Griffiths Problem 4.8 [SOLVED]: Why Don't You Need to Add Energy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ehrenfest
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Griffiths
ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1
[SOLVED] Griffiths Problem 4.8

Homework Statement


This question refers to Griffiths E and M book.

Why is the answer not 2 times that?
Why don't you need to add the energy of dipole 1 to the energy of dipole 2 like

\bf -p_1 \cdot E_2 - p_2 \cdot E_1

?

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
ehrenfest said:

Homework Statement


This question refers to Griffiths E and M book.

Why is the answer not 2 times that?
Why don't you need to add the energy of dipole 1 to the energy of dipole 2 like

\bf -p_1 \cdot E_2 - p_2 \cdot E_1

?


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


For the same reason that the potential energy of a pair of two point charges is k q_1 q_2/r.

Imagine assembling the system, starting with the two dipoles at infinite distances. Bringing the first dipole from infinity requires no energy. Bringing the second dipole from infinity (while holding the first one at rest) requires an energy equal to - p2 dot E_1. That's the total energy stored in the system since it's the total energy that was required to assemble the system
 
nrqed said:
For the same reason that the potential energy of a pair of two point charges is k q_1 q_2/r.

Imagine assembling the system, starting with the two dipoles at infinite distances. Bringing the first dipole from infinity requires no energy. Bringing the second dipole from infinity (while holding the first one at rest) requires an energy equal to - p2 dot E_1. That's the total energy stored in the system since it's the total energy that was required to assemble the system

But it also requires energy to hold the first dipole at rest, doesn't it? Well I guess there is no work done doing that. But it seems like you don't get that for free!
 
Last edited:
ehrenfest said:
But it also requires energy to hold the first dipole at rest, doesn't it? Well I guess there is no work done doing that. But is seems like you don't get that for free!

as you say, there is no work involved doing that. I know what you mean but there is a very clear definition of work in physics and we have to stick to it.
 
Hi, I had an exam and I completely messed up a problem. Especially one part which was necessary for the rest of the problem. Basically, I have a wormhole metric: $$(ds)^2 = -(dt)^2 + (dr)^2 + (r^2 + b^2)( (d\theta)^2 + sin^2 \theta (d\phi)^2 )$$ Where ##b=1## with an orbit only in the equatorial plane. We also know from the question that the orbit must satisfy this relationship: $$\varepsilon = \frac{1}{2} (\frac{dr}{d\tau})^2 + V_{eff}(r)$$ Ultimately, I was tasked to find the initial...
The value of H equals ## 10^{3}## in natural units, According to : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units, ## t \sim 10^{-21} sec = 10^{21} Hz ##, and since ## \text{GeV} \sim 10^{24} \text{Hz } ##, ## GeV \sim 10^{24} \times 10^{-21} = 10^3 ## in natural units. So is this conversion correct? Also in the above formula, can I convert H to that natural units , since it’s a constant, while keeping k in Hz ?
Back
Top