General dipole radiation far field equation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the far-field electric and magnetic fields of a dipole, specifically seeking a general formula applicable to arbitrary scalar functions rather than the standard sinusoidal forms. Participants explore the implications of using non-oscillating waveforms such as square or Gaussian pulses, and the challenges associated with transient fields in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests a reference for the far-field equations of a dipole that accommodates arbitrary waveforms, not just sinusoidal ones.
  • Another participant notes the complexity of deriving such equations, emphasizing that traditional far-field equations describe non-transient states of harmonic modes and may not apply to wave packets.
  • A participant expresses interest in the transient behavior of a pulsed dipole field, indicating a desire for a model that accounts for the dipole being turned on and off.
  • It is suggested that the Fourier transform of the dipole fields could be used to analyze the transient behavior, linking the fields to their frequency domain representations.
  • One participant proposes using the general retarded potential solution for a current source to derive the vector potential for a dipole, providing specific equations for the components of the vector potential.
  • Another participant corrects an earlier mistake regarding the argument of the delta function in their equations, clarifying the formulation of the vector potential in spherical coordinates.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of charge density and continuity in the context of the derived equations, with references to the Lorentz gauge and continuity equation.
  • Participants emphasize the necessity of maintaining charge continuity to avoid violating gauge invariance in their models.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying views on the applicability of traditional far-field equations to non-sinusoidal waveforms, with no consensus reached on the best approach to model the transient fields of a dipole. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific methodologies to be employed.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on assumptions regarding the nature of the waveforms, the treatment of the dipole's oscillation, and the mathematical complexities involved in transitioning between time and frequency domains.

Messages
36,753
Reaction score
15,708
I am looking for a reference describing the far-field electric and magnetic field of a dipole. However, I want a general formula for an arbitrary scalar function, and not specifically the usual formula which assumes a continuous sinusoid:

$$ \mathbf{B} = -\frac{\omega^2 \mu_0 p_0 }{4\pi c} \sin\theta \frac{e^{i\omega (r/c-t)}}{r} \mathbf{\hat{\phi} } $$
$$ \mathbf{E} = c \mathbf{B} \times \hat{\mathbf{r}}
= -\frac{\omega^2 \mu_0 p_0 }{4\pi} \sin\theta \frac{e^{i\omega (r/c-t)}}{r} \hat{\theta} $$

I would like something similar, but where I could use say a square pulse, or a Gaussian pulse, or some other non-oscillating waveform.
 
Science news on Phys.org
This is not so simple. The reason is that these far-field equations are indeed describing the non-transient quasi-stationary states of the field of one harmonic mode of the electromagnetic field, i.e., it describes the field far from the (compact) source a long time after it was "switched on". For a wave packet, it's not clear to me what you want to achieve since, a wave packet of finite temporal extension, at one point far from the source, this wave packet will run through (more or less deformed by dispersion if it's not a plane wave in vacuo) and the non-transient limit is then simply that there is no field there anymore, because the wave packet as moved further.

Of course you can always use the multipole expansion to build any wavepacket out of the harmonic modes you like via a Fourier integral.
 
Yes, I want the transient in time, but I am only interested in the spatial dipole. I want the field of a dipole which is pulsed on and then back off.
 
Then you can just take the Fourier transform of the dipole fields, you've written down above, i.e.,
$$(\vec{E}(t,\vec{x}),\vec{B}(t,\vec{x}))=\int \mathrm{d} \omega/(2 \pi) \tilde{A}(\omega) (\vec{E}_{\omega}(t,\vec{x}),\vec{B}_{\omega}(t,\vec{x})).$$
The ##\tilde{A}(\omega)## is given by the Fourier transform of the initial conditions for the fields.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: blue_leaf77
Vanhees's equation might be applicable. But if I were in your position I would go back to the starting point where you have to model a dipole which oscillates non-sinusoidally and express this oscillating current in frequency domain, which is the spectrum. Then stay in frequency domain during the derivation since dealing with linear differentiation in frequency domain is easier. Note that those expressions of E and B fields are derived under several assumptions concerning the distance, dipole length, and wavelength, you would simply need to replace the wavelength with the bandwidth of the pulse in any appearing inequality.
 
