Force on a dipole moving through a magnetic field

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the derivation of the force on a dipole moving through a magnetic field, expressed as the equation F = v × (p·∇)B + ṗ × B. Participants explore the implications of the dipole's moment being fixed while addressing the complexities of the magnetic field's behavior. There is debate over the validity of certain substitutions made during the derivation, particularly concerning the relationship between the dipole's moment and its velocity. The conversation highlights the need for clarity on how the dipole's rotation affects the force experienced in the magnetic field. Ultimately, the participants aim to refine their understanding of the physics involved in this scenario.
pondzo
Messages
168
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A dipole of moment ##\vec{p}## where p is fixed, moves with velocity ##\vec{v}## though a magnetic field ##\vec{B}##. Show that the force on the dipole is ##\vec{v}\times(\vec{p}\cdot\vec{\nabla})\vec{B}+\dot{\vec{p}}\times\vec{B}##.

Homework Equations



##\vec{F}=e(\vec{E}+\vec{v}\times\vec{B})##

The Attempt at a Solution


This is how I am picturing the situation:
Dipole.png


##\vec{F}=\sum_i\vec{F_i}##
##~~~=e\vec{v}\times\vec{B_1}-e\vec{v}\times\vec{B_2}##
##~~~=e\vec{v}\times\vec{B}(\vec{a}+\frac{1}{2}\vec{d})-e\vec{v}\times\vec{B}(\vec{a}-\frac{1}{2}\vec{d})##, Now I taylor expand ##\vec{B}## and disregard high order terms:
##~~~\approx e\vec{v}\times[\vec{B}(\vec{a})+\frac{1}{2}\vec{d}\cdot\vec{\nabla}\vec{B}|_{\vec{a}}]-e\vec{v}\times[\vec{B}(\vec{a})-\frac{1}{2}\vec{d}\cdot\vec{\nabla}\vec{B}|_{\vec{a}}]##
##~~~=e\vec{v}\times\vec{B}(\vec{a})+\frac{1}{2}e\vec{v}\times(\vec{d}\cdot\vec{\nabla}\vec{B}|_{\vec{a}})-e\vec{v}\times\vec{B}(\vec{a})+\frac{1}{2}e\vec{v}\times(\vec{d}\cdot\vec{\nabla}\vec{B}|_{\vec{a}})##
##~~~=e\vec{v}\times(\vec{d}\cdot\vec{\nabla}\vec{B}|_{\vec{a}})##
##~~~=\vec{v}\times(\vec{p}\cdot\vec{\nabla}\vec{B}|_{\vec{a}})##
Using the identity ##\vec{\nabla}\times(\phi\vec{B})=(\vec{\nabla}\phi)\times\vec{B}+\phi\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{B}## and replacing ##\vec{\nabla}## with ##\vec{v}##, also replacing ##\phi## with ##(\vec{p}\cdot\vec{\nabla})## we get:

##~~~=\vec{v}(\vec{p}\cdot\vec{\nabla})\times\vec{B}+(\vec{p}\cdot\vec{\nabla})\vec{v}\times\vec{B}##
##~~~=\vec{v}\times (\vec{p}\cdot\vec{\nabla})\vec{B}+(\vec{p}\cdot\vec{\nabla})\vec{v}\times\vec{B}##

I think the above derivation is correct so far, so all that remains is to show that ##(\vec{p}\cdot\vec{\nabla})\vec{v}\equiv \dot{\vec{p}}## But I am stuck with this, any help will be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
pondzo said:
replacing ##\vec{\nabla}## with ##\vec{v}##, also replacing ##phi## with ##(\vec{p}\cdot\vec{\nabla})## we get:
The first of those does not look like a valid substitution to me, and I'm not sure about the second. The formula depends on the differential nature of ##\nabla##.
I would certainly not expect to see a ##\dot v## term arise, and it would not be related to ##\dot p##. You are given that the dipole is constant in magnitude. What does variation in the vector over time therefore represent physically?
 
Thanks for the reply haruspex.

haruspex said:
The first of those does not look like a valid substitution to me, and I'm not sure about the second. The formula depends on the differential nature of ##\nabla##.

Yes I was quite iffy about making this substitution, do you know of any identity I can apply in order to expand this expression?

haruspex said:
I would certainly not expect to see a ##\dot v## term arise, and it would not be related to ##\dot p##. You are given that the dipole is constant in magnitude. What does variation in the vector over time therefore represent physically?

I think it is supposed to represent any rotation the dipole might be experiencing in the field. Although I'm not sure what bearing p being fixed has on the outcome of this question.

So my last two lines of working are incorrect which is due to the dodgy substitution I made?
 
pondzo said:
Thanks for the reply haruspex.
Yes I was quite iffy about making this substitution, do you know of any identity I can apply in order to expand this expression?
I think it is supposed to represent any rotation the dipole might be experiencing in the field. Although I'm not sure what bearing p being fixed has on the outcome of this question.

