A Angularly Propagating Modes In a Cylindrical Waveguide

AI Thread Summary
A user questioned the validity of a result regarding the electric field outside a cylindrical waveguide, suspecting it might not solve the wave equation due to mismatched frequencies. They conducted a Mathematica check against the Helmholtz equation and found a non-zero result, raising doubts about the original solution. However, further investigation led to the realization that the error stemmed from incorrectly applying the scalar Laplacian to the vector components of the electric field. Ultimately, the user confirmed that the original review paper's solution was indeed correct, highlighting a common mistake in vector calculus. The discussion emphasizes the importance of correctly applying mathematical principles in electromagnetic theory.
Twigg
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
893
Reaction score
483
Hey all,

I was citing a result from a review paper in my paper, and I think it's wrong. I would really appreciate an outside perspective if anyone has the time!

The result was for the electric field outside a metal rod (cylindrical waveguide, if you prefer) in vacuum. Here's the picture (you can ignore the ##k_e## and ##k_\gamma## in the diagram, that's unrelated):
Picture1.png

So, the result is for the electric field for r > a. And this is specifically for waves propagating around the circumference of the cylinder, not down the axis (so the wavevector ##\vec{k}## points along ##\hat{\theta}##, NOT along ##\hat{z}##).

The result the paper gives is this: $$E_r = \frac{-\beta}{kr} H_\beta(kr) e^{i(\beta \theta - \omega t)}$$ $$E_\theta = i H_\beta '(kr) e^{i(\beta \theta - \omega t)}$$ where ##k = \sqrt{\epsilon_2} \frac{\omega}{c}## and ##H_{\beta}## are the Hankel functions of the first kind (Hankels of the first kind are chosen because they give retarded waves, while the 2nd kind gives advanced waves).

This solution doesn't seem right to me. I don't think it's even a solution of the wave equation, because the angular frequency and the radial frequencies don't match up. To prove this hunch, I did a little mathematica script to check if this solution solves the Helmholtz equation:

Code:
b = 2;
f[r_, \[Theta]_, z_] := (b/(k*r))*BesselJ[b, k*r]*Exp[I*b*\[Theta]];
(* f[r_,\[Theta]_,z_] := BesselJ[b,k*r]*Exp[\[ImaginaryI]*b*\[Theta]]; *) (*This is a test case!*)
(Laplacian[f[r, \[Theta], z], {r, \[Theta], z}, "Cylindrical"] + k^2 * f[r, \[Theta], z]) // FullSimplify

And the result is (for ##\beta = 2## as a test case):
1637219334686.png

Which is not zero!

As a sanity check, I tried the same code for a function I know solves Helmholtz's equation:

1637219428165.png


Am I right to think this solution is fishy? Or have I finally gone off the deep end?Where I got this from:
These solutions come from page 11 of this open-access review. The review cites a giant E&M textbook called "Electromagnetic Theory" by J. A. Stratton, which has a whole, massive chapter on cylindrical waveguides (Chapter VI). I'm still sifting through it, it's really dense. I'm posting here because I may run out of time before I find the answer on my own.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welp, this one's going to be a self-solved thread. I'm wrong, the review paper is right. I found another reference that backs up the review paper. It's another textbook, this one on polariton modes. I need to still figure out what I was doing wrong when I checked it against the Helmholtz equation. These solutions seem to come out of the Hansen vector fields generated by a scalar wavefunction, so they should be rock solid. I'll post if I find a coherent answer.
 
Yep! Issue resolved. The trick is that I'm dumb and I took the scalar Laplacian of the ##\theta## component of the electric field, when the vector Laplacian is *not* the same as the scalar Laplacian of the cylindrical components

Tl;dr:
$$ [\nabla^2 + k^2] \vec{E} = 0 \not \rightarrow [\nabla^2 + k^2] E_\theta = 0$$

Whoops! 🤡
 
That's a trap everybody gets caught in once ;-).
 
Yes for example consider a simpler example like ##\boldsymbol{F} = f(r) \boldsymbol{e}_{\theta}##, then \begin{align*}

\nabla^2 \boldsymbol{F} &= \nabla(\nabla \cdot \boldsymbol{F}) - \nabla \times (\nabla \times \boldsymbol{F}) \\

&= \nabla(f \nabla \cdot \boldsymbol{e}_{\theta} + \boldsymbol{e}_{\theta} \cdot \nabla f) - \nabla \times (f \nabla \times \boldsymbol{e}_{\theta} + \nabla f \times \boldsymbol{e}_{\theta})

\end{align*}Since ##\nabla f = \boldsymbol{e}_{r} \partial_{r} f##, it follows from the orthogonality of the basis that ##\boldsymbol{e}_{\theta} \cdot \nabla f = 0##. Furthermore,\begin{align*}

\nabla \times \boldsymbol{e}_{\theta} &= \dfrac{1}{r} \boldsymbol{e}_{z} \\

\mathrm{and} \ \ \ \nabla \cdot \boldsymbol{e}_{\theta} &= 0

\end{align*}so it follows that\begin{align*}

\nabla^2 \boldsymbol{F} &= -\nabla \times \left(\left( \dfrac{f}{r} + \partial_{r} f \right) \boldsymbol{e}_{z}\right) \\

&= \boldsymbol{e}_{\theta} \dfrac{\partial}{\partial r} \left( \dfrac{f}{r} + \partial_{r} f\right) \\

&= \boldsymbol{e}_{\theta} \left( -\dfrac{f}{r^2} + \dfrac{1}{r} \partial_{r} f + \partial_{r}^2 f\right)

\end{align*}So ##(\nabla^2 \boldsymbol{F})_{\theta} = -\dfrac{f}{r^2} + \dfrac{1}{r} \partial_{r} f + \partial_{r}^2 f##. On the other hand, \begin{align*}

\nabla^2 F_{\theta} = \nabla^2 f = \dfrac{1}{r} \partial_{r} \left( r \partial_{r} f\right) = \dfrac{1}{r} \partial_{r} f + \partial_{r}^2 f \neq (\nabla^2 \boldsymbol{F})_{\theta}

\end{align*}
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Twigg and vanhees71
vanhees71 said:
That's a trap everybody gets caught in once ;-).
It's the "once" part that gets me o0)
 
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