Calculating potential energy of electric dipole in uniform field

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The potential energy of an electric dipole in a uniform electric field is expressed by the formula U = -pEcosθ, where E is the field's magnitude, p is the dipole moment (calculated as d*Q), d is the distance between charges, Q is the charge magnitude, and θ is the angle between the field and the dipole axis. An alternative derivation approach involves calculating the work done on the dipole as it moves from an angled position to equilibrium, leading to a potential energy change of ΔU = Ep(1 - cosθ). The discrepancy of a linear offset in potential energy arises from differing definitions of zero potential energy in the two methods. Both derivations are valid, confirming the relationship between the two approaches.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electric dipole moment and its calculation (d*Q)
  • Familiarity with electric fields and their properties
  • Knowledge of work-energy principles in physics
  • Ability to perform integration in the context of torque and potential energy
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of electric dipole potential energy using integration techniques
  • Explore the concept of work done by electric fields on charged particles
  • Investigate the implications of defining zero potential energy in different contexts
  • Learn about torque and its relationship to electric dipoles in uniform fields
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those focusing on electromagnetism, electric field interactions, and potential energy calculations in dipole systems.

moderate
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
This page contains one derivation for the potential energy:

http://www.shef.ac.uk/physics/teaching/phy205/lecture_4.htm"

Result: U=-pEcos\theta

where
E = magnetic field's magnitude
P = dipole moment = d*Q
d= distance between + and - charge
Q= charges' magnitude
\theta = angle between the field and the straight line connecting the + and - charges

But, shouldn't it also be possible to derive the dipole's potential energy in another way?

The definition of electric potential energy is:

\DeltaU1->2=-W1->2
where W=work done by electric field.

So, can't one take the 2 charges as separate (connected by a massless, chargeless rod), and then calculate the work done on them by the field while moving from the angled position to equilibrium?

This should then be equal to the initial potential energy (in the angled position).

Attached is an illustration.

Calculating for the positive charge gives:

Forceelectric*distance=E*q*\Deltax
Forceelectric*distance=E*q*(d/2 - d/2*cos(\theta)
\DeltaUq+=-E(d/2)(1-cos\theta)

Adding the changes for both charges gives:

\DeltaU0->theta=Ep(1-cos(\theta)).

This gives me the same relationship, except that (which is frustrating me somewhat) there is a linear offset of (1)Ep.

My question is: the approach is valid, correct? I am not going crazy?

If that is the case, then it is just a matter of adding a linear shift to come to the same zero potential, correct?

-frustrated at physics
 

Attachments

  • forum_01_dipole.PNG
    forum_01_dipole.PNG
    2 KB · Views: 762
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
*bump*

I derived it by integrating the torque between theta=o and theta and got the same result...

Any ideas anyone?
 
moderate said:
So, can't one take the 2 charges as separate (connected by a massless, chargeless rod), and then calculate the work done on them by the field while moving from the angled position to equilibrium?

The offset is due to the fact that you are integrating to equilibrium, which is defining U = 0 to be when p is antiparallel with the field. On the other hand, the link defines U = 0 to be where p is parallel to an equipotential and thus perpendicular to the field.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
482
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K