Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I learned electrostatics in SI units. In SI, the electrostatic potential due to a point charge $q$ located at $\textbf{r}$ is given by

$\Phi(\textbf{r}) = \frac{q}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 |\textbf{r}|}$.

Now, the Griffiths electrodynamics textbook says, "Converting electrostatic equations from SI to Gaussian units is not difficult: just set $\epsilon_0 \rightarrow \frac{1}{4 \pi}$."

So, in Gaussian/CGS units, apparently

$\Phi(\textbf{r}) = \frac{q}{|\textbf{r}|}$.

However, one textbook (Understanding Molecular Simulation, by Frenkel and Smit) says that the potential due to a point charge is

$\Phi(\textbf{r}) = \frac{q}{4 \pi | \textbf{r} |}$.

Did I make a mistake, or did Frenkel and Smit?

Thank you.

share|cite|improve this question
FYI: In my version of Frenkel and Smit, this equation is (12.1.4), page 295. – Steve B Apr 27 '12 at 21:07
Same for me. This equation is (12.1.4), page 295. – Andrew Apr 27 '12 at 21:35
Possible duplicates: and links therein. – Qmechanic Aug 15 '13 at 14:01
up vote 4 down vote accepted

Frenkel and Smit definitely make a mistake. Eq. (12.1.3) page 294 is: $$-\nabla^2 \phi(\mathbf{r}) = 4\pi \rho(\mathbf{r}) $$ then immediately afterwards, Eq. (12.1.4) is "the solution of this equation" "for a single charge $z$ at the origin": $$\phi(\mathbf{r}) = \frac{z}{4\pi |\mathbf{r}|}$$ This is a mistake: Eq. (12.1.4) is definitely not "the solution" to Eq. (12.1.3). In fact, see here $$-\nabla^2 \frac{z}{4\pi|\mathbf{r}|} = z\delta(\mathbf{r}) = \rho(\mathbf{r}) \neq 4\pi \rho(\mathbf{r})$$ Eq. (12.1.4) would be correct with Lorentz-Heaviside units (for example). Eq. (12.1.3) would be correct with Gaussian units.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you for your time! – Andrew Apr 27 '12 at 21:39

Gaussian is one of several CGS dimensional systems. It could be the authors are using the Lorentz–Heaviside CGS system, or something else. There is a useful explanation of the taxonomy of CGS subsystems (with a table and everything) located here:

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you for your time! – Andrew Apr 27 '12 at 21:39

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.