Can the electrostatic force be infinite in magnitude?












2












$begingroup$


The magnitude of the electrostatic force between two charges $Q$ and $q$ separated by a distance $r$ is given by $$F=frac{kqQ}{r^2}$$ but the minimum value of $r$ must be $10^{-15} rm m$. Therefore, my question is can the electrostatic force ever be infinite?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Aditya is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    First, you should explain why you think the minimum value $r$ can be is $10^{-15}$, since that would help know where you are coming from. Second, if you take this to be true, then wouldn't that necessarily mean the force cannot be infinite? It sounds like you are actually questioning this "minimum $r$" idea, which we cannot comment on since we do not know why you think this is the case.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @AaronStevens I think it's supposed to be the diameter of an electron.
    $endgroup$
    – Bob D
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @BobD I thought it is supposed to be the length scale of the atomic nucleus?
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    @AaronStevens Yeah, could be. I my based my comment on the following reference Pauling, Linus. College Chemistry, San Francisco: Freeman, 1964 "The radius of an electron has not been fully determined exactly but it i known to be less than $1^{-13}$cm. But others have it different. I think the OP
    $endgroup$
    – Bob D
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @AaronStevens I suspect Aditya is referring to the so-called "classical radius of the electron". Aditya - if that's the case, you should edit your question to make this explicit.
    $endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    yesterday
















2












$begingroup$


The magnitude of the electrostatic force between two charges $Q$ and $q$ separated by a distance $r$ is given by $$F=frac{kqQ}{r^2}$$ but the minimum value of $r$ must be $10^{-15} rm m$. Therefore, my question is can the electrostatic force ever be infinite?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Aditya is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    First, you should explain why you think the minimum value $r$ can be is $10^{-15}$, since that would help know where you are coming from. Second, if you take this to be true, then wouldn't that necessarily mean the force cannot be infinite? It sounds like you are actually questioning this "minimum $r$" idea, which we cannot comment on since we do not know why you think this is the case.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @AaronStevens I think it's supposed to be the diameter of an electron.
    $endgroup$
    – Bob D
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @BobD I thought it is supposed to be the length scale of the atomic nucleus?
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    @AaronStevens Yeah, could be. I my based my comment on the following reference Pauling, Linus. College Chemistry, San Francisco: Freeman, 1964 "The radius of an electron has not been fully determined exactly but it i known to be less than $1^{-13}$cm. But others have it different. I think the OP
    $endgroup$
    – Bob D
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @AaronStevens I suspect Aditya is referring to the so-called "classical radius of the electron". Aditya - if that's the case, you should edit your question to make this explicit.
    $endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    yesterday














2












2








2





$begingroup$


The magnitude of the electrostatic force between two charges $Q$ and $q$ separated by a distance $r$ is given by $$F=frac{kqQ}{r^2}$$ but the minimum value of $r$ must be $10^{-15} rm m$. Therefore, my question is can the electrostatic force ever be infinite?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Aditya is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




The magnitude of the electrostatic force between two charges $Q$ and $q$ separated by a distance $r$ is given by $$F=frac{kqQ}{r^2}$$ but the minimum value of $r$ must be $10^{-15} rm m$. Therefore, my question is can the electrostatic force ever be infinite?







forces electrostatics electric-fields singularities coulombs-law






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Aditya is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Aditya is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited yesterday









Qmechanic

106k121971227




106k121971227






New contributor




Aditya is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked yesterday









AdityaAditya

173




173




New contributor




Aditya is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Aditya is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Aditya is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    First, you should explain why you think the minimum value $r$ can be is $10^{-15}$, since that would help know where you are coming from. Second, if you take this to be true, then wouldn't that necessarily mean the force cannot be infinite? It sounds like you are actually questioning this "minimum $r$" idea, which we cannot comment on since we do not know why you think this is the case.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @AaronStevens I think it's supposed to be the diameter of an electron.
    $endgroup$
    – Bob D
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @BobD I thought it is supposed to be the length scale of the atomic nucleus?
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    @AaronStevens Yeah, could be. I my based my comment on the following reference Pauling, Linus. College Chemistry, San Francisco: Freeman, 1964 "The radius of an electron has not been fully determined exactly but it i known to be less than $1^{-13}$cm. But others have it different. I think the OP
    $endgroup$
    – Bob D
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @AaronStevens I suspect Aditya is referring to the so-called "classical radius of the electron". Aditya - if that's the case, you should edit your question to make this explicit.
    $endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    yesterday














