Solving J.E = W/V with Dimensional Analysis

  • Thread starter Thread starter AriAstronomer
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the equation J.E = W/V, where J is current density and E is the electric field. The user, Ari, struggles with dimensional analysis, finding an extra unit of seconds on the left side of the equation. Another participant clarifies that W represents power (J/s), not work, leading to the conclusion that J.E actually represents power per unit volume. Ari acknowledges the misunderstanding, attributing the confusion to a potential typo on a GRE flashcard. The conversation highlights the importance of correctly interpreting physical quantities in equations.
AriAstronomer
Messages
46
Reaction score
1
Hey guys,
So I know I'm missing something really stupid, but I can't figure out what it is.
I'm seeing the claim that the current density dotted with the Electric field is equal to Work per volume, or: J.E = W/V. Using dimensional analysis though, I keep getting an extra unit of seconds on the left hand side of the denominator:
(Cm/m^3s)(N/C) = J/(m^3)
Nm/sm^3 = J/m^3
J/sm^3 = J/m^3

What am I doing wrong?
Thanks,
Ari
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I get the same answer as you using the fact that the electric field has dimensions of voltage / length. Then J*E becomes

[C/(sm2)] * V/m

= (C*J/C)*m-3s-1

= Jm-3s-1

Where exactly are you "seeing this claim?"
 
W isn't "work" ,it's work/t(its dimension is J/s),you mistakes at this
 
Yeah J dot E is power per unit volume. That's usually the starting point for deriving expressions for the poynting vector and the energy density in the field.
 
Ahh Power/Volume. Thanks. I had seen this claim on a flashcard, I'm preparing for GRE's and got a bunch of flash cards sent from a school to help me. Must be a typo on their part then.

Ari
 
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...
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...
Back
Top