the projectile appears on both sides of the equation and will cancel out. What you're seeing is a direct result of the fact inertial and gravitation mass are equivalent, and that there's no parallel in electrodynamics. Pretty cool, huh?
 
arunma said:
Let's see what we can derive.

First you set the potential energy at R equal to the kinetic energy at infinity:

[tex]KE(r=\infty) = PE(r=R)[/tex]

Or,

[tex]\dfrac{1}{2}mv^2=k_e\dfrac{Qq}{R}[/tex] (assuming escape from a spherical charge)

[tex]v=\sqrt{2k_e\dfrac{q}{m}\dfrac{Q}{R}}[/tex]

So assuming I did the math right, it looks like your answer was correct, except that you neglected the charge to mass ratio of the object. The quantity q/m appears often in mechanics calculations involving electrostatic or magnetostatic forces. The reason it doesn't appear in the formula for gravity is because the mass of the projectile appears on both sides of the equation and will cancel out. What you're seeing is a direct result of the fact inertial and gravitation mass are equivalent, and that there's no parallel in electrodynamics. Pretty cool, huh?

Thanks! I really appreciate you walking me through this. That makes good sense all the way around, and yes, that's a remarkable parallel, the equivalence principle right, or no?
 
a little off, but you could see a similar example in an atom.
though in an atom we don't speak in terms of velocoties of electrons, we speak in terms of energies.
u must have heard of "ionization energy".
that's the energy difference between infinity (zero energy) and the energy of a shell(classically, if u know quantum mech, u wud say 'state')
 
graphene said:
a little off, but you could see a similar example in an atom.
though in an atom we don't speak in terms of velocoties of electrons, we speak in terms of energies.
u must have heard of "ionization energy".
that's the energy difference between infinity (zero energy) and the energy of a shell(classically, if u know quantum mech, u wud say 'state')

Thanks, so yes, I've heard the term, but not very strong on atomic physics. So are you saying that just as KE = PE for escape velocity in gravitation, the ionization energy (essentially KE) of the electron must equal the electrostatic potential energy in an atom in order for it to escape? That seems to have a lot of symmetry. If analogous to gravitation, then the equivalent of the "escape velocity" is twice the "orbital velocity" of the electron, which is essentially c x alpha at the bohr radius / ground state (I know, it's not really orbiting, but I think the approximate math holds right?). So the escape/ionization velocity would be 2c x alpha for that particular ground-state electron right? Or is it wrong to conclude that if the "orbital velocity" of the electron was doubled it would have enough energy to escape? Thanks again for your help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K