Understanding Electric Field: Definition, Formula, and Limit Explained

Click For Summary
The electric field is defined by the force experienced by a test charge, represented by the formula E = lim (q0→0) F/q0. A test charge must be infinitesimally small to avoid influencing the field it is measuring, particularly when the source charges are dynamic. However, if the source charges are stationary and their configuration remains unchanged, the test charge does not need to be infinitesimal, as it will not alter the field. The discussion emphasizes that the test charge's role is to detect the pre-existing electric field without contributing to it. Clarification is sought on the conditions under which the test charge can be larger without affecting the configuration of the source charges.
Von Neumann
Messages
101
Reaction score
4
1. Electric field caused by a charge (or group of charges) is defined in terms of its effect on a test charge, given by the formula: E ⃗=lim┬(q_(0→0) )⁡〖F ⃗/q_0 〗

I understand that the point charge must be infinitesimally small in order not to affect the field in question, so it makes sense to take the limit of q_{0} to 0. However, I do not understand why my book states the following: "If the charge(s) creating the field could be considered fixed in place, then we would not have to assume the test charge is small." Can someone please clarify?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Von Neumann said:
1. Electric field caused by a charge (or group of charges) is defined in terms of its effect on a test charge, given by the formula: E ⃗=lim┬(q_(0→0) )⁡〖F ⃗/q_0 〗

I understand that the point charge must be infinitesimally small in order not to affect the field in question, so it makes sense to take the limit of q_{0} to 0. However, I do not understand why my book states the following: "If the charge(s) creating the field could be considered fixed in place, then we would not have to assume the test charge is small." Can someone please clarify?
Hello Von Neumann. Welcome to PF !

It's not that the "test charge", q0, changes the field by producing a field of its own, it's that the test charge may alter the field produced by the other charges, if it, q0, alters the configuration of the other charges. That's particularly a problem if the field is produced by charges on a conductor.
 
Thanks for the reply, and I'm glad to be a part of PF!

I'm still confused on this, though. You say that the test charge, q0, does not change the field by the production of its own electric field, and that the problem to consider is the test charge altering the configuration of other charges. However, how is it possible for the test charge to alter the configuration of other charges without an electric field of its own to exert a force in order to cause such an alteration? Additionally, going back to my original question, why is the charge not required to be infinitesimal for the case when the charges are stationary?
 
Von Neumann said:
Thanks for the reply, and I'm glad to be a part of PF!

I'm still confused on this, though. You say that the test charge, q0, does not change the field by the production of its own electric field, and that the problem to consider is the test charge altering the configuration of other charges. However, how is it possible for the test charge to alter the configuration of other charges without an electric field of its own to exert a force in order to cause such an alteration? Additionally, going back to my original question, why is the charge not required to be infinitesimal for the case when the charges are stationary?
I suppose I could have made my statement clearer.

The purpose of the test charge is to detect whatever electric field was present prior to the test charge being introduced into the situation. You're not interested in the field produced by the test charge.

Suppose you place a test charge, q0, into a pre-existing static electric field, E. The force, F, exerted on the test charge by the pre-existing static electric field, is F = q0E, and that has no dependence upon any electric field produced by the test charge. Yes, placing the test charge at a location will alter the electric field, but the purpose of the test charge is to measure the field which existed prior to introducing the test charge. If the locations of the charges producing the pre-existing electric field are unaltered by the introduction of the test charge, then F/q0 gives an accurate measure of pre-existing electric field at the location of the test charge.

However, if the charges producing the pre-existing electric field can have their locations altered by the field produced by introducing the test charge, then you want to use as small a test charge as is practical, or better yet, if you can do it, use a sequence of test charges to determine \displaystyle \lim_{q_0\,\to\,0\,}\, \frac{\textbf{F}}{q_0}\ .
 
So basically, in the case that you are calculating the pre-existing electric field produced by static charges, the test charge does not alter the configuration and therefore does not need to be infinitesimal. Additionally, in the case that you are calculating the electric produced by moving charges, the test charge does alter the configuration and does need to be infinitesimal. Is this right? I'm not sure whether an altering of the configuration of charges depends on the magnitude of the pre-existing electric field or a velocity associated with the charges. Why not always use a sequence of test charges to be sure that the configuration of charges does not alter?
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K