EM wave/radiation from which equations?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter xxxyyy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Em
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the origins of electromagnetic (EM) wave phenomena as described by various equations, particularly focusing on the Heaviside-Feynman formula and the Jefimenko equations. Participants explore the relationship between wave solutions for potentials and fields, and the implications of different terms in Feynman's equations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant references Feynman's lectures, suggesting that radiation arises from the acceleration term in the Heaviside-Feynman formula and questions whether wave solutions for potentials translate into wave solutions for fields.
  • Another participant asserts that solutions for the scalar and vector potentials that satisfy the wave equation indeed lead to corresponding wave solutions for the electric and magnetic fields, citing Maxwell's equations and vector calculus identities.
  • A subsequent post provides a mathematical derivation showing that the wave equations hold for both electric and magnetic fields, indicating that they can be expressed in terms of the vector potential.
  • Another participant questions whether wave phenomena originate solely from the third term in Feynman's equation and expresses confusion regarding the omission of homogeneous solutions in Feynman's discussion, referencing a book that claims Lienard-Wiechert potentials are negligible at large distances for bounded charge distributions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the contributions of various terms in Feynman's equations to wave phenomena. There is no consensus on whether the third term alone accounts for all wave behavior, and confusion remains regarding the role of homogeneous solutions.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note limitations in the discussion, such as the dependence on specific definitions and the unresolved nature of certain mathematical steps related to the wave equations.

xxxyyy
Messages
14
Reaction score
2
Hi there,
in Feynmann's lectures, (Vol 2 eq (21.1) Heaviside-Feynman formula)
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_21.html

it is said that radiation comes from the last term, the one with acceleration in it. This formula is a particular case of the Jefimenko equations, the ones derived from Lienard-Wiechert potentials.
These potentials are particular solutions of the inhomogeneus wave equations for the potentials (in Lorenz gauge). I should add the general solution of the homogeneus equestions, i.e. wave solutions, to get the true general solution.

Does wave solutions for the potentials translate into wave solutions for the fields?

And where does exactly the wave phenomenon come from? from the homogeneus solution or from the second time derivative Feynman was talking about in his (21.1) formula?
Thank you!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
xxxyyy said:
Does wave solutions for the potentials translate into wave solutions for the fields?
Absolutely yes. If you have solutions ##V,\vec{A}## for the scalar potential and vector potential that satisfies the homogeneous or inhomogeneous wave equation, then the fields defined by $$\vec{E}=-\nabla V-\frac{\partial \vec{A}}{\partial t}$$ and $$\vec{B}=\nabla\times\vec{A}$$ satisfy the wave equation as well. To prove it is a not so hard vector calculus exercise, you will utilize Maxwell's equation (in differential form) and some vector calculus identities and the Lorentz gauge condition.
 
Last edited:
Set ##\phi = 0## such that ##\mathbf{E} = - \dfrac{\partial \mathbf{A}}{\partial t}## and ##\mathbf{B} = \nabla \times \mathbf{A}##. Set also ##\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} = 0## then from Maxwell\begin{align*}
\Delta \mathbf{A} - \frac{\partial^2 \mathbf{A}}{\partial t^2} &= 0 \ \ \ (1) \\
\end{align*}Take the curl of ##(1)##,\begin{align*}
\Delta ( \nabla \times \mathbf{A} )- \frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}\left( \nabla \times \mathbf{A} \right) &= 0 \\

\Delta \mathbf{B} - \frac{\partial^2 \mathbf{B}}{\partial t^2} &= 0

\end{align*}Instead take the time derivative of ##(1)##,\begin{align*}
\Delta \left( \frac{\partial \mathbf{A}}{\partial t}\right) - \frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} \left( \frac{\partial \mathbf{A}}{\partial t} \right) &= 0\\

\Delta \mathbf{E} - \frac{\partial^2 \mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} &= 0

\end{align*}The wave equations holds on ##\mathbf{E}## and ##\mathbf{B}##. Let ##\xi## be any component of either of these vectors, i.e. ##\Delta \xi - \dfrac{\partial^2 \xi}{\partial t^2} = 0## and let ##\xi(\boldsymbol{x},t) = f(p)## where ##p = k_1 x + k_2 y + k_3 z + k_4 t##. Then ##\dfrac{\partial^2 \xi}{\partial x_i^2} = k_i^2 \dfrac{d^2 f}{dp^2}## hence ##k_1^2 + k_2^2 + k_3^2 - k_4^2 = 0##. You may simply let ##k_4 = \pm 1## so that ##\hat{\mathbf{k}} = (k_1, k_2, k_3)## form the components of a unit vector. Then ##p_{\pm} = \hat{\mathbf{k}} \cdot \boldsymbol{x} \pm t## and for each component the general solution is ##\xi(\boldsymbol{x}, t) = f(p_+) + g(p_{-})##
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2
Does wave phenomena arise from the third term in Feynman equation (21.1)?
At the end of 21-3 paragraph, Feyman boldy says that the complete theory of (classical) EM is in that box... but why doesn't he include the solutions of the homogeneous equations (the wave solutions)? Is really everything, that's a wave, in that third term of (21.1)?
I have here a (very respectable) book that includes them and it even says that, for bounded charge distributions, the Lienard-Wiechert potential are negligible far away from the sources, because they fall of faster then 1/r.
I'm confused.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
718
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K