Light Reflection and Feynmans plane of oscillating charges

AI Thread Summary
Feynman explains that the electric field from a plane of oscillating charges is proportional to the charges' velocity at a retarded time, applicable at various distances. This leads to the conclusion that the electric field is in phase with the negative velocity of the charges. However, there is confusion regarding light reflection, as the incident electromagnetic wave accelerates the charges, causing a phase shift in their velocity. This results in the electric field being phase-shifted by 90°, rather than the expected 180° needed to cancel the incoming wave. The discussion highlights a shared uncertainty about the correct phase relationship and its implications for light reflection.
Sonderval
Messages
234
Reaction score
11
In ch 30-7 of the Lectures, Feynman explains that the field of a plane of oscillating charges at a point P is proportional to the velocity of the charges, considered at the appropriate retarded time (retarded by the vertical distance from the point P).
Feynman derives this formula only for large distance but says that it also works for any other distance.

This implies that directly at the plane of the charges, the electrical field is in phase with the (negative) velocity of the charges (and the same is true at a distance of one, two, three... wavelengths).

What is puzzling me is that this does not seem to allow for correct reflection of light.
If I have an incident em wave, this wave accelerates the charges. The acceleration is in phase with the wave (if the charges are sufficiently free as in a metal), so the vleocity of the charges is shifted by 90° in phase (when the acceleration is maximal, the velocity is zero - at the turning point of the oscillation). If the electrical field is in phase with the velocity, then the electrical field created by the plane of charges is phase-shifted by 90°, not by 180° as it should be to cancel the incoming wave.

Probably I'm making a stupid mistake somewhere, just cannot figure out where.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi, I've only read this post now but I have exactly the same problem! Later in chapter 33 he says that it is possible to show by knowing the field for a layer of charge that the shift should be 180° but it seems just the opposite. Have you solved this problem?
 
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