Vector potential due to oscillating dipole

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
6 replies · 4K views
_Andreas
Messages
141
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



Calculate the magnetic vector potential A at a point p located at a distance r from the axis of an oscillating dipole of length s.

It is assumed that [tex]r\gg s[/tex] and that the current is the same throughout s.

Homework Equations



[tex]r=\sqrt{(x^2+(z-z')^2)},[/tex] where x,z is the horizontal and vertical coordinates of p, respectively, and z' is the vertical coordinate of the source point. The axis of the dipole lies on the z axis, and so x'=0. The problem is confined to the xz plane only.

[tex]A=c\int^{s/2}_{-s/2}\frac{\exp(ikr)}{r}dz' \hat{z},[/tex]

where c is a constant and [tex]k[/tex] is the wave number. The exponential comes from the fact that the current is a function of the retarded time, [tex][t]=t-r/c[/tex].

The Attempt at a Solution



I really don't know how to calculate this integral. Without the exponential I would've been fine, but now... lol wut? Are there perhaps some approximations, expansions, or variable changes that I could do? Any tips?

If it is of any help, the answer is apparently the same answer as in the case of a current localized at the center of the dipole:

[tex]A=d*\frac{\exp(i\omega[t])}{r}s \hat{z}[/tex]

(d is a constant.)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
_Andreas said:
[tex]r=\sqrt{(x^2+(z-z')^2)},[/tex] where x,z is the horizontal and vertical coordinates of p, respectively, and z' is the vertical coordinate of the source point.

The problem statement you provided defines [itex]r[/itex] as the distance from the center of the dipole ([itex]z'=0[/itex] I presume) to the point [itex]p[/itex]...you'll want to use a different letter, like say, (capital) [itex]R[/itex] to represent the separation of the source point and field point:

[tex]r=\sqrt{x^2+z^2}[/tex]

[tex]R=\sqrt{(x^2+(z-z')^2)}[/tex]

[tex]A=c\int^{s/2}_{-s/2}\frac{\exp(ikr)}{r}dz' \hat{z},[/tex]

where c is a constant and [tex]k[/tex] is the wave number. The exponential comes from the fact that the current is a function of the retarded time, [tex][t]=t-r/c[/tex].[/tex]

It seems like you are using [itex]c[/itex] to represent both a constant with units of Tesla-meters (in SI) and the speed of light...that's pretty confusing notation to me.

Also, the current in an oscillating dipole varies with time, so why is there no [itex]t[/itex] in this expression?

In SI units, the expression for the vector potential is something like

[tex]\textbf{A}(\textbf{r},t)=\frac{\mu_0}{4\pi}\int \frac{I(t-\frac{R}{c})}{R}dz'\mathbf{\hat{z}}[/tex]
 
Wow, that's a lot of annoying mistakes I did.

gabbagabbahey said:
The problem statement you provided defines [itex]r[/itex] as the distance from the center of the dipole ([itex]z'=0[/itex] I presume) to the point [itex]p[/itex]...you'll want to use a different letter, like say, (capital) [itex]R[/itex] to represent the separation of the source point and field point:

[tex]r=\sqrt{x^2+z^2}[/tex]

[tex]R=\sqrt{(x^2+(z-z')^2)}[/tex]

Yes, my bad.

gabbagabbahey said:
It seems like you are using [itex]c[/itex] to represent both a constant with units of Tesla-meters (in SI) and the speed of light...that's pretty confusing notation to me.

Oh boy. Yes, that is definitely confusing. The factor c in front of the integral is not supposed to be the speed of light.

gabbagabbahey said:
Also, the current in an oscillating dipole varies with time, so why is there no [itex]t[/itex] in this expression?

I shouldn't have called c a constant, since there's supposed to be a time-dependent exponential included.

gabbagabbahey said:
In SI units, the expression for the vector potential is something like

[tex]\textbf{A}(\textbf{r},t)=\frac{\mu_0}{4\pi}\int \frac{I(t-\frac{R}{c})}{R}dz'\mathbf{\hat{z}}[/tex]

Yes. In my case it's (yes, I even forgot the minus sign in the exponential)

[tex]\frac{\mu_0I_0\exp(i\omega t)}{4\pi}\int_{-s/2}^{s/2}\frac{\exp(-ikR)}{R}dz'\hat{z},[/tex]

where R is as you said, and [tex]I_0[/tex] is the amplitude of the current, which is independent of z'.

