Electromagnetic Waves: Electric & Magnetic Fields

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between electric and magnetic fields, particularly whether a varying electric field creates a magnetic field and vice versa. Participants clarify that while electric charges produce electric fields, varying fields can also generate the other type of field. The conversation touches on the existence of fields without charges, citing examples like neutrinos and photons, which can exhibit electromagnetic properties despite lacking charge. The importance of Maxwell's equations in understanding these interactions is emphasized, as they describe the interconnected nature of electric and magnetic fields. Ultimately, the discussion highlights the complexity of electromagnetic fields and the necessity of recognizing both charges and varying fields in their generation.
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 davenn
  • #22
lol
 
Back
Top