Talk:Electric dipole moment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Free vs bound unexplained[edit]

In the derivation where D, E, P, are associated with free, total, and (negative) bound, respectively, there is no definition or motivation of these terms, nor any mathematical formulas relying on the distinction from which we might be able to deduce their meaning. The section ends with:

"Satisfaction of the boundary conditions upon φ may be divided arbitrarily between φf and φb because only the sum φ must satisfy these conditions. It follows that P is simply proportional to the electric field due to the charges selected as bound, with boundary conditions that prove convenient.[8][9]"

The statement "it follows that P is simply proportional to the electric field..." can't possibly follow, because we've said nothing about what P is. (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Electric vs electrical[edit]

Much more commonly referred to as "electric dipole moment". This comes both from my experience and from a google search showing that "electric dipole moment" results outnumber those for "electrical dipole moment" by a factor of 30.--DJIndica 17:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


It would be wonderful if somebody place here any examples of dipole moments. For instance, the one of water. Esmu Igors (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Lack of Generality[edit]

I have not read the article that carefully, but I can see no mention of the permittivity (e) of the medium in which the charges of an electric dipole are immersed, nor a statement that the discussion relates exclusively to vacuum. As far as I can see, all of the maths expressions include e0 where e*e0 should be written.

One of the references is hanging out of the right side of the reference section.[edit]

Number 35 isn't below number thirty four, but off to the right of number one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Notation, notation, notation...[edit]

This article has a terrible mix of upright and italic bold letters for vectors - it should be one or the other. Upright is probably more standard so i'll change all italix vectors to upright. Whoever typed those sections really needs to look after what they write - it jut looks unprofessional...

Furthermore - there is, to my dispair, the insane use of fraktur font. I don't care if its in the sources - i'm changing it to mathcal. It is, always has, always will be, the most appauling, disgusting, font ever used in an equation- completley obliterating its apperance and reproductablility of writing down the symbols. It really does look like a scrawn, sprawled up dead spider..... yuck..... An equation should never have to suffer this grotesque appearance, especially for something this useful. -- F = q(E + v × B) 13:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Error in dipole field[edit]

Last equation of paragraph should have R^5 in denominator in the first term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Since we are using , which is unitless, the denominator should have R^3. --Jebrowne (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, even I think so. Mentioning polarisation and the resultant relations with the dielectric constant should be added, along with the electric fields along different axes of the dipole. Pranshumalik14 (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

This article seriously needs a better summary or overview[edit]

Folks, when you start expressing the information in an article using calculus symbols and formulas, you have to realize that 90% of the people who are going to visit the page are instantly lost because they never went beyond high-school algebra. I am NOT saying "delete this or that." I am saying "the information needs to be summarized in an encyclopedic manner, and accessible to the general public that has NO background in science or math." And this isn't the only article like this, there are literally hundreds of articles on wikipedia that have been very carefully structured so only someone with a good deal of science and math background can understand them - you know, precisely the kind of people who don't need to go here to read an article because they already know the information in it. (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, we are very well aware that many articles on WP are for laymen and need rewriting, the problem is largely lack of contribution from editors (myself included, haven't been on WP much lately). For this specific article, the mathematical ground level would most ideally be vector algebra (because that's what the electric dipole moment is, a vector), but a run up to the vector algebra (and subsequent calculus and generalized functions) could be made by elementary algebra and trigonometry. It would take up more space, but may make the article more accessible. I'll try later. MŜc2ħεИτlk 10:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)