Understanding Electric Potential: How Does Charge Density Affect Potential?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of electric potential and how it relates to charge density and distance. It is clarified that electric potential at a point is determined by the magnitude of the charge and its distance from that point, rather than the specific arrangement of charges. Both scenarios presented yield the same electric potential because potential is a scalar quantity, allowing for the superposition of individual contributions. The integration method for calculating potential is also mentioned as a valid approach. Overall, the conclusion is that the electric potential at point P is indeed the same in both cases.
SchruteBucks
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
This is more of a question about a concept than the actual homework problem. The homework problem gives diagrams of rods with varying charge densities, but there's one important concept I don't yet understand, and it's stopping me from moving on in the problem.

My question is even more simple though...

Would the electric potential (at each point P) in my two diagrams be the same?

(+q)-----P-----(+q)

P-----(+2q)

i.e., do the positions of the charges affect the electric potential at that point or is the electric potential solely dependent on the charge and its distance from the point?
I'm leaning towards the latter and that the electric potential IS the same based on the fact that its scalar and direction shouldn't matter (?) but I really have no idea.
Any help would be VERY much appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, since potential is a scalar, the equation representing the first diagram would be:

V = (keq/r + keq/r) = 2keq/r = ((ke/r)(2q)) = (ke2q/r)

The equation representing the second scenario would be

V = (ke2q/r)

This works only because they are scalar.

Also, love the username.
 
Yes, those two potentials are the same. The contribution of a charge to a potential at a point depends upon the magnitude of the charge and the distance from that charge. Potential obeys the superposition principle, so you can add the individual contributions.

You could also satisfy yourself that they are the same by constructing and solving the appropriate integration...

\Delta V_E = -\int_C \vec{E} \cdot \vec{dL}

Where the integration is a line integral along a path from a point of zero potential (usually taken to be some point off at infinity) to the point in question.
 
SchruteBucks said:
This is more of a question about a concept than the actual homework problem. The homework problem gives diagrams of rods with varying charge densities, but there's one important concept I don't yet understand, and it's stopping me from moving on in the problem.

My question is even more simple though...

Would the electric potential (at each point P) in my two diagrams be the same?

(+q)-----P-----(+q)

P-----(+2q)

i.e., do the positions of the charges affect the electric potential at that point or is the electric potential solely dependent on the charge and its distance from the point?
I'm leaning towards the latter and that the electric potential IS the same based on the fact that its scalar and direction shouldn't matter (?) but I really have no idea.
Any help would be VERY much appreciated!
You seem to be asking:
Is the electric potential the same for the following two situations?
1). The point at with you are find the electric potential is a distance, d, from two distinct point charges, each with charge q.

2). The point at with you are find the electric potential is a distance, d, a single point charge having charge 2q.​

The answer is, definitely yes.
 
WOW great responses, and fast too...this makes my homework MUCH easier! I'm glad all of you understood what I was trying to ask, and the answers couldn't have been any clearer! I even have some useful equations to use now. EXTREMELY helpful, I can't thank you enough!
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Calculation of Tensile Forces in Piston-Type Water-Lifting Devices at Elevated Locations'
Figure 1 Overall Structure Diagram Figure 2: Top view of the piston when it is cylindrical A circular opening is created at a height of 5 meters above the water surface. Inside this opening is a sleeve-type piston with a cross-sectional area of 1 square meter. The piston is pulled to the right at a constant speed. The pulling force is(Figure 2): F = ρshg = 1000 × 1 × 5 × 10 = 50,000 N. Figure 3: Modifying the structure to incorporate a fixed internal piston When I modify the piston...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top