Potential from a simple Quadrupole expansion

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around inconsistencies in calculating the potential due to a quadrupole moment from a specific charge distribution. Two methods are employed: one using a general quadrupole expansion and another using spherical harmonics, both yielding different results. The first method produces a potential that lacks angular dependence, while the second method introduces angular dependence through spherical harmonics. The primary issue arises from the interpretation of the quadrupole moment tensor and its components, particularly in relation to the z-axis alignment of the charges. Clarifications on the vacuum constant and the nature of the potential's dependence on direction are also discussed, highlighting the complexities in multipole expansions.
khfrekek92
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone! I'm currently working on this problem for which I am getting inconsistencies depending on how I do it. I'm trying to find the potential due to the quadrupole moment of the following distribution:
+q at (0,0,d), -2q at (0,0,0), and +q at (0,0,-2d)

I am doing this using two different methods and they both get different answers:1) Using the general expansion Qij=sum[ql{3ril*rjl-rl^2deltaij)] and plugging into Vquad=1/(8*pi*epsilonor^3)sum[Qij*ni*nj]

This method gives me some constant divided by r^3, with NO angular dependence whatsoever.2) Going back to the basics and using the very general potential by substituting in the addition theorem for spherical harmonics, etc to find the general potential for a general multipole moment: qlm=integral[rho*r^l*Ylm],
and
Vmulti=sum[1/(epsilono(r^(l+1)*(2l+1)*Ylm(theta,phi)*qlm]

Notice how this answer definitely depends on theta for dipole moment and above (when the spherical harmonics introduce cos(theta)'s into them.)

Doing it this method gives me the same constant divided by r^3 that I found earlier, except now it is multiplied by (3cos^2(theta)-1) which comes from exactly the Y20 spherical harmonic. These two methods SHOULD give the same results, but these are radically different... Any ideas?

Thanks!

PS sorry for the lack of Latex, but I figured most people should get the gist of it
 
Physics news on Phys.org
khfrekek92 said:
This method gives me some constant divided by r^3, with NO angular dependence whatsoever.
Where does the formula for the potential come from? It does not look right.

What is "epsilonor"?
 
You can see it derived here:
http://physicspages.com/2012/04/03/quadrupole-moment/

And sorry, epsilonor is just from my lack of latex understanding.. it is really supposed to be the vacuum constant times the magnitude of r:

ε*|r|
 
So ni*nj are the components of the vector r? Well, then your potential should depend on the direction of r.
If it does not, please show your work.
 
Yes that is correct. However, because all 3 charges are on the z axis, the only non-zero component of the quadrupole moment tensor is Q_zz. Every other one goes to 0.

Then, only one term will be in the potential summation, the Q_zz term. This term corresponds to nz*nz (which are two unit vectors in the z direction) which boils down to 1.
 
Those are not the unit vectors! The "unit" here refers to the whole vector r, its z component can be smaller.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top