Electric Dipole Potential Energy Calculation

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the potential energy of a configuration involving two electric dipoles, each consisting of two charges of equal magnitude and opposite sign. The dipoles are separated by a distance, and the problem requires expressing the potential energy in terms of various parameters, including the dipole moment and fundamental constants.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the calculation of potential energy using the formula for point charges and discuss the implications of double counting in their calculations. There is an attempt to approximate the potential energy when the distance between dipoles is much greater than the separation of charges within each dipole.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided guidance on avoiding double counting and suggested using series expansion for small distances. There is an ongoing exploration of how to correctly approach the approximation when the distance between dipoles is significantly larger than the separation of charges.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the complexities of the problem, including potential misunderstandings regarding the application of formulas and the significance of terms related to the construction of dipoles. There is a noted concern about the accuracy of approximations made in the calculations.

arpon
Messages
234
Reaction score
16

Homework Statement


An electric dipole consists of two charges of equal magnitude ##q## and opposite sign, which are kept at a distance ##d## apart. The dipole moment is ##p= qd## .
Let us next place two such dipoles, placed at distance ##r## apart, as shown in the accompanying figure.
upload_2015-1-26_15-13-44.png

a) Assuming that the potential energy for the charges while at infinity is zero, find the exact potential energy of the configuration in terms of ##d, r, q ## and fundamental constants.

b)When ##d<<r## , approximate your previous result in terms of ##p, r ## and fundamental constants.

Homework Equations


##V = \frac {1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \frac{q}{r}##
##W = Vq##

The Attempt at a Solution


For the positve charge of A dipole, I calculated the potential energy
##= +q \cdot \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon _0} (\frac{-q}{r} + \frac {+q}{\sqrt{r^2 +d^2}} + \frac{-q}{d}) ##, because, ##W = Vq##
The potental energy for the other three charges are the same.
So, the potential energy of the configuration is
## = 4q \cdot \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon _0} (\frac{-q}{r} + \frac {+q}{\sqrt{r^2 +d^2}} + \frac{-q}{d})##
##= \frac{q^2}{\pi \epsilon _0} (- \frac{1}{r} + \frac {1}{\sqrt{r^2 +d^2}} - \frac{1}{d})##;

Then , I can't find any way how to approximate the result when ##d << r##;
In this case, I substituted ##r^2## for ##r^2 + d^2## ;
So, two of the terms in bracket are cancelled.
Then I plugged in ## q = \frac{p}{d}## ;
But, still ##d## is there.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
arpon said:
For the positve charge of A dipole, I calculated the potential energy
##= +q \cdot \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon _0} (\frac{-q}{r} + \frac {+q}{\sqrt{r^2 +d^2}} + \frac{-q}{d}) ##, because, ##W = Vq##
The potental energy for the other three charges are the same.

This is not correct. The potential energy (q1q2/4πεr) is for a pair of charges separated by a given distance. The way you are implementing it, you are double counting each pair and end up with double the potential energy.

arpon said:
So, the potential energy of the configuration is
## = 4q \cdot \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon _0} (\frac{-q}{r} + \frac {+q}{\sqrt{r^2 +d^2}} + \frac{-q}{d})##
##= \frac{q^2}{\pi \epsilon _0} (- \frac{1}{r} + \frac {1}{\sqrt{r^2 +d^2}} - \frac{1}{d})##;

Then , I can't find any way how to approximate the result when ##d << r##;
In this case, I substituted ##r^2## for ##r^2 + d^2## ;
So, two of the terms in bracket are cancelled.
Then I plugged in ## q = \frac{p}{d}## ;
But, still ##d## is there.

The term proportional to 1/d in your parenthesis is the energy from the construction of the dipoles themselves. This is generally going to be much higher than the potential between the dipoles. Just substituting ##r^2## for ##r^2 + d^2## is going to make the potential between the dipoles disappear (as you noticed, the terms cancelled) and you will end up with an uninteresting result. Instead, you should make an expansion of the square root for small ##d##.
 
Orodruin said:
This is not correct. The potential energy (q1q2/4πεr) is for a pair of charges separated by a given distance. The way you are implementing it, you are double counting each pair and end up with double the potential energy.
I agree with you. So, the potential energy will be half of my calculation.
Orodruin said:
The term proportional to 1/d in your parenthesis is the energy from the construction of the dipoles themselves. This is generally going to be much higher than the potential between the dipoles. Just substituting r2r^2 for r2+d2r^2 + d^2 is going to make the potential between the dipoles disappear (as you noticed, the terms cancelled) and you will end up with an uninteresting result. Instead, you should make an expansion of the square root for small dd.
So, I need to leave the term ##\frac {1}{d}## ?
Then it becomes,
##\frac{1}{2} \cdot \frac{q^2}{\pi \epsilon _0}(- \frac{1}{r} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{d^2 + r^2}})##
##= \frac{q^2}{2 \pi \epsilon _0}(- \frac{1}{r} + \frac{1}{r} \cdot [1 + (\frac{d}{r})^2]^{- \frac{1}{2}})##
##= \frac{q^2}{2 \pi \epsilon _0} \frac{1}{r} (-1+ [1 - \frac{1}{2}(\frac{d}{r})^2] )##
##= \frac{q^2}{2 \pi \epsilon _0} \frac{1}{r} (- \frac{1}{2}(\frac{d}{r})^2))##
##= - \frac{p^2}{4 \pi \epsilon _0 r^3} ##
 
Last edited:
You have series expanded for r << d instead of r >> d. This
arpon said:
##= \frac{q^2}{2 \pi \epsilon _0}(- \frac{1}{r} + \frac{1}{r} \cdot [1 + (\frac{r}{d})^2]^{- \frac{1}{2}})##
should be
$$
\frac{q^2}{2 \pi \epsilon _0 r}\left(- 1 + \frac{1}{ \sqrt{1 + (\frac{d}{r})^2}}\right)
$$
 
Orodruin said:
You have series expanded for r << d instead of r >> d. This
It was a typo. Actually, typing in Latex is bothersome. Do you know about any easy-to-use tools for Latex typing?
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
1K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
64
Views
6K