Prove Mathematically: Sphere Charged in Spherical Symmetry Does Not Radiate

  • Thread starter Thread starter golfingboy07
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Radiation Theory
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving mathematically that a sphere charged in spherical symmetry and oscillating radially does not radiate. The original poster seeks clarification on the physical correctness of their statement and the mathematical approach to demonstrate this concept.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the use of polar coordinates and the cancellation of transverse components of the current density vector. Questions arise about the implications of the potentials being time-independent outside the oscillating region and the relationship between the vector potential and current density. There is also discussion on the expressions for charge density and the evaluation of integrals related to the problem.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants offering various mathematical expressions and questioning the assumptions made regarding the oscillating sphere. Some guidance is provided on the implications of symmetry and the behavior of electric and magnetic fields, though no consensus has been reached.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the distinction between a hollow sphere and a solid ball, as well as the nature of the oscillation affecting the charge distribution. There is an acknowledgment of the complexities introduced by the pulsating nature of the sphere and the time-dependent aspects of the electric field.

golfingboy07
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Question: Show (mathematically) that a sphere charged in spherical symmetry ocillating radially will not radiate

My ideas so far:

We can use polar coordinates and choose a test point on the z axis so that the transvere components of J cancel. For radiation to occur (using the coulomb gauge) there must be a transverse component of the current density vector to drive it. Since this is not the case the sphere charged in spherical symmetry will not radiate. How do I go about proving this mathematically? Is my physical statement even correct?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Just to be sure: we're talking about a sphere or a ball? The sphere is hollow, the ball is full.
 
The question sheet states a sphere
 
damn.. :rolleyes:

I'll think about it while I wash the dishes.
 
Would it be enough to show that at points outside the "region in which the sphere oscillates", the potentials are time independent? I was thinking of finding an expression for rho in

[tex]\phi(\vec{r},t)=\int\frac{\rho(\vec{r}',t-|\vec{r}-\vec{r}'|/c )}{4\pi\epsilon_0|\vec{r}-\vec{r}'|}dV'[/tex]
 
Maybe. I was thinking of using the vector potential A since this is related to the current density via a similar integral as above. All we need to do is find an expression for J perhaps...not really sure though
 
I think I've found an expression for rho:

[tex]\rho(\vec{r}',t)=\sigma \delta^3(\vec{r}'-R_0sin(\omega t)\hat{r}')[/tex]

where sigma is the surface charge density. If the charge Q is constant on the sphere but its radius changes, sigma is time dependent:

[tex]\sigma(t)=\frac{Q}{4\pi R_0^2\sin^2(\omega t)}[/tex]

R_0 is the "radius of equilibrium" obviously and omega the frequency of oscillation.
 
Last edited:
I meant more like

[tex]\rho(\vec{r}',t)=\sigma \delta^3(\vec{r}'-(R_0+\epsilon \sin(\omega t))\hat{r}')[/tex]

[tex]\sigma(t)=\frac{Q}{4\pi (R_0+\epsilon \sin(\omega t))^2}[/tex]

But is the resulting integral evluable?
 
The electric field outside the sphere is constant because a uniformly charged sphere produces a radial, radius independent field.
The components of the magentic field perpendicular to the radius are zero due to symmetry.
Hence the Poynting vector is zero so there is no energy transmission outside the sphere.
qed.
 
  • #10
pseudovector said:
The electric field outside the sphere is constant because a uniformly charged sphere produces a radial, radius independent field.
Yes, but the thing is pulsating, and it takes different time for light emanating from different parts of the sphere to reach a given point, so it's a big mess and we can't use this static argument IMHO.
 
  • #11
quasar987 said:
Yes, but the thing is pulsating, and it takes different time for light emanating from different parts of the sphere to reach a given point, so it's a big mess and we can't use this static argument IMHO.

It doesn't matter. If you freeze the sphere at any moment, you get the same electric field at a distant point regardless of the moment you chose to freeze the sphere or its radius at that time.
Moreover, since the magnetic field is zero, then according to Maxwell's equations, the electric field must be time independent.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K