Electromagnetic Waves: Electric & Magnetic Fields

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between electric and magnetic fields, particularly whether varying fields can exist independently of charges. Participants explore concepts from electromagnetism, including Maxwell's equations, the role of charges in creating fields, and the implications of particles like neutrinos and photons in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that a varying electric field creates a magnetic field and vice-versa, suggesting that this is a more accurate description than stating that charges create such fields.
  • Others argue that while charges do create fields, fields can exist without charges, citing examples like neutrino annihilation and Hawking radiation from uncharged black holes.
  • A participant expresses discomfort with the idea that a field can create another without an existing charge, concluding that a charge must create the first field, which then varies to produce the second field.
  • There is a contention regarding whether neutrinos, which are uncharged, can create electromagnetic fields, with some asserting that neutrinos have a magnetic moment despite having no charge.
  • Participants reference Maxwell's equations to support their arguments about the nature of electromagnetic fields and their interdependence.
  • One participant questions if an electromagnetic field could exist in a universe devoid of charges, prompting further discussion on the nature of fields and sources.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the necessity of charges for the existence of electric and magnetic fields. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus on the foundational concepts being debated.

Contextual Notes

Some statements rely on interpretations of electromagnetic theory and definitions of fields, which may vary among participants. The discussion includes references to specific particles and their properties, which are subject to ongoing scientific inquiry.

kent davidge
Messages
931
Reaction score
56
Is it correct to say a varying electric field creates a magnetic field and vice-versa instead of saying that a charge creates such fields?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
kent davidge said:
Is it correct to say a varying electric field creates a magnetic field and vice-versa instead of saying that a charge creates such fields?
"As well as" would work better than "instead of":
- A varying electrical field will produce a magnetic field.
- A varying magnetic field will produce an electrical field.
- Electrical charges will produce an electrical field.

Google for "Maxwell's equations" if you want to see the real thing.
 
Nugatory said:
"As well as" would work better than "instead of":
- A varying electrical field will produce a magnetic field.
- A varying magnetic field will produce an electrical field.
- Electrical charges will produce an electrical field.

Google for "Maxwell's equations" if you want to see the real thing.

+ Moving electrical charges will produce a magnetic field.
 
(i don't speak english well) Oh yes. I'd never been confortable with the idea that a field creates another in space without existing a charge. Then I realize that whenever there is a field, there is a charge that produces that field in somewhere (maybe very far away). But once a field exists and varies, it can produces the other field. Then my conclusion was that there must be one charge to create the first field, then such field varying (thanks to the moviment of the charge) will produce the other field independently of the charge. Is this conclusion correct?
 
Charges do create fields, but you can also have fields without charges. For example, annihilation of matter and antimatter will create photons. I don't think the matter and antimatter have to be charged for this to occur. You can also get Hawking radiation from uncharged black holes.
 
But matter is composed of electrical charges :biggrin:, is it not so?
 
kent davidge said:
But matter is composed of electrical charges :biggrin:, is it not so?

Neutrino is one example of "matter" that has no charge. So that criteria is not valid.

Zz.
 
oh ok. and do neutrinos emit electromagnetic waves?
 
kent davidge said:
oh ok. and do neutrinos emit electromagnetic waves?

It has a magnetic dipole.

Zz.
 
  • #10
Soooo, anyway there must be a "body" which first creates a field. In this case the "body" is the neutrino, no??
 
  • #11
kent davidge said:
Soooo, anyway there must be a "body" which first creates a field. In this case the "body" is the neutrino, no??

I'm not sure what you are getting at, because it appears as if you're making things up as you go along. First you insist that all matter must be made of charge. Now that that has been shown to be wrong, you now want to have a "body" being present.

What are you trying to argue for, here? That ALL E&M fields must have some sort of a "source" that creates them? How far back in time and space do you want to trace this source? I can show you an accelerating structure for a particle accelerator where the "source" is no where near this structure, and yet, we have a waveguide containing an EM field.

Someone earlier mentioned that you should look into Maxwell equations. Have you done that yet?

Zz.
 
  • #12
Yes, I'm trying to say that it would be there a source of a electric or a magnetic field, but only for the first field (electric or magnetic) to be created. Then this field changing would create the second. Example: in a magnet we have a magnetic field, created by the charges arrangement. This field changing creates a electric field, as you know.
You recommended me to look at the Maxwell equations... yes, those equations tell us a lot about the behavior of the fields, but what I'm wondering is if you go back in space you'll find a source that is generating at least one of them.
 
  • #13
kent davidge said:
Yes, I'm trying to say that it would be there a source of a electric or a magnetic field, but only for the first field (electric or magnetic) to be created. Then this field changing would create the second. Example: in a magnet we have a magnetic field, created by the charges arrangement. This field changing creates a electric field, as you know.
You recommended me to look at the Maxwell equations... yes, those equations tell us a lot about the behavior of the fields, but what I'm wondering is if you go back in space you'll find a source that is generating at least one of them.

Sorry, nope. The real field in physics is electromagnetic. Electric and magnetic are ways to view the electromagnetic field. They are not independent.

I suggest you spend some time on Wikipedia reading about electromagnetic fields.
 
  • #14
Ok, so let us imagine our universe with no charges. Would we still have a electric or a magnetic field in some point of the universe?
 
  • #15
You can still have neutrino annihilations and black holes without charges.
 
  • #16
A photon has no charge. I can't think of any physics that says that a photon 's life must have a beginning or an end.
 
  • #17
kent davidge said:
Ok, so let us imagine our universe with no charges. Would we still have a electric or a magnetic field in some point of the universe?

Where exactly did you stop understanding the fact that I presented regarding neutrinos? It has ZERO mass, and yet, it has a magnetic moment. Is it because you didn't have an appreciation what "having a magnetic moment" actually means? This is something that behaves as if it is a "bar magnet", to put crudely, and implies that if I have a sensitive enough Gauss meter, I can detect a magnetic field from it.

Yet, it is NO CHARGE!

I have just repeated what I had told you already.

Now, have we answered your question?

Zz,.
 
  • #18
Ok. I think I did not express my thoughts well.

ZapperZ said:
It has ZERO mass
Wikipedia and others sources of information says that neutrinos have mass.
 
  • #19
kent davidge said:
Ok. I think I did not express my thoughts well.Wikipedia and others sources of information says that neutrinos have mass.

It was a typo. It should read zero CHARGE.

Zz.
 
  • #20
It's interesting how the em field is stated by Wikipedia: "An electromagnetic field (also EM field) is a physical field produced by electrically charged objects".
 
  • #21
kent davidge said:
It's interesting how the em field is stated by Wikipedia: "An electromagnetic field (also EM field) is a physical field produced by electrically charged objects".

And as we all know, Wikipedia is never wrong.

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davenn
  • #22
lol
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
6K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
22K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K