The Electric Field: Understanding its Negative Gradient

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between electric fields and electric potential, specifically focusing on why the electric field is defined as the negative gradient of the electric potential. Participants explore the implications of this definition and its conceptual underpinnings.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the reasoning behind the negative gradient definition, with some attempting to clarify the relationship between electric potential and electric field direction. Questions arise about the mathematical derivation and the interpretation of terms used in the equations.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of the concepts, with some participants providing explanations and derivations. While certain clarifications have been offered, there is no explicit consensus on all aspects of the discussion, and participants continue to seek understanding.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about specific mathematical terms and concepts, such as the nature of certain operations in the equations presented. This indicates a need for further clarification on these points.

jeff1evesque
Messages
312
Reaction score
0
Can someone remind me why the electric field is defined as the negative gradient times the electric potential, rather than the gradient times the electric potential?

Thanks,


JL
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you move up an electric field, the potential increases.

Suppose that for points A and B, the potential at B is higher. Then moving from A to B, the distance is, say, positive, and so the potential difference is also positive. But then the eletric field is directed from B to A, and so is negative, which is accounted for by using the negative gradient.

I hope that helps.
 
V = \frac{kQ}{r}

\frac{dV}{dr}= \frac{-kQ}{r^2} \times \frac{q}{q}

\frac{dV}{dr} = \frac{ \frac{-kQq}{r^2}}{q} = - \frac{F}{q}

\frac{dV}{dr}= -E \Rightarrow E= - \frac{dV}{dr}
 
jix said:
If you move up an electric field, the potential increases.

Suppose that for points A and B, the potential at B is higher. Then moving from A to B, the distance is, say, positive, and so the potential difference is also positive. But then the eletric field is directed from B to A, and so is negative, which is accounted for by using the negative gradient.

I hope that helps.

That helps a lot, I was looking for a conceptual explanation.

rock.freak667 said:
V = \frac{kQ}{r}

\frac{dV}{dr}= \frac{-kQ}{r^2} \times \frac{q}{q}

\frac{dV}{dr} = \frac{ \frac{-kQq}{r^2}}{q} = - \frac{F}{q}

\frac{dV}{dr}= -E \Rightarrow E= - \frac{dV}{dr}

I will try to understand this later, I'm not sure about that cross or is it cross product.


Thanks guys,


Jeffrey
 
jeff1evesque said:
I will try to understand this later, I'm not sure about that cross or is it cross product.

No cross-product, just multiplication.
 
Here's another way they derived the formula:

Work-Energy Theorem relates the potential difference to work as:

\Delta U=U_{f}-U_{i}=-W

If the "electrical potential energy", U, at infinity is defined to be 0, then the electrical potential energy of a single point charge is defined as:

U=-W

To define the electric potential of a charge, we divide it's energy by it's charge.

V=\frac{-U}{q}

The electrical potential difference from infinity to a point is therefore:

\Delta V=V_{f}-V_{i}=-\frac{W}{q}

Subbing the definition of W from mechanics:

V=- \frac{ \int \textbf{F} \cdot d\textbf{r}}{q}

V=-\frac{1}{q}\int\textbf{F} \cdot d\textbf{r}

V=-\frac{1}{q}\int\frac{kqq}{r^{2}}\cdot d\textbf{r}

V=-\int\frac{kq}{r^{2}}\cdot d\textbf{r}

V=-\int E \cdot d\textbf{r}

Taking the gradient of both sides, you get:

\nabla V=-\nabla\int \textbf{E} \cdot d\textbf{r}

\nabla V=-\textbf{E}

\textbf{E}=-\nabla V
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
994
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K