Why magnetic field from a current carrying conductor obey inverse-square law?

  • Thread starter NANDHU001
  • Start date
  • #1
22
0
I have read that the electric field from a point charge fall off as 1/(r*r) since it is analogous to
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).
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
667
4
Bizarre "proof" that the static electric field is analoguous to a radiation... What about the gluon force? It increases over distance. What tells the previous reason in this case?

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
nasu
Gold Member
3,785
438
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?
 

Related Threads on Why magnetic field from a current carrying conductor obey inverse-square law?

Replies
5
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
735
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Top