Skip to main content
added 2626 characters in body
Source Link
alejnavab
  • 344
  • 3
  • 13

Suppose I choose one point in space, which I’ll call the reference point, with respect to which I measure the voltage at all other points in space. Isn’t that, then, the same as electric potential?Suppose I choose one point in space, which I’ll call the reference point, with respect to which I measure the voltage at all other points in space. Isn’t that, then, the same as electric potential? For example, I could choose the reference point to be the Earth ground or a point infinitely far from us, thus the voltage would seem to have the same meaning as electric potential.

Edit after accepted answer: further clarification on why I say voltage and potential are the same

Edit 2: Why my question is not this question

I've got two suggestions saying that my question is the same as the linked question in the subtitle, so I'll explain why it's not the same question. I'll refer to user11266's answer.

The first and third paragraph of user11266's answer only talk about the reason for confusion in the two terms, and what should be done instead, so those paragraphs are irrelevant to my question.

The second paragraph of user11266's answer talks about potential and potential difference (a.k.a. voltage). He/she says "Each point in space has assigned to it a value for electric potential", which is true because from Griffiths' equation (2.21) it is clear that, for a fixed reference point $\mathcal O$, the potential depends on $\mathbf r$. But guess what? You can also fix $\mathbf b$ in Griffiths' equation (2.22) (potential difference a.k.a. voltage), and now you have the exact same thing as potential: a scalar value at each point in space. And in case you say "no-one fixes a point for measuring voltage", then let me tell you that's actually extremely common: 1) we use it for nodal analysis, the most used method for solving circuits; 2) all circuit simulators use it; and 3) oscilloscopes read voltages by fixing the reference point.

And yes, I know that in the potential equation (2.21) the reference point $\mathcal O$ is usually at infinity, while in my example of circuits the reference point $\mathbf b$ for the voltage equation (2.22) is not at infinity but instead a node of the circuit. But as far as I know, there's nothing prohibiting us from choosing $\mathbf b$ to be also at infinity, in which case equations (2.21) and (2.22) become the same, and thus voltage and potential are the same thing.

And in case you say "potential is more general than voltage because voltage only applies to circuits, so your circuit example is not valid", my reply would be that simply ignore my examples, and instead focus on equation (2.22) from Griffiths and set $\mathbf b = \mathcal O$ and $\mathbf a = \mathbf r$, then swap the integral bounds/limits by adding a negative sign in front of the integral, and now you get $V_{ab} = \phi$. Et voilà, voltage is the same as potential, or potential is the same as voltage, so they're the same thing. Thus my statements in the previous paragraph hold.

Suppose I choose one point in space, which I’ll call the reference point, with respect to which I measure the voltage at all other points in space. Isn’t that, then, the same as electric potential? For example, I could choose the reference point to be the Earth ground or a point infinitely far from us, thus the voltage would seem to have the same meaning as electric potential.

Edit after accepted answer

Suppose I choose one point in space, which I’ll call the reference point, with respect to which I measure the voltage at all other points in space. Isn’t that, then, the same as electric potential? For example, I could choose the reference point to be the Earth ground or a point infinitely far from us, thus the voltage would seem to have the same meaning as electric potential.

Edit after accepted answer: further clarification on why I say voltage and potential are the same

Edit 2: Why my question is not this question

I've got two suggestions saying that my question is the same as the linked question in the subtitle, so I'll explain why it's not the same question. I'll refer to user11266's answer.

The first and third paragraph of user11266's answer only talk about the reason for confusion in the two terms, and what should be done instead, so those paragraphs are irrelevant to my question.

The second paragraph of user11266's answer talks about potential and potential difference (a.k.a. voltage). He/she says "Each point in space has assigned to it a value for electric potential", which is true because from Griffiths' equation (2.21) it is clear that, for a fixed reference point $\mathcal O$, the potential depends on $\mathbf r$. But guess what? You can also fix $\mathbf b$ in Griffiths' equation (2.22) (potential difference a.k.a. voltage), and now you have the exact same thing as potential: a scalar value at each point in space. And in case you say "no-one fixes a point for measuring voltage", then let me tell you that's actually extremely common: 1) we use it for nodal analysis, the most used method for solving circuits; 2) all circuit simulators use it; and 3) oscilloscopes read voltages by fixing the reference point.

