- #1

- 22

- 0

variation of intensity of radation from source (whose geometric proof depends on solid-angle), similarily is there any geometric explanation why magnetic field in the stated case fall off as 1/(r*r).

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- #1

- 22

- 0

variation of intensity of radation from source (whose geometric proof depends on solid-angle), similarily is there any geometric explanation why magnetic field in the stated case fall off as 1/(r*r).

- #2

- 667

- 4

As for the static magnetic field... It cannot decrease as 1/R^2 because this would need a permanent current in an open wire. Either it's static, and then you need to close the circuit, and this loop creates a field as 1/R^3, or you have an antenna which accepts only AC current, and radiates an electromagnetic field, not a static magnetic one.

So 1/R^2 exists only as a computation intermediate of static magnetic fields.

- #3

Homework Helper

- 4,181

- 766

similarily is there any geometric explanation why magnetic field in the stated case fall off as 1/(r*r).

It doesn't, does it?

The magnetic field of an infinite, linear conductor goes like 1/r where r is the distance from the wire (along the radius of a cylinder coaxial with the wire).

Maybe you mean a different geometry of the current carrying conductor?

Share:

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 788

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 512

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 588

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 211

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 222

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 474

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 228

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 139

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 425

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 705