How Does Earth's Radius Influence Calculations in Magnetic Field Equations?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the Earth's magnetic field at a specific height above the North Pole, emphasizing the use of the magnetic dipole model rather than the Biot-Savart Law. Participants clarify that the relevant formula for the magnetic field around a dipole should be used, which incorporates the magnetic dipole moment and distance from the dipole. There is confusion regarding why the Earth's radius and the height above the surface are treated as a single distance in the equations. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the relationship between these distances in magnetic field calculations. Overall, the thread aims to resolve the application of magnetic dipole equations in this context.
Melqarthos
Messages
11
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The Earth's magnetic field is essentially that of a magnetic dipole. If the field near the North Pole is about , what will it be (approximately) 1.4×104 above the surface at the North Pole?

Homework Equations



Apparently we need to use the Biot-Savart Law which I'm not sure how it even applies in this situation granted that Earth's magnetic field acts like a dipole.

The Attempt at a Solution



If anyone could give me a heads up on how to do this, that'd be great.

Melqarthos
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Not the Biot-Savart Law. You just need the formula for the magnetic field around a magnetic dipole. Look it up in Wikipedia if your textbook doesn't have it handy.
 
Well from what I understand we know that μ=NIA, which is the magnetic dipole moment of a coil and is considered a vector. I also know that:

torque= μ*B

This is all useful only when we're messing with currents. We can further our investigation by realizing that we can use μ and sub it into the equation of a magnetic field produced by a magnetic dipole (along the dipole axis):

B= [μ(permeability constant)/2pi]*[ μ/(R^2+x^2)^(3/2)]

Oh I see! Let me try to figure this one out.
 
Delphi51 said:
Not the Biot-Savart Law. You just need the formula for the magnetic field around a magnetic dipole. Look it up in Wikipedia if your textbook doesn't have it handy.

I tried the problem again. Check the picture to see my work. I used another value for distance from the North pole. Instead of a distance of 1.4*10^4 I used 1.3*10^4 km. The back of my book says the answer should be 3.6*10^-6 T, but that's not what I got.

Meqlarthos
 

Attachments

  • Physics.png
    Physics.png
    12.6 KB · Views: 632
Delphi51 said:
Not the Biot-Savart Law. You just need the formula for the magnetic field around a magnetic dipole. Look it up in Wikipedia if your textbook doesn't have it handy.

Okay I got it! But there's something I don't get. Why do we treat the radius of the Earth and the distance away from the magnetic dipole as 'one unified' distance, rather than two distances where the distance away from the Earth's surface should be x^2 as according to the magnetic dipole equation:

B= (μ0*μ)/(2*pi*(R^2+x^2)^(3/2)

and generally if x>>R, then:

B=(μ0*μ)/(2*pi*x^3)

I hope you can see where I'm coming from when I say why treat the Earth's radius and the distance away from the Earth's surface as one unified distance when the equations that give us the magnetic field don't tell us to do this.

Melqarthos
 

Attachments

  • New Physics.png
    New Physics.png
    20.8 KB · Views: 636
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}...
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...
Back
Top