Conditions on complex plane wave solutions to Maxwell's Equations

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the conditions necessary for complex plane wave solutions to Maxwell's equations in a medium with specified permittivity and permeability, particularly focusing on the electric field \(\vec{E}\) and magnetic field \(\vec{B}\) representations. Participants explore the implications of various Maxwell's equations under the assumption of vanishing charge and current densities.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the requirements derived from Gauss' Law and Faraday's Law, questioning whether the Ampere-Maxwell law's requirement follows from the previous conditions. There is an exploration of how to manipulate vector relationships to derive necessary conditions.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided guidance on how to approach the derivation of the Ampere-Maxwell law requirement from the earlier equations. Multiple methods are being explored, with participants considering the implications of choosing specific axes and using vector identities.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of the vector triple product and its application in the context of the problem, indicating a level of complexity in the relationships between the vectors involved.

insynC
Messages
66
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



What conditions need to be imposed on \vec{E}0, \vec{B}0, \vec{k} and ω to ensure the following equations solve Maxwell's equations in a region with permittivity ε and permeability µ, where the charge density and the current density vanish:

\vec{E} = Re{ \vec{E}0 exp[i(\vec{k}⋅\vec{x} - ωt)] }

\vec{B} = Re{ \vec{B}0 exp[i(\vec{k}⋅\vec{x} - ωt)] }

Homework Equations



Maxwell's Equations and ω=kv

The Attempt at a Solution



I know from Gauss' Law for E & B the following is required:

\vec{k}⋅\vec{E}0 = \vec{k}⋅\vec{B}0 = 0

and from Faraday's Law:

\vec{k} x \vec{E}0 = ω\vec{B}0

Now the Ampere-Maxwell law would suggest the following may be a requirement:

\vec{k} x \vec{B}0 = -(1/c²)ω\vec{E}0

But is this final one really required, or does it in fact follow from the three previous requirements? I remember being told that the latter was correct, but I have no idea how to show this last requirement from the previous three.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can try choosing your axes cleverly. Let's say you set \vec{k} = k \hat{x}, without loss of generality. Now from Gauss' law, pick a choice of directions for either \vec{E_0} or \vec{B_0}. Can you derive the last requirement from the first three?
 
Got it, thanks for your help.
 
That was only one of the ways of doing it. The Ampere-Maxwell relation involves the vector product of k and B. Can you think of some way of evaluating that, based on what you know from the other equations?

This way, your solution will not depend on your choice of axes, which is always nice.
 
Does it involve using:

k x B0 = |k||B|sinθ \hat{n} , where n is perpendicular to k & B. But it should be in either the same direction or the negative direction of E0. I could do a similar thing for the previous cross product equation and relate the two?
 
Yes and no. You want to relate the previous equation to this in some way. You actually know what B_0 is from the previous equation. Just try and use it in this equation :smile:
 
I'm a little confused, from the previous equation \vec{B_0} = 1/ω \vec{k} x \vec{E_0}.

But if I sub that in for \vec{B_0} in the final equation I will get 0 on the LHS as \vec{k} x \vec{k} = 0
 
insynC said:
I'm a little confused, from the previous equation \vec{B_0} = 1/ω \vec{k} x \vec{E_0}.

But if I sub that in for \vec{B_0} in the final equation I will get 0 on the LHS as \vec{k} x \vec{k} = 0

Ah, but you don't have \vec{k} x \vec{k} on the RHS. You have \vec{k} x (\vec{k} x \vec{E_0}). The two are very different. Look up vector triple products (I think it may also be called Lagrange's formula, not sure).
 
I used A x (B x C) = B(A⋅C) - C(A⋅B) and got the result. Thanks for your help, would not have thought of the triple product.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
4K