I still don't know how to calculate the integral, though.
 
_Andreas said:
Yes. In my case it's (yes, I even forgot the minus sign in the exponential)

[tex]\frac{\mu_0I_0\exp(i\omega t)}{4\pi}\int_{-s/2}^{s/2}\frac{\exp(-ikR)}{R}dz'\hat{z},[/tex]

where R is as you said, and [tex]I_0[/tex] is the amplitude of the current, which is independent of z'.

I still don't know how to calculate the integral, though.

You'll probably want to use [itex]\omega/c[/itex] instead of [itex]k[/itex] here; as you'll want to use the approximation that [itex]s\ll \frac{\omega}{c}[/itex] at some point (basically that the dipole is very small compared to the wavelength of the radiation it produces)

You also are given that [itex]s\ll r[/itex], and since [itex]|z'|\leq s[/itex], you know [itex]z'\ll r[/itex]...in order for this knowledge to be useful, you'll want to use the law of cosines to express [itex]R[/itex] in terms of [itex]z'[/itex], [itex]r[/itex] and the angle between the source and field point vectors (As measured from the center of the dipole). You can then Taylor expand both [itex]1/R[/itex] and [itex]\text{exp}(-i\omega R/c)[/itex] for small [itex]z'/r[/itex].
 
Thank you very much!

Doing as you say I get

[tex]R=\sqrt{z'^2+r^2-2z'r\cos(\theta)}=r\sqrt{(z'/r)^2+1-2z'/r\cos(\theta)}.[/tex]

Expanding [tex]1/R[/tex] and [tex]e^{-ikR}[/tex] around [tex]z'/r=0[/tex] yields [tex]1/r[/tex] and [tex]e^{-ikr}[/tex], respectively (the first order terms of both expansions contain factors [tex]z'/r^2[/tex] and therefore become insignificant).

The integral then simply becomes

[tex]\frac{\mu_0I_0e^{i\omega(t-kr)}}{4\pi r}\int dz' \hat{z},[/tex]

since [tex]r[/tex] is independent of [tex]z'[/tex]. This gives me the correct answer.
 
Last edited:
_Andreas said:
Expanding [tex]1/R[/tex] and [tex]e^{-ikR}[/tex] around [tex]z'/r=0[/tex] yields [tex]1/r[/tex] and [tex]e^{-ikr}[/tex], respectively (the first order terms of both expansions contain factors [tex]z'/r^2[/tex] and therefore become insignificant).

Careful, you can definitely say terms with [itex]\left(\frac{z'}{r}\right)^2[/tex] are insignificant (the square of a very small number is an even smaller number), but that doesn't necessarily mean that [itex]\frac{z'}{r^2}[/itex] is negligible...As an example, if [itex]s=10^{-6}[/itex] and [itex]r=10^{-4}[/itex], then [itex]|z'|\leq s\ll r[/itex] as demanded by the problem statement, but [itex]\frac{z'}{r^2}\leq\frac{s}{r^2}=100[/itex] won't be negligible.<br /> <br /> You will need to keep the first order terms in your expansions, and use your second approximation ([itex]s\ll \frac{\omega}{c}[/tex] )to later rid yourself of them.[/itex][/itex]
 
I'm not exactly having my finest moment as an aspiring physicist here. I blame it on simply rushing through the calculations since I'd really like to be doing something else for a little while. :cry:

gabbagabbahey said:
Careful, you can definitely say terms with [itex]\left(\frac{z'}{r}\right)^2[/tex] are insignificant (the square of a very small number is an even smaller number), but that doesn't necessarily mean that [itex]\frac{z'}{r^2}[/itex] is negligible...As an example, if [itex]s=10^{-6}[/itex] and [itex]r=10^{-4}[/itex], then [itex]|z'|\leq s\ll r[/itex] as demanded by the problem statement, but [itex]\frac{z'}{r^2}\leq\frac{s}{r^2}=100[/itex] won't be negligible.<br /> <br /> You will need to keep the first order terms in your expansions, and use your second approximation ([itex]s\ll \frac{\omega}{c}[/tex] )to later rid yourself of them.[/itex][/itex]
[itex][itex] <br /> You're right. I didn't get any [itex]\frac{z'}{r^2}[/itex] terms, though; the expansions I did were incorrect. I did have to use the approximation [itex]s\ll \frac{\omega}{c}[/tex] in one of the expansions, though.<br /> <br /> Thanks again![/itex][/itex][/itex]