Finding Magnetic Fields on the x-axis for Two Dipoles on the z-axis

  • Thread starter Thread starter mateomy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dipoles Magnetic
mateomy
Messages
305
Reaction score
0
I'm given two magnetic dipoles on the z-axis with a separation of a distance L. I need to find the fields produced by the individual dipoles at a point on the x-axis in terms of x.

This problem is driving me nuts. I've drawn a diagram with the radial vector going from the z-point to the x-axis at a given point, P. The angle between the radial vector and the z-axis has been labelled as \theta. What I've done so far is calculate the vector potential (\overrightarrow{A}) and I think I'm confusing myself because I've produced two expressions; one for \hat{y} and another for \hat{z}, but absolutely nothing for the x-component. My expression so far is:

For \hat{y}:
<br /> \frac{x}{r^3}<br />

For \hat{z}:
<br /> \frac{1}{r^3}<br />

*I've left out some constants

I'm not sure I've done that correctly, regardless I went to take the curl of these vector potential expressions \nabla\times\overrightarrow{A}, which only gave me expressions in the y and z directions. That doesn't seem right to me, but I wanted to take it to Physics Forums to get some advice. I'll show more detail if its found necessary, I'm mostly curious to see if the expressions for the vector potential make sense.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I would not use the vector potential here. Just take the formula of a magnetic dipole, shift it by -L/2 and do the same for just another one at +L/2 to find the field by superposition.
Really, there is no difference to electric dipoles from the perspective of the fields.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top