Point charges and multipole expansion

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the multipole expansion of a specific charge distribution involving a positive charge at the origin and negative charges along the axes. Participants are exploring the potential expansion in spherical coordinates, focusing on the monopole and dipole terms, and addressing issues related to complex results and algebraic errors.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a potential expansion for a charge distribution and notes that the dipole term appears complex, questioning the source of the error.
  • Another participant suggests that the issue may stem from algebraic mistakes involving the spherical harmonics and emphasizes the importance of consistent definitions across sources.
  • A third participant provides a detailed expression for the dipole term and the definitions of spherical harmonics, highlighting potential discrepancies in the calculations.
  • Further discussion includes the evaluation of the dipole term using the charge density and the resulting expression, which does not match the earlier derived result, raising questions about the underlying assumptions and calculations.
  • Participants note the complexity of signs and factors in the definitions of spherical harmonics and associated Legendre polynomials, suggesting that errors may arise from these definitions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct application of spherical harmonics and the resulting expressions for the dipole term. There is no consensus on the correct signs or factors, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the discrepancies in the results obtained.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge potential limitations in their definitions and calculations, particularly regarding the signs and factors in spherical harmonics and Legendre polynomials. The discussion highlights the dependence on specific definitions and the need for careful algebraic manipulation.

ShayanJ
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
2,802
Reaction score
605
Consider the following charge distribution:A positive charge of magnitude Q is at the origin and there is a charge -Q on each of the x,y and z axes a distance d from the origin.
I want to expand the potential of this charge distribution using spherical coordinates.Here's how I did it:
[itex] \phi=\frac {Q} {4\pi \varepsilon_0} \left[ \frac{1}{r} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{r^2+d^2-2rd \cos\theta}}- \frac{1}{\sqrt{r^2+d^2-2rd \cos\gamma_1}}- \frac{1}{\sqrt{r^2+d^2-2rd \cos\gamma_2}}\right]=\\<br /> \frac {Q} {4\pi \varepsilon_0 r} \left[ 1 - \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+(\frac d r)^2-2 \frac d r \cos\theta}}- \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+(\frac d r)^2-2\frac d r \cos\gamma_1}}- \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+(\frac d r)^2-2\frac d r \cos\gamma_2}}\right]=\\<br /> \frac {Q} {4\pi \varepsilon_0 r} \left[ <br /> 1-\sum_{n=0}^\infty P_n(\cos\theta) (\frac d r)^n-\sum_{n=0}^\infty P_n(\cos\gamma_1) (\frac d r)^n-\sum_{n=0}^\infty P_n(\cos\gamma_2) (\frac d r)^n<br /> \right]=\\<br /> \frac {Q} {4\pi \varepsilon_0 r} \left[ <br /> 1-\sum_{n=0}^\infty P_n(\cos\theta) (\frac d r)^n-\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{4\pi}{2n+1} (\frac d r)^n\sum_{m=-n}^n Y^{m*}_n(\frac \pi 2,0) Y^m_n(\theta,\varphi)-\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{4\pi}{2n+1} (\frac d r)^n\sum_{m=-n}^n Y^{m*}_n(\frac \pi 2,\frac \pi 2) Y^m_n(\theta,\varphi)\right][/itex]
The monopole term(n=0) is [itex]\phi^{(1)}=-\frac{2Q}{4\pi \varepsilon_0 r }[/itex],as it should be.
My problem is, the dipole term(n=1) turns out to be complex.What's wrong?
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
P_n is clearly real. You are making some algebraic mistake with the e^{i\phi}.
Be careful about factors like (-1)^m which differ in different textbooks.
 
