Why a charged sphere whose radius oscillates in and out won't radiate?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the question of why a charged sphere with an oscillating radius does not radiate electromagnetic waves. Participants explore concepts from electrodynamics, particularly focusing on Gauss's law, electric monopoles, and the nature of electromagnetic radiation.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant references Griffiths' assertion that a charged sphere with an oscillating radius does not radiate because the electric field remains constant regardless of the charge's position, as described by Gauss's law.
  • Another participant suggests visualizing the sphere's oscillation as akin to a balloon being inflated and deflated, emphasizing that the center of mass remains stationary.
  • A participant expresses an "enlightening bulb moment" upon realizing that the charge can be considered to remain at the center of the sphere during its oscillation.
  • Questions are raised about how the electric field would vary in a tangential direction given the sphere's perfect spherical symmetry.
  • It is noted that the electric field of a point charge radiates radially, and thus the oscillation does not lead to a preferred transverse direction for the electric field.
  • Another participant explains that the electromagnetic radiation field requires at least a dipole component for radiative solutions, as the monopole term is static and does not lead to radiation.
  • There is a mention of gravitational radiation requiring a quadrupole contribution, highlighting differences between electromagnetic and gravitational fields.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the oscillating radius of the charged sphere, with some agreeing on the static nature of the monopole term while others question the implications for radiation. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the overall understanding of the phenomenon.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific concepts from electrodynamics and the implications of spherical symmetry on electromagnetic radiation, but there are unresolved assumptions regarding the nature of oscillation and radiation.

JD_PM
Messages
1,125
Reaction score
156
In chapter 10 (Radiation; just after example 2 from 'Radiation from an arbitrary source') of Introduction to Electrodynamics by G. Griffiths he asserts that a charged sphere with oscillating radius doesn't radiate because, by Gauss law, ##E## stays the same no matter where the charges are located (either around a inner surface enclosed by a Gaussian sphere or the center of the Gaussian sphere):

$$\vec E = \frac{kQ}{r^2}\hat {r}$$

But I don't get it. If the sphere's radius is oscillating the picture I have in my mind is the charged ball kind of bouncing back and forth, which would mean that the sphere is being accelerated and thus it should radiate...

Why is Griffiths saying it will not radiate?

I think he is considering this case as that of an electric monopole, however that one shouldn't oscillate.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
JD_PM said:
the picture I have in my mind is the charged ball kind of bouncing back and forth
Think instead of a balloon being inflated and deflated
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: JD_PM and Ibix
Ohh so the sphere is just expanding/contracting but its centre of mass is indeed at the same point all the time, i.e we can regard all the time Q as being at the centre.

Appreciate your answer! It was literally an enlightening bulb moment!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale
JD_PM said:
Ohh so the sphere is just expanding/contracting but its centre of mass is indeed at the same point all the time, i.e we can regard all the time Q as being at the centre.
Note that EM-waves are transverse waves. In which tangential direction would the E-field vary given perfect spherical symmetry?
 
A.T. said:
In which tangential direction would the E-field vary given perfect spherical symmetry?

##\vec E## field of a point charge goes radially outwards/inwards (depending upon the charge; positive outwards and negative inwards by definition).

If you enclose the charge within a Gaussian surface, the ##\vec E## field will always be equal to (no matter how large the radius is):

$$\vec E = \frac{kQ}{r^2}\hat {r}$$
 
JD_PM said:
##\vec E## field of a point charge ...
That wasn't the point. In an EM-wave E oscillates perpendicularly to the propagation direction. But due to spherical symmetry in this case there is no preferred transverse direction it would oscillate about. From this one can intuitively see that no EM-waves are propagating radially outwards.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: JD_PM
The reason is that the electromagnetic radiation field is a spin-1 field and thus the partial-wave expansion starts with the dipole term. The monopole term is necessarily static, i.e., the only spherically symmetric solution of Maxwell's equations is the electrostatic Coulomb field. You need at least a dipole component to get radiative solutions.

For gravity (linearized general relativity) it's even starting with the quadrupole contribution, which is because the corresponding field is a spin-2 field.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: weirdoguy

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K