Integrating the Cartesian form of Coulomb's law

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on integrating Coulomb's law in Cartesian coordinates to calculate the potential energy between two opposite charges. The user initially presents their integration approach but encounters an issue with an extra factor of three in their result compared to the polar form. A suggestion is made to define a proper path for the path integral, emphasizing the need to integrate along segments parallel to the x, y, and z axes from infinity to the final position. The importance of selecting a clear path for the integration is highlighted to avoid incorrect results. The conversation underscores the necessity of careful path definition in Cartesian coordinates for accurate calculations.
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 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top