Griffith's ED Chapter 4 Clarification (Bound Charges)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jason Williams
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Charges
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of equations in Griffith's Electrodynamics, specifically in Chapter 4 regarding the field of a polarized object and the use of different notations for distance in relation to dipoles.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the reasoning behind Griffith's use of 'script r' versus 'r' in the context of dipole fields, questioning the validity of substituting one for the other and the implications of distance definitions.

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered insights into the equivalence of the two notations under certain conditions, while others express uncertainty about the appropriateness of the substitution. The conversation remains open with varying interpretations being discussed.

Contextual Notes

There is a focus on the approximation involved in the equations and the context of distances being considered, particularly in relation to the dipole's position.

Jason Williams
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
I'm having an issue with the equation that Griffith uses to derive the field of a polarized object. In Chapter 4, Section 2.1, he starts off with equation 4.8 with the 'script r' to denote the distance between a point outside the distribution P (and the origin) and the dipole (and the origin). He references equation 3.99 to 'derive' this, but equation 3.99 is the field from a dipole and only depends on the distance from the origin to the point P. I don't quite understand how he makes this jump.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think he's using script r to denote distance from the dipole to the point in question because he's no longer dealing with distances far from the dipole where r and script r are basically equivalent.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Jason Williams
Okay that's what I figured, but is it fair just to make that substitution? Like why not use the regular equation for the potential?
 
I mean they're equivalent except for the definition of distance that you use. Technically the one with script r is more correct I think, but for distances far from the dipole you approximate with r.

The equation is an approximation anyway, but there are orders of correctness I guess.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Jason Williams
Okay cool, got it. Thanks so much!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
926
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K