Calculating Forces on an Electric Dipole: Direct vs. Indirect Methods

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the forces on an electric dipole in an external electric field, focusing on the potential energy expression and the application of the gradient operator to derive force equations. Participants are examining the differences between direct and indirect methods of calculating forces from potential energy.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the relationship between potential energy and force, questioning the validity of different expressions for force derived from potential energy. Some participants express confusion over the application of the gradient operator and the assumptions involved in the calculations.

Discussion Status

Several participants have provided detailed mathematical reasoning and attempted to clarify the discrepancies in the force equations. There is ongoing exploration of the implications of electrostatic conditions and the treatment of dipole moments in free space. While some guidance has been offered, there remains a lack of consensus on the preferred method for deriving the force.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of the problem due to the assumptions about the electric field and the dipole's behavior in free space. There is mention of the potential for additional terms if the problem were not electrostatic or involved bound charges, which complicates the analysis.

physiks
Messages
101
Reaction score
0
The PE of an electric dipole in an external E-field is
U=-p.E
where p is it's dipole moment.

I was under the impression I could find U, and then easily determine the force on the dipole using F=-∇U, to obtain
Fx=px∂Ex/∂x+py∂Ey/∂x+pz∂Ez/∂x
Fy=px∂Ex/∂y+py∂Ey/∂y+pz∂Ez/∂y
Fz=px∂Ex/∂z+py∂Ey/∂z+pz∂Ez/∂z

however my book annoyingly states that these should be

Fx=px∂Ex/∂x+py∂Ex/∂y+pz∂Ex/∂z
Fy=px∂Ey/∂x+py∂Ey/∂y+pz∂Ey/∂z
Fz=px∂Ez/∂x+py∂Ez/∂y+pz∂Ez/∂z

which they give a derivation for in a different way. However they do go on to prove later that FL=-∂U/∂L with L the direction in question. I'm now very confused. What is wrong with my approach?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
physiks said:
The PE of an electric dipole in an external E-field is
U=-p.E
where p is it's dipole moment.

I was under the impression I could find U, and then easily determine the force on the dipole using F=-∇U, to obtain
Fx=px∂Ex/∂x+py∂Ey/∂x+pz∂Ez/∂x
Fy=px∂Ex/∂y+py∂Ey/∂y+pz∂Ez/∂y
Fz=px∂Ex/∂z+py∂Ey/∂z+pz∂Ez/∂z

What is wrong with my approach?

If [itex]\vec{F}[/itex] = -[itex]\vec{∇}[/itex]U, and U = -[itex]\vec{p}[/itex][itex]\cdot\vec{E}[/itex], then [itex]\vec{F}[/itex] = [itex]\vec{∇}[/itex]([itex]\vec{p}[/itex][itex]\cdot\vec{E}[/itex]).

Now from vector calculus:
[itex]\vec{∇}[/itex]([itex]\vec{p}[/itex][itex]\cdot\vec{E}[/itex]) = ([itex]\vec{p}[/itex][itex]\cdot\vec{∇}[/itex])[itex]\vec{E}[/itex] + ([itex]\vec{E}[/itex][itex]\cdot\vec{∇}[/itex])[itex]\vec{p}[/itex] + [itex]\vec{p}[/itex]x([itex]\vec{∇}[/itex]x [itex]\vec{E}[/itex]) + [itex]\vec{E}[/itex]x([itex]\vec{∇}[/itex]x [itex]\vec{p}[/itex])

Now since the dipole is unbound to an [itex]\vec{E}[/itex] field in free space, we can say [itex]\vec{∇}[/itex]x [itex]\vec{p}[/itex] = 0.
Since this is an electrostatic problem, [itex]\vec{∇}[/itex]x [itex]\vec{E}[/itex] = 0 and we are left with [itex]\vec{∇}[/itex]([itex]\vec{p}[/itex][itex]\cdot\vec{E}[/itex]) = ([itex]\vec{p}[/itex][itex]\cdot\vec{∇}[/itex])[itex]\vec{E}[/itex] + ([itex]\vec{E}[/itex][itex]\cdot\vec{∇}[/itex])[itex]\vec{p}[/itex]
Now ([itex]\vec{E}[/itex][itex]\cdot\vec{∇}[/itex])[itex]\vec{p}[/itex] = (Ex[itex]\frac{∂}{∂x}[/itex] + Ey[itex]\frac{∂}{∂y}[/itex] + Ez[itex]\frac{∂}{∂z}[/itex])[itex]\vec{p}[/itex], which when taking the x-component of [itex]\vec{p}[/itex] is (Ex[itex]\frac{∂}{∂x}[/itex] + Ey[itex]\frac{∂}{∂y}[/itex] + Ez[itex]\frac{∂}{∂z}[/itex])px

Now because there is no bound charge, [itex]\frac{∂}{∂i}[/itex]px = [itex]\frac{∂}{∂i}[/itex]py = [itex]\frac{∂}{∂i}[/itex]pz = 0 where i = x, y, z.

All we have remaining now is [itex]\vec{∇}[/itex]([itex]\vec{p}[/itex][itex]\cdot\vec{E}[/itex]) = ([itex]\vec{p}[/itex][itex]\cdot\vec{∇}[/itex])[itex]\vec{E}[/itex] which is similar to the step we just did, and whose x-component is equal to: (px[itex]\frac{∂}{∂x}[/itex] + py[itex]\frac{∂}{∂y}[/itex] + pz[itex]\frac{∂}{∂z}[/itex])Ex and more generally:

j = x1, y1, z1

Fj = ([itex]\sum[/itex]i pi[itex]\frac{∂}{∂i}[/itex])Ej where i indexes across x,y,z

You're approach assumes the electric field lines in every (x, y, z) contribute to the forces in only the (x1, y1, z1) directions. The second way (correct way) takes the electric field lines corresponding to the direction of force and analyzes how they change through space along that basis.
 
