What is the significance of potential in physics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlbertEinstein
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Potential
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of "potential" in physics, highlighting its various forms such as potential energy and electric potential. It emphasizes that while electric fields can be described using vectors, potential provides a scalar approach that simplifies mathematical handling, especially in complex geometries. The conversation also draws parallels between potential in physics and energy, suggesting that energy is often a more useful quantity than force in understanding system behavior. The historical significance of energy is noted, particularly in its practical applications, such as in steam engines. Overall, the significance of potential lies in its ability to facilitate the analysis of physical systems more effectively than vector-based approaches.
AlbertEinstein
Messages
113
Reaction score
1
Well I am not sure where to post this. But, anyway, I am finding 'potential' to be rather difficult. Afterall what is this potential? it comes popping out in different forms such as in potential energy ,potential difference ,electric potential etc.
I also know ,for example, that electric potential is a scalar way of describing the electric field; a system always contains some potential energy, BUT I don't see any need to do this. Electric field can always be described by vectors, then where is the need for potential? Potential energy is also related in the formulation of langrangian which is yet another way of describing classical physics.
Please explain to me that afterall why this potential was invented?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Electric fields and other fields like magnetic and gravitational fields , potential and field intensity is used to describe such fields. Potetiental is related to energy just the way field intensity is related to force. Field strength is basically force per unit area. Let me use potential to describe gravitational field.Gravitation potential of the sun is relation to infinity.As work is done to make the body closer to the sun the potential is more negative.This is because an external agent is doing work rather than the gravitational field.
 
AlbertEinstein said:
Well I am not sure where to post this. But, anyway, I am finding 'potential' to be rather difficult. Afterall what is this potential? it comes popping out in different forms such as in potential energy ,potential difference ,electric potential etc.
I also know ,for example, that electric potential is a scalar way of describing the electric field; a system always contains some potential energy, BUT I don't see any need to do this. Electric field can always be described by vectors, then where is the need for potential? Potential energy is also related in the formulation of langrangian which is yet another way of describing classical physics.
Please explain to me that afterall why this potential was invented?

One of the clearest way why a potential field is more useful than the electric field is the fact that the electric field is a vector, and that it is more difficult to deal with mathematically. You'll see that when you have a slightly nasty geometry to solve, deal with the electric field is almost impossible to solve. The scalar field tends to be more forgiving. Furthermore, it is easier to get the E field from the V field, rather than the V field from the E field (easier to differentiate than to integrate, to put it crudely).

You can actually convince this yourself. Get a spherically symmetry charge distribution, and don't use Gauss's law. Start from Coulomb's law for the most general form of E-field for a charge distribution, and the most general form of the V-field for a charge distribution, and solve the integral equations for that spherically symmetry charge distribution. You'll realize right away which one is easier to handle.

This is actually nothing unusual. In classical mechanics, one can solve the equation of motion of a system either by using Newton's laws, or Lagrangian/Hamiltonian. Newton's laws deal with forces (vectors), whereas Lagrangian/Hamiltonian deals with energy (scalar). There are many instances, especiallyin complicated systems, where using the Newtonian laws of forces are simply atrocious, but it is solvable using Lagrangian/Hamiltonian.

Zz.
 
AlbertEinstein said:
Well I am not sure where to post this. But, anyway, I am finding 'potential' to be rather difficult. Afterall what is this potential? it comes popping out in different forms such as in potential energy ,potential difference ,electric potential etc.
I also know ,for example, that electric potential is a scalar way of describing the electric field; a system always contains some potential energy, BUT I don't see any need to do this. Electric field can always be described by vectors, then where is the need for potential? Potential energy is also related in the formulation of langrangian which is yet another way of describing classical physics.
Please explain to me that afterall why this potential was invented?
It seems to me that your question is really: why do we talk about energy rather than force? This is not a bad question.

Energy is important because, over time, we have discovered that it is a useful quantity. It is particularly useful in a conservative field, such as electric or gravitational fields, where the energy or ability to do work of a charge/mass depends only upon its position in the field.

Our experience is that energy can be a more useful concept than force. It took centuries for physicists to appreciate its importance. Prior to the 19th century physicists talked about the vis viva of an object. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy#Historical_development". The usefulness of energy became apparent with the introduction of steam engines. It was realized that while forces could be easily manipulated (eg by changing piston size) the ability of the engine to do something useful depended on energy - the product of force and the distance over which it is applied - rather than just the magnitude of the force it could produce.

AM
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top