The Electric Field: Understanding its Negative Gradient

AI Thread Summary
The electric field is defined as the negative gradient of electric potential because moving against the field results in an increase in potential. When moving from a point with lower potential to one with higher potential, the electric field direction is opposite to the direction of increasing potential. This relationship is mathematically expressed as E = -dV/dr, indicating that the electric field points from regions of higher potential to lower potential. The discussion also clarifies that the derivation involves concepts from the Work-Energy Theorem, linking potential energy and work done on a charge. Understanding this negative gradient is essential for grasping the behavior of electric fields in relation to potential.
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:
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