Two expressions for work - which is correct?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Niles
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Expressions Work
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of work done in a system of two point charges, specifically addressing discrepancies between two expressions for work. Participants explore the theoretical underpinnings of electric fields and potential energy, with a focus on integration methods and the implications of reference points.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a formula for work done in bringing a charge from infinity, leading to two different expressions for work based on different approaches.
  • Another participant questions the factor of 4d in the energy calculation, seeking clarification on the relationship between the distance of separation and the derived expressions.
  • Participants discuss the electric field at a specific point and its integration, with some asserting that the integration process yields a consistent result of 4d.
  • One participant proposes a method involving the integration of the electric field, but later acknowledges an error in their approach regarding the limits of integration.
  • Another participant agrees with the integration method but highlights a potential misunderstanding in the application of the electric field distance.
  • There is a recognition of the need to integrate before substituting limits, as emphasized by one participant in response to another's calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct approach to calculating work, with some agreeing on specific integration methods while others maintain their original calculations. The discussion remains unresolved regarding which expression for work is correct.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the assumptions made about the distances used in calculations, particularly concerning the integration of the electric field and the reference points for potential energy. Some participants have noted unresolved mathematical steps in their approaches.

Niles
Messages
1,834
Reaction score
0
When I want to find the energy in a system containing two points charges q and -q, I can use the following formula:

[tex]W = -Q\int_{\bf{a}}^{\bf{b}} {\bf{E}} \cdot d{\bf{l}} = Q(V(\mb b) - V(\mb a))[/tex]

If my reference point is set to infinity, I can rewrite the last expression to:

[tex]W=QV(\mb r)[/tex]

The two point charges are separated by a distance of 2d, so the energy in the system calculated from the first formula will be (when bringing in the charge q in from infinity):

W = -K*q^2/(4d).

If I use the last expression, I get

W = -K*q^2/(2d).

Ehh, as far as I can see, I haven't made an obvious mistake. So how can this be?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Niles said:
The two point charges are separated by a distance of 2d, so the energy in the system calculated from the first formula will be (when bringing in the charge q in from infinity):

W = -K*q^2/(4d).
Why is this 4d of the charges are separated by a distance of 2d?
 
The electric field at the point x=d is E = -K*q/(4d^2).

This I integrate, and it still gives me 4d.
 
Niles said:
The electric field at the point x=d is E = -K*q/(4d^2).

This I integrate, and it still gives me 4d.
Let's step back a bit. Suppose our first charge is located at the origin, simply because it ismore conveinient. The the electric field due to this point charge is,

[tex]\mathbf{E} = k\frac{q}{R^2}\hat{\mathbf{r}}[/tex]

Where R is the distance from the origin and [itex]\hat{\mathbf{r}}[/itex] is the radial unit vector. Agree?

Now let's bring in the second charge,

[tex]W = -Q\int^{2r}_{\infty}\mathbf{E}\cdot{d\mathbf{\ell}}[/tex]

Now setting Q = -q and integrating along the (negative) radial direction,

[tex]W = qk\int^{2r}_{\infty}\frac{dR}{R^2}\left(-\hat{\mathbf{r}}\cdot\hat{\mathbf{r}}\right)[/tex]

[tex]W = -qk\int^{2r}_{\infty}\frac{dR}{R^2}[/tex]

Do you agree?
 
Yes, I do agree.
 
Niles said:
Yes, I do agree.
Hence integrating,

[tex]W = qk\left[\frac{1}{R}\right]^{2r}_{\infty}[/tex]

[tex]W = qk\left(\frac{1}{2r}-\lim_{R\to\infty}\frac{1}{R}\right)[/tex]

[tex]W = \frac{kq}{2r}[/tex]
 
I agree with what you have done, but I also still agree on what I have done. What is wrong with my method?
 
Niles said:
I agree with what you have done, but I also still agree on what I have done. What is wrong with my method?
In your method, where have you placed your initial charge?
 
I have my initial charge in x=-d and the other is brought in from infinity to x=d.
 
  • #10
Niles said:
The electric field at the point x=d is E = -K*q/(4d^2).

This I integrate, and it still gives me 4d.
Simply integrating this will not give you the potential energy at this point, you need to integrate before you substitute the limits in.
 
  • #11
Ok, this is how I've done:

We have that [tex]\[<br /> W = - Q\int_\infty ^d {Edl = QV(d)} <br /> \][/tex]

Approach 1, where [tex]\[<br /> E = \frac{{ - kq}}{{\left( {2d'} \right)^2 }}<br /> \][/tex]:

[tex]\[<br /> W = - q\int_\infty ^d {\frac{{ - kq}}{{\left( {2d'} \right)^2 }}dd' = } \frac{{ - kq^2 }}{{4d}}<br /> \][/tex]

Approach 2, where [tex]\[<br /> V(d) = \frac{{ - kq}}{{2d}}<br /> \][/tex]:

[tex]\[<br /> W = q \cdot \frac{{ - kq}}{{2d}} = \frac{{ - kq^2 }}{{2d}}<br /> \][/tex]

Can you point out the mistake here?
 
  • #12
Sorry Niles, I have no idea what your doing with you're first approach.
 
  • #13
Don't be sorry, sadly I do not explain things very well to others.

I found my error now. Instead of using an arbitrary distance in the electric field, I just inserted 2d, which is of course wrong, since I have to integrate it. This is of course also what you wrote in #10.

You did it again.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
12K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K