Why is the direction of the dipole moment always taken from -q to +q?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the convention of the dipole moment direction in electric dipoles, specifically why it is defined as pointing from the negative charge (-q) to the positive charge (+q). Participants are exploring the implications of this convention in relation to electric field lines and potential energy in dipoles.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are questioning the rationale behind the dipole moment convention and its apparent contradiction with the direction of electric field lines. Some are attempting to clarify the definitions and relationships between dipole moment and potential energy.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with various participants providing insights into the definitions and implications of the dipole moment convention. Some have offered explanations regarding the mathematical definition of dipole moment, while others are seeking further elaboration on these points.

Contextual Notes

There are references to the potential energy of a dipole in an electric field and the implications of defining the dipole moment in different ways, indicating that the discussion is considering the effects of conventions on physical interpretations.

ananthu
Messages
105
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



Can anyone explain why the direction of the dipole moment of an electric dipole is always taken as "from -q to +q" but not "from +q to -q"? In fact when we draw the electric lines of force we are only drawing in such a way that they start from +q and terminate at -q.Then why this contradiction? What is the correct explanation for this convention?

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
ananthu said:
Can anyone explain why the direction of the dipole moment of an electric dipole is always taken as "from -q to +q" but not "from +q to -q"?
It's just a convention.
In fact when we draw the electric lines of force we are only drawing in such a way that they start from +q and terminate at -q.Then why this contradiction?
What does that have to do with the definition of dipole moment? There's no contradiction.
 
But why is the convention for a dipole the opposite to the other convention? :confused:
 
tiny-tim said:
But why is the convention for a dipole the opposite to the other convention? :confused:
Ah... now I understand the question. The "natural" definition of dipole moment (the first moment of the charge distribution) is:

[tex]\vec{p} = q_1\vec{r}_1 + q_2\vec{r}_2[/tex]

That will give the direction of the dipole moment as minus to plus.
 
When you keep a dipole in an electric field, it acquires the stable equilibrium position with positive charge toward the electric field. Potential energy for a dipole is given by
U = - p.E
It has minimum value = -pE at the stable equilibrium position. It is possible only when p is parallel to E, i.e. p is from -q to +q.
 
rl.bhat said:
When you keep a dipole in an electric field, it acquires the stable equilibrium position with positive charge toward the electric field. Potential energy for a dipole is given by
U = - p.E
It has minimum value = -pE at the stable equilibrium position. It is possible only when p is parallel to E, i.e. p is from -q to +q.
But if you defined the dipole moment with the opposite convention, U = p.E. And the minimum value would be when p is anti-parallel to E. The physics wouldn't change. (Not that I'm suggesting one flout convention. :wink:)
 
Doc Al said:
Ah... now I understand the question. The "natural" definition of dipole moment (the first moment of the charge distribution) is:

[tex]\vec{p} = q_1\vec{r}_1 + q_2\vec{r}_2[/tex]

That will give the direction of the dipole moment as minus to plus.

Will you please elaborate this point?
 
ananthu said:
Will you please elaborate this point?
I'll try. Let q1 = +q and q2 = -q, then:

[tex]\vec{p} = q_1\vec{r}_1 + q_2\vec{r}_2 = q\vec{r}_1 - q\vec{r}_2 = q(\vec{r}_1 - \vec{r}_2)[/tex]

The vectors r1 and r2 are the position vectors of +q and -q. Thus the vector r1 - r2 points from -q to +q.
 
Doc Al said:
I'll try. Let q1 = +q and q2 = -q, then:

[tex]\vec{p} = q_1\vec{r}_1 + q_2\vec{r}_2 = q\vec{r}_1 - q\vec{r}_2 = q(\vec{r}_1 - \vec{r}_2)[/tex]

The vectors r1 and r2 are the position vectors of +q and -q. Thus the vector r1 - r2 points from -q to +q.

Thank you. Now it is clear.
 

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K