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    First, you should explain why you think the minimum value $r$ can be is $10^{-15}$, since that would help know where you are coming from. Second, if you take this to be true, then wouldn't that necessarily mean the force cannot be infinite? It sounds like you are actually questioning this "minimum $r$" idea, which we cannot comment on since we do not know why you think this is the case.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @AaronStevens I think it's supposed to be the diameter of an electron.
    $endgroup$
    – Bob D
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @BobD I thought it is supposed to be the length scale of the atomic nucleus?
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    @AaronStevens Yeah, could be. I my based my comment on the following reference Pauling, Linus. College Chemistry, San Francisco: Freeman, 1964 "The radius of an electron has not been fully determined exactly but it i known to be less than $1^{-13}$cm. But others have it different. I think the OP
    $endgroup$
    – Bob D
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @AaronStevens I suspect Aditya is referring to the so-called "classical radius of the electron". Aditya - if that's the case, you should edit your question to make this explicit.
    $endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    yesterday








1




1




$begingroup$
First, you should explain why you think the minimum value $r$ can be is $10^{-15}$, since that would help know where you are coming from. Second, if you take this to be true, then wouldn't that necessarily mean the force cannot be infinite? It sounds like you are actually questioning this "minimum $r$" idea, which we cannot comment on since we do not know why you think this is the case.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday




$begingroup$
First, you should explain why you think the minimum value $r$ can be is $10^{-15}$, since that would help know where you are coming from. Second, if you take this to be true, then wouldn't that necessarily mean the force cannot be infinite? It sounds like you are actually questioning this "minimum $r$" idea, which we cannot comment on since we do not know why you think this is the case.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday












$begingroup$
@AaronStevens I think it's supposed to be the diameter of an electron.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
yesterday




$begingroup$
@AaronStevens I think it's supposed to be the diameter of an electron.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
yesterday












$begingroup$
@BobD I thought it is supposed to be the length scale of the atomic nucleus?
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday






$begingroup$
@BobD I thought it is supposed to be the length scale of the atomic nucleus?
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday














$begingroup$
@AaronStevens Yeah, could be. I my based my comment on the following reference Pauling, Linus. College Chemistry, San Francisco: Freeman, 1964 "The radius of an electron has not been fully determined exactly but it i known to be less than $1^{-13}$cm. But others have it different. I think the OP
$endgroup$
– Bob D
yesterday




$begingroup$
@AaronStevens Yeah, could be. I my based my comment on the following reference Pauling, Linus. College Chemistry, San Francisco: Freeman, 1964 "The radius of an electron has not been fully determined exactly but it i known to be less than $1^{-13}$cm. But others have it different. I think the OP
$endgroup$
– Bob D
yesterday




1




1




$begingroup$
@AaronStevens I suspect Aditya is referring to the so-called "classical radius of the electron". Aditya - if that's the case, you should edit your question to make this explicit.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
yesterday




$begingroup$
@AaronStevens I suspect Aditya is referring to the so-called "classical radius of the electron". Aditya - if that's the case, you should edit your question to make this explicit.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
yesterday










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















11












$begingroup$

This




but the minimum value of $r$ must be $10^{-15} rm m$




sounds like you found a reference to the so-called "classical radius of the electron", possibly with some figures for the radii of atomic nuclei, but you did not fully understand what the former means.



The 'classical radius of the electron' $r_mathrm{cl}$ is the radius at which a spherical lump of charge would have an electrostatic self-energy equal to the rest energy $E_mathrm{rest} = m_e c^2$ of the electron. But the key word there is "would": the electron isn't a spherical lump of charge: as far as we can tell, it is a point particle with no internal structure that we've been able to detect ─ with a current experimental precision of the order of $10^{-18}:rm m$.



