Integrating the Cartesian form of Coulomb's law

haaj86
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Hi, I want to calculate the potential energy between two opposite charges (a dipole) and I know how to integrate Coulomb’s law in the polar form, i.e. in terms of “r”

\[<br /> U=\int\mathbf{F}d\mathbf{r}=-\frac{e^{2}}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}}\int\frac{1}{\mathbf{r^{2}}}d\mathbf{r}=\frac{e^{2}}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}}\frac{1}{r}\]

But I want to know how to integrate it when it’s in the Cartesian form i.e.

\[<br /> F(x,y,z)=\frac{qQ}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}}\frac{1}{[x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}]^{\frac{3}{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}<br /> x\\<br /> y\\<br /> z\end{array}\right)\]

Please I need this urgently, and I’m more interested on how to do the integral because I need this for a much more complicated problem that involves moving charges but if I can’t do it for the stationary charges then I can’t do it for that problem. Please I don’t want anybody to suggest integrating the force in the polar form and then changing the variables to Cartesian because as I said I need to know how to do the integral.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Exactly where are you stuck? Can you expand the dot product \vec F \cdot d \vec r in Cartesian coordinates?
 
Thanks jtbell, good hint, I stupidly forgot that it's a dot product.
But I have another problem now and this is what I got
\[<br /> U=\int\mathbf{F}.\mathbf{dr}\]<br /> and in the cartesian form we have \[<br /> \mathbf{r}=x\mathbf{\hat{x}}+y\mathbf{\hat{y}}+z\mathbf{\hat{z}}\]
\[<br /> \mathbf{\hat{r}}=\frac{x\mathbf{\hat{x}}+y\mathbf{\hat{y}}+z\mathbf{\hat{z}}}{[x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}]^{1/2}}\]
\[<br /> d\mathbf{r}=dx\mathbf{\hat{x}}+dy\mathbf{\hat{y}}+dz\mathbf{\hat{z}}\]<br /> Therefore \[<br /> U=-\frac{e^{2}}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}}\int\frac{1}{[x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}]^{3/2}}(x\mathbf{\hat{x}}+y\mathbf{\hat{y}}+z\mathbf{\hat{z}}).(dx\mathbf{\hat{x}}+dy\mathbf{\hat{y}}+dz\mathbf{\hat{z}})\]
\[<br /> U=-\frac{e^{2}}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}}\{\int\frac{xdx}{[x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}]^{3/2}}+\int\frac{ydy}{[x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}]^{3/2}}+\int\frac{zdz}{[x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}]^{3/2}}\}\]
\[<br /> U=-\frac{e^{2}}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}}\{-\frac{1}{[x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}]^{1/2}}-\frac{1}{[x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}]^{1/2}}-\frac{1}{[x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}]^{1/2}}\}\]
\[<br /> U=\frac{e^{2}}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}}\frac{3}{[x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}]^{1/2}}=\frac{3e^{2}}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}}\frac{1}{r}\]

So there is an extra 3 in comparison with polar form shown in my first post.

Where did I go wrong?
 
This is a path integral:

U = - \int_{{\vec r}_0}^{\vec r_{final}}{\vec F \cdot d \vec r}

so you have to pick a starting point {\vec r}_0 at infinity, then set up a path from that point to the point where you want the potential energy. (Imagine holding one charge fixed at the origin and moving the other charge in from infinity along that path.) Then integrate along that path.

You're using Cartesian coordinates, so path integrals are easier to do if they're made of segments along or parallel to the x, y and z axes.

For example, you could start at (x, y, z) = (+\infty, 0, 0) and set up a path to (x_{final}, y_{final}, z_{final}) with three straight-line segments. You pick the segments!

Simply integrating the x, y and z integrals from \infty to x_{final}, \infty to y_{final}, and \infty to z_{final} respectively, doesn't define a proper path. I've been groping unsuccesfully for a way to put the reason why into words...
 
not so much as a thank you?
 
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