1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Inhomogeneous Electromagnetic Wave Equation

  1. Jan 25, 2007 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    Consider a medium where [tex]\vec{J_f} = 0[/tex] and [tex]{\rho_f}=0[/tex], but there is a polarization [tex]\vec{P}(\vec{r},t)[/tex]. This polarization is a given function, and not simply proportional to the electric field.

    Starting from Maxwell's macroscopic equations, show that the electric field in this medium satisfies the non-homogeneous wave equation:

    [tex]{\nabla}^2\vec{E} - \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{{\partial}^2\vec{E}}{{\partial}t^2} = -\frac{1}{{\epsilon}_0}{\vec{\nabla}}(\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{P})+{{\mu}_0}\frac{{\partial}^2\vec{P}}{{\partial}t^2}[/tex]

    2. Relevant equations

    Maxwell's equations:

    [tex]\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{E}=-{\mu}\frac{{\partial}\vec{H}}{{\partial}t}[/tex] ........(1)
    [tex]\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{E}=\frac{\rho}{\epsilon}[/tex] ........(2)
    [tex]\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{H}=\vec{J}+{\epsilon}\frac{{\partial}\vec{E}}{{\partial}t}[/tex] .......(3)
    [tex]\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{H}=0[/tex] .......(4)

    [tex]\vec{D}={{\epsilon}_0}\vec{E} - \vec{P}[/tex] .......(5)

    In the notes J and [tex]/rho[/tex] did not have the f subscript, but there was a note saying it was dropped for simplicity. In the problem, the f subscripts were there. I am going to assume they are applying directly to the symbols in the Maxwell equations (that [tex]J = J_f and \rho={\rho}_f[/tex]).

    3. The attempt at a solution

    My first confusion lies in the fact that when you simplify the Maxwell equations using the two knowns above, you end up with:

    [tex]\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{E}=-{\mu}\frac{{\partial}\vec{H}}{{\partial}t}[/tex] ........(1.b)
    [tex]\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{E}=0[/tex] ........(2.b)
    [tex]\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{H}={\epsilon}\frac{{\partial}\vec{E}}{{\partial}t}[/tex] .......(3.b)
    [tex]\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{H}=0[/tex] .......(4.b)

    But using these exact equations and the identity:

    [tex]\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{E} = \vec{\nabla}(\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{E}) - {\nabla}^2\vec{E}[/tex] .......(6),

    the homogeneous wave equation is found:

    [tex]{\nabla}^2\vec{E} - \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{{\partial}^2\vec{E}}{{\partial}t^2}=0[/tex] ........(7)

    So I am kind of confused what I am supposed to be doing here. Did I mess up the assumption and reduce the maxwell equations too much? If not, am I trying to equate the RHS of the inhomogeneous equation to 0? I tried rearrange equation (5) for E, then plug it into the LHS of (1) and got:


    I separated out the terms with D and terms with E in them, using the fact that the operators are linear. And therefore had:

    [tex]\frac{1}{{\epsilon}_0}{\nabla}^2\vec{D} - \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{{\partial}^2\vec{D}}{{\partial}t^2}-\frac{1}{{\epsilon}_0}{\nabla}^2\vec{P} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{{\partial}^2\vec{P}}{{\partial}t^2}[/tex]

    and then in the notes, the parts with D equaled 0. It seemed to be a consequence of equation (7), and would just make is so that I had to satisfy the condition: [tex]{\nabla}^2\vec{P}={\vec{\nabla}}(\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{P})[/tex]

    but I couldn't get that to work out either, using the earlier vector calc identity (equation 6). So basically I am either approaching this wrong, or have made a bad assumption.
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 28, 2007 #2
    Still wondering about this problem..Haven't really worked on it, since i'm kinda stumped.

    EDIT: Figured out that one of my initial equations had a slight error. Problem solved!
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2007
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Inhomogeneous Electromagnetic Wave Equation