Last edited:
The general retarded potential solution for a current source ## \mathbf{J}(\mathbf{r},t) ## is,
## \mathbf{A}(\mathbf{r},t) = \frac{\mu_0}{4 \pi} \int \frac{d^3\mathbf{r}^\prime \, \, \mathbf{J}\left(\mathbf{r}^\prime, t-\left|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}^\prime\right|/c\right)}{ \left|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}^\prime\right|} ##

If I use a current density source of ## \mathbf{J}(\mathbf{r},t) = \hat{\mathbf{z}} I d\ell dt \delta(\mathbf{r}) \delta(t) ## then for the z component of the vector potential I get
## A_z(\mathbf{r},t) = \frac{\mu_0 I d\ell dt }{4\pi r}\delta(r-ct) ##

This result makes intuitive sense, so I think it is okay. This can also be written in spherical coordinates,

## A_\theta(\mathbf{r},t) = -\frac{\mu_0 I d\ell dt }{4\pi r}\delta(r-ct) \sin\theta##
## A_r(\mathbf{r},t) = \frac{\mu_0 I d\ell dt }{4\pi r}\delta(r-ct) \cos\theta##

jason
 
Last edited:
I realized I had a careless error in my post (argument of delta function wrong). It should read

##A_z(\mathbf{r},t) = \frac{\mu_0 I d\ell dt }{4\pi r}\delta(t-r/c)##
and likewise for the components in spherical coords.

Also, it is hopefully clear that a more general source,
## \mathbf{J}(\mathbf{r},t) = \hat{\mathbf{z}} I d\ell \delta(\mathbf{r}) f(t)##
will yield,
##A_z(\mathbf{r},t) = \frac{\mu_0 I d\ell }{4\pi r}f(t-r/c)##
As always, the spherical componeents of ##\mathbf{A}## are then,
## A_\theta = -A_z \sin\theta ##
## A_r = A_z \cos\theta ##
And the fields would be derived from ## \mathbf{B} = \nabla \times \mathbf{A}##, etc.

jason
 
jasonRF said:
Also, it is hopefully clear that a more general source,
##J(r,t)=z^Idℓδ(r)f(t) \mathbf{J}(\mathbf{r},t) = \hat{\mathbf{z}} I d\ell \delta(\mathbf{r}) f(t)##
This seems like what I am looking for. Do we need to worry about charge density and continuity?

I was pursuing a similar approach, but enforcing continuity and I started getting derivatives of delta functions.
 
Charge continuity is included here, and you can calculate the charge density as a function of time.

I have been assuming Lorentz gauge that connects the vector and scalar potential, ##\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A(\mathbf{r},t)} = -\mu \epsilon \frac{\partial \phi(\mathbf{r},t)}{\partial t}##. So once you know ##\mathbf{A}## you can integrate to get ##\phi##, and then calculate the charge density from ##\nabla^2\phi - \mu \epsilon \frac{\partial^2 \phi(\mathbf{r},t)}{\partial t^2} = -\frac{\rho}{\epsilon}##. Or equivelantly, you calculate ##\mathbf{E} = -\nabla \phi - \frac{\partial \mathbf{A}}{\partial t}## and then get the density from ##\rho = \epsilon \nabla \cdot E ##. It can be instructive to look at a simple dipole this way.

EDIT: I was being slow here. Just use the continuity equation to ghet ##\rho## ! ##\nabla \cdot \mathbf{J} = -\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t}##

jason
 
  • #10
Yep, the continuity condition is mandatory. Otherwise you violate gauge invariance, and this is a no-go. With ##c \neq 1## it reads
$$\partial_{\mu} j^{\mu}=\frac{1}{c} \partial_t (c \rho) + \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{j}=\partial_t \rho+\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{j}.$$
So if you give ##\vec{j}## arbitrarily, you have indeed to choose ##\rho## as given in Posting #9.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
897
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
959
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K