Why potential energy alone, not kinetic energy?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of potential energy in electrostatics, specifically questioning why potential energy is emphasized over kinetic energy in certain contexts. The original poster seeks clarification on this topic.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the nature of electrostatic forces and the conditions under which potential energy is relevant. Some discuss the implications of a particle being stationary in an electric field, while others raise questions about the behavior of electric fields and charge transfer in different scenarios.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants offering insights into the relationship between potential and kinetic energy in electrostatics. There are multiple questions being explored, particularly regarding the behavior of electric fields and charge interactions.

Contextual Notes

Some participants question the assumptions behind the behavior of charges and electric fields, while others reference specific examples, such as the effects of friction on charge transfer and the characteristics of electric field lines near charged plates.

logearav
Messages
329
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



My physics textbook on the topic " Electrostatics" says, charges have force acting on them, so they possesses potential energy. My question is " Why potential energy alone, not kinetic energy?"

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


 
Physics news on Phys.org


Well it's electroSTATIC, so the charge isn't moving. Electrostatic force is exerted by stationary particles.

To answer your question more broadly:

Imagine a particle is placed into an electric field, and held in equilibrium by some force. Stop time, and remove the force holding it in equilibrium. In this particular instant, the particle possesses potential energy alone. The moment it starts moving, it loses potential and gains kinetic.
 


Can anyone explain me y bulging effect is there at the sides of the two parallel plates of different potentials.. Why Elecric lines of force at the sides are curved?
 


I have one question on electrostatic force.We say that when a glass rod is rubbed on silk cloth,electrons from glass are transferred to silk. Hence glas rod becomes positively charged and the latter negatively charged. But i wonder,can a little amount of friction make electrons to get transferred from glass to silk?What actually happens in the above example.And one more question is that,when we move barefeet on a carpet and then touch a metal door knob,we experience a mild shock.How does this happen?explain please.
 


My question is the same as X-rays has asked above. . .
 


Rockstar3143 said:
Can anyone explain me y bulging effect is there at the sides of the two parallel plates of different potentials.. Why Elecric lines of force at the sides are curved?

The only reason the field lines are uniform nearer the center of two parallel plates is because they are the net result of the combined electric fields from all particles on the plates surface. You see this when using calculus to derive these fields.

At the edges of the plates (the reality where we do not have infinitely long plates) you don't have surrounding electric fields that create this uniform field. The electric field quickly drops off with distance (from each particle: E = q/4∏εr^2.) Also notice that if a plate is finite in size, then there always exists some distance away from it that it could be considered a single particle.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K