Translating scalar torque quantities to their vector analogues (RE: Dipoles)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between scalar torque and its vector representation in the context of a dipole in a uniform electric field. The torque applied to the dipole is expressed as τ = 2.q.a.E.sin(-θ), indicating a restoring torque due to the negative sign. In vector form, this torque is represented as τ = p x E, where p is the dipole moment. The question raised is about the absence of the negative sign in the vector equation and what accounts for it. The restoring nature of the torque is emphasized, as it acts to reduce the angle θ and restore equilibrium.
Jonnie79
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
My question is at the bottom of this post

PREAMBLE:

If a dipole is turned by an angle θ (in a uniform electric field) then the torque applied on the dipole by the electric field will be:

τ = 2.q.a.E.sin(-θ) = -2.q.a.E.sin(θ)

with the negative sign referring to it being a "restoring" torque. This negative sign is important in:

-dU = ∫τ.dθ = -2.q.a.E.∫sin(θ).dθ

IN TERMS OF VECTORS:

In τ = p x E

p = 2.q.a (in the direction of a), and

E.sin(θ) is the "x E" part of τ = p x E

MY QUESTION:
Where is the negative sign gone in the vector equation? what accounts for it?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I have this now. (I omitted a negative sign)

If I rotate the dipole by θ from equilibrium then I've applied a torque:

τ = p x E, or
τ = 2qa.E.sin(θ)

The restoring torque due to the (uniform) electric field will be to reduce θ (and thus restore equilibrium)

τ = 2qa.E.sin(-θ) = -2qa.E.sin(θ), or
τ = -p x E
 
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