text
stringlengths
0
6.73k
cach point the fñeld is determined by the acceleration of the charge at an earlier
time, the amount earlier being the delay r/c. The field at farther and farther
points is determined by the acceleration at earlier and earlier times. So the curve
in Eig. 29-3 is really, in a sense, a “reversed” plot of the acceleration as a function
of time; the distanece is related to time by a constant scale factor c, which we
--- Trang 499 ---
often take as unity. This is easily seen by considering the mathematical behavior
of ø(£ — r/c). Evidently, if we add a little time Af, we get the same value for
a(È — r/c) as we would have if we had subtracted a little distance: Ar = —c Ai.
Stated another way: if we add a little time A£, we can restore œ(£ — r/e) to
1ts former value by adding a little distance Az = cAf. Thhat is, as tỉme goes on
the fteld mmoues qs a U0aue outuUard jrom the source. Thhat is the reason why we
sometimes say light is propagated as waves. I% is equivalent to saying that the
field is delayed, or to saying that the electric feld is moving outward as time
ØO©s OH.
An interesting special case is that where the charge g is moving up and down
in an oscillatory manner. The case which we studied experimentally in the last
chapter was one in which the displacement ø at any time ý was equal to a certain
constant zọ, the magnitude of the oscillation, times cos/. 'Then the acceleration
d = —02#0 COS UÉ — đọ COS UÉ, (29.2)
where ứo is the maximum acceleration, —œ2#o. Putting this formula into (29.1),
we fñnd (t— r/
. Œọ COS(U(È — rc
1 =-qsin8 _.~ (29.3)
Now, ignoring the angle Ø and the constant factors, let us see what that looks
like as a function of position or as a function of time.
29-2 Energy of radiation
First of all, at any particular moment or in any particular place, the strength
of the field varies inversely as the distance r, as we mentioned previously. NÑow
we must point out that the energu content of a wave, or the energy efects that
such an electrie field can have, are proportional to the sợuare of the field, because
1Ý, for instance, we have some kind of a charge or an oscillator in the electric field,
then I1f we let the field act on the oscillator, it makes it move. lf this is a linear
oscillator, the acceleration, velocity, and displacement produced by the electric
fñeld acting on the charge are all proportional to the feld. So the kinetic energy
which is developed in the charge is proportional to the square of the fñield. Š5o we
shall take it that the energy that a field can deliver to a system is proportional
somehow to the square of the field.
This means that the energy that the source can deliver decreases as we gøet
farther away; in fact, 1t varles ?nuersclU as the square oƒ the đistance. But that
--- Trang 500 ---
Fig. 29-4. The energy flowing within the cone ABC D is independent
of the distance r at which ït is measured.
has a very simple interpretation: If we wanted to pick up all the energy we could
from the wave in a certain cone at a distance ?¡ (Eig. 29-4), and we do the same
at another distance r›, we ñnd that the amount of energy per unit area at any
one place øoes inversely as the square of r, but the area of the surface intercepted
by the cone goes đ/recfu as the square of z. So the energy that we can take out
of the wave within a given conical angle is the same, no matter how far away
we arel In particular, the total energy that we could take out of the whole wave
by putting absorbing oscillators all around is a certain fñxed amount. So the
fact that the amplitude of E varies as 1/7 is the same as saying that there is an
energy fux which is never lost, an energy which goes on and on, spreading over a
greater and greater effective area. Thus we see that after a charge has oscillated,
1t has lost some energy which it can never recover; the energy keeps going farther
and farther away without diminution. So ïÝ we are far enough away that our
basic approximation is good enouph, the charge cannot recover the energy which
has been, as we say, radiated away. Of course the energy still exists somewhere,
and is available to be picked up by other systems. We shall study this energy
“loss” further in Chapter 32.
Let us now consider more carefully how the wave (29.3) varies as a function
of time at a given place, and as a function of position at a given time. Again we
ignore the 1/r variation and the constants.
29-3 Sinusoidal waves
Pirst let us ñx the position r, and watch the field as a function of time. Ït is
oscillatory at the angular frequency œ. The angular frequency œ can be defned
--- Trang 501 ---
as the ra£© oƒ chưnge öoƒ phase tuïth từme (radians per second). We have already
studied such a thing, so it should be quite familiar to us by now. 'Phe per?od is
the time needed for one oscillation, one complete cycle, and we have worked that
out too; it is 2#/œ, because œ times the period is one cycle of the cosine.
Now we introduce a new quantity which is used a great deal in physics. This
has to do with the opposite situation, in which we fix £ and look at the wave
as a function of distance r. Of course we notice that, as a function of r, the
wave (29.3) is also oscillatory. That is, aside from 1/r, which we are ignoring, we
see that # oscillates as we change the position. So, in analogy with œ, we can
defne a quantity called the 0œøe rruwmber, symbolized as k. 'This is deñned as ứhe
rake oƒ change oƒ phase tuïth distœnce (radians per meter). 'That 1s, as we move
in space at a fñxed time, the phase changes.
'There is another quantity that corresponds to the period, and we might call
1t the period in space, but it is usually called the wavelength, symbolized À. The
wavelength is the distance occupied by one complete cycle. Ït is easy tO see,
then, that the wavelength is 2Z/&k, because & times the wavelength would be the
number of radians that the whole thing changes, being the product o£ the rate of
change of the radians per meter, times the number of meters, and we must make
a 27 change for one cycle. So &À = 27 is exactly analogous to ¿fọ = 27.
Now in our particular wave there is a definite relationship between the fre-
quency and the wavelength, but the above definitions of k and œ are actually
quite general. 'Phat is, the wavelength and the frequency may not be related in
the same way in other physical circumstances. However, in our circumstance
the rate of change of phase with distance is easily determined, because if we call
Ó = w(t — r/c) the phase, and diferentiate (partially) with respect to distance r7,
the rate of change, Øj/Ôr, is
lg|=£=Š: (29.4)
There are many ways to represent the same thing, such as
À =cío (29.5) À/=ec (29.7)
œ = €k (29.6) œÀ = 27c (29.8)
'Why is the wavelength equal to e times the period? 'Phat”s very easy, Of course,
because if we sit still and wait for one period to elapse, the waves, travelling at
--- Trang 502 ---