Dipole term in multipole expansion

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion regarding the dipole term in a multipole expansion as presented by Griffiths. The integral for the dipole potential includes a cosine term, which is clarified through the definition of the dipole moment vector. The cosine arises naturally from the dot product between the position vector and the unit vector in the direction of observation. A key point is that the angle defined as theta is between the vectors, not the polar angle, which may lead to misunderstanding. The original expression retains the cosine factor, confirming the consistency of the mathematical formulation.
assed
Messages
26
Reaction score
1
Hi.
I'm having some difficult in understanding something about the dipole term in a multipole expansion. Griffiths writes the expansion as a sum of terms in Legendre polynomials, so the dipole term in the potential is writen

\frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon r^{2}}\int r^{'}cos\theta^{'}\rho dv^{'}

Then, by defining

\vec{p}=\int \vec{r}^{'}\rho dv^{'}

he writes

V=\frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon}\frac{\vec{p}\cdot\hat{r}}{r^{2}}

I understood how that's done. My problem is: using the dipole moment vector and doing the scalar product it will usually appear the cossine of an angle in the potential, but it will never appear using the first definition , that is, calculating directly the integral. Maybe I understood something wrong but I can't figure out what. Hope someone helps me. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure I understood the question. The cosine is already there in the original definition: it's why the dot product is used below.

##\vec{p}\cdot\hat{r} = \int \vec{r}^{'}\rho dv^{'} \cdot \hat{r} = \int \vec{r}^{'}\cdot \hat{r} \rho dv^{'}##

Griffiths has defined ##\theta'## as the angle between ##\vec{r}## and ##\vec{r}'##, so ##\vec{r}^{'}\cdot \hat{r} = |\vec{r}^{'}|\hat{r}|\cos(\theta') = r'\cos(\theta')##, giving back the original expression. Are you misinterpreting ##\theta'## as the polar angle? Look again at the diagram (Fig. 3.28 in my edition).
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top