1.1.10 · D5Electricity & Charge Basics

Question bank — Define electric field and electric potential

2,031 words9 min readBack to topic

True or false — justify

Big field always means big potential
False. Field is the slope of the potential hill, not its height; a hill can be low but steep. Midway between and , yet is large.
If the potential at a point is zero, the field there is zero
False. only says the net accumulated work per charge is zero; the local slope can still be nonzero, so is fully allowed.
If the field at a point is zero, the potential there is zero
False. Inside a hollow charged conductor everywhere yet is a nonzero constant equal to the surface value — a flat but elevated plateau.
Electric potential is a vector because it comes from a charge that has direction
False. Potential is energy per charge, and energy is a plain number (scalar). You add potentials from many charges by simple addition, no arrows.
Moving a charge along a path where is constant requires zero work
True. Constant means no potential difference between start and end, and work per charge equals ; the field is also perpendicular to the path, so it does no work.
Doubling the test charge doubles the electric field at that point
False. The whole point of dividing by (the test charge) is that the field is a property of the space, independent of the visitor. Force doubles, but stays fixed.
A negative charge sits at a point where the field points right; the force on it points right too
False. , and a negative flips the direction — the force points left, opposite the field.
Potential can be negative but field magnitude cannot
True. is negative near a negative (energy is released, not spent), but field magnitude uses (size only) — a length of an arrow, never negative.
Field lines can cross each other
False. A crossing would mean two different force directions at one point, which is impossible — the net field has exactly one direction everywhere it exists.

Spot the error

"Since gives a positive number, the field always points away from the charge."
The formula gives only the magnitude (properly ). Direction is carried by : away from positive , but toward a negative . Always state direction separately.
"To find total potential from two charges I add the field vectors, then divide by charge."
You are mixing the two lenses. Potential is a scalar — just add arithmetically. Vectors and their components belong to the field calculation only.
"The work to bring a charge from infinity is , force times distance."
The force changes at every step (it grows as you approach), so a single is wrong. You must integrate , which is why appears, not .
"Field falls as , so potential must fall as ."
Backwards. Potential is the accumulated field over distance (), and integrating gives — a slower fall-off, not faster.
"A battery labelled 9 V pushes 9 V of charge through the wire."
Volts are joules per coulomb, not an amount of charge. The 9 V is the potential difference (height of the electricity hill); it sets the energy each coulomb gains, not how much charge moves.
"Charges roll from low potential to high potential like water seeking the top."
A positive charge rolls from high to low (downhill), releasing energy. Only under external work does it climb. A negative charge does the opposite.
", so wherever is largest the field is largest."
The field depends on the derivative (slope) of , not its value. At the very top of a smooth potential peak the slope is zero, so even though is maximal.

Why questions

Why do we divide by the test charge when defining both and ?
So each quantity describes the space prepared by the source, not the particular visiting charge. The cancels, leaving only , and the constant .
Why does the potential formula carry the sign of but the field magnitude does not?
Potential encodes energy per charge, which is negative near a negative source (energy released on approach), so we keep with its sign. Field magnitude uses — inherently non-negative; its sign information lives in the direction instead.
What exactly is the constant doing in and ?
It is the fixed proportionality number that converts "charge divided by distance" into real newtons and volts; inside it measures how empty space responds to charge. Without the numbers would have no physical units.
Why is there a minus sign in ?
The field points in the direction of decreasing potential (downhill for a positive charge). The minus flips "increasing " into "field pointing the other way," matching the roll-downhill picture.
Why is only the radial form, and what is the honest general law?
The single-variable derivative measures the slope along only, so it captures the whole field just when depends on alone (spherical symmetry). In general the field is , the negative gradient, which stitches together the slope in every direction into one vector.
When we integrate , why the dot product and not just ?
is a tiny directed step along the path, and only the part of pointing along that step does work — that projection is the dot product . For a straight radial pull it collapses to , but if ever points sideways or reverses, the dot product automatically tracks the correct sign.
Why can we get away with adding potentials as plain numbers but must add fields as vectors?
Potential is a scalar (energy per charge), so contributions superpose by ordinary addition. Field is a vector; contributions can point different ways and must be added head-to-tail, respecting direction.
Why is the potential taken as zero at infinity, and is that choice forced on us?
It is not forced — only differences in potential () are physically measurable, so we are free to nail the zero anywhere (this is called reference freedom, like choosing sea level for altitude). Infinity is merely the most convenient reference for an isolated charge because there naturally, giving the clean ; a lab may instead pick the ground/earth as zero, and every stays identical because a constant shift in has zero slope.
Why does knowing everywhere let you recover , but knowing at one point does not give ?
, so a full -map hands you every slope by differentiation. A single value is one slope, but potential is an accumulated integral — you need the field along an entire path to rebuild it.

Edge cases

At the exact midpoint between equal and : what are and ?
The two fields are equal and opposite, so . But the two potentials are both positive and add, so — a case of zero field with nonzero potential.
At the midpoint between and : what are and ?
Potentials cancel ( and add to ), yet both field arrows point the same way (toward the ), so they add to a large nonzero — the mirror-image trap.
What happens to and as near a real point charge?
Both diverge — as and as . This is a sign the ideal point charge is an idealisation; real charges have finite size, so nothing physically reaches infinity.
Inside a hollow charged conducting sphere, describe and
throughout the cavity (fields cancel), but is a nonzero constant equal to the surface potential — a flat, elevated plateau where the slope is zero but the height is not.
Between two parallel charged plates the field is uniform; what does do across the gap?
Since is constant and , the potential changes linearly (constant slope) from one plate to the other — steady, not , because this is not a point-charge geometry.
As for an isolated point charge, what are the limiting values of and ?
Both approach zero — (our chosen reference) and . Far away the space is essentially "unprepared," no push and no stored energy per charge.
A test charge is released from rest in a region of constant potential: what happens?
Nothing accelerates it, because constant means zero slope means , so the force . It stays put — a flat spot on the hill.