Magnetic Force Inverse Cubed Law?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies that the inverse cube law applies to magnetic dipoles, such as bar magnets and current loops, while the inverse square law is relevant for hypothetical magnetic monopoles, which do not exist. The inverse cube law is applicable when the distance from the magnet is significant enough for it to appear small, particularly in asymmetrical configurations. The conversation emphasizes that many physics sources incorrectly assert the inverse cube law as a universal truth without considering the influence of magnet symmetry and aspect ratio on field strength.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of magnetic dipoles and monopoles
  • Familiarity with the concepts of inverse square and inverse cube laws
  • Basic knowledge of electromagnetism
  • Awareness of magnetic field strength variations with distance
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of magnetic dipoles and their field strength calculations
  • Explore the implications of aspect ratio on magnetic field behavior
  • Study experimental evidence regarding magnetic field laws, particularly in asymmetrical configurations
  • Investigate the theoretical existence of magnetic monopoles and their implications in physics
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, educators, and researchers interested in electromagnetism and the nuances of magnetic field laws, particularly those exploring the behavior of magnetic dipoles and monopoles.

Da Apprentice
Messages
57
Reaction score
0
I was reading <crackpot link removed> and was wondering if the inverse cube law for magnetic force still applied for situations where the object being attracted isn't another magnet itself? E.g. if there is an electromagnet attracting an iron nut is the rule still inverse cube and not inverse square?

Thanks,
Z.C
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Think,
A "monopole" field goes like 1/r2. Magnetic monopoles don't actually exist as far as we know to date, but some situations can produce a field which is approximately a monopole field over a limited region. For example, if you have a long bar magnet and you stay close to one pole.
A "dipole" field goes like 1/r3. This is what you get from a current loop or a bar magnet, when you get far enough away that it appears "small."
 
Actually Dazza95 is more correct.

The inverse square law applies even in real world applications where the magnet is sufficiently asymmetrical to represent a "virtual" monopole.

Here is a link to an experiment which proves this assertion. The "bar magnet" in this experiment had an aspect ratio of over 100:1

http://www.u-picardie.fr/~dellis/Documents/PhysicsEducation/general%20rule%20for%20the%20variation%20of.pdf

I would surmise that in dipole magnets that are more symmetrical, the opposite pole is close enough to have a substantial influence on the overall net readings such as to reduce the field strength much more radically as the distance increases than with longer more asymmetric magnets where the opposite pole is at rather great distance . . .

Unfortunately most physics sources (wrongly) simply throw out the dogma that magnetic field with increasing distance is the inverse cube - - when it is not when extreme aspect ratios are encountered.

This is an important distinction.



willem2 said:
There would be an inverse square law for magnetic monopoles, but these don't exist as far as we know. A magnetic dipole produces a field that follows an inverse cube law.

see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_between_magnets
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K