Last edited:
jaytech said:
If [itex]\vec{F}[/itex] = -[itex]\vec{∇}[/itex]U, and U = -[itex]\vec{p}[/itex][itex]\cdot\vec{E}[/itex], then [itex]\vec{F}[/itex] = [itex]\vec{∇}[/itex]([itex]\vec{p}[/itex][itex]\cdot\vec{E}[/itex]).

Now from vector calculus:
[itex]\vec{∇}[/itex]([itex]\vec{p}[/itex][itex]\cdot\vec{E}[/itex]) = ([itex]\vec{p}[/itex][itex]\cdot\vec{∇}[/itex])[itex]\vec{E}[/itex] + ([itex]\vec{E}[/itex][itex]\cdot\vec{∇}[/itex])[itex]\vec{p}[/itex] + [itex]\vec{p}[/itex]x([itex]\vec{∇}[/itex]x [itex]\vec{E}[/itex]) + [itex]\vec{E}[/itex]x([itex]\vec{∇}[/itex]x [itex]\vec{p}[/itex])

Now since the dipole is unbound to an [itex]\vec{E}[/itex] field in free space, we can say [itex]\vec{∇}[/itex]x [itex]\vec{p}[/itex] = 0.
Since this is an electrostatic problem, [itex]\vec{∇}[/itex]x [itex]\vec{E}[/itex] = 0 and we are left with [itex]\vec{∇}[/itex]([itex]\vec{p}[/itex][itex]\cdot\vec{E}[/itex]) = ([itex]\vec{p}[/itex][itex]\cdot\vec{∇}[/itex])[itex]\vec{E}[/itex] + ([itex]\vec{E}[/itex][itex]\cdot\vec{∇}[/itex])[itex]\vec{p}[/itex]
Now ([itex]\vec{E}[/itex][itex]\cdot\vec{∇}[/itex])[itex]\vec{p}[/itex] = (Ex[itex]\frac{∂}{∂x}[/itex] + Ey[itex]\frac{∂}{∂y}[/itex] + Ez[itex]\frac{∂}{∂z}[/itex])[itex]\vec{p}[/itex], which when taking the x-component of [itex]\vec{p}[/itex] is (Ex[itex]\frac{∂}{∂x}[/itex] + Ey[itex]\frac{∂}{∂y}[/itex] + Ez[itex]\frac{∂}{∂z}[/itex])px

Now because there is no bound charge, [itex]\frac{∂}{∂i}[/itex]px = [itex]\frac{∂}{∂i}[/itex]py = [itex]\frac{∂}{∂i}[/itex]pz = 0 where i = x, y, z.

All we have remaining now is [itex]\vec{∇}[/itex]([itex]\vec{p}[/itex][itex]\cdot\vec{E}[/itex]) = ([itex]\vec{p}[/itex][itex]\cdot\vec{∇}[/itex])[itex]\vec{E}[/itex] which is similar to the step we just did, and whose x-component is equal to: (px[itex]\frac{∂}{∂x}[/itex] + py[itex]\frac{∂}{∂y}[/itex] + pz[itex]\frac{∂}{∂z}[/itex])Ex and more generally:

j = x1, y1, z1

Fj = ([itex]\sum[/itex]i pi[itex]\frac{∂}{∂i}[/itex])Ej where i indexes across x,y,z

You're approach assumes the electric field lines in every (x, y, z) contribute to the forces in only the (x1, y1, z1) directions. The second way (correct way) takes the electric field lines corresponding to the direction of force and analyzes how they change through space along that basis.

So the vector calculus fits in with the book, but how would I show it by explicitly writing out the components of p.E and then taking a derivative, as I would be more likely to want to use such a method in a specific problem. I can't see why there shouldn't be a way of showing it this way - maybe I'm being silly. The book itself seems to say it should work as FL=-∂U/∂L...

U=-p.E=-pxEx-pyEy-pzEz

FL=-∂U/∂L=... as before
 
Last edited:
Anybody have any answer to my above post?
 
physiks said:
Anybody have any answer to my above post?

The answer is in my previous post...the math is done component wise once the simplifications have been made.
 
jaytech said:
The answer is in my previous post...the math is done component wise once the simplifications have been made.

But why can't it be done component wise before making the simplifications?
 
If the problem was not electrostatic and void of bound charges, then the equation would not simplify. You'd have a TON of terms.
 
jaytech said:
If the problem was not electrostatic and void of bound charges, then the equation would not simplify. You'd have a TON of terms.

What I think I was trying to say is:
If I have already calculated the potential energy function U(x,y,z) or U(r,θ,ψ), then is applying F=-∇U acceptable? The answer to this is obviously yes.

Therefore If I was given a dipole moment p and and a field E, I could calculate the force by:
- Using the relation F=(p.∇)E directly or
- Calculating U first from U=-p.E and then using F=-∇U
and the second method would be the more logical method I believe.

I think this is what bemused me about the whole situation, as I have been used to deriving forces from known potential functions. The case in my original post however was very generalised.

Thanks for your help :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
11K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
8K