Where Am I Going Wrong in Finding Radiation from an Oscillating Dipole?

samjohnny
Messages
83
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



Dipole.png


2. Homework Equations [/B]

Given in the question.

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
For part a I obtained an expression for the the dipole moment:

##P(t)= P_0 cos(wt)##

And therefore, for part b, I obtained the expressions

##\frac{dP}{dt} = -wP_0 sin(wt)## and ##\frac{d^2P}{dt^2} = -w^2P_0 cos(wt)##.

Now when I make use of Eq. 1.39 to obtain ##E_\theta## for part c), I substitute in the above expression for ##\frac{d^2P}{dt^2}##, but end up with the cos term being ##cos(wt)## from ##\frac{d^2P}{dt^2}## as opposed to ##cos(kr-wt)## which is required. Not sure where I'm going wrong.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In Eq. 1.39, the square brackets in the numerators denote a condition on the time at which you evaluate the quantities inside the brackets. Check your notes or text for details.
 
TSny said:
In Eq. 1.39, the square brackets in the numerators denote a condition on the time at which you evaluate the quantities inside the brackets. Check your notes or text for details.

Ah I believe that the derivatives must be evaluated at the retarded time, is that correct?
 
samjohnny said:
Ah I believe that the derivatives must be evaluated at the retarded time, is that correct?
Yes.
 
  • Like
Likes samjohnny
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top