Griffith's ED Chapter 4 Clarification (Bound Charges)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jason Williams
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Charges
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on a clarification regarding Griffith's treatment of bound charges in Chapter 4, particularly the use of the notation 'script r' in equation 4.8. The confusion arises from the transition between equation 4.8 and equation 3.99, as the latter describes the field from a dipole based solely on the distance from the origin. Participants debate the appropriateness of substituting 'script r' for 'r' in this context, questioning whether it is valid to use an approximation for distances near the dipole. While the approximation is acknowledged, the nuances of correctness in the equations are highlighted. Ultimately, the conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the implications of distance definitions in electrostatics.
Jason Williams
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
I'm having an issue with the equation that Griffith uses to derive the field of a polarized object. In Chapter 4, Section 2.1, he starts off with equation 4.8 with the 'script r' to denote the distance between a point outside the distribution P (and the origin) and the dipole (and the origin). He references equation 3.99 to 'derive' this, but equation 3.99 is the field from a dipole and only depends on the distance from the origin to the point P. I don't quite understand how he makes this jump.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think he's using script r to denote distance from the dipole to the point in question because he's no longer dealing with distances far from the dipole where r and script r are basically equivalent.
 
  • Like
Likes Jason Williams
Okay that's what I figured, but is it fair just to make that substitution? Like why not use the regular equation for the potential?
 
I mean they're equivalent except for the definition of distance that you use. Technically the one with script r is more correct I think, but for distances far from the dipole you approximate with r.

The equation is an approximation anyway, but there are orders of correctness I guess.
 
  • Like
Likes Jason Williams
Okay cool, got it. Thanks so much!
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top