It is true, on the other hand, that when you're considering the electrostatic interactions between point particles at length scales shorter than about $10^{-10}:rm m$ (give or take, depending on what you're doing) you're going to need to change your framework from a classical viewpoint to one based on quantum mechanics, in which electrostatics remains mostly unchanged, but the whole mechanics itself (including the meanings of concepts like "trajectory", "distance" or "force") changes. Once you make that leap, the question of whether the electrostatic force can have infinite values becomes pretty much moot - but the singularity remains.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    what about Friedrich Bopp's theory of self energy of an electron as discussed in Feyman lectures Vol 2 ? Not applicable here.
    $endgroup$
    – gansub
    10 hours ago



















4












$begingroup$

The classical physics equation $F = frac{kqQ}{r^2}$ has to be interpreted using quantum mechanics for sufficiently small length scales. So, its probably not appropriate to say that the force becomes infinite. A typical rule of thumb for the smallest length scale for which this applies is the Compton wavelength $lambda = frac{h}{mc}$. Here $h$ is Plank's constant, $c$ the speed of light and $m$ the particle mass. For an electron, this comes out to $2.4times 10^{-12}$m, but for a proton, it would be smaller.






share|cite|improve this answer








New contributor




Laurence Lurio is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$





















    2












    $begingroup$

    Physically, an infinite force is not possible. The fact that the simple electrostatic model (Coulomb's law)



    $F=frac{kqQ}{r^2}$



    suggests an infinite (or at least an unbounded) force between two point charges as they get closer and closer together tells us that this must be an approximate model which does not hold for very small $r$. Either point charges do not occur in nature, or the $r^{-2}$ model is replaced by something else for small enough $r$.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "151"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });






      Aditya is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f468608%2fcan-the-electrostatic-force-be-infinite-in-magnitude%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      11












      $begingroup$

      This




      but the minimum value of $r$ must be $10^{-15} rm m$




      sounds like you found a reference to the so-called "classical radius of the electron", possibly with some figures for the radii of atomic nuclei, but you did not fully understand what the former means.



      The 'classical radius of the electron' $r_mathrm{cl}$ is the radius at which a spherical lump of charge would have an electrostatic self-energy equal to the rest energy $E_mathrm{rest} = m_e c^2$ of the electron. But the key word there is "would": the electron isn't a spherical lump of charge: as far as we can tell, it is a point particle with no internal structure that we've been able to detect ─ with a current experimental precision of the order of $10^{-18}:rm m$.



      It is true, on the other hand, that when you're considering the electrostatic interactions between point particles at length scales shorter than about $10^{-10}:rm m$ (give or take, depending on what you're doing) you're going to need to change your framework from a classical viewpoint to one based on quantum mechanics, in which electrostatics remains mostly unchanged, but the whole mechanics itself (including the meanings of concepts like "trajectory", "distance" or "force") changes. Once you make that leap, the question of whether the electrostatic force can have infinite values becomes pretty much moot - but the singularity remains.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        what about Friedrich Bopp's theory of self energy of an electron as discussed in Feyman lectures Vol 2 ? Not applicable here.
        $endgroup$
        – gansub
        10 hours ago
















      11












      $begingroup$

      This




      but the minimum value of $r$ must be $10^{-15} rm m$




      sounds like you found a reference to the so-called "classical radius of the electron", possibly with some figures for the radii of atomic nuclei, but you did not fully understand what the former means.



      The 'classical radius of the electron' $r_mathrm{cl}$ is the radius at which a spherical lump of charge would have an electrostatic self-energy equal to the rest energy $E_mathrm{rest} = m_e c^2$ of the electron. But the key word there is "would": the electron isn't a spherical lump of charge: as far as we can tell, it is a point particle with no internal structure that we've been able to detect ─ with a current experimental precision of the order of $10^{-18}:rm m$.