The dipole term is:
[itex] \phi^{(2)}=\frac{Qd}{4\pi\varepsilon_0r^2} \left\{P_1(\cos\theta)- \frac{4\pi}{ 3 } \left[\left(Y^{-1*}_1(\frac \pi 2,0)+Y^{-1*}_1(\frac \pi 2,\frac \pi 2)\right) Y^{-1}_1(\theta,\varphi)\\+\left(Y^{0*}_1(\frac \pi 2,0)+Y^{0*}_1(\frac \pi 2,\frac \pi 2)\right)Y^0_1(\theta,\varphi)\\+\left(Y^{1*}_1(\frac \pi 2,0) +Y^{1*}_1(\frac \pi 2,\frac \pi 2)\right)Y^1_1(\theta,\varphi)\right]\right\}[/itex]
The definition I use for spherical harmonics is:
[itex] Y^m_n(\theta,\varphi)=\sqrt{ \frac{2n+1}{4\pi} \frac{ (n-m)! }{ (n+m)! } } P^m_n(\cos\theta) e^{im\varphi}[/itex]
So we have:
[itex] Y^{-1}_1=\frac 1 2 \sqrt{\frac{3}{2\pi}}\sin\theta e^{-i\varphi}\\<br /> Y^0_1=\frac 1 2 \sqrt{\frac 3 {2\pi}}\cos\theta\\<br /> Y^1_1=-\frac 1 2 \sqrt{\frac{3}{2\pi}}\sin\theta e^{i\varphi}\\[/itex]
And:
[itex] Y^{-1*}_1(\frac \pi 2,0)=\frac 1 2 \sqrt{\frac3 {2\pi}}\\<br /> Y^{-1*}_1(\frac \pi 2,\frac \pi 2)=\frac 1 2 \sqrt{\frac3 {2\pi}}e^{i \frac \pi 2}=\pm i \frac 1 2 \sqrt{\frac3 {2\pi}}\\<br /> Y^{0*}_1(\frac \pi 2,\varphi)=0\\<br /> Y^{1*}_1(\frac \pi 2,0)=-\frac 1 2 \sqrt{\frac 3 {2\pi}}\\<br /> Y^{1*}_1(\frac \pi 2,\frac \pi 2)=-\frac 1 2 \sqrt{\frac 3 {2\pi}}e^{-i \frac \pi 2}=\pm i \frac 1 2 \sqrt{\frac 3 {2\pi}}[/itex]
So we'll have:
[itex] \phi^{(2)}=\frac{Qd}{4\pi \varepsilon_0 r^2} \left\{ \cos\theta-\left( 1\pm i \right)\sin\theta e^{-i\varphi}+\left( -1\pm i \right)\sin\theta e^{i\varphi} \right\}=\\ \frac{Qd}{4\pi \varepsilon_0 r^2} \left\{ \cos\theta-\sin\theta e^{-i\varphi}\mp i \sin\theta e^{-i\varphi} -\sin\theta e^{i\varphi}\pm i \sin\theta e^{i\varphi} \right\}=\\ \frac{Qd}{4\pi \varepsilon_0 r^2} \left\{ \cos\theta-\sin\theta (e^{i\varphi}+e^{-i\varphi}) \pm i \sin\theta ( e^{i\varphi}-e^{-i\varphi} ) \right\}=\\ \frac{Qd}{2\pi \varepsilon_0 r^2} \left\{ \frac 1 2 \cos\theta-\sin\theta \left[ \cos\varphi \mp \sin\varphi\right] \right\}[/itex]
What's wrong?

EDIT:
I found what was wrong.
Ok,another question.How can I decide which sign is the right one for the [itex]\sin\varphi[/itex]?
Thanks
 
Last edited:
[itex]e^{i\pi/2}=+i[/itex].
 
Ok,So we have:
[itex] \phi^{(2)}=\frac{Qd}{2\pi \varepsilon_0 r^2} \left[ \frac 1 2 \cos\theta - \sin\theta \left( \cos\varphi-\sin\varphi\right) \right][/itex]
But we can also use the formulas [itex]\vec{p}=\int \vec{r} \rho dV[/itex] and [itex]\phi^{(2)}=\frac{\vec{p}\cdot\vec{r}} {4\pi \varepsilon_0 r^3}[/itex] and we should arrive at the same result.But when I use the charge density [itex]\rho=Q \left[ \delta(x)\delta(y)\delta(z)-\delta(x-d)\delta(y)\delta(z)-\delta(x)\delta(y-d)\delta(z)-\delta(x)\delta(y)\delta(z-d) \right][/itex], I'll get [itex]\vec{p}=-Qd(\hat{x}+\hat{y}+\hat{z})[/itex] and [itex]\phi^{(2)}=-\frac{Qd(x+y+z)}{4\pi \varepsilon_0 r^3}=-\frac{Qd}{4\pi \varepsilon_0 r^2}\left[ \cos\theta+\sin\theta \left(\cos\varphi+\sin\varphi\right)\right][/itex] which differs from the result obtained above.I can't see why this happens!
 
The signs and algebra for Y^m_L and P^m_L are tricky. I use (-1)^m in the definition of Y^m_L.
How do you define P^{-m}_L? Your Y^0_1 n your first post seems wrong.
Check everything. Get all your signs from the same place.
 
Your Y^0_1 is wrong and you lost a factor of 1/2 elsewhere. There must also be a mistake in sign that I don't readily see.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
92
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
547
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
945
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K