Intuition on equipartition of energy (EM waves)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the equipartition theorem, which states that energy is evenly distributed among all degrees of freedom in thermal equilibrium. While this concept is intuitive for composite particles with translational and rotational motion, its application to electromagnetic waves raises questions. The participants note that although energy distribution among polarizations of EM waves seems logical, equating this energy to ##1/2 k T## is not intuitively clear. They highlight the formal similarities in the mathematical representation of Poynting energy and harmonic oscillators, despite the fundamental differences between fields and particles. Ultimately, the conversation suggests that the connection between equipartition and electromagnetic temperature may be more definitional than intuitive.
center o bass
Messages
545
Reaction score
2
Hi!

I try to get some intuitive understanding on the equipartition theorem stating that in thermal equilibrium, energy is evenly distributed among all degrees of freedom of a physical system.

This is indeed intuitive for a system consisting of composite particles with translational and rotational motion: each degree of freedom is just a kind of velocity, and with the randomness of thermal equilibrium it is intuitive that the energy is distributed equally among the different velocities. By reference to the ideal gass law, this amount should be ##1/2 k T##.

However, what about electromagnetic waves: it is intuitive that the energy should be distributed equally amongst the polarizations -- however, why is the energy, also here, ##1/2 kT##?

Is it intuitive that the energy associated to a degree of freedom of a material particle is the same as the energy corresponding to degree of freedom of an electromagnetic wave? I.e. ##1/2 k T##?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I would not call it intuitive, but it's hard to agree what does it mean. I would call it formal - Poynting energy can be written down formally in a way resembling the way harmonic oscillator's energy is written down. Physics is completely different (field vs. particle) but on a paper, the formulae look almost the same so people thought "let's try to apply the equipartition theorem to the field and see what happens".
 
Jano L. said:
I would not call it intuitive, but it's hard to agree what does it mean. I would call it formal - Poynting energy can be written down formally in a way resembling the way harmonic oscillator's energy is written down. Physics is completely different (field vs. particle) but on a paper, the formulae look almost the same so people thought "let's try to apply the equipartition theorem to the field and see what happens".

Indeed -- if it were not the case that this had to agree with the experimental notion of temerature -- i would think it was more of a definition of electromagnetic temperature.
 
This is from Griffiths' Electrodynamics, 3rd edition, page 352. I am trying to calculate the divergence of the Maxwell stress tensor. The tensor is given as ##T_{ij} =\epsilon_0 (E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} E^2)+\frac 1 {\mu_0}(B_iB_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} B^2)##. To make things easier, I just want to focus on the part with the electrical field, i.e. I want to find the divergence of ##E_{ij}=E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij}E^2##. In matrix form, this tensor should look like this...
Thread 'Applying the Gauss (1835) formula for force between 2 parallel DC currents'
Please can anyone either:- (1) point me to a derivation of the perpendicular force (Fy) between two very long parallel wires carrying steady currents utilising the formula of Gauss for the force F along the line r between 2 charges? Or alternatively (2) point out where I have gone wrong in my method? I am having problems with calculating the direction and magnitude of the force as expected from modern (Biot-Savart-Maxwell-Lorentz) formula. Here is my method and results so far:- This...
Back
Top