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.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top