Creating a Magnetic Bubble: Proving or Disproving

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter BUBBLE BOY
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bubble Magnetic
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the impossibility of creating a magnetic bubble using only magnetic dipoles in free space, as established by the inverse-square law and the Divergence theorem. Participants agree that a magnetic bubble, defined as a region of higher magnetic intensity at the centroid compared to its surroundings, cannot be achieved without the existence of magnetic monopoles, which have yet to be discovered. The conversation highlights the limitations of magnetic dipoles and emphasizes the need for a deeper understanding of electromagnetic principles to explore this phenomenon further.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Gauss's Law in electromagnetism
  • Familiarity with the Inverse-Square Law and its implications
  • Knowledge of the Divergence Theorem in vector calculus
  • Basic concepts of magnetic dipoles and monopoles
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Gauss's Law on magnetic fields
  • Explore the concept of magnetic monopoles and their theoretical existence
  • Study the Divergence Theorem and its applications in electromagnetism
  • Investigate methods for collimating magnetic fields and their limitations
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, electrical engineers, and researchers interested in electromagnetism, particularly those exploring the theoretical limits of magnetic field configurations.

BUBBLE BOY
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I have been asked to prove or disprove the following problem:

Is it possible to arrange an array of magnetic dipoles (little magnets) in free space such that the magnetic field at the centroid of the space is higher than the field strength immediately surrounding the centroid? The field at the center is called a magnetic bubble, if exists.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No can do using only magnetic dipoles. You have to have a magnetic monopole (yet to have discovered).

Hint: apply Gauss's law to the bubble.
 
Is Inverse-Square Law responsible?

With respect to the thesis that it is impossible to create a local region of higher magnetic intensity in free space using magnetic dipoles, is this not due to the inverse-square law?
For example, cancer tumors are treated using the principle of collimation of radiation; i.e. a collimated radiation beam is axially-rotated over time such that the crossing-axis passes through the tumor.
However magnetic intensity cannot (?) be collimated (due to the Divergence theorem (?)) and worse falls off at 1/r^2.
So my question, for an approach on a proof, is, is it the divergence of the magnetic intensity in free space or the inverse-square law which prevent a magnetic bubble from being formed by using an arbitrary numer of magnetic dipoles?
 
Some observations:
1) A high magnetic intensity is not the same as a magnetic bubble as defined before.
2) I'm not sure about the question of the collimation, but I think that you have to take into account the Electric and Magnetic field altogether (i.e. a light beam) in the case mentioned.
3) About the last point: in practice you will try to form plane waves, or more precisely, diminish the 1/r^2 factor as much as you can, until it doesn't affect your operation.
4) IIRC, the 1/r^2 can only come from monopolar sources, so I don't think you'll get such a decay for a magnetic field... At best it will be like 1/r^3.
5) According to this, you can't prove the claimed impossibility of the magnetic bubble if you use the 1/r^2 law...
6) The proof using the Divergence theorem should look very simple. Have you ever tried to prove that there's no way to achieve an equilibrium state using only electrostatic forces?

Notice that I could be wrong... I'm no specialist :p
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K