      It is true, on the other hand, that when you're considering the electrostatic interactions between point particles at length scales shorter than about $10^{-10}:rm m$ (give or take, depending on what you're doing) you're going to need to change your framework from a classical viewpoint to one based on quantum mechanics, in which electrostatics remains mostly unchanged, but the whole mechanics itself (including the meanings of concepts like "trajectory", "distance" or "force") changes. Once you make that leap, the question of whether the electrostatic force can have infinite values becomes pretty much moot - but the singularity remains.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        what about Friedrich Bopp's theory of self energy of an electron as discussed in Feyman lectures Vol 2 ? Not applicable here.
        $endgroup$
        – gansub
        10 hours ago














      11












      11








      11





      $begingroup$

      This




      but the minimum value of $r$ must be $10^{-15} rm m$




      sounds like you found a reference to the so-called "classical radius of the electron", possibly with some figures for the radii of atomic nuclei, but you did not fully understand what the former means.



      The 'classical radius of the electron' $r_mathrm{cl}$ is the radius at which a spherical lump of charge would have an electrostatic self-energy equal to the rest energy $E_mathrm{rest} = m_e c^2$ of the electron. But the key word there is "would": the electron isn't a spherical lump of charge: as far as we can tell, it is a point particle with no internal structure that we've been able to detect ─ with a current experimental precision of the order of $10^{-18}:rm m$.



      It is true, on the other hand, that when you're considering the electrostatic interactions between point particles at length scales shorter than about $10^{-10}:rm m$ (give or take, depending on what you're doing) you're going to need to change your framework from a classical viewpoint to one based on quantum mechanics, in which electrostatics remains mostly unchanged, but the whole mechanics itself (including the meanings of concepts like "trajectory", "distance" or "force") changes. Once you make that leap, the question of whether the electrostatic force can have infinite values becomes pretty much moot - but the singularity remains.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$



      This




      but the minimum value of $r$ must be $10^{-15} rm m$




      sounds like you found a reference to the so-called "classical radius of the electron", possibly with some figures for the radii of atomic nuclei, but you did not fully understand what the former means.



      The 'classical radius of the electron' $r_mathrm{cl}$ is the radius at which a spherical lump of charge would have an electrostatic self-energy equal to the rest energy $E_mathrm{rest} = m_e c^2$ of the electron. But the key word there is "would": the electron isn't a spherical lump of charge: as far as we can tell, it is a point particle with no internal structure that we've been able to detect ─ with a current experimental precision of the order of $10^{-18}:rm m$.



      It is true, on the other hand, that when you're considering the electrostatic interactions between point particles at length scales shorter than about $10^{-10}:rm m$ (give or take, depending on what you're doing) you're going to need to change your framework from a classical viewpoint to one based on quantum mechanics, in which electrostatics remains mostly unchanged, but the whole mechanics itself (including the meanings of concepts like "trajectory", "distance" or "force") changes. Once you make that leap, the question of whether the electrostatic force can have infinite values becomes pretty much moot - but the singularity remains.







      share|cite|improve this answer












      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer










      answered yesterday









      Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty

      86.1k23213433




      86.1k23213433












      • $begingroup$
        what about Friedrich Bopp's theory of self energy of an electron as discussed in Feyman lectures Vol 2 ? Not applicable here.
        $endgroup$
        – gansub
        10 hours ago


















      • $begingroup$
        what about Friedrich Bopp's theory of self energy of an electron as discussed in Feyman lectures Vol 2 ? Not applicable here.
        $endgroup$
        – gansub
        10 hours ago
















      $begingroup$
      what about Friedrich Bopp's theory of self energy of an electron as discussed in Feyman lectures Vol 2 ? Not applicable here.
      $endgroup$
      – gansub
      10 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      what about Friedrich Bopp's theory of self energy of an electron as discussed in Feyman lectures Vol 2 ? Not applicable here.
      $endgroup$
      – gansub
      10 hours ago











      4












      $begingroup$

      The classical physics equation $F = frac{kqQ}{r^2}$ has to be interpreted using quantum mechanics for sufficiently small length scales. So, its probably not appropriate to say that the force becomes infinite. A typical rule of thumb for the smallest length scale for which this applies is the Compton wavelength $lambda = frac{h}{mc}$. Here $h$ is Plank's constant, $c$ the speed of light and $m$ the particle mass. For an electron, this comes out to $2.4times 10^{-12}$m, but for a proton, it would be smaller.






