Potential Energy system of 3 charged particles

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around a test question regarding the potential energy of a system of three charged particles, comparing two configurations with energies of -200 J and -20 J. The confusion arises from interpreting potential energy in terms of its ability to do work, leading to a debate over whether the potential energy has increased or decreased. The consensus is that while -20 J is numerically greater than -200 J, the potential energy is considered to have increased when moving from the more negative value to the less negative one. Participants clarify that potential energy is a scalar quantity, but its sign is crucial in determining the system's ability to do work. Ultimately, the discussion highlights the importance of understanding the implications of negative values in potential energy calculations.
irishetalon00
Messages
20
Reaction score
1
I simply can't wrap my head around a test question I received.

I'll relate it as best as I can remember:

"A system of 3 charged particles are arranged such that the total potential energy of the system is -200 J.
Then, consider the same 3 particles, arranged so that the potential energy of the system is -20 J.

Has the potential energy of the system decreased, increased, or stayed the same?"
The answer was : the potential energy increasesLet me explain why I'm stuck. Here's what I understand.

I understand that the number -200 is smaller than -20. If you look at it like that, then the answer is the energy of the system has increased.

But Potential energy = the ability to do work.

Considering that definition, the first system has the greater ability to do work, and thus has the higher potential energy, in which case the going from the first to the second system is a decrease in the ability to do work, and is therefore a decrease in the potential energy.

Your help is greatly appreciated, this question blindsided me and I feel like the timeline of my learning is on hold until I can overcome this hurdle!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
irishetalon00 said:
Considering that definition, the first system has the greater ability to do work, and thus has the higher potential energy,
Why do you say that?
 
I don't know! haha

Both Work and Potential Energy are scalars. So a higher magnitude in potential energy represents a higher ability to do work.

no?
 
No. Just because something is a scalar does not mean that its sign can be ignored.
 
I figured it out.

Thanks for the friendly and helpful response! :-p

Without your disparagement, no progress was possible!
 
irishetalon00 said:
Without your disparagement, no progress was possible!
:wink:
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top