Understanding the Coordinate-Free Electric Field of a Dipole

raddian
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
I am "continuing this thread" in hopes of asking questions that deal with the meaning of the question. https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...dipole-moment-in-coordinate-free-form.359973/
1. Homework Statement

Show that the electric field of a "pure" dipole can be written in the coordinate-free form
$$E_{dip}(r)=\frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{1}{r^3}[3(\vec p\cdot \hat r)\hat r-\vec p].$$

Homework Equations


$$E_{dip}(r)=\frac{p}{4\pi\epsilon_0r^3}(2\cos \hat r+\sin\theta \hat \theta)$$

The Attempt at a Solution


I am trying to understand what "coordinate free" means. If the answer is in terms of r hat and theta hat, doesn't that contradict "coordinate free"? AND i would get $$ p = pcos(\theta) \hat r - psin(\theta) \hat \theta $$. Why doesn't p depend on PHI? If it's coordinate free why are we restricting our coordinates to r and theta??
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
"Coordinate free" means you don't need to define the coordinate system to write your equation. ##\hat{r}## is a unit vector from the center of the dipole to the observation point, so given the orientation of ##\mathbf{p}## in space, the relative direction of ##\hat{r}## with respect to ##\mathbf{p}## will automatically follow.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top