Potential and potential energy

Thread starter seto6
Start date Jun 3, 2010
Tags

Energy Potential Potential energy

AI Thread Summary

When a negative charge moves from a high potential to a low potential, its electrical potential energy actually decreases. This is because the charge is moving with the electric field, which leads to a reduction in potential energy, similar to how an object falls under gravity. The comparison to gravitational potential energy illustrates that, in both cases, moving in the direction of the field results in a loss of potential energy. Understanding this concept is crucial for grasping the behavior of charges in electric fields. Therefore, the initial assumption about potential energy increasing is incorrect.

Jun 3, 2010

seto6

just a question that bothered me before now i forgot

As a negative charge moves from a high potential to a low potential, its electrical potential energy

i think that the potential energy increases. but i am not sure of the reasoning

Physics news on Phys.org

Jun 3, 2010

Doc Al

Mentor

Hint: Is it moving against or with the electric field? (Then compare to gravity and gravitational potential energy.)

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...

View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...

View full post »