SELF

2

S.B. Karavashkin and O.N. Karavashkina

The value of scalar potential found in [3] had the form

where = /c  is the wave number, I_m is the amplitude of current in the wire, _a  is the magnetic permeability. It follows from (3) that the value of gradient for   has the following shape ([3]):

To check, how much legally we equalise to zero the curl of gradient in (2), substitute (4) to it. Noting that in spherical coordinates the curl of is [4, p. 183]

As we can see, on one hand, on the basis of (2) we yielded a correct expression for strength of electric field of electric dipole in the far field, and on the other hand, we yielded with it the value of scalar potential whose curl of gradient does not turn into zero.

In this paper we will show the cause of revealed contradiction to be so. Following to practice usual for today theoretical physics, Levitch [5] mere formally linked the initial equations of the field yielded in disregard of conservation theorems in dynamic fields with the correct expression (1) for the strength of electric field. Due to this, there happened a standard and often seen in theoretical physics mistake, when a correct result is yielded by incorrect technique. While in reality we can yield (1) from more general view, by-passing the above contradiction of standard derivation.

To show it, we will, basing exceptionally on the phenomenology of process, consider sequentially two basic models of dynamic field on whose basis practically any model can be constructed, and show that in both these models the strength of electric field is presentable in the form (1).