Energy of an electromagnetic wave

AI Thread Summary
The discussion addresses the relationship between the energy of electromagnetic (EM) waves in classical and quantum physics. It clarifies that while the wave model associates energy with the electric (E) and magnetic (B) fields, the quantum model defines photon energy as proportional to frequency. The apparent contradiction arises from misunderstanding how these two models relate; the energy of an EM wave can be seen as the sum of the energies of many photons. In a macroscopically measurable field, the average number of photons correlates with the strength of the E and B fields. Ultimately, the energy per unit volume in an EM wave is proportional to the squares of the electric and magnetic field strengths.
rmberwin
Messages
13
Reaction score
1
I'm trying to teach myself some basic physics, and so maybe this question is stupid! But according to the wave model, the energy in an EM wave is proportional to the energy in the E and B fields, which can assume a range of values, no? But according to the quantum model, the energy of a photon is simply proportional to the frequency of the light. There seems to be a contradiction here. What am I missing?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The basic answer is that Quantum Mechanics is ultimately correct. An EM wave is made up of many photons, each of which has a discrete, quantized energy value, so the energy of an EM wave is the sum of the energy of every photon.
 
But according to the wave model, the energy in an EM wave is proportional to the energy in the E and B fields, which can assume a range of values, no? But according to the quantum model, the energy of a photon is simply proportional to the frequency of the light. There seems to be a contradiction here. What am I missing?

Could you please state more carefully where do you see the contradiction? The two sentences talk about different things; the wave and the photon.
 
For a system with a very large number of photons (any macroscopically measurable electromagnetic field), you can relate the average number of photons per unit volume to the strength of the classical electric and magnetic fields via the energy per unit volume.
 
although, there doesn't need to be any energy per unit volume. There could just be a plane wave which is transporting energy, which has zero energy per volume.

But yeah, I think that is the rough idea. The energy of a classical EM wave is given by both the frequency of the wave and the amplitude of the electric and magnetic fields. So, we can relate the frequency of the wave to the frequency of each of the photons, and the amplitude of the fields to the number of photons per volume.

edit: wait, no sorry, that's totally incorrect. there does need to be energy per unit volume, which is proportional to E2+B2
 
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