So my last two lines of working are incorrect which is due to the dodgy substitution I made?
Yes, I agree with all of that. Not sure of the correct path though... will try to spend some more time on it later.
 
Thank you, I will post if I get any farther.
 
pondzo said:
Thank you, I will post if I get any farther.
Ok.
I tried thinking of the dipole as two charges, so a rotation of the dipole looks like two parallel currents in the same direction. When the dipole is aligned with the magnetic field, I can see that this produces a net force; but when the dipole, the field, and the rotation vector of the dipole are mutually orthogonal the two currents are aligned with the field, so I don't see why there is a force.
 
pondzo said:
##\vec{F}=\sum_i\vec{F_i}##
##~~~=e\vec{v}\times\vec{B_1}-e\vec{v}\times\vec{B_2}##
I think you should let each charge have its own velocity: ## \vec{v_1}## and ##\vec{v_2}##.
##~~~=e\vec{v}\times\vec{B}(\vec{a}+\frac{1}{2}\vec{d})-e\vec{v}\times\vec{B}(\vec{a}-\frac{1}{2}\vec{d})##, Now I taylor expand ##\vec{B}## and disregard high order terms:
##~~~\approx e\vec{v}\times[\vec{B}(\vec{a})+\frac{1}{2}\vec{d}\cdot\vec{\nabla}\vec{B}|_{\vec{a}}]-e\vec{v}\times[\vec{B}(\vec{a})-\frac{1}{2}\vec{d}\cdot\vec{\nabla}\vec{B}|_{\vec{a}}]##

Shouldn't ##\vec{B}(\vec{a}+\frac{1}{2}\vec{d}) = \vec{B}(\vec{a}) + \frac{1}{2} ( \vec{d}\cdot\vec{\nabla} ) \vec{B}|_{\vec{a}}##? (with parentheses)
 
haruspex said:
Ok.
I tried thinking of the dipole as two charges, so a rotation of the dipole looks like two parallel currents in the same direction. When the dipole is aligned with the magnetic field, I can see that this produces a net force; but when the dipole, the field, and the rotation vector of the dipole are mutually orthogonal the two currents are aligned with the field, so I don't see why there is a force.
But won't the current be in the direction in which the charges are moving,##\vec{v}## ? which would be perpendicular to the magnetic field, so it would feel a force?
TSny said:
I think you should let each charge have its own velocity: →v1v1→ \vec{v_1} and →v2v2→\vec{v_2}.
Ok and then would it be the case that ##\vec{v_1}=-\vec{v_2}## ?
TSny said:
Shouldn't ⃗B(⃗a+12⃗d)=⃗B(⃗a)+12(⃗d⋅⃗∇)⃗B|⃗aB→(a→+12d→)=B→(a→)+12(d→⋅∇→)B→|a→\vec{B}(\vec{a}+\frac{1}{2}\vec{d}) = \vec{B}(\vec{a}) + \frac{1}{2} ( \vec{d}\cdot\vec{\nabla} ) \vec{B}|_{\vec{a}}? (with parentheses)
Yeah that should be the case, but does this change my answer (prior to the last two lines)?
 
pondzo said:
But won't the current be in the direction in which the charges are moving,##\vec{v}## ? which would be perpendicular to the magnetic field, so it would feel a force?
Say the field is along the z axis, the dipole is along the x axis, and the rotation of the dipole along the y axis. Ignoring the linear movement of the dipole, the charges are moving parallel to the z axis, i.e. the currents are parallel to the field.
Anyway, since TSny has joined the thread you are in much more capable hands, so I shall bow out.
 
  • #10
pondzo said:
Ok and then would it be the case that ##\vec{v_1}=-\vec{v_2}## ?
No. Their sum is related to ##\dot{\vec{a}}##.

Yeah that should be the case, but does this change my answer (prior to the last two lines)?
I don't think you need to invoke the vector identity that you used in the first post. Yes, you should get your final result plus a term that comes from the particles having different velocities.
 
  • #11
haruspex said:
Anyway, since TSny has joined the thread you are in much more capable hands, so I shall bow out.
Please don't. Excuse my jumping in. :redface:
I just happened to find that the result follows once you assign different velocities to the two particles.
 
  • #12
I'm probably doing something wrong since I get the stated result without assuming that ##|\vec{p}|## is fixed. I'll need to check over my work.
 
  • #13
Ok I think I have got it. Please excuse my laziness but I would prefer not typesetting it and just posting a picture.

12790008_798083910296570_1485818228_o.jpg
12810320_798083953629899_1832171667_o.jpg
 
  • #14
That looks good. Note that the condition "p is fixed" is not used.
 
Back
Top