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: 948
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 !
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
Back
Top