Electric field varying with distance

AI Thread Summary
The amplitude of the electric field from a dipole antenna decreases with distance due to the spreading of the field over a larger area as it radiates. Specifically, the electric field strength is inversely proportional to the distance from the source, following the relationship E ∝ 1/r. This occurs because the intensity of the wave, or irradiance, diminishes as it spreads out over the circumference of a sphere, which increases with the square of the distance (I ∝ 1/r²). Consequently, as the distance from the antenna increases, the electric field strength is effectively diluted. Understanding this relationship is crucial for grasping the behavior of electromagnetic waves.
Jahnavi
Messages
848
Reaction score
102
[Moderator note: moved from general physics, no template.]

example.jpg


This is a solved example given in the book . Could someone help me understand how amplitude of electric field has an inverse relationship with distance ?

Only the very basics of EM waves are covered in the book so I would appreciate if someone could explain in a simple language .

Thank you .
 

Attachments

  • example.jpg
    example.jpg
    33.4 KB · Views: 940
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
For a dipole antenna, the electric field of the radiated wave will stay parallel to the antenna dipole. This means the radiation pattern will mostly be 2 dimensional as a circle, centered at the transmitting antenna. As the circumference increases the field strength is "spread out" over more circumference.
So the electric field strength is divided by the length of the circumference. The circumference of a circle is proportional to r.
 
Recall that the irradiance (also called intensity) falls off as 1/r^2 (just think of the flux through spherical surfaces centered on the source) and is also proportional to E^2 (shown in just about every book, even if not derived). Putting both together,

I \propto 1/r^2 \propto E^2 => E \propto 1/r
 
  • Like
Likes Jahnavi
RedDelicious said:
Recall that the irradiance (also called intensity) falls off as 1/r^2 (just think of the flux through spherical surfaces centered on the source) and is also proportional to E^2 (shown in just about every book, even if not derived). Putting both together,

I \propto 1/r^2 \propto E^2 => E \propto 1/r

Thanks !
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top