1

enter image description here

Starting from Newton's second law, I am trying to show that energy is not conserved with an applied external force when moving a positive charge from $r_b$ to $r_a$ (see image). I'm not sure where I'm missing a minus sign? Also shouldn't the work done by the external force increase the total energy so that $E_a = W_F + E_b$ ?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751

2 Answers2

0

You need to double check the directions of your quantities. Let's say that the $\hat r$ unit vector points to the upper right. Using this convention, the external work and the kinetic energy stay the same. The electrical force is given by $$\vec F_E=\frac{qq_0}{4\pi \epsilon_0 r^2}\hat r$$ The resulting equation in its most general form is then $$\vec F+\vec F_E=m\frac{d\vec v}{dt}=m\vec v \cdot \frac{d\vec v}{dr}$$ $$\int_{\vec r_b}^{\vec r_a} \vec F\cdot d\vec r=-\int_{\vec r_b}^{\vec r_a}\vec F_E\cdot d\vec r+\int_{\vec v_b}^{\vec v_a}m\vec v\cdot d\vec v$$ By definition, $$U(\vec r)=-\int_\infty^{\vec r}\vec F_E\cdot d\vec r$$ Hence, $$-\int_{\vec r_b}^{\vec r_a}\vec F_E\cdot d\vec r=-\int_\infty^{\vec r_b}\vec F_E\cdot d\vec r + \int_\infty^{\vec r_a} \vec F_E\cdot d\vec r=U(\vec r_b)-U(\vec r_a)$$ Therefore, $$A'=U(\vec r_a)-U(\vec r_b)+K(\vec r_a)-K(\vec r_b)$$ as you did suspect.

User123
  • 1,173
  • ahh! thanks mate much appreciated. –  Mar 20 '22 at 19:51
  • No problem. The error was so subtle. – User123 Mar 20 '22 at 19:51
  • This bring up the second question since now I'm getting $E_a < E_b$ by the amount of work done by the external force, but shouldn't $E_a > E_b$ by the amount of work done? –  Mar 20 '22 at 20:15
  • Corrected the answer. At first, I thought you wanted to move the charge from $r_a$ to $r_b$. Now, the sign of the electrical force is erroneous. – User123 Mar 20 '22 at 20:42
  • The $\hat{r} $ points away from the origin. As the distances seem to be measured from the left down charge, the unit vector should point up-right. – nasu Mar 20 '22 at 20:53
  • @nasu The $r_a$ and $r_b$ values could be negative. – User123 Mar 20 '22 at 20:55
  • @User123 But isn't the minus sign already taken into account in applying newtons second law? –  Mar 20 '22 at 21:28
  • @RA_011989 Which negative sign? – User123 Mar 20 '22 at 22:00
  • @User123 The minus sign in the electric force. The external force does positive work on the charge and the electric force negative which is what my solution shows starting from Newton’s second law. –  Mar 20 '22 at 22:08
  • I completely formalized the answer so that it gives the correct result. – User123 Mar 20 '22 at 22:30
  • @User123 No, the radial coordinate is positively defined. – nasu Mar 21 '22 at 12:26
  • @User123 I understand your solution, but I'm not altogether convinced how it is different from the original solution I posted without the vector notation. Calculating negative of the work done by the electric force via taking the integral should give the change in potential energy directly, without resorting to the definition. Also can't we calculate the integral directly without having to first go from $\infty$ to $r_a$ and then from $\infty$ to $r_b$ and then subtracting the two integrals? –  Mar 21 '22 at 23:36
  • @RA_011989 I used the definition just to be as rigorous as possible. – User123 Mar 22 '22 at 18:17
  • @User123 I'm assuming you're denoting $A^\prime$ as the work done by the external force. In that case $A^\prime = U(r_b) - U(r_a) + K(r_a) - K(r_b)$ according to what you have not $A^\prime = U(r_a) - U(r_b) + K(r_a) - K(r_b)$. Hence, there is still a minus sign missing somewhere. –  Mar 24 '22 at 19:44
0

As you have suspected it is a matter of signs.

As an example of what you have done wrong look at your integral $\displaystyle \int_{r_{\rm b}}^{r_{\rm a}}F\,dr = F(r_{\rm a} - r_{\rm b})$.
Since $r_{\rm a} < r_{\rm b}$ this integral gives a negative value and yet the displacement of the force is in the same direction as the force!

