Geometric Understanding of Octopole Moment Beyond Quadropole

  • Thread starter Thread starter shdrums9
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Geometric Moment
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the geometric understanding of octopole moments compared to monopole, dipole, and quadrupole moments. While the first three moments can be visualized clearly with symmetrical arrangements, the octopole moment presents challenges in identifying additional points of zero potential beyond the center. The question raised is whether the geometric significance attributed to lower-order moments applies similarly to octopole and higher-order moments, especially given the limitations of three-dimensional space. The conversation suggests that the arrangement of charges plays a crucial role in understanding these higher-order moments. Overall, the geometric interpretation of octopole moments differs fundamentally from the lower-order moments due to the lack of symmetry in three dimensions.
shdrums9
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Generalizing past the quadropole moment-- geometric understanding of the octopole+

I'm having a bit of trouble articulating my question, but I hope the explanations will help you to understand the source of my confusion:

The mono, di, and quadropole moments are all geometrically understandable.

When looking at a dipole moment (say, of two opposite charges) we usually calculate by placing our origin half way between the two charges. If we place the charges along the y-axis (one charge is some distance above the origin, the other is an equal distance from the origin below the origin), we can draw a line of zero potential along the x axis, since at any point on the x axis, the charges are equidistant.

Similarly, I can see the symmetry in a quadropole moment by placing 4 charges in a square array in the x-y plane and then measuring along the z axis from an origin at the center of the square.

However, we run out of dimensions when looking for a line of zero potential with the octopole moment. Although the point at the middle of an octopole moment has a zero potential, there is no other point with the same sort of symmetry.

So I guess my question is, am I prescribing too much 'geometric significance' to the mono, di, and quadropole moments, or do octopole terms (and those of higher order) fundamentally differ from the first three since we are bound by three dimensions?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
It depends on the arrangement I'd say. E.g. the picture here seems to be generalizable to higher dimensions:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Plots-showing-the-real-part-of-the-monopole-dipole-and-quadrupole-terms-n-0-1-2_fig2_322696643
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/a-Magnetic-field-profile-of-SEM-C-generated-from-an-octopole-arrangement-of-coils-with-a_fig4_5552263
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top