      share|cite|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Laurence Lurio is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      $endgroup$


















        4












        $begingroup$

        The classical physics equation $F = frac{kqQ}{r^2}$ has to be interpreted using quantum mechanics for sufficiently small length scales. So, its probably not appropriate to say that the force becomes infinite. A typical rule of thumb for the smallest length scale for which this applies is the Compton wavelength $lambda = frac{h}{mc}$. Here $h$ is Plank's constant, $c$ the speed of light and $m$ the particle mass. For an electron, this comes out to $2.4times 10^{-12}$m, but for a proton, it would be smaller.






        share|cite|improve this answer








        New contributor




        Laurence Lurio is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






        $endgroup$
















          4












          4








          4





          $begingroup$

          The classical physics equation $F = frac{kqQ}{r^2}$ has to be interpreted using quantum mechanics for sufficiently small length scales. So, its probably not appropriate to say that the force becomes infinite. A typical rule of thumb for the smallest length scale for which this applies is the Compton wavelength $lambda = frac{h}{mc}$. Here $h$ is Plank's constant, $c$ the speed of light and $m$ the particle mass. For an electron, this comes out to $2.4times 10^{-12}$m, but for a proton, it would be smaller.






          share|cite|improve this answer








          New contributor




          Laurence Lurio is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          $endgroup$



          The classical physics equation $F = frac{kqQ}{r^2}$ has to be interpreted using quantum mechanics for sufficiently small length scales. So, its probably not appropriate to say that the force becomes infinite. A typical rule of thumb for the smallest length scale for which this applies is the Compton wavelength $lambda = frac{h}{mc}$. Here $h$ is Plank's constant, $c$ the speed of light and $m$ the particle mass. For an electron, this comes out to $2.4times 10^{-12}$m, but for a proton, it would be smaller.







          share|cite|improve this answer








          New contributor




          Laurence Lurio is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer






          New contributor




          Laurence Lurio is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          answered yesterday









          Laurence LurioLaurence Lurio

          913




          913




          New contributor




          Laurence Lurio is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.





          New contributor





          Laurence Lurio is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          Laurence Lurio is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.























              2












              $begingroup$

              Physically, an infinite force is not possible. The fact that the simple electrostatic model (Coulomb's law)



              $F=frac{kqQ}{r^2}$



              suggests an infinite (or at least an unbounded) force between two point charges as they get closer and closer together tells us that this must be an approximate model which does not hold for very small $r$. Either point charges do not occur in nature, or the $r^{-2}$ model is replaced by something else for small enough $r$.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                2












                $begingroup$

                Physically, an infinite force is not possible. The fact that the simple electrostatic model (Coulomb's law)



                $F=frac{kqQ}{r^2}$



                suggests an infinite (or at least an unbounded) force between two point charges as they get closer and closer together tells us that this must be an approximate model which does not hold for very small $r$. Either point charges do not occur in nature, or the $r^{-2}$ model is replaced by something else for small enough $r$.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  2












                  2








                  2





                  $begingroup$

                  Physically, an infinite force is not possible. The fact that the simple electrostatic model (Coulomb's law)



                  $F=frac{kqQ}{r^2}$



                  suggests an infinite (or at least an unbounded) force between two point charges as they get closer and closer together tells us that this must be an approximate model which does not hold for very small $r$. Either point charges do not occur in nature, or the $r^{-2}$ model is replaced by something else for small enough $r$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  Physically, an infinite force is not possible. The fact that the simple electrostatic model (Coulomb's law)



                  $F=frac{kqQ}{r^2}$



                  suggests an infinite (or at least an unbounded) force between two point charges as they get closer and closer together tells us that this must be an approximate model which does not hold for very small $r$. Either point charges do not occur in nature, or the $r^{-2}$ model is replaced by something else for small enough $r$.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered yesterday









                  gandalf61gandalf61

                  46028




                  46028






















                      Aditya is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                      draft saved

                      draft discarded


















                      Aditya is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                      Aditya is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                      Aditya is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f468608%2fcan-the-electrostatic-force-be-infinite-in-magnitude%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

                      Bunad

                      Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum