# Tag Info

14

First remember that $k = \dfrac {1}{4 \pi \epsilon_r\epsilon_o}$ where $\epsilon_r \ge 1$ It is because a medium can be polarised by an external E-field. The dipoles so set up produce the external E-field produce an E-field in the opposite direction so the net E-field (the sum of the external and dipole produced E-fields) is smaller. Thus the force a given ...

6

In electromagnetism there are both positive and negative charges. Hence the force due to electric charges can be attractive or repulsive. Gravity, when treated as a classical force field, can only be attractive, there are not two types of "gravitational charge". What this means is that in electromagnetism, a given medium, may contain both positive and ...

5

Physics does not answer why questions, except with how from postulates and mathematical models one can describe the data. The how is Coulombs law. Physics is about fitting experimental observations with mathematical models. The answer to the "why attraction" in this case, is, data dictates so. There is no other answer except that Coulomb's law fits the ...

5

Both gravity and electrostatic forces depend on distance ($r$) like $1/r^2$. So changing the separation between 2 atoms changes both forces equally. So whichever force is stronger initially (at any distance) will always be stronger. To determine which is stronger consider the ratio of gravitational to electric force. $$F_g/F_e = 4\pi \epsilon_0 G ... 4 Just a coincidence. There are too many quantities and not enough letters. It probably does make a difference that the fields in which these two equations exist (material science and electromagnetism) are well enough separated that you typically won't see them both in the same papers or textbooks; if that weren't the case, people would start using different ... 4 In classical electrodynamics, assuming a point charge to be having a finite charge, the net electrostatic self energy carried by it is given by$$ Self Energy = 1/2 \int E^2 dV$$Upon performing the intergral in three dimensions, since the electric field of a point charge diverges at the origin, therefore the rest mass by the virtue of the electrostatic ... 3 Electric field extends to infinity in the sense that no limit after which the field would vanish was ever found. It is natural assumption that simplifies things. Coulomb's law is consistent with this assumption, but there is no model that would explain Coulomb's law from anything simpler. 3 No, atoms have the same number of protons and electrons so they have no net charge. On the other hand ions (cations and anions) would be repelled or attracted depending on their net charge. Atoms are bound together in a molecules by different means like covalent bonding, ionic bonding (which can be easily explained in terms of electrostatic forces) or ... 3 Your intuition is fine - the particle will move just as you said. There are two problems with your reasoning, which lead to the conflict with your intuition. First problem: It seems that you're imagining that "zero potential energy" means that an object won't feel any force, and won't move. That simply isn't the case - it's the spatial derivative of the ... 3 They accumulate in the corners. Free excess charges (electrons) in a conductor (metals) will move freely towards the surface until the internal electric field is zero. If this was not the case, the non-balanced field will further move them until this is the case. But the geometry of the dice makes the faces very unstable place for charges to accumulate, ... 3 You can't calculate it "directly" because it is not given. Rather it is the boundary condition of V which is usually given. So you don't know what the induced charge distribution is in advance. If you don't want to use the image charge method, you have to solve the Poisson's equation with other methods first. Then calculate the E field, and then obtain the ... 3 I don't know the mathematical rigorousness to answer well the question but here's a thought. The left hand side is not 0. Take a point charge for simplicity, in this case \vec E and d \vec a are orthogonal and so the integral is worth E\cdot A. Although it is true that \vec E tends to \vec 0 for r \to \infty, A tends to infinity. And so you ... 2 The tangent line, in general, is the line that follows the gradient of a curve at a specific point - like in this diagram: The blue line is the tangent of the red line at the point where they touch. 2 The field inside a conducting sphere is zero, not linear in r. The field of a uniformly charged sphere goes linearly with r. 2 As the charge is outside the surface the flux entering the surface is equal to the flux leaving the surface and total flux is therefore zero. The electric field is not zero. Flux =\int \mathbf{E.ds} is zero not the electric field itself. for a negative single charge electric filed is \mathbf{E}=\frac{Q}{4\pi \epsilon_0 r^2}(-\hat{r}). The flux is zero ... 2 The E field exactly on the surface in fact should be undefined, because there are surface charges. But the E field is well-defined if you remove a small disk from the surface. Let's call the E field due to the disk be E_\text{disk} and the E field due to the other surface charges be E_\text{other}. Then just above the surface ... 2 There are two aspects to your question. One is: "when I run across an artificial turf field with plastic soles, why do I accumulate static charge?" and the second is "When I am charged, why do I experience a shock when I touch a metal goal?". Taking each in turn: There is a phenomenon called triboelectricity - the generating of a potential difference when ... 2 They are attracted to each other, the force is just too small to feel it. We can estimate it as follows: The force between two charged plates is F=E∗Q/2, where E is the electric field between plates. We can express this by the voltage between the plates U and plate distance d and get F=U∗Q/2d. Finally we substitute Q=C*U for the charge as a ... 2 The point at which boundary conditions are specified is subtle. You can find this point by adding a constant vector to \vec{E} in each step until it varies the equation: it should not change any equation until the boundary is specified. Since the flux of a vector field is unaffected by an added vector constant, the boundary condition was first specified is ... 2 Yes, you accidentally built a high voltage generator. When you were sifting bran, you were creating a small amount of electric charge on the bran. As it fell to the enameled surface, it took that charge with it - leaving the mesh, frame and you with the opposite charge. The more you did this, the greater the charge buildup. Because of the enamel, the charge ... 2 Yeah, that's just a coincidence. The easy way to see this is that \epsilon is a relatively static property of a dielectric but a totally dynamic property of a stretching material. 2 Engineers created that problem. ;) (probably not) Many physics books use Y for Young's modulus (Symon, Knight, Young & Freedman). Taylor's Classical Mechanics uses YM. Halliday, Resnick & -fill-in-the-blank- state that engineers use E. I suspect that physicists started using Y for exactly this reason: to highlight a difference in the meanings ... 2 Here is how: And the expression is (from wikipedia):$$2\pi \varepsilon a\sum_{n=1}^{\infty }\frac{\sinh \left( \ln \left( D+\sqrt{D^2-1}\right) \right) }{\sinh \left( n\ln \left( D+\sqrt{ D^2-1}\right) \right) } 

