Can a magnetic flux travel through space without an electric component?

[vector22]

Maxwell says that electromagnetic energy traveling through space has a electric and magnetic component at right angles. That is what the measurements prove but... what about electromagnet energy that travels through space unhindered? The permitivity and permiability of space seems to be constant so is that why light has a finite speed. If you slow down light by taking a measument you will find elctric and magnetic componet but if you leave it unhindered will the electrostatic component collapse to allow the energy to travel as magnetic flux only?

To be specific, can a magnetic flux travel through space without an electric component?

 

[Dale]

To be specific, can a magnetic flux travel through space without an electric component?

No. See Faraday's law.

 

[vector22]

I have trouble imagining that the electric field is in phase with the magnetic field as light travels through space unhindered. To me the laws of conservation must be satified if light is going to travel at light speed. So why does light travel huge distances at light speed. We can see galaxys millions of light years away. if the E field of that light were to ionize the sparse gases as it travled it would be dissipatesd much like a resistance. So as light travels it MUST travel with maximum efffiicentcy. . Just my opinion, but what law of nature would prevent light travleing as a maganetic disturbance in the "ether" I mean the ether is the permitivity permiability constants of a vacuum - one of the very characterisitics of space itself. That might be how light cna travel these huge distances without loosing energy. The magnetic flux disturbance travels fast enoguh so that it's natural tendency to collapse into an E field are prevented thus we might be able to think of a magenic flux disturbacne traveling at light speed as sort of a "frozen magnetic flux"


I just found this equation on this site:

c = 1 / √(ε0 μ0).

It is saying that light has a E component - or does it?.


The equatio does not tell us by which mode that light travels in . It might be a mistake to conclude that light is balance between the electric and magnetic fields. The equation does not satisfy any laws of consvervation of energy for a disturbance traveling at the speed of light

 

[ZapperZ]

I just found this equation on this site:

c = 1 / √(ε0 μ0).

It is saying that light has a E component - or does it?. The equatio does not tell us by which mode that light travels in . It might be a mistake to conclude that light is balance between the electric and magnetic fields. The equation does not satisfy any laws of consvervation of energy for a disturbance traveling at the speed of light

You made several claims, but never showed any evidence of such claim. Please note that, per the PF Rules that you had agreed to, such speculative posts are not allowed.

Asking for evidence for the existence of E-field in light is rather strange. Particle accelerators all over the world WORK because of the existence of E-field in EM radiation such as light. The LINACs that are the accelerating structures use the E-field in a particular RF geometry to accelerate charged particles.

Learn a little bit about waveguides before forming these "thoughts".

Zz.

 

[Dale]

what law of nature would prevent light travleing as a maganetic disturbance in the "ether"

I already answered this: Faraday's law.

 

[Drakkith]

if the E field of that light were to ionize the sparse gases as it travled it would be dissipatesd much like a resistance

This doesn't happen because the vast majority of photons do not interact with any particles on the way here. The ones that do don't reach us.

 

[cragar]

You can have the E an B components out of phase when light travels certain media.

 

[vector22]

Zapper Z

I have re read the posting rules and agree I don't want to confuse already published science about electromagnetics but my posts were not entirely speculative for instance I asked the question:

Just my opinion, but what law of nature would prevent light travleing as a maganetic disturbance in the "ether"

now i realize that the word "ether" is almost not used anymore and maybe it was a bad choice to use that word . Also in my posts I never said my speculations were factual they were entirely my opinion and unproved. I don't want to mislead anyone who is interested in the sciences I would like them to realize that science is often not what we think it is. For instance Galileo was put in jail for saying the Earth revolved around the sun. The pope Wolsey put him under house arrest just because he was teaching science that was not contemporary.

Let us not repeat history

*** cragar
what is this media you speak of.

***
Dalespam
you mean Farday's law of induction.?

That works just fine for physical wires in time changing magnetic fields. An antenna will emit radio waves because one of the constraints of the law of induction is violated; that the conducting wire do not form a closed loop around the magnetic flux. So I would think that once a radio wave is set loose, then Faraday's law should be interpreted differently for radiation that is traveling through space unhindered.

 

[cragar]

in a good conductor the B field will be out of phase with the E field by 45 degrees.
reference: Griffiths page 396

 

[ZapperZ]

Also in my posts I never said my speculations were factual they were entirely my opinion and unproved.

This is EXACTLY the type of posts that we do not allowed. Remember, you have explicitly AGREED to abide by those rules upon joining this forum.

I don't want to mislead anyone who is interested in the sciences I would like them to realize that science is often not what we think it is. For instance Galileo was put in jail for saying the Earth revolved around the sun. The pope Wolsey put him under house arrest just because he was teaching science that was not contemporary.

Oh puhleeze! I know Galileo, and you're not Galileo. Galileo proposed his ideas based on an INTIMATE understanding of the science. You were making wild, unfounded guesses, even by your own admission. So don't try to compare yourself with him. It is not even close. You are invoking tactics and arguments that are popularly used by crackpots.

You have not indicated if you've even understood my rebuttal to your post. I'm guessing that you've never studied the physics associated with waveguides and why geometries such as TE and TEM modes would have EASILY answered your question.

Zz.

 

[Dale]

you mean Farday's law of induction.?

That works just fine for physical wires in time changing magnetic fields. An antenna will emit radio waves because one of the constraints of the law of induction is violated; that the conducting wire do not form a closed loop around the magnetic flux. So I would think that once a radio wave is set loose, then Faraday's law should be interpreted differently for radiation that is traveling through space unhindered.

No, Faraday's law is always applicable in EM. It is not constrained only to wires and it is certainly not violated in antennas.

You really need to stop speculating and start studying. Your question has been clearly and unambiguously answered already.