Maxwell's electromagnetic wave equation confusion

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around confusion regarding Maxwell's electromagnetic wave equation, specifically the relationship between the Laplacian of the electric field E and its second partial derivative with respect to time. Participants explore the implications of these mathematical expressions and their physical significance.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the equation, questioning how scaling the Laplacian of E by a constant can yield the Laplacian of E itself.
  • Another participant seeks clarification on the variable with respect to which the second partial derivative is taken, identifying it as time.
  • A participant asserts that there is no Laplacian on the right-hand side of the equation, which leads to further discussion about the nature of the derivatives involved.
  • One participant realizes that the right-hand side is only with respect to time, distinguishing it from the Laplacian, and expresses a desire to disregard the thread due to their misunderstanding.
  • A later post introduces a concept related to special relativity that combines the second derivative of time with the Laplacian of spatial variables, referencing a specific book for further exploration.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the initial confusion regarding the equation. There are multiple viewpoints on the interpretation of the terms involved, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights potential misunderstandings regarding the definitions and relationships of mathematical terms in the context of electromagnetic theory. There is an indication of missing clarity on how the Laplacian and second derivatives are applied in this context.

Legion81
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
I'm not understanding something here. Maxwell's wave equation is:

Laplacian of E = (1/c^2) * second partial of E
(sorry, I don't know how to write symbols)

But the second partial derivative is the Laplacian. So how can you scale the laplacian of E by a number and get the laplacian of E as a result? Is there some fundamental rule of EM that allows this? What is physically happening? Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Partial with respect to what variable on the right-hand side?
 
vela said:
Partial with respect to what variable on the right-hand side?

time

Laplacian of E = (1/c^2)* second partial of E with respect to t.
 
Does that answer your question?
 
No. Should it?
 
Well, perhaps I don't understand your question, but there's no Laplacian on the right-hand side.
 
vela said:
Well, perhaps I don't understand your question, but there's no Laplacian on the right-hand side.

Since the laplacian is the second partial derivative, you can write the expression as:

Laplacian of E = (1/c^2)*Laplacian of E

I don't see how you can multiply by a scalar and still get the Laplacian of E back or why it is written as a second derivative instead of the Laplacian. That is what my question is.
 
Legion81 said:
(sorry, I don't know how to write symbols)

For an introduction,

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=8997

For your specific equation:

[tex]\nabla^2 \vec E = \frac{1}{c^2} \frac {\partial^2 \vec E}{\partial t^2}[/tex]

Click on the equation and you get a popup window that shows the code.
 
I just realized what my problem was. The RHS is JUST with respect to time, not x or y or anything. That's not the laplacian...

Lets just imagine this thread never happened, haha! Thanks for your help.
 
  • #10
there is a simble in physics that is due to the special relativity that u can show the second derivative of time combined with the laplacian of x,y and z.

u can find it in the "electromagnetic theory" book that is written by,milford,rits and cristy.(i'm not sure at all,about the spelling of the writers and the name of the book.)
u can search in the last chapters and find it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
6K