[Physics] Electric field from a quadrupole

electric-fieldselectrostaticshomework-and-exercisesmultipole-expansionpotential

In the following problem, I have already solved for the value of the potential, and I would like to tackle the extra exercise, which asks for the electric field of a point quadrupole:

At every point in the $yz$ plane, find the electric potential of the quadrupole with three collinear charges $(+q, -2q , +q)$ that lie in the $z$ axis, with the middle charge at the origin. Consider $r \gg a$, $\vec{Q}$ is the quadrupole moment, and $\theta$ is the angle between $\vec{r}$ and $\vec{Q}$.

Hint: the quadrupole moment is $Q=\frac{1}{2} \sum_i q_i (3z_i^2-r_i^2)$.

As an extra exercise, use that result to find the electric field everywhere in the $yz$ plane.

With the help of some notes from Dr. J Tatum, I was able to understand where that value of Q comes from. So, I understand the use of Legendre polynomials and the binomial expansion to find the electric potential of a quadrupole. So the potential is given by:
$$ V=\frac{1}{4\pi \varepsilon_0} \frac{qa^2}{r^3} (3\cos^2 \theta -1) = \frac{1}{4\pi \varepsilon_0} \frac{2qa^2}{r^3} (P_2(\cos \theta))$$
Where $P_n(x)$ represents the Legendre polynomials. (As a side note, I think the equations 3.12.3 and 3.12.4 in Tatum's notes are wrong).

To find the electric field I tried to use $r^3=(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{3/2}$ and then calculate $E=(-\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}, -\frac{\partial V}{\partial y}, -\frac{\partial V}{\partial z} )$, but I feel that's wrong, although I don't know why.

  1. Should I use the Cartesian coordinates system? Cylindrical? Spherical?
  2. How do I find the electric field from the electric potential?
  3. In case this problem's suggestion is not the most standard way to find the electric field, which method is? Is there a way to find the electric field directly without having to find the electric potential first?

Best Answer

To find the electric field I tried to use $r^3=(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{3/2}$ and then calculate $E=(-\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}, -\frac{\partial V}{\partial y}, -\frac{\partial V}{\partial z} )$, but I feel that's wrong, although I don't know why.

This is pretty close to the best approach, particularly if you make systematic use of the identity $$ \frac{\partial r}{\partial x_j} = \frac{x_j}{r} $$ for the cartesian partial derivatives of the radial coordinate.

The other simplification comes from noting that the cosine in the potential also appears in the coordinate $$ z=r\cos(\theta), $$ and that therefore it pays to multiply the top and bottom by an extra factor of $r^2$: \begin{align} V & \propto \frac{3\cos^2(\theta)-1}{r^3} \\ & = \frac{3r^2\cos^2(\theta)-r^2}{r^5} \\ & = \frac{3z^2-r^2}{r^5} \\ & = \frac{2z^2-x^2-y^2}{r^5} . \end{align} This gets you the potential as an explicit rational function - a polynomial in the Cartesian components divided by a simple function whose derivatives are also of that form. (Which means: you are therefore guaranteed an expression for each of the electric field components in the form $p_3(x,y,z)/r^7$, where $p_3$ is some homogeneous cubic polynomial.)