Energy of an electromagnetic wave

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the energy of electromagnetic waves, particularly focusing on the relationship between frequency, amplitude, and energy. Participants explore concepts from classical electrodynamics and quantum mechanics, debating the implications of these frameworks on the understanding of electromagnetic wave energy.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the energy of an electromagnetic wave depends solely on amplitude, questioning why higher frequency light appears more energetic.
  • Others clarify that while individual photons have energy dependent on frequency, classical electromagnetic waves involve both frequency and photon number, complicating the energy relationship.
  • A participant emphasizes that classical electromagnetic waves are coherent states and do not have a well-defined photon number, suggesting a need to focus on classical electrodynamics first.
  • Some participants argue that statements about individual photons do not necessarily apply to arbitrary electromagnetic waves.
  • There is a discussion about the energy density of electromagnetic waves, with references to equations that describe energy in terms of electric and magnetic fields.
  • Concerns are raised about conflating energy and power, with questions about how energy is measured in waves and the implications of power ratings for different types of electromagnetic radiation.
  • One participant expresses confusion over the mixing of concepts such as classical EM, photons, wavelength, frequency, energy, and power in the original post.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus, as multiple competing views remain regarding the relationship between frequency, amplitude, and energy in electromagnetic waves. The discussion reflects ongoing uncertainty and differing interpretations of classical and quantum perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the potential confusion between classical and quantum descriptions of electromagnetic waves, as well as unresolved questions about the definitions and measurements of energy and power in this context.

PreposterousUniverse
Messages
31
Reaction score
4
The energy of an electromagnetic wave does not depend on the frequency of the wave, only on the amplitude. Then why is light with higher frequency more energetic than light with lower frequency?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
cite ?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
PreposterousUniverse said:
Then why is light with higher frequency more energetic than light with lower frequency?
I think you are confusing this with photons vs. electromagnetic waves.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2 and vanhees71
PreposterousUniverse said:
Then why is light with higher frequency more energetic than light with lower frequency?
It isn't. A single photon has an energy that depends on frequency, yes. But by the time you've got enough photons that you can talk about light as a classical electromagnetic wave you have two variables: frequency and number of photons. You can vary the energy being carried at a given frequency by varying the number of photons. That's why classical electromagnetism has no defined relationship between energy carried and frequency.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2 and malawi_glenn
A classical electromagnetic wave is not a photon state but a coherent state. It has not even a well-defined "photon number". Forget about photons at this stage and first study thoroughly classical electrodynamics. The energy density of the electromagnetic field in the vacuum is (in SI units)
$$u=\frac{\epsilon_0}{2} \vec{E}^2 + \frac{1}{2 \mu_0} \vec{B}^2.$$
The total energy is given by the integral over all space.
 
Then why are infrared light, visible light and microwaves less energetic than gamma rays, X-rays, and ultraviolet light?
 
PreposterousUniverse said:
Then why are infrared light, visible light and microwaves less energetic than gamma rays, X-rays, and ultraviolet light?
They aren't if you are talking about electromagnetic waves. Photons of higher frequency do have higher energy, but that's not the same thing as "all gamma radiation carries more energy than all X ray radiation", which would be wrong.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
Uranium atoms are heavier than iron atoms. That does not mean that it's impossible to make a chunk of iron heavier than a chunk of uranium. The number of atoms matters as well as their individual masses!

There are complexities with photons that aren't present in this analogy, to which @vanhees71 alludes. But the basic problem is that you are taking statements that are true about individual photons and assuming that they apply to arbitrary EM waves that are not single photons.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: malawi_glenn and vanhees71
In free space, the energy density of an EM wave moving in the z direction has a time dependent amplitude that can be given by

1659548930557.png

If you average over one period Save becomes

1659548945616.png


This is independent of frequency but allows the energy of the wave to contain or be composed of a number of individual quanta whose energy does depend on the frequency ( hf)

1659548959147.png
 
  • #10
Sigh. Why is everybody so obsessed in using a kind of pseudo-photons in classical electrodynamics? A classical electromagnetic wave is, seen from the QED perspective, a coherent state of the electromagnetic (quantum) field. For not too low intensities the quantum fluctuations can be neglected and you can work with classical electrodynamics.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: weirdoguy, malawi_glenn and Lord Jestocost
  • #11
@vanhees71 Sigh. Sorry about that, I figured I might get a negative reaction. However, the OP suggested that he/she might not be able to look at a classical EM wave from a QED perspective.
 
  • #12
PreposterousUniverse said:
Then why are infrared light, visible light and microwaves less energetic than gamma rays, X-rays, and ultraviolet light?

Are they? My microwave oven is 800 W. My gamma ray emitting samples in the physics lab does not come close to that (would be kinda disasterous if they did)

Radiowave transmitters also have some substantial power
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vanadium 50, Nugatory, vanhees71 and 1 other person
  • #13
Comparing energy and power?
 
  • #14
gleem said:
Comparing energy and power?
How do you measure energy in a wave? How can I have just one single radio wave?

If OP @PreposterousUniverse could mention the sources for his claims, I think we can help him/her better
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
  • #15
I am really confused. Two years ago, the OP ws discussing gauge transformation. Now he seems to be mixing together classical EM, classical waves, photons, wavelength, frequency, energy and power. What is going on?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
  • #16
Some retardation effect? ;-) SCNR.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gleem

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
6K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K