EM Wave in Plasma: Reflection, Attenuation & Radiated Power

AI Thread Summary
A monochromatic plane electromagnetic (EM) wave cannot exist in a plasma when its frequency (\omega) is less than the plasma frequency (\omega_p), as it is completely reflected. When \omega is greater than \omega_p, the power radiated is similar to that of a plane wave in a vacuum, with the Poynting vector indicating the time-averaged power flux. For \omega < \omega_p, the wave vector becomes complex, leading to an exponential decay in amplitude, which suggests that the wave cannot propagate. This behavior is indicative of attenuation or evanescence in the plasma. Therefore, waves with frequencies below the plasma frequency do not propagate through plasma.
Euclid
Messages
213
Reaction score
0
Can a monochromatic plane EM wave exists in a plasma when \omega is less than \omega_p (the plasma frequency)? If so, is it attenuated?
I read in a text that a wave incident on a plasma with \omega &lt; \omega_p is completely reflected, but does this mean such a wave can't exist in a plasma?
If \omega &gt; \omega_p, is the (time averaged) power radiated just the same as a plane wave in vacuum ?

I get \mathbb{S} = \frac{cE^2}{8\pi \omega}\sqrt{\omega^2 - \omega_p^2}\textbf{z} for omega > omega_p.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Your answer to power flux question (Poynting vector) should convince you that a wave whose frequency is less than the plasma frequency cannot propagate.
 
It does not convince me because my solution is not valid in that domain. For when omega < omega_p the wave vector k becomes complex, so the wave has spatial dependence ~e^(-alpha z) for some real alpha. In a wave guide, this implied attenuation, but here it seems to imply that the wave cannot propogate.
 
Euclid said:
It does not convince me because my solution is not valid in that domain. For when omega < omega_p the wave vector k becomes complex, so the wave has spatial dependence ~e^(-alpha z) for some real alpha. In a wave guide, this implied attenuation, but here it seems to imply that the wave cannot propogate.

That's precisely because it does not propagate and is what "attenuation" or evanescence means.
 
This is from Griffiths' Electrodynamics, 3rd edition, page 352. I am trying to calculate the divergence of the Maxwell stress tensor. The tensor is given as ##T_{ij} =\epsilon_0 (E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} E^2)+\frac 1 {\mu_0}(B_iB_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} B^2)##. To make things easier, I just want to focus on the part with the electrical field, i.e. I want to find the divergence of ##E_{ij}=E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij}E^2##. In matrix form, this tensor should look like this...
Thread 'Applying the Gauss (1835) formula for force between 2 parallel DC currents'
Please can anyone either:- (1) point me to a derivation of the perpendicular force (Fy) between two very long parallel wires carrying steady currents utilising the formula of Gauss for the force F along the line r between 2 charges? Or alternatively (2) point out where I have gone wrong in my method? I am having problems with calculating the direction and magnitude of the force as expected from modern (Biot-Savart-Maxwell-Lorentz) formula. Here is my method and results so far:- This...
Back
Top