Potential energy of a dipole in an external field

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential energy of a dipole in an external electric field, specifically addressing the contributions of individual charges and their interactions. Participants explore the mathematical formulation of potential energy and the implications of including or excluding certain terms in the calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant derives the potential energy of a dipole in an external field and questions why the interaction potential energy between the two charges is not included in the summation.
  • Another participant argues that the term for the interaction potential energy is a constant and does not affect the dynamics of the dipole, suggesting that additive constants in energy are physically insignificant.
  • A correction is made regarding the expression for the potential energy of the two charges, with a later reply confirming the corrected formula.
  • One participant notes that the calculation can be seen as the work done to assemble the dipole in the absence of the external field and suggests that both contributions could be combined if interested in that context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the significance of the interaction potential energy term and its relevance to the dynamics of the dipole. There is no consensus on whether it should be included in the potential energy calculation.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention the concept of renormalization in classical field theory and the challenges associated with infinities in the context of point charges, indicating limitations in the classical approach.

etotheipi
I'm considering the arrangement shown below. Let the positive charge be ##q##, and the negative be ##-q##. To derive the potential energy of this configuration, one usually adds the potential energies of both of the charges in the external field, taking the zero volts equipotential of the external field to be along the line at ##\theta = \frac{\pi}{2}##.

##U = qV_{1} - qV_{2} = q \times -\frac{Ed}{2}\cos{\theta} - q \times \frac{Ed}{2}\cos{\theta} = -E(qd)\cos{\theta} = -\vec{E} \cdot \vec{p}## where ##\vec{p} = q\vec{d}##.

1583594528916.png


My question is, why isn't the potential energy of the two charges ##U_{3} = -\frac{q^{2}}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}d^{2}}## also included in the summation above?

Since, for any collection of charged particles, the potential energies of subsystems can be added pairwise (i.e. ##-\Delta U = (W_{12} + W_{21}) + (W_{13} + W_{31}) + (W_{23} + W_{32}) = -\Delta U_{a} - \Delta U_{b} - \Delta U_{c}##. And to me, there seem to be three charged things at play here: the source (whatever it happens to be, e.g. perhaps an infinite charged sheet), and the two charges.

Consequently, the potential energy should be the sum of that of the source and +ve charge, the source and -ve charge, and the two charges. Although I think this might be incorrect since I haven't defined ##0V## to be at infinite distance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
##U_3## is simply a constant and doesn't do anything to the dynamics of the dipole in the external field. As any additive constants in the energy, they are physically insignifant.

That's a great gift in this context, because otherwise you'd also need the energy for each point charge itself, and this diverges. You can simply subtract this diverging infinite "self-energy".

That's the first place in physics where you renormalize. Renormalization thus not only occurs in quantum field theory but already in classical field theory. The only trouble with the classical theory is that for accelerating point charges there's no satisfactory exact solution for the problem of infinities. The best we can do is to use the Landau-Lifshitz prescription to cure the oddities of the (in)famous Abraham-Lorentz-Dirac equation for the motion of charged particles including radiation reaction.
 
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: etotheipi
etotheipi said:
My question is, why isn't the potential energy of the two charges ##U_{3} = -\frac{q^{2}}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}d^{2}}## also included in the summation above?

Correction: ##U_3=-\dfrac{q^{2}}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}d}.##
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: etotheipi
kuruman said:
Correction: ##U_3=-\dfrac{q^{2}}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}d}.##

Yep, bad mistake :oldeyes:
 
etotheipi said:
To derive the potential energy of this configuration, one usually adds the potential energies of both of the charges in the external field, taking the zero volts equipotential of the external field to be along the line at θ=π2θ=π2\theta = \frac{\pi}{2}.

You are calculating the work it takes to rotate the dipole in the given field.

etotheipi said:
My question is, why isn't the potential energy of the two charges [...] also included in the summation above?

This is the work done to assemble the dipole in the absence of the given field.

You could add the two together if you were interested in calculating the work it takes to assemble the dipole in the absence of any external field, and then to rotate it in the given field.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and etotheipi

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K