Griffiths Page 150: Define "Pure" & "Physical" Dipoles

  • Thread starter Thread starter ehrenfest
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Griffiths
ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1
[SOLVED] Griffiths page 150

Homework Statement


Please stop reading unless you have Griffith's E and M book.

On this page, Griffith's start talking about "pure" and "physical" dipoles. Can someone define what these terms mean?


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
Isn't it explained pretty clearly in the same page?

A physical dipole (one with a finite separation between charges)

Where exactly are you having difficulty?
 
Last edited:
A physical dipole comprises a pair of equal but opposite charges q separated by a vector 2a\hat r. The dipole moment is 2aq\hat r. By decreasing the separation distance but increasing the charge you can keep the dipole moment constant. A pure dipole has a zero separation distance but a non-zero dipole moment. Such a thing is not physically realizable.
 
  • Like
Likes NicolasPan
ehrenfest said:

Homework Statement


Please stop reading unless you have Griffith's E and M book.

On this page, Griffith's start talking about "pure" and "physical" dipoles. Can someone define what these terms mean?
What G means in Ex. 3.8 is that the point charges example is one physical configuration that has a dominant dipole moment. He seems to define a "pure" dipole as a configuration that has ONLY a dipole moment, and no higher moments. As he says, that point charges model is only a "pure" dipole in the limit -->0. The sphere with with cos charge distribution is a pure dipole because its potential for r>R is pure dipole.
None of this is too clear in G because he does not discuss higher dipole moments in good detail. Some things are clearer in more advanced texts.
 
DH and pam explained nce...

You may try to get a copy of Corson and Lorrain for more rigorous treatment of higher terms.
 
To solve this, I first used the units to work out that a= m* a/m, i.e. t=z/λ. This would allow you to determine the time duration within an interval section by section and then add this to the previous ones to obtain the age of the respective layer. However, this would require a constant thickness per year for each interval. However, since this is most likely not the case, my next consideration was that the age must be the integral of a 1/λ(z) function, which I cannot model.
Back
Top