Timeline for Dipole in a spherical cavity in an infinite dielectric
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 18, 2015 at 15:39 | comment | added | dorverbin | Then this is just an arbitrary choice. Electric potentials have a gauge freedom, and by choosing the potential to be 0 in the origin is an acceptable choice (and a common one for this type of potential). | |
| Nov 18, 2015 at 13:30 | comment | added | Quantum spaghettification | I mean 0 disregarding the potential due to the dipole. | |
| Nov 18, 2015 at 8:33 | comment | added | dorverbin | Also, in regard to your edit - why are you saying the potential is zero at the origin? It is unbounded at the origin - the part belonging to the external homogeneous field nullifies, but the dipole part diverges. | |
| Nov 18, 2015 at 8:26 | comment | added | dorverbin | The field is absolutely not homogeneous. There is an external homogeneous field, in addition to the field caused by the dipole. This is why the potential is a sum of two terms - the first describing the dipole and the second describing the external field. | |
| Nov 18, 2015 at 8:04 | comment | added | Quantum spaghettification | Yes but the dipole and the external field are going to induce a surface charge density on the boundary of the sphere and which we cannot guarantee will produce a homogenous field. | |
| Nov 17, 2015 at 22:04 | comment | added | dorverbin | The second term is related to the external field, $E_\infty$. $z$ is defined as the direction of the dipole (and the external field). | |
| Nov 17, 2015 at 20:09 | comment | added | Quantum spaghettification | How do we know the second term is going to be a homogenous field, though, since this is another one of our assumptions that we have not proved to be true. | |
| Nov 17, 2015 at 18:39 | history | answered | dorverbin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |