Multipole expansion. Problems with understanding derivatives

Lindsayyyy
Messages
215
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone

Homework Statement



I want to find the multipole expansion of

\Phi(\vec r)= \frac {1}{4\pi \epsilon_0} \int d^3 r' \frac {\rho(\vec r')}{|\vec r -\vec r'|}

Homework Equations



Taylor series

The Attempt at a Solution



My attempt at a solution was to use the Taylor series. I tried to approach 1/|r-r'| around r'/r (that's what the task told me to, because r>>r').

I found the taylor series for \frac {1}{\sqrt{(1-x)}}

Which I can use I guess for this problem, where my x is:
2 \frac {\vec r\vec r'}{r^2} -\frac {r'^2}{r^2}

so I get

\frac {1}{| \vec r - \vec r'|}= \frac {1}{r} \frac {1}{\sqrt{ 1- 2 \frac {\vec r \vec r'}{r^2} + \frac {r'^2}{r^2}}}But now I'm stuck. I don't know how to handle the derivates. Do I only have to derive the vector r' with nabla or r'^2 aswell?

Thanks for your help in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If I understand your question, you will need to take partial derivatives of the r'2 term as well as the r##\cdot##r' term with respect to x', y', and z'. Just think of the argument of the square root as some function of x', y', and z'.
 
Use the vector form of Taylor Expansion i.e.
f(x+h) = f(x) + (h.grad)f(x) + [(h.grad)^2]f(x) + ...

where x and h are vectors, grad is the usual gradient operator and "." indicates the dot product.
 
Thanks for your help. I know that this has something to do with Nabla, but I don't understand why I have to use Nabla here actually.
 
you just have to use the binomial expansion for the term which you got in op.Different higher order terms in r'/r represents monopoles,dipoles,quadrupoles etc.
 
Last edited:
Lindsayyyy said:
Thanks for your help. I know that this has something to do with Nabla, but I don't understand why I have to use Nabla here actually.

I think what you're referring to as nabla is what I call grad.

Just do the vector taylor expansion as I mentioned, this was the box standard thing to do back in electrodynamics exams. Oh, and use summation convention to make life easier.
 
To solve this, I first used the units to work out that a= m* a/m, i.e. t=z/λ. This would allow you to determine the time duration within an interval section by section and then add this to the previous ones to obtain the age of the respective layer. However, this would require a constant thickness per year for each interval. However, since this is most likely not the case, my next consideration was that the age must be the integral of a 1/λ(z) function, which I cannot model.
Back
Top