Maxwell's Equation: Proving the Speed of Light

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around how Maxwell derived the speed of light as \(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu\epsilon}}\) from his equations. Participants explore the mathematical foundations and implications of Maxwell's equations in the context of electromagnetic waves and light, touching on both theoretical and historical aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asks for clarification on how Maxwell proved the speed of light is \(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu\epsilon}}\).
  • Another participant outlines two methods to derive the speed of light from Maxwell's equations: transforming the equations into a wave equation or constructing a simple case, though they note the latter is insufficient.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that Maxwell's contribution was more about recognizing light as electromagnetic radiation due to the numerical agreement of \(c \approx \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu\epsilon}}\).
  • One participant expresses a preference for the first method of treatment as being more convincing.
  • A detailed mathematical derivation is presented, showing how Maxwell's equations can be manipulated to yield the wave equation and the speed of light, including the use of vector calculus identities.
  • Another participant points out that while the method presented is valid, it uses vector operators introduced later by Heaviside, suggesting that Maxwell would have used a different approach based on integral-differential forms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the methods used to derive the speed of light from Maxwell's equations, with no consensus on which method is more valid or historically accurate. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the exact approach Maxwell would have taken.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of the historical context of vector calculus and its introduction after Maxwell's original work, which may affect the interpretation of the methods discussed.

Ebolamonk3y
Messages
180
Reaction score
0
How exactly did Maxwell prove speed of light is [tex]\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu\epsilon}}[/tex]
 
Science news on Phys.org
Well, that is mathematically rather sophisticated. To prove it, the following two equations are needed (2 of the 4 famous equations that explain classical electrodynamics completely:)

[tex]\oint\vec{B}d\vec{s}=\mu_0 I+\mu_0\varepsilon_0\frac{d}{dt}\oint E_n dA[/tex]

[tex]\oint\vec{E}d\vec{s}=-\frac{d}{dt}\int B_n dA[/tex]

Now, there are two possibilties to get the speed of light:

1) The equations can be transformed into a wave equation (difficult) and you can get the speed of the wave.

2) A special and simple case can be constructed where it is rather easy to get the speed. Though, this way isn't really sufficient.
 
The speed of light was already closely approximated at the time (I believe). What Maxwell really did is to suggest that light was a form of electromagnetic radiation through the close numerical agreement of c ~ 1/√με.
 
Hehe. I like the first treatment better... Its more "convincing" as of now. :)
 
In a vacuum, Maxwell's Equation (differential form) reduce to

[tex]\nabla * E = 0[/tex]

[tex] \nabla * B = 0[/tex]

[tex] \nabla \times B = \epsilon_0 \mu_0 \frac{\delta E} {\delta t}[/tex]

[tex] \nabla \times E = -\frac{\delta B}{\delta t}[/tex]

These are obtainable from the integral forms Sitewinder mentioned, which themselves can be experimentally verified with batteries and wire loops and compasses and such.

Take the curl of both sides of the bottom two equations. For example, the last one is
[tex] <br /> \nabla \times \nabla \times E = -\frac{\delta \nabla \times B}{\delta t}[/tex]

Use a vector calculus identity (think of it as a special case of the chain rule, if you want):
[tex] \nabla \times \nabla \times A = \nabla(\nabla * A) - \nabla^2 A[/tex]
(I fudged the first term; I know that it's zero in a vacuum because div E is 0.)

Substitute in -mu0 epsilon0 dE/dt for curl of B, and you've got
[tex] \nabla^2 E = \mu_0 * \epsilon_0 * -\frac{\delta^2 E}{ \delta t^2}[/tex]
This is the 3D version of the wave equation; you can show that any wave (spherical, cylindrical, plane) satisfies this equation, with a propagation speed of
[tex]\frac{1}{(\mu_0 \epsilon_0 )^(0.5)}[/tex]

P
 
Last edited:
Ebolamonk3y,
Just a short note: Rocketcity showed a valid method of determining the speed of an electromagnetic waves equations using the vector operators.However, vector operators were introduced by Oliver Heaviside several years later after Maxwell published his original findings. So, the method that Rocket city posted is not the "exact" method that James Maxwell would have used to prove what the speed of electromagnetic waves was. He would have started usinfg the integral-differential forms of his equations instead.
Regards,
Roland
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K