I have annotated your derivation.

enter image description here

Charge $q$ is the origin of your coordinate system and with your statement that the net force is $F-F_{\rm E}$ you have defined the positive direction as in the $7$ o'clock direction.

What that means is that your starting point is at $r=-r_{\rm b}$ and your finishing point is $r=-r_{\rm a}$ as shown on the diagram above.
This assumes that you intended $r_{\rm a}$ and $r_{\rm b}$ to be positive quantities?

So now the work done by force $F$ is $\displaystyle \int_{-r_{\rm b}}^{-r_{\rm a}}F\,dr = F(r_{\rm b} - r_{\rm a})$, positive as expected.
The same change of sign will also occur for the electric potential energy terms and then you will find that the work done by force $F$ is equal to the change in kinetic energy plus the change in electric potential energy.

Perhaps you would have found it easier to choose the positive direction towards $1$ o'clock with the net force $F_{\rm E} -F$ and moving the charge from $+r_{\rm b}$ to $+r_{\rm a}$?


I have shown you how that might be done below.

System - Charge $Q_{\rm 0}$ alone

There are two external forces acting on the charge $\vec F_{\rm E}$ and $\vec F$.

You now need to consider a positive direction which can be $\hat r$ pointing roughly towards one o'clock.

This is the first place that you must be careful.

From your diagram $\vec F_{\rm E}=\dfrac{qq_0}{4\pi \epsilon_0 r^2}(\hat r)$ where $\dfrac{qq_0}{4\pi \epsilon_0 r^2}$ is a positive quantity and $\vec F = F(-\hat r)$ with $F$ chosen by you as being positive.

In moving from $\vec r_{\rm b} = r_{\rm b} (\hat r)$ to $\vec r_{\rm a}=r_{\rm a} (\hat r)$ the work done by the two forces is $\displaystyle \int_{r_{\rm b}}^{r_{\rm a}}(\vec F_{\rm E}+ \vec F)\cdot d\vec r$ where $d\vec r = dr\, \hat r$ with the sign of the component of the displacement $dr$ completely defined by the limits of integration.
This point is explained in the answer to the post Why does this line integral give the wrong sign?.

So the work done by the two external forces is

$\displaystyle \int_{r_{\rm b}}^{r_{\rm a}}(\vec F_{\rm E}+ \vec F)\cdot d\vec r=\displaystyle \int_{r_{\rm b}}^{r_{\rm a}}(F_{\rm E}(\hat r)+ F(-\hat r))\cdot dr(\hat r) =\displaystyle \int_{r_{\rm b}}^{r_{\rm a}}(F_{\rm E} -F)dr =\dfrac{qq_0}{4\pi \epsilon_0 r_{\rm a}}-\dfrac{qq_0}{4\pi \epsilon_0 r_{\rm b}}+F(r_{\rm b} - r_{\rm a})$

and this is equal to the change in the kinetic energy of the system (charge $q_0$).

From your derivation you have have chosen a different system as you cannot define a potential energy for a system consisting of a single particle/charge.

System - Charge $Q_{\rm 0}$ and charge $q$.

The assumption is then made that charge $q$ does not move / moves very little compared with charge $q_0$, ie the mass of $q$ is much greater than the mass of $q_0$.

Now there is only one external force $\vec F$ and two internal forces, the force on charge $q$ due to charge $q_0$ and its Newton third law pair, the force on charge $q_0$ due to charge $q$.
Because $q$ does not move the derivation is essentially the same and the work done by the external force is So the work done by the two external forces is $F(r_{\rm b} - r_{\rm a})$ with the change in electric potential energy being $\dfrac{qq_0}{4\pi \epsilon_0 r_{\rm a}}-\dfrac{qq_0}{4\pi \epsilon_0 r_{\rm b}} = U(r_{\rm a})-U(r_{\rm b})$ and the change in kinetic energy being $K_{\rm a}-K_{\rm b}$.

Bringing everything together gives $K_{\rm a}-K_{\rm b} = F(r_{\rm b} - r_{\rm a}) - (U(r_{\rm a})-U(r_{\rm b}))$.

If the work done by the external force, $F(r_{\rm b} - r_{\rm a})$, is greater than the increase in the electric potential energy of the system, $U(r_{\rm a})-U(r_{\rm b})$, the kinetic energy of the system increases.

Farcher
  • 95,680
  • Thank you for the detailed explanation. This completely makes sense now. Thanks again. –  Mar 25 '22 at 13:09