Potential Due to a Collection Charges

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of electric potential due to collection charges, specifically between two protons. It highlights the confusion regarding the treatment of distance as a scalar and the relationship between electric field and potential. A key point is that even with no electric field, a potential can still exist, as potential is relative and can be defined with an arbitrary constant. The potential at a point equidistant from two protons is equivalent to that from a single particle with double the charge. The conversation emphasizes the importance of integrating the electric field to determine potential differences and the utility of graphical representations for better understanding.
simo
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
My text reads for Potential Due to a Collection Charges:

1/(4πє) ∑ q/r

I'm consfused about the distance and how it's treated as a scalar.

Let's say you want to calculated the potential between two protons. If a proton (or electron) is placed in the middle, there will be no net force and therefore no net electric field. With no electric field, you can have no potential, right? If you use the equation above, you get a potential.

Ex)
If the field point was 1 meter away from each proton, you would get the same potential as that of a field point 1 meter away from a particle with charge 2e(+).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ok, I think I figured it out. See if you can follow my logic.

First of all, the potential is whatever you define it to be because you can add a constant.

For the proton in the middle of two other protons, its potential is the same as a proton the same distance away from a particle of charge 2e+. However, this potential is a maximum for the case that the proton is between two protons and is constant everywhere between. For the latter case, the potential can increase if the field point is moved closer the the 2e+ particle.

I used Gauss's Law to figure this out.
 
simo said:
With no electric field, you can have no potential, right?

That is not correct. With no electric field you have no potential difference. There can most certainly still be a potential.

If you integrate the negative Electric field dot distance you get the potential difference. To get the potential at a certain point you just integrate from infinity to the point of interest.
 
Last edited:
Right, initially I thought there was no field because I calculated it to equal zero. Then I realized that the potential is relative and can have whatever value. This material is best understood if you graph the potentials for the two cases.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top