Work by External Force on an electric field

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of work done by an external force on a charge moving through an electric field, specifically addressing the relationship between work, kinetic energy, and electric potential difference. Participants explore theoretical implications and conceptual understanding rather than providing a definitive solution to a specific problem.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the nature of external work and its role in moving a negative charge, questioning how it relates to potential energy and kinetic energy.
  • Another participant suggests that the idea of moving a charge is a theoretical convention, emphasizing that in practice, visualizing the movement of a single charge is challenging.
  • A participant draws an analogy between the electric field scenario and gravitational potential energy, indicating similarities in the concepts of work and energy transfer.
  • Some participants critique the conventional definition of electric potential, arguing that it complicates understanding by introducing the concept of external force, while others find it useful.
  • There is a light-hearted exchange about the complexities of the discussion, indicating a mix of serious inquiry and humor among participants.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the usefulness of the external force concept in understanding electric potential. While some find it unnecessarily complicated, others argue it aids in comprehension. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to conceptualizing these ideas.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the theoretical nature of the discussion and the limitations of visualizing the movement of charges in electric fields. There is also mention of the equivalence of different definitions of electric potential, highlighting the complexity of the topic.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals exploring concepts in electromagnetism, particularly those seeking to understand the interplay between work, energy, and electric potential in theoretical contexts.

skepticwulf
Messages
74
Reaction score
1
I was trying to solve this problem yesterday and I was not able to. I looked it up its solution but my mind is not still clear about it.
"The work done by an external force to move a -6,5C charge from point A to B is 15J. If the charge was started from the rest and had 4.86J of kinetic energy when it reached point B, what must be the potential difference between A and B?"
Solution says "By the work-energy theorem, the total work done, by the external force and the electric field together, is the change in kinetic energy". The rest is just solving the math.
Why I don't understand is this external work, what is it exactly? is this a force that literally TAKES that negative charge and PUT it in point B?? I just can't visualize it. Has this external force PUSHED the negative charge from somewhere to point B so that the charge gained potential energy? I assume this negative charged was moved AWAY from the positive charge so that it can gain potential energy? Am I correct? Then what has exactly this external force done?? How is it that we need to ADD two works to get the kinetic energy?
I'm so confused.
By the way, I'm not posting my homework here, I'm not a student, I'm just trying to understand the concept of electric potential.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Honestly, saying the charge was moved is just a convention for problem solving. They try to mechanically drive into you the concepts by providing an ideal situation. In reality you cannot imagine moving a single charge, but in theory it helps you learn about the effects of potential energy and electric fields.

Imagine the world as it isn't and I take a charge with my fingers and displace it from A to B in an electric field. The charge would go from positive to negative as you said so that it would gain potential energy. Obviously, the charge will have kinetic energy from me moving it because it's not going to get over there with zero velocity. I am using my breakfast to control my fingers to move the charge which causes me to do work on the system. The work done by potential energy is negative since it runs against your path.

Now with that said we can clear up the math:

$$W_{tot}= \Delta E_k = W_{me} + W_{field}$$

The work done by the field is negative so it goes to:

$$W_{tot} = \Delta E_k = W_{me} -qV$$

And then algebra kills it from there! I hope my explanation is sound and I'm sorry that you're entering a world of purely imaginary situations to help train your real world intuition. Slightly frustrating it is.

I hope this helps!
 
P.S. Except for Chaos. Chaos is pretty awesome.
 
This is very much similar to moving a mass from point A to point B in a gravitational field, where you are asked to determine the change in gravitational potential energy.

Chet
 
It always seems perverse to me that textbooks define the potential of A relative to B as the work done per unit test charge by an external force on a test charge going from B to A, rather than the work done per unit charge by the field itself on a test charge going from A to B. The definitions are entirely equivalent, but I think bringing in an external force is an unnecessary complication.
 
Philip Wood said:
It always seems perverse to me that textbooks define the potential of A relative to B as the work done per unit test charge by an external force on a test charge going from B to A, rather than the work done per unit charge by the field itself on a test charge going from A to B. The definitions are entirely equivalent, but I think bringing in an external force is an unnecessary complication.

Hi Philip

As you said, potatoes-potahtoes. Personally, the external force version works better for me.

Chet
 
So we don't have to call the whole thing orff?
 
Philip Wood said:
So we don't have to call the whole thing orff?


Ha! Good one. Loved it.

Chet
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K