Prove Mathematically: Sphere Charged in Spherical Symmetry Does Not Radiate

In summary, it has been shown that a sphere charged in spherical symmetry and oscillating radially will not radiate. This can be proven mathematically by using polar coordinates and choosing a test point on the z axis where the transverse components of the current density cancel. Since radiation requires a transverse component of the current density, it is not possible for the sphere to radiate. This is supported by the fact that the electric field outside the sphere is constant and the Poynting vector is zero, indicating no energy transmission. Additionally, even though the sphere is pulsating, the electric field remains time independent, further supporting the conclusion that the sphere will not radiate.
  • #1
golfingboy07
17
0
Question: Show (mathematically) that a sphere charged in spherical symmetry ocillating radially will not radiate

My ideas so far:

We can use polar coordinates and choose a test point on the z axis so that the transvere components of J cancel. For radiation to occur (using the coulomb gauge) there must be a transverse component of the current density vector to drive it. Since this is not the case the sphere charged in spherical symmetry will not radiate. How do I go about proving this mathematically? Is my physical statement even correct?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Just to be sure: we're talking about a sphere or a ball? The sphere is hollow, the ball is full.
 
  • #3
The question sheet states a sphere
 
  • #4
damn.. :rolleyes:

I'll think about it while I wash the dishes.
 
  • #5
Would it be enough to show that at points outside the "region in which the sphere oscillates", the potentials are time independant? I was thinking of finding an expression for rho in

[tex]\phi(\vec{r},t)=\int\frac{\rho(\vec{r}',t-|\vec{r}-\vec{r}'|/c )}{4\pi\epsilon_0|\vec{r}-\vec{r}'|}dV'[/tex]
 
  • #6
Maybe. I was thinking of using the vector potential A since this is related to the current density via a similar integral as above. All we need to do is find an expression for J perhaps...not really sure though
 
  • #7
I think I've found an expression for rho:

[tex]\rho(\vec{r}',t)=\sigma \delta^3(\vec{r}'-R_0sin(\omega t)\hat{r}')[/tex]

where sigma is the surface charge density. If the charge Q is constant on the sphere but its radius changes, sigma is time dependant:

[tex]\sigma(t)=\frac{Q}{4\pi R_0^2\sin^2(\omega t)}[/tex]

R_0 is the "radius of equilibrium" obviously and omega the frequency of oscillation.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
I meant more like

[tex]\rho(\vec{r}',t)=\sigma \delta^3(\vec{r}'-(R_0+\epsilon \sin(\omega t))\hat{r}')[/tex]

[tex]\sigma(t)=\frac{Q}{4\pi (R_0+\epsilon \sin(\omega t))^2}[/tex]

But is the resulting integral evluable?
 
  • #9
The electric field outside the sphere is constant because a uniformly charged sphere produces a radial, radius independent field.
The components of the magentic field perpendicular to the radius are zero due to symmetry.
Hence the Poynting vector is zero so there is no energy transmission outside the sphere.
qed.
 
  • #10
pseudovector said:
The electric field outside the sphere is constant because a uniformly charged sphere produces a radial, radius independent field.
Yes, but the thing is pulsating, and it takes different time for light emanating from different parts of the sphere to reach a given point, so it's a big mess and we can't use this static argument IMHO.
 
  • #11
quasar987 said:
Yes, but the thing is pulsating, and it takes different time for light emanating from different parts of the sphere to reach a given point, so it's a big mess and we can't use this static argument IMHO.

It doesn't matter. If you freeze the sphere at any moment, you get the same electric field at a distant point regardless of the moment you chose to freeze the sphere or its radius at that time.
Moreover, since the magnetic field is zero, then according to Maxwell's equations, the electric field must be time independent.
 

1. How is a sphere charged in spherical symmetry?

A sphere charged in spherical symmetry means that the charge is distributed uniformly on the surface of the sphere in a symmetric manner. This means that the charge density is the same everywhere on the surface of the sphere.

2. What does it mean for a charged sphere to not radiate?

A charged sphere that does not radiate means that it does not emit electromagnetic radiation. This is because the electric field inside the sphere is zero due to the spherical symmetry, and therefore, there is no energy being radiated.

3. How can this be proven mathematically?

This can be proven mathematically by using Maxwell's equations, specifically Gauss's law and Faraday's law. By assuming the spherical symmetry and using vector calculus, it can be shown that the electric field inside the sphere is zero, which leads to the conclusion that the sphere does not radiate.

4. What are the implications of a sphere charged in spherical symmetry not radiating?

The implications of this mathematical proof are that a charged sphere with a uniform charge distribution will not lose energy through radiation. This could have implications in various areas such as energy conservation and the design of electronic devices.

5. Is this proof applicable to all charged objects?

No, this proof is only applicable to a sphere charged in spherical symmetry. For other charged objects with different shapes or non-uniform charge distributions, the electric field inside the object may not be zero and therefore, they may radiate energy.

Similar threads

  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
21
Views
665
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
945
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
5
Views
978
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
2K
Back
Top