What Is the Physical Interpretation of the Total Dipole Moment

aaaa202
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
2
Sometimes I am asked to compute the total dipole moment of a charge configuration. Normally you work with dipole moment per unit volume, so you can find the above by integrating over the entire volume, which is quite easy. I'm curius though, what is the physical interpretation of the total dipole moment of a charge configuration? What does this quantity tell us and is it used in any calculations? Like often you find the total dipole moment to be zero - what does that show us?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
aaaa202 said:
Sometimes I am asked to compute the total dipole moment of a charge configuration. Normally you work with dipole moment per unit volume, so you can find the above by integrating over the entire volume, which is quite easy. I'm curius though, what is the physical interpretation of the total dipole moment of a charge configuration? What does this quantity tell us and is it used in any calculations? Like often you find the total dipole moment to be zero - what does that show us?

Total dipole moment (usually just called dipole moment) of any charge distribution \rho(\mathbf{r}) is defined as \mathbf{p}\equiv \int\mathbf{r}'\rho(\mathbf{r}')\text{d}^3 r'. From its definition, it should be clear that it is position independent, and so an observer should measure the same value no matter where they are.

The primary reasons for defining such a quantity are:

(1) The dipole contribution to the electrostatic potential can be easily expressed in terms of \mathbf{p} as V_{\text{dip}}(\textbf{r}) = \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{\mathbf{p} \cdot \mathbf{r}}{r^3} and this contribution typically dominates at large distances from a distribution with little or no net charge (a very common scenario!)

(2) The force, torque and electrostatic energy of as perfect dipole are easily expressed in terms of \mathbf{p} and often make good approximations for calculating the dynamics of a neutral charge distribution, relatively far from it.
 
To solve this, I first used the units to work out that a= m* a/m, i.e. t=z/λ. This would allow you to determine the time duration within an interval section by section and then add this to the previous ones to obtain the age of the respective layer. However, this would require a constant thickness per year for each interval. However, since this is most likely not the case, my next consideration was that the age must be the integral of a 1/λ(z) function, which I cannot model.
Back
Top