Potential of a Quadrupole (Far Away)

  • Thread starter Thread starter ToothandnaiL
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Potential
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on multipole expansion techniques in electrostatics, specifically regarding the treatment of a quadrupole charge configuration. It is established that when analyzing the potential at large distances, the quadrupole term can dominate if the net charge and dipole moment are both zero. The participants clarify that while higher-order terms can be ignored for rough calculations, precision requirements dictate whether additional terms should be included. The term "simple" suggests that only the dominant quadrupole term is necessary for the problem at hand. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the conditions under which certain terms in the multipole expansion can be neglected.
ToothandnaiL
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
So we're currently covering multipole expansion techniques in my EDM class. The multipole expansion is a summation of integrals each treating a different configuration of discrete charges (monopole, dipole... and so on). The term in the summation that corresponds to the physical configuration that your dealing with, whether it be a monopole, dipole, or whatever, is the dominant term. My first question is: Does that mean it is safe to ignore the other terms in the summation and treat, say, a quadrupole with only the quadrupole term? Secondly, there is a simple formula to express the potential of a discrete charge configuration at a large distance where the configuration appears as a single point charge. The problem I'm looking at has a charge configuration like this: a +3q charge at point z=a, a +q charge at z=-a, a -2q charge at y=a and y=-a, this forms a quadrupole and the problem wants an expression for potential that is valid at large distances from the quadrupole. It uses the word 'simple' to describe the expression for potential so I imagine it's not the multipole expansion formula. Would I use the formula for large distances to treat this problem? The only problem I see with that would be the fact that the net charge would=0 and then the potential would= 0 as well. How could that be the case for this quadrupole?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A multipole expansion is just a expansion of the potential in terms of powers of ##1/|r-r'|##. If you can verify that a certain collection of charges has neither a net charge nor a dipole moment and that the quadrupole moment is nonzero, it is guaranteed that the quadrupole contribution is dominant over all others far away from the charge distribution.
 
ToothandnaiL said:
Does that mean it is safe to ignore the other terms in the summation and treat, say, a quadrupole with only the quadrupole term?
It depends on the required precision. If you want to know the orbital period of moon to calculate the days of full/new moon, it is fine to treat Earth as a monopole. If you want to know its position with an accurary of centimeters, you have to add more terms.

a +3q charge at point z=a, a +q charge at z=-a, a -2q charge at y=a and y=-a, this forms a quadrupole and the problem wants an expression for potential that is valid at large distances from the quadrupole.
What about the dipole moment?

I think "simple" means the highest order is sufficient.
 
OK, thank you for the replies they give some new ways to think about the problem.
 
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...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top