Why use primed coordinates for this

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter aaaa202
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Coordinates
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the use of primed coordinates in Griffiths' notation, particularly in the context of calculating electrostatic potential from a charge distribution. Participants explore the implications of this notation choice and its clarity in mathematical expressions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses discomfort with Griffiths' notation and questions the necessity of using primed coordinates instead of unprimed ones.
  • Another participant provides a mathematical expression for the electrostatic potential, emphasizing the roles of the points involved in the integration.
  • A participant queries the reasoning behind using dl' instead of dl, suggesting that unprimed notation might lead to misinterpretation.
  • Further clarification is offered regarding the integration over primed coordinates, indicating that the integration element should match the coordinate designation to avoid confusion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the use of primed coordinates, with some expressing frustration over the notation while others provide explanations for its use. Multiple viewpoints on the clarity and necessity of this notation remain present.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions about the clarity of notation and the interpretation of integration elements are not fully explored, leading to potential ambiguity in understanding the notation's purpose.

aaaa202
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
2
Griffiths notation kind of bothers me. Can anyone explain why he uses primed coordinates in the attached picture. Wouldn't dl, da, dτ do just as well?
Cheers :)
 

Attachments

  • integrationovercharges.png
    integrationovercharges.png
    30.6 KB · Views: 734
Physics news on Phys.org
I hate books that are so sloppy in their notation :-(. What he wants to write is

[tex]\Phi(\vec{x})=\int \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x}' \frac{\rho(\vec{x}')}{4 \pi |\vec{x}-\vec{x}'|},[/tex]

which gives the electrostatic potential of a (time independent!) charge distribution [itex]\rho[/itex] (in Heaviside-Lorentz units). Note that there are two points involved: First there's the point [itex]\vec{x}[/itex] at which the potential is calculated and the point [itex]\vec{x}'[/itex] which is at the location of a charge [itex]\rho(\vec{x}') \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x}'[/itex]. Then you "sum" (integrate) over all these charge elements.
 
But why dl'? Is that because you might misinterpret dl unprimed as dl along the vector r (can't find that damn script letter)?
 
zezima1 said:
But why dl'? Is that because you might misinterpret dl unprimed as dl along the vector r (can't find that damn script letter)?

You integrate over primed coordinates so the integration element ( dl') is primed too. In vanhees71's notation, d3x' is an infinitesimal volume at point x'. For the 1D case, dl' is an infinitesimal length at point r'.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K