Work Done on a System of Charges

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of work done on a system of charges in the context of electromagnetic fields, specifically in relation to the Poynting vector and the Lorentz force law. Participants explore the implications of defining the system and the distinction between work done by the fields versus the charges themselves.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion regarding the derivation of work done on charges, questioning how a nonzero work result can be reconciled with the idea that a system does not do work on itself.
  • Another participant clarifies that the work discussed pertains to the fields acting on the charges, and that kinetic energy and field energy should also be considered in the total energy of the system.
  • A different viewpoint emphasizes the importance of defining the system correctly, noting that if the system is defined as just the charges, then the fields are doing work on them.
  • One participant challenges the distinction between work done by the fields and the charges, arguing that forces arise from the fields, and thus the total work should be viewed differently.
  • Another participant elaborates on the flexibility of defining the system, stating that consistency in definitions is crucial for understanding work and energy transfer.
  • A later reply acknowledges the initial misunderstanding regarding the system's definition and appreciates the clarification provided by others.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definition of the system and the implications for work done. There is no consensus on how to reconcile the work done by the fields versus the charges, indicating ongoing debate and exploration of the topic.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the potential for confusion when defining the system inconsistently, which can lead to different interpretations of work and energy transfer. The discussion remains open to interpretation based on the chosen definitions.

kmm
Messages
188
Reaction score
15
Something I have read in Griffith's Electrodynamics is confusing me. In deriving the Poynting vector, he says to suppose that we have some charge and a current configuration which at some time t produces fields E and B. In the next instant, dt, the charges move around. He then asks the question, "How much work, dW, is done by the electromagnetic forces acting on these charges in the interval dt?" From the Lorentz force law, the work done on a charge q is: [tex]dW= \mathbf{F} \cdot d \mathbf{l} = q( \mathbf{E} + \mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{B}) \cdot \mathbf{v} dt = q \mathbf{E} \cdot \mathbf{v} dt[/tex] But ## q= \rho d \tau ## and ## \rho \mathbf{v} = \mathbf{J}##. So the rate that work is done on all the charges in a volume V is: [tex]\frac{dW}{dt} = \int_{V} ( \mathbf{E} \cdot \mathbf{J}) d \tau[/tex] Great, but the problem with this to me is that this gives a nonzero result for work. But how can the total work done by a system on itself be nonzero? I'm sure it's something simple I'm missing, but I'm not sure.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is the work done of the fields on the charges. You also have the kinetic energy and the energy of the fields in your total energy.
 
You have to be careful about what you are defining as the system. Given that definition of work the system is the charges, but not the field. So the system is not doing work on itself. The fields are doing work on the charges.
 
OK, except how would the total work done be expressed any differently if the question was, "what is the total work done by the charges?" I mean, whenever we ask what the total work is done by two charges, don't we always mean the field anyway? So I guess I don't understand the distinction of saying it's the work done by the field and not the charges when the force is always due to whatever the field is anyway. Can't I think of it this way: If I have two equally charged particles and place them near each other on the x axis, they will repel each other with one charge going to the right and one going to the left. Since work is ## \mathbf{F} \cdot d \mathbf{l} ## and the forces and displacements are opposite, I will get positive work done on each charge and therefore a nonzero value for the total work done. Perhaps this is what you were actually getting at?
 
Last edited:
kmm said:
So I guess I don't understand the distinction of saying it's the work done by the field and not the charges when the force is always due to whatever the field is anyway.
Work is the transfer of energy other than by heat. You have complete freedom to decide what "the system" is. Once you make that choice it determines what work is since it determines what counts as a transfer and what is just an internal rearrangement.

If you choose that the system is just the charges then the system is acted on by the field and work is done as energy is transferred from the fields to the charges.

If you choose that the system is the charges and the fields then no energy is transferred since the system is not acted on by anything external.

The only time that confusion arises is if you are inconsistent and define the system as the charges only for determining work and as the charges plus the fields for determining if it there is anything external to the system. You can make either choice as long as you are consistent.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: kmm
I see, so my problem was that I thought of the system as just the charges at first, but then I was inconsistent by trying to include the field as part of the system at the end of the problem to give zero total work. Thanks for helping me with that.
 
No worries. It is hard to do with something as "nebulous" as fields. Glad I could help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
982
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
939