Total electric potential energy

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the calculation of total electric potential energy for point charges, specifically addressing why pairs (i,j) and (j,i) should not be counted separately. The formula for total potential energy is given as U = (1/4πε₀) Σ (q_i q_j / r_ij), where the summation is only for i < j to avoid double counting. The reasoning provided explains that the work done in positioning the charges only requires considering one arrangement, as moving charge 1 does not involve work, and the work for charge 2 depends solely on the distance to charge 1. Additional charges follow the same logic, reinforcing that only unique pairs need to be considered. This clarification highlights the importance of avoiding redundancy in calculations of potential energy.
betelgeuse91
Messages
31
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


My textbook states that for point charges ##q_1, q_2, ... ,## where distance between ##q_i## and ##q_j## is ##r_{ij},## the total potential energy U is the sum ## U = \dfrac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0} \sum_{i<j} \dfrac{q_iq_j}{r_{ij}} ## and specifically mentions not to count them twice as (i,j) and (j,i), but I don't see why.

Homework Equations


Potential energy of a point charge ##q_i## is ##U_i = \dfrac{q_i}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\sum_{i \neq j}\dfrac{q_j}{r_j} ##

The Attempt at a Solution


Using the above equation, I think the total potential energy should be ## U = \dfrac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0} \sum \dfrac{q_iq_j}{r_{ij}} ##, counting both cases (i,j) and (j,i). For instance, when there are two point charges ##q_1## and ##q_2##, the potential energies of individuals is ##U_1 = \dfrac{q_1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\dfrac{q_2}{r_{12}}##, ##U_2 = \dfrac{q_2}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\dfrac{q_1}{r_{21}}## so that the total potential energy is the sum ## U = U_1 + U_2 = \dfrac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0} \sum_{1\leqslant i,j\leqslant2} \dfrac{q_iq_j}{r_{ij}} ## which counts both the cases (1,2) and (2,1).
Where am I wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This condition should add to the last equation: ##i\neq j##
 
Suppose you have only 2 charges.
The work done in moving charge 1 into place is zero.
Then you can move charge 2 into place by doing work that depends on R12.
So you don't need R21, since you would be counting the work twice.
Further, if you add an additional charge then the additional work done
depends on R13 and R23 and you don't need to count R31 and R32.
 
  • Like
Likes SammyS
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Back
Top