Would one consider the following to be a monopole, or a dipole?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gravitas
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dipole Monopole
AI Thread Summary
A sphere with one polarity on its surface and another at its center is classified as a monopole due to its spherical symmetry. The distinction between monopoles and dipoles is based on the spherical harmonic expansions of the scalar potential surrounding the object. In this case, the spherically symmetric charge density leads to a monopole field, as it only contains the lowest order spherical harmonic. If the charge is electric, the object is referred to as an electric monopole. Understanding these criteria clarifies the classification of different pole arrangements.
Gravitas
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I hope that I have chosen the correct thread and that this belongs here.
I understand the concept of a dipole, where you have opposite polarities at each end of a lineal object, i.e. a magnet. My question concerns the case of a sphere, where the outer surface is one polarity and the center is another, rather than a sphere that is merely 'half and half'. Considering that one pole is completely surrounded (enclosed) by the other pole, does this still count as a dipole, or does it now qualify as a monopole. Also, what are the criteria that would allow one to distinguish between different types (arrangements) of poles, to qualify as mono- vs di-? Thanks in advance for your help in enlightening me on this point. Gravitas
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Gravitas said:
I hope that I have chosen the correct thread and that this belongs here.
I understand the concept of a dipole, where you have opposite polarities at each end of a lineal object, i.e. a magnet. My question concerns the case of a sphere, where the outer surface is one polarity and the center is another, rather than a sphere that is merely 'half and half'. Considering that one pole is completely surrounded (enclosed) by the other pole, does this still count as a dipole, or does it now qualify as a monopole. Also, what are the criteria that would allow one to distinguish between different types (arrangements) of poles, to qualify as mono- vs di-? Thanks in advance for your help in enlightening me on this point. Gravitas

Since it is completely spherically symmetric, it is a monopole.

The definition has to do with so-called spherical harmonic expansions of e.g. the angular dependency of the scalar potential that surrounds the object, due to the charges it contains. Since your object contains charge densities of some kind, it is surrounded by such a field. Since the charge density is spherically symmetric, the spherical harmonic expansion of the angular dependent part of this field will contain only the lowest order spherical harmonic. Therefore, this is called a monopole field. If the charge is electric, your object is called an electric monopole.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
94
Views
11K
Replies
25
Views
6K
Replies
24
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Back
Top