Derivation of electromagnetic waves

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the derivation of electromagnetic wave equations and the confusion surrounding the direction of integration in those derivations. The user expresses difficulty in understanding why a negative sign appears in one of the equations and seeks clarification on the integration process, particularly in relation to Faraday's law and Lenz's law. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding concepts like "curl" and the correct orientation of integration loops for electric and magnetic fields. It concludes with a realization that the concept of curl was the missing piece in grasping the relationships between the fields and their directions. Understanding these principles is crucial for correctly deriving electromagnetic wave equations.
FunkyNoodles
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I've seen derivations for c=E/B and c=1/√μ0ε0, but I don't seem to get the directions right. i.e. I end up with a negative sign in one of the equations. The derivations I've seen do not use vector calculus.
One derivation I've seen is in this video. But in this video I don't know how the direction of integration is determined, as that would solve my problem; it seems to contradict Lenz's law. Any help would be grateful!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Can you show some work... so we know which equation has the negative sign?
Do you know what the "curl" is?
 
http://imgur.com/KzXQADm
Here's my poor limited understanding of em waves without using vector calculus (I've heard of "curl" or "divergence", but don't really know what they are). So my question is that two rectangles have different directions of integration. For example, for the top graph, magnetic field is increasing at the instance the rectangle is taken, so according to Faraday's law, shouldn't the direction of integration be reversed, as the net electric field needs to generate a magnetic field that opposes the change? Or maybe this is just an obvious mistake...
 
The integration loops are chosen so that
the normal to the upper loop (for ##E_y##) points along ##\hat x \times \hat y=\hat z##
and
the normal to the lower loop (for ##B_z##) points along ##\hat z \times \hat x=\hat y##

The circulation of ##\vec E## is positive... with your right-hand, the electric field curls* counter-clockwise (with its normal along ##\hat z##), which follows the sense of the integration loop. By Faraday, with its minus-sign, that is ##-\frac{\partial B_z}{\partial t}##.
*(With your right hand, have your right-hand fingers point along the longer Electric Field vector, then bending to curl around the loop to the shorter Electric Field vector.)

The circulation of ##\vec B## is negative... with your right-hand, the magnetic field curls clockwise (with its normal along ##-\hat y##), which is opposite the sense of the integration loop. By Ampere, that is ##\frac{\partial E_y}{\partial t}##.

So, both Faraday and Ampere say that the fields in that interval ##dx## must decrease in the next instant... which is consistent with the entire waveform advancing along the positive-x axis.
 
  • Like
Likes FunkyNoodles
Oh, I see, the curl is what I was missing. Thanks, that helped a lot.
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top