Electromagnetic Waves: A Confusing Abstraction

Click For Summary
Understanding electromagnetic waves can be challenging due to their abstract nature compared to physical waves. The concept of wavelength relates to the distance between points of maximum strength in the wave, raising questions about what is actually propagating. The discussion highlights confusion around the movement of electric fields associated with charged particles, particularly when they are in motion. There is a distinction made between abstract models in physics and tangible phenomena, leading to uncertainty about what can be physically detected. Clarifying these concepts is essential for a better grasp of electromagnetic waves and their implications in the real world.
darkchild
Messages
153
Reaction score
0
I am having some trouble understanding the concept of electromagnetic waves, I suppose because I expect them to be analogous to physical waves you can see or touch (such as on a string). Yes, I know one can actually see them at visible wavelengths, but that doesn't help because I don't experience light as a wave.

First of all, there's wavelength. This should be a physical distance, according to the units, but the question is: the distance from where in space to where?

Someone tried explaining to me something to the effect that, if one of the fields is at its maximum strength at some point in space, the distance between that point and the next point in space at which that same maximum occurs (along the direction of propagation) determines the wavelength. Well, that raises the question of what exactly is "propagating." I'm sure my old professor would say that the fields are propagating, but that tells me nothing about the real world because the fields are just abstractions, not actual objects that can move. So, what precisely is moving along?

Also, please help me out with the electric field of a moving charge. If we have a single charged particle just sitting somewhere, the electric field can be represented by field lines pointing outward radially. If the particle starts moving, I'm picturing those field lines picking up stakes and moving right along with it, so that, at any instant in time, the electric field is exactly the same as in the case of electrostatics. I'm guessing that's totally wrong, though.

I think my biggest problem is my inability to tell the difference between what physics explanations are just part of an abstract model and what is actually, physically going on, or what could be detected. Of course, in a sense physics is all abstract models, but hopefully people understand what I mean when I assert that some of it is more "real" (things we can touch and see, like force or friction) than other parts of it (things that are totally made up, like fields).

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
good question, I'm waiting for some answer too :biggrin:
 
Happy holidays folks. So I spent some time over the Thanksgiving holidays and developed a program that renders electric field lines of swiftly moving charges according to the Liénard–Wiechert formula. The program generates static images based on the given trajectory of a charge (or multiple), and the images were compiled into a video that shows the animated field lines for harmonic movement and circular movement of a charge (or two charges). Video: The source code is available here...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
21K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
43
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K