The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Does the Earth's magnetic field follow the inverse square law?  (Read 2578 times)

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Does the intensity of the Earth's magnetic field follow the inverse square law?
« Last Edit: 11/04/2016 08:57:17 by chris »


 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
ISL is only appropriate to point sources. Since the earth has the properties of a bar magnet with the north and south poles widely separated, close to the surface of the planet the field strength varies with latitude as well as altitude, but at high altitudes above the poles it is, to a first approximation, an inverse square relationship.   
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
ISL is only appropriate to point sources. Since the earth has the properties of a bar magnet with the north and south poles widely separated, close to the surface of the planet the field strength varies with latitude as well as altitude, but at high altitudes above the poles it is, to a first approximation, an inverse square relationship.


Thank you Alan, so to try and picture this that you said , is my  picture in basic what you just said?




 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
It will do for a first approximation, though the vertices should be at the poles, not the centre
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
It will do for a first approximation, though the vertices should be at the poles, not the centre

I thought the electromagnet field extending from the Earth's core?   

and how far into space does the electromagnetic field extend?

 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8670
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
From a distance (i.e. more than roughly twice the size of the earth) the magnetic field looks like an inverse cube law.

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-magnetic-field-obey-an-inverse-cube-law
ISL is only appropriate to point sources. Since the earth has the properties of a bar magnet with the north and south poles widely separated, close to the surface of the planet the field strength varies with latitude as well as altitude, but at high altitudes above the poles it is, to a first approximation, an inverse square relationship.   
From a distance (i.e. more than roughly twice the size of the earth) the magnetic field looks like an inverse cube law.

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-magnetic-field-obey-an-inverse-cube-law
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
From a distance (i.e. more than roughly twice the size of the earth) the magnetic field looks like an inverse cube law.

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-magnetic-field-obey-an-inverse-cube-law
ISL is only appropriate to point sources. Since the earth has the properties of a bar magnet with the north and south poles widely separated, close to the surface of the planet the field strength varies with latitude as well as altitude, but at high altitudes above the poles it is, to a first approximation, an inverse square relationship.   
From a distance (i.e. more than roughly twice the size of the earth) the magnetic field looks like an inverse cube law.

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-magnetic-field-obey-an-inverse-cube-law

It took me a while to work out what you meant, you mean this?



 

Offline hamdani yusuf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile


It took me a while to work out what you meant, you mean this?




Inverse square law : f(x)=c/x
if the distance is doubled, the field strength is 1/4 previous value.
Inverse cubic law   : f(x)=c/x
if the distance is doubled, the field strength is only 1/8 previous value.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile

Inverse square law : f(x)=c/x
if the distance is doubled, the field strength is 1/4 previous value.
Inverse cubic law   : f(x)=c/x
if the distance is doubled, the field strength is only 1/8 previous value.

Ok, but that makes little sense when 6 inverse square laws make up a cube?

 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3927
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Well now I'm really going to confuse the hell out of you. In order to find the rate at which the function f(x) = c/x^3 is changing we need the derivative. So we start with d/dx [c/x^3]. Using the power rule for c*x^-3 we get c*d/dx[1/x^3]. This gives (-3)*x^-4*c. Then finally we obtain f'(x) =-3c/x^4. Now go and produce a diagram of that one.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8670
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
From a distance (i.e. more than roughly twice the size of the earth) the magnetic field looks like an inverse cube law.

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-magnetic-field-obey-an-inverse-cube-law
ISL is only appropriate to point sources. Since the earth has the properties of a bar magnet with the north and south poles widely separated, close to the surface of the planet the field strength varies with latitude as well as altitude, but at high altitudes above the poles it is, to a first approximation, an inverse square relationship.   
From a distance (i.e. more than roughly twice the size of the earth) the magnetic field looks like an inverse cube law.

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-magnetic-field-obey-an-inverse-cube-law

It took me a while to work out what you meant, you mean this?




What I mean is that, if you go ten times further away, the magnetic field is 1000 times weaker.

i have no idea what your diagram means.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Well now I'm really going to confuse the hell out of you. In order to find the rate at which the function f(x) = c/x^3 is changing we need the derivative. So we start with d/dx [c/x^3]. Using the power rule for c*x^-3 we get c*d/dx[1/x^3]. This gives (-3)*x^-4*c. Then finally we obtain f'(x) =-3c/x^4. Now go and produce a diagram of that one.

