Faraday's Principal of induction

  • Thread starter Thread starter mcaxiak
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Induction
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the phase relationship between electric (E) and magnetic (B) fields in electromagnetic waves, specifically in the context of Faraday's Principle of induction. Participants clarify that while E and B fields are perpendicular to each other and the direction of wave propagation, they are temporally in phase, meaning their peaks and troughs occur simultaneously. However, spatially, the fields are 90 degrees out of phase due to the transverse nature of electromagnetic waves. This relationship is explained through the solutions of Maxwell's equations and the concept of polarization. The conversation highlights the complexity of understanding these fundamental concepts in electromagnetism.
mcaxiak
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Okay, I've been told that the E and B fields in photons are out of phase, I've been told that they are in-phase.
If you just look at Faraday's Principal of induction, it follows that they are out of phase, but I've been told that when they are propogating they are not.
Why the difference? How should a system of four equations have another answer that the induction law does not allow?

Cheers,
Mike
 
Physics news on Phys.org
As I remember, the E and B fields of plane electromagnetic waves are perpendicular to each other and perpendicular to the direction of propagation. I'm not sure you can talk about in phase and out of phase in these conditions. Their mins and maxes do occur at the same point along the direction of propagation.
 
Yes, but why?
 
This is pretty basic stuff, covered in most intermediate and advanced texts on E&M. It is all about solving the Maxwell Eqs with plane waves. Because of the transverse nature of the waves, there are two spatially independent solutions given any propegation direction. E and B are temporarally in phase, and 90 degrees out of phase spatially. All of this is subsumed under the concept of polarization -- worth reading about.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson
 
Hehe, I posted a question about this a couple of months ago and it turned into a rather involved thread. And I never really felt as though I had a satisfactory picture of it... but the way reilly just phrased it is a good explanation and sheds a lot of light on the matter :biggrin:
 

Similar threads

Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
5K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K