Electromagnetic field strength

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the behavior of electromagnetic field strength in relation to distance from a source, specifically questioning why electromagnetic fields are said to fall off as 1/r, in contrast to electrostatic and magnetostatic fields which decrease as 1/r². Participants explore theoretical underpinnings and references related to this phenomenon.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that electrostatic and magnetostatic fields decrease as 1/r², questioning the validity of the 1/r fall-off for electromagnetic fields and asking for clarification.
  • Another participant requests references to support the claim that electromagnetic fields fall off as 1/r, indicating uncertainty about the details.
  • A third participant provides a reference to the Larmor formula, suggesting it contains relevant information regarding the topic.
  • One participant explains that Coulomb's law and the Biot-Savart law are approximations for stationary charges and non-accelerating charges, respectively, and introduces the Lienard-Wiechert potential for a more comprehensive understanding of fields produced by moving charges.
  • Another participant discusses the propagation of 1/r fields, noting that they carry energy away from the source and relate this to the intensity of waves, which follows a 1/r² law due to the area of spherical surfaces increasing with r².

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the fall-off behavior of electromagnetic fields, with some supporting the 1/r claim and others questioning it. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various laws and formulas, indicating that assumptions about charge motion and field behavior may influence interpretations. The discussion highlights the complexity of electromagnetic field theory without reaching a consensus.

roboticmehdi
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
hello world. it is know that electrostatic (coulomb's law) and magnetostatic (biot-savart law) fields lose their strength like 1/r^2. why do they say that electromagnetic field falls like 1/r ? is that true ? if yes how, can you explain please ? after all energy radiated from a point source must fall like 1/r^2, because the area of surface of a sphere increases like r^2.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
roboticmehdi said:
why do they say that electromagnetic field falls like 1/r ?
Can you provide a reference for this? It is hard to say one way or the other without knowing the details.
 
DaleSpam said:
Can you provide a reference for this? It is hard to say one way or the other without knowing the details.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larmor_formula there in the part ''Derivation 2: Using Edward M. Purcell approach'' it says stuff related to this.
 
Both Coulomb's law and the Biot-Savart law are approximations for 0 velocity and 0 acceleration respectively. The full general field produced by a point charge moving with arbitrary velocity and acceleration is given by the Lienard Wiechert potential:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liénard–Wiechert_potential

If you look at the formula for the LW fields you see that for a stationary charge you get a 0 B field and a 1/r² E field, corresponding with Coulomb's law. If you look at the formula for the LW fields for a moving but not accelerating charge you get a 1/r² B field, corresponding with the Biot-Savart law. However, if you look at the formula for an accelerating charge you also get a 1/r E and a 1/r B field.
 
One way to shed light on this is to note that the 1/r fields (unlike the 1/r2 fields) are propagating away from the source, carrying energy with them. In a wave, the intensity (energy per unit time per unit normal area) is proportional to the square of the amplitude, so to 1/r2 for the 1/r propagating field. But this 1/r2 intensity law is just what we get by assuming energy not to be lost from the wave as it propagates outwards through larger and larger spherical surfaces – whose areas are proportional to r2.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K