B Electric field on the equatorial line of a dipole

  • Thread starter Thread starter DrBanana
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Vector calculus
Click For Summary
The electric field on the line bisecting two equal and opposite charges is non-zero, while the potential along that line is zero. The relationship between electric field and potential is given by E = -dV/dr, but this only considers the radial component. A more comprehensive approach using vector calculus reveals that the electric field is a three-dimensional vector, requiring consideration of all components. The dipole potential in spherical coordinates is correctly expressed with V = (1/4πε₀)(p cos θ/r²), highlighting the importance of the correct power of r. In the equatorial plane, while the potential is zero, the derivative with respect to z remains non-zero, indicating a non-zero electric field.
DrBanana
Messages
54
Reaction score
4
##\vec{E}## on the line that perpendicularly bisects the segment that joins two equal and opposite charges is non-zero, as it should be. But the potential of any point along that line is zero. But we know know that ##E=-\frac{dV}{dr} ##, where V is approximately ##\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon} \frac{pcos\theta}{r}## (if the charges are close together) where p is the magnitude of the dipole moment . If I differentiate that with respect to r and set ##\theta=\frac{\pi}{2}##, I still get E=0. What gives?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
DrBanana said:
What gives?
Nothing gives. The electric field is a three dimensional vector. You only calculated its radial component in the equatorial plane.
 
  • Like
Likes renormalize
DrBanana said:
##E=-\frac{dV}{dr} ##
That's wrong. It should be:$$\overrightarrow{E}=-\overrightarrow{\nabla}V=-\hat{r}\frac{\partial V}{\partial r}-\hat{\theta}\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial V}{\partial\theta}-\hat{\phi}\frac{1}{r\sin\theta}\frac{\partial V}{\partial\phi}$$
 
renormalize said:
That's wrong. It should be:$$\overrightarrow{E}=-\overrightarrow{\nabla}V=-\hat{r}\frac{\partial V}{\partial r}-\hat{\theta}\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial V}{\partial\theta}-\hat{\phi}\frac{1}{r\sin\theta}\frac{\partial V}{\partial\phi}$$
Ok I think I understand what happened. My physics book doesn't touch on vector calculus and only mentions ##E=-\frac{dV}{dr}##, however most of the forces in the book only have radial components anyway so it didn't matter. But that broke down here.
 
The dipole potential in spherical coordinates is $$V=\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0}\frac{p~\cos\!\theta}{r^2}.$$Note the correct power of ##r## in the denominator. Also note that with ##z=r\cos\!\theta##, you have $$V=\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0}\frac{p~z}{r^3}.$$This last expression can be considered to be the dipole potential in cylindrical coordinates. In the equatorial plane (##z=0##) the potential vanishes but not its derivative with respect to ##z## which you can easily calculate.
 
Thread 'Why higher speeds need more power if backward force is the same?'
Power = Force v Speed Power of my horse = 104kgx9.81m/s^2 x 0.732m/s = 1HP =746W Force/tension in rope stay the same if horse run at 0.73m/s or at 15m/s, so why then horse need to be more powerfull to pull at higher speed even if backward force at him(rope tension) stay the same? I understand that if I increase weight, it is hrader for horse to pull at higher speed because now is backward force increased, but don't understand why is harder to pull at higher speed if weight(backward force)...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
542
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
334
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
362
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K