Zero Potential In Uniform Electric Field

AI Thread Summary
In a uniform electric field, the reference point for 0V is relative to another point, as there is no absolute zero voltage. A charged plate can be treated as a charged plane for applying Gauss' Law, but the uniformity of the electric field only holds for an infinitely large plane. When a charged sphere is suspended in this field, it will experience a horizontal force, causing it to swing until gravitational and electric forces balance. The electrical energy between the plane and the sphere can be calculated using an integral approach, similar to point charges, but requires adapting the formula for a continuous charge distribution. Understanding these concepts is crucial for analyzing electric fields and forces in physics.
daletaylor
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I actually have two questions...

When dealing with a uniform electric field, where do we normally chose to 0V to be?

Also, if we have a charged plate, we can treat it as a charged plane to use Gauss' Law right? Now, if we figure out the magnitude of the field created by that plane, we end up with:

(SCD)/ 2(Permittivity constant)

where (SCD) is the surface charge density of the plane.

Now because the magnitude of this field does not depend on the distance from the plane, the field has the same magnitude at every point in front of it, right?

Do does this mean that if I hung a charged sphere from the ceiling and took a metal plate and put sufficient charge on it, and pointed it at the sphere it would move to a point where is was hanging with a certain angle to the vertical? And furthermore it would stay at that same angle no matter how far I went with the plate?

Thanks,
Dale
 
Physics news on Phys.org
daletaylor said:
Hi,

I actually have two questions...

When dealing with a uniform electric field, where do we normally chose to 0V to be?
'Volts' are units of measure of the potential difference between two points. There is no such thing as a point of 0V except in relation to another point.

Also, if we have a charged plate, we can treat it as a charged plane to use Gauss' Law right? Now, if we figure out the magnitude of the field created by that plane, we end up with:

(SCD)/ 2(Permittivity constant)

where (SCD) is the surface charge density of the plane.

Now because the magnitude of this field does not depend on the distance from the plane, the field has the same magnitude at every point in front of it, right?
Not unless it is an infinitely large plane.

Do does this mean that if I hung a charged sphere from the ceiling and took a metal plate and put sufficient charge on it, and pointed it at the sphere it would move to a point where is was hanging with a certain angle to the vertical? And furthermore it would stay at that same angle no matter how far I went with the plate?
If the sphere is much smaller than the plane, it will see a uniform electric field. Assuming that if the field is turned off the sphere hangs vertically, when the field is turned on it would experience a horizontal force equal to qE. This would cause it to swing horizontally and vertically until the forces of gravity, tension and electricity balanced (or until the string breaks). To then move the plate relative to the charge, you would have to do work against the electrical force between the plate and charge, so the electrical energy of the sphere relative to the plate would change. But the force on the charge would not change.

AM
 
Thank you very much!

Just out of curiosity, how would one calculate the electrical energy between the plane and the sphere?

There is a formula for the potential energy,

U = [(Ke) * q1 * q2] / r

but this seems to be only for point charges. How would you do this for a plane of charges?

Thanks,
Dale
 
The potential of a single plane is given by basically repeating the point charge equation and leads to the following intergral;

\int^{a}_{-b} \frac{kdq}{r}

The potential on the surface of a sphere is identical to that of a point charge.

-Hoot:smile:

[edit] latex still isn't working so I've included an image from hyperphysics;
plin.gif


If you want more information hyperphysics is an excellent resource;
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elepot.html#c1
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Back
Top