Thank you Jeff for adding the complicated maths that of course have no idea what it means. However changing means variant and I certainty know variance, my drawing would remain the same i being any number.

 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
From a distance (i.e. more than roughly twice the size of the earth) the magnetic field looks like an inverse cube law.

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-magnetic-field-obey-an-inverse-cube-law
ISL is only appropriate to point sources. Since the earth has the properties of a bar magnet with the north and south poles widely separated, close to the surface of the planet the field strength varies with latitude as well as altitude, but at high altitudes above the poles it is, to a first approximation, an inverse square relationship.   
From a distance (i.e. more than roughly twice the size of the earth) the magnetic field looks like an inverse cube law.

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-magnetic-field-obey-an-inverse-cube-law

It took me a while to work out what you meant, you mean this?




What I mean is that, if you go ten times further away, the magnetic field is 1000 times weaker.

i have no idea what your diagram means.

My diagram is a cube law, it is a cube made up of inverse square laws with an i that represents n-dimensional imaginary number and 1 to 1 which represents a length of light between two expanding apart bodies.  1 to 0 represents a moving body that has become dimensionless in conjunction with the  Lorentz visual transformational properties and


>r=<x,y  of the object


and all this in conjunction with the inverse square law of light and diminished light at r ''edge'' boundary.


See my universal model in new theories .






 


 

Offline acsinuk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 236
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
    • electricmagnofluxuniverse.blogspot.com
Your cube has 2 corners not marked i . Why is that?
 

Offline PmbNEP

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
As title.
No. The magnetic field of the earth is approximated as that of a magnetic dipole. And a dipole behave as a 1/r3 outside the Earth. See:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_moment

Read right after where it says and hence magnetic field strength is.

All you have to do is think of it in terms of two magnetic monopoles. Although monopoles don't exist,. magnetic dipoles do exist.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Your cube has 2 corners not marked i . Why is that?

Well spotted, no reason other than I missed them, they should also be an i.

 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8670
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Your cube has 2 corners not marked i . Why is that?

Well spotted, no reason other than I missed them, they should also be an i.


Why?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile



Why?
[/quote]


Because you can imagine any number, replace i with N if it confuses less.

A→B  is a length

A→i  is any imagined length. (look at the black background of space)


added - every point source is 1, every blackness is i.










« Last Edit: 10/04/2016 21:29:05 by Thebox »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8670
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Essentially none of what you have posted so far makes any sense.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Essentially none of what you have posted so far makes any sense.


Well the conversation as changed from the question I originally asked to answer questions I was asked, I do not understand what is hard to understand , the Universe and how it works is not that complex, it is not hard to understand my theory in theories.


It is simple, forget that space is expanding and simply consider that bodies are just moving away from us into  more space that is i in length. Also before the big bang there was not nothing, there was space.
For any event to  happen the event needs space to happen in. 



« Last Edit: 11/04/2016 07:21:31 by Thebox »
 

Offline acsinuk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 236
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
    • electricmagnofluxuniverse.blogspot.com
Your original question was does a dipole magnet attractive force follow a square law or cubic law reduction of force as distance increases.  The quora website you linked shows that dipoles are cubic.
The magnoflux concept indicates that the shape of the magnetic field is a double pyramid which has 6 corners and 8 equal sides.  Does this help?   
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8670
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Essentially none of what you have posted so far makes any sense.


Well the conversation as changed from the question I originally asked to answer questions I was asked, I do not understand what is hard to understand , the Universe and how it works is not that complex, it is not hard to understand my theory in theories.


It is simple, forget that space is expanding and simply consider that bodies are just moving away from us into  more space that is i in length. Also before the big bang there was not nothing, there was space.
For any event to  happen the event needs space to happen in. 

You stopped making sense at this point
" space that is i in length"
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Essentially none of what you have posted so far makes any sense.


Well the conversation as changed from the question I originally asked to answer questions I was asked, I do not understand what is hard to understand , the Universe and how it works is not that complex, it is not hard to understand my theory in theories.


It is simple, forget that space is expanding and simply consider that bodies are just moving away from us into  more space that is i in length. Also before the big bang there was not nothing, there was space.
For any event to  happen the event needs space to happen in. 

You stopped making sense at this point
" space that is i in length"


edit - It is simple, forget that space is expanding and simply consider that bodies are just moving away from us into  more space that is n-dimensional with any imaginary number i value in length.







 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length