2

q1 and q2 induce charges of the same magnitude and of the opposite sign on the surface of the spherical cavities. This in turn means that on the outside surface of the sphere there are charges induced of the same magnitude and the same sign as charges q1 and q2. These charges are distributed on the outside surface of the spherical conductor. That is there ...

2

Actually we have models explaining this. The particles that mediates electromagnetic field are massless, so the range of the force predicted by the model is infinite. On the contrary, for massive mediators (see for instance Yukawa force), the range is finite. Notice that real experimental setups have finite precision, so beyond some limit it's pointless to ...

2

There many configurations that statisfy your assumptions. But you had forgot about many other constraints like potential difference, charge density, end effects etc. When you consider PD you come to know, ignoring end effects, that only one configuration is possible. Since 1st plate has charge Q its surface charge density of 1st side is Q/2A 2nd side again ...

2

"Why?" questions are always a bit dubious in physics, but let me explain a few words here: "Voltage" is in itself a difference, and it is (by definition) the difference of electric potential energy. The difference in electric potential energy is by definition the work needed to move a test charge against the electric field. In other words: The electric ...

1

Atoms are electrically neutral. Because of this they shouldn't attract or repel each other - but atoms do show a slight attraction, which is the reason most molecules form. This is called the residual electromagnetic interaction. In short, the positive parts of one atom attract the negative parts of the other, and vice versa. There is a good little diagram ...

1

You're only a half-step away. You listed conservation of energy and linear momentum, both of which are due to there being no external forces on the three-charge system. But with no external forces, you know that the center of mass of the system won't accelerate. Since the COM starts at rest, this means that the COM will remain stationary. Think about what ...

1

I'm not a physicist and came to the problem of infinity of the electric field by working about Complex one-dimensional structures in space. In this work I recognized that to build-up dipole fields it needs two different quanta at least and only. Such structures could follow the 1/r²-law, BUT related to the discrete structure the field has a finite range. Why ...

Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible