Why Is the Exerted Force Equal and Opposite to the Electrostatic Force?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between the force exerted on a charge and the electrostatic force it experiences in a uniform electric field. It clarifies that while the exerted force must be equal and opposite to the electrostatic force to maintain equilibrium, a slightly greater force is necessary to initiate movement. The term "very slowly" is crucial, as it implies that the force can be infinitesimally greater than the electrostatic force for brief moments to allow for gradual acceleration. This careful balance allows the charge to move without immediate acceleration, ultimately reaching a constant velocity. The conversation highlights the nuances of force application in electrostatics and the importance of understanding motion dynamics.
ewr
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi, I found this on http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node32.html

"Consider a charge
img221.png
placed in a uniform electric field
img242.png
(e.g., the field between two oppositely charged, parallel conducting plates). Suppose that we very slowly displace the charge by a vector displacement
img50.png
in a straight-line. How much work must we perform in order to achieve this? Well, the force
img159.png
we must exert on the charge is equal and opposite to the electrostatic force
img359.png
experienced by the charge (i.e., we must overcome the electrostatic force on the charge before we are free to move it around). The amount of work
img124.png
we would perform in displacing the charge is simply the product of the force we exert, and the displacement of the charge in the direction of this force."

My question is why is the force we must exert on the charge is equal and opposite to the electrostatic force qE? Shouldn't the force be greater than qE? If it is equal and opposite than the charge won't move wouldn't it?

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is a common misconception. If the force sum is zero, the charge moves at constant velocity.

The key point is that you just need a miniscule force above the electric one to start the motion. The key word is "slowly".
 
Yes and no. You need to apply a different force to start it moving (or change its motion in general). But if the charge is already moving you will have to apply a force qE to keep it moving at constant speed, is all he is saying. The work done by that force goes into the electric field (you are moving a charge and therefore changing the electric field).

Edit: beaten to it by Orodruin.
 
The key is the words 'very slowly'. Strictly speaking they should also replace their 'equal to' by 'infinitesimally greater than'.

The idea is that if F is infinitesimally larger than the electrostatic force for half the time and infinitesimally less than it for the other half, the particle will accelerate very slowly to a very slow maximum velocity in the desired direction, and then decelerate very slowly, to finally come to rest at the destination. Subject to limitations like friction, air resistance and experimental accuracy, we can make this infinitesimal difference as small as we like.

Edit: Haha, beaten to it by Orodruin and Ibix.
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top