And yes, I know that in the potential equation (2.21) the reference point $\mathcal O$ is usually at infinity, while in my example of circuits the reference point $\mathbf b$ for the voltage equation (2.22) is not at infinity but instead a node of the circuit. But as far as I know, there's nothing prohibiting us from choosing $\mathbf b$ to be also at infinity, in which case equations (2.21) and (2.22) become the same, and thus voltage and potential are the same thing.

And in case you say "potential is more general than voltage because voltage only applies to circuits, so your circuit example is not valid", my reply would be that simply ignore my examples, and instead focus on equation (2.22) from Griffiths and set $\mathbf b = \mathcal O$ and $\mathbf a = \mathbf r$, then swap the integral bounds/limits by adding a negative sign in front of the integral, and now you get $V_{ab} = \phi$. Et voilà, voltage is the same as potential, or potential is the same as voltage, so they're the same thing. Thus my statements in the previous paragraph hold.

edited body
Source Link
alejnavab
  • 344
  • 3
  • 13

So far some people have answered/commented that the difference between electric potential and voltage is that the latter is a difference in potentials (which is true), in other words, that voltage is between two points (which is true) while potential is only at one point (which is not exactly true). Let me explain. You may say potential is a quantity only a point, right? Well, if you please look at equations (2.21) (for electric potential) and (2.22) (for electric potential difference, a.k.a. voltage) of David Griffiths' Introduction to Electrodynamics (3rd edition), both on page 78, you whilewill see GriffithGriffiths defines electric potential and electric potential difference (a.k.a. voltage) as follows. (In the same manner as Roger's answer, and unlike Griffith, I'll denote voltage as $V$ and electric potential as $\phi$.)

So far some people have answered/commented that the difference between electric potential and voltage is that the latter is a difference in potentials (which is true), in other words, that voltage is between two points (which is true) while potential is only at one point (which is not exactly true). Let me explain. You may say potential is a quantity only a point, right? Well, if you please look at equations (2.21) (for electric potential) and (2.22) (for electric potential difference, a.k.a. voltage) of David Griffiths' Introduction to Electrodynamics (3rd edition), both on page 78, you while see Griffith defines electric potential and electric potential difference (a.k.a. voltage) as follows. (In the same manner as Roger's answer, and unlike Griffith, I'll denote voltage as $V$ and electric potential as $\phi$.)

So far some people have answered/commented that the difference between electric potential and voltage is that the latter is a difference in potentials (which is true), in other words, that voltage is between two points (which is true) while potential is only at one point (which is not exactly true). Let me explain. You may say potential is a quantity only a point, right? Well, if you please look at equations (2.21) (for electric potential) and (2.22) (for electric potential difference, a.k.a. voltage) of David Griffiths' Introduction to Electrodynamics (3rd edition), both on page 78, you will see Griffiths defines electric potential and electric potential difference (a.k.a. voltage) as follows. (In the same manner as Roger's answer, and unlike Griffith, I'll denote voltage as $V$ and electric potential as $\phi$.)

added 2221 characters in body
Source Link
alejnavab
  • 344
  • 3
  • 13

After discussing with Roger in the comments of his answer, it looks like indeed voltage and electric potential are the same thing, but simply different names for the same thing depending on context (engineering or physics, respectively), with the only tiny difference being that all potentials are measured with respect to a fixed reference point, while voltage can be measured with respect to an arbitrary point (although in nodal analysis we also fix such reference point to be a node, similar to potential).

After discussing with Roger in the comments of his answer, it looks like indeed voltage and electric potential are the same thing, but simply different names for the same thing depending on context (engineering or physics, respectively), with the only tiny difference being that all potentials are measured with respect to a fixed reference point, while voltage can be measured with respect to an arbitrary point (although in nodal analysis we also fix such reference point to be a node, similar to potential).

added 2221 characters in body
Source Link
alejnavab
  • 344
  • 3
  • 13
Loading
added 172 characters in body; edited title
Source Link
alejnavab
  • 344
  • 3
  • 13
Loading
added 427 characters in body
Source Link
alejnavab
  • 344
  • 3
  • 13
Loading
added 193 characters in body
Source Link
alejnavab
  • 344
  • 3
  • 13
Loading
added 36 characters in body
Source Link
alejnavab
  • 344
  • 3
  • 13
Loading
added 2 characters in body
Source Link
alejnavab
  • 344
  • 3
  • 13
Loading
Source Link
alejnavab
  • 344
  • 3
  • 13
Loading