Maxwell's equation in microscopic formulation and speed of EM-waves

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion focuses on the microscopic formulation of Maxwell's equations and the implications for the speed of electromagnetic waves in different media. Participants explore the relationship between the equations, the nature of charge and current densities, and the effects of material properties on wave propagation.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the inhomogeneous electromagnetic wave equations and questions how the nature of charge and current densities affects the speed of waves, noting that the equations imply a constant speed of light.
  • Another participant acknowledges that the phase velocity of electromagnetic waves in a medium changes, referencing the refractive index and suggesting that the bound current density is a functional of the fields themselves.
  • A later reply reiterates the importance of the bound current density being a function of the fields and proposes a model involving elastic binding and friction for bound charges.
  • Further elaboration includes the equation of motion for bound electrons and the derivation of polarization in a medium, leading to a discussion on the plasma frequency and its role in wave propagation.
  • Participants discuss the implications of linear response approximation and the relationship between permittivity and wave propagation, including boundary conditions and dispersion effects in different media.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying views on the implications of the microscopic formulation of Maxwell's equations, particularly regarding the effects of material properties on wave speed. There is no consensus on the exact nature of these effects or the models proposed.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions about the behavior of bound charges and the conditions under which the equations apply are not fully resolved. The discussion includes references to specific models and approximations that may not be universally accepted.

Delta2
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Messages
6,002
Reaction score
2,628
Starting from the microscopic form of Maxwell's equations and following standard mathematical procedure outlined in
Inhomogeneous electromagnetic wave equation - Wikipedia
we can have as end result the following equations:
$$(\nabla^2-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2})\mathbf{E}=\frac{\nabla\rho}{\epsilon_0}+\mu_0\frac{\partial \mathbf{J}}{\partial t}$$
$$(\nabla^2-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2})\mathbf{B}=\mu_0\nabla\times\mathbf{J}$$

These two equations seem to imply that the speed of the waves is always c (due to the ##\frac{1}{c^2}## term appearing in front of the second time derivative in the left hand side). On the right hand side of course the ##\rho## and ##\mathbf{J}## are not the free charge and current density but rather the total ##\rho=\rho_{free}+\rho_{bound}## and ##\mathbf{J}=\mathbf{J_{free}}+\mathbf{J_{bound}}##. But what's the catch here, how can the exact nature of the right hand side (that depends on the materials used) can affect the left hand side and the speed of the waves?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Of course for em. waves in a medium the phase velocity changes as we well know from optics (##c_{\text{med}}=c/n## with ##n## the refractive index, but that's of course only an approximation).

You have to take into account that ##\vec{J}_{\text{bound}}## is a function(al) of the fields themselves. So you have to first find a self-consistent equation for the field and these currents. One model is to assume a homogeneous distribution bound elastically (small external fields) and subject to friction when in motion. For a detailed discussion, see Sommerfeld, Lectures on Theoretical Physics, vol. 4 (optics) or Jackson.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2
vanhees71 said:
Of course for em. waves in a medium the phase velocity changes as we well know from optics (##c_{\text{med}}=c/n## with ##n## the refractive index, but that's of course only an approximation).

You have to take into account that ##\vec{J}_{\text{bound}}## is a function(al) of the fields themselves. So you have to first find a self-consistent equation for the field and these currents. One model is to assume a homogeneous distribution bound elastically (small external fields) and subject to friction when in motion. For a detailed discussion, see Sommerfeld, Lectures on Theoretical Physics, vol. 4 (optics) or Jackson.
Thanks @vanhees71 . This seems to be the only successful resolution of this, that the current density (bound and possibly free) is a function of the fields, like for example when ##\mathbf{J}=\sigma\mathbf{E}##. Thanks again.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
This is of course for a conductor.

For a bound electron the equation of motion reads
$$m \ddot{\vec{x}}+m \gamma \dot{\vec{x}} + m \omega_0^2 \vec{x}=q \vec{E}(t,\vec{x}),$$
where ##\vec{E}## is the total electric field at the position of the particle and ##q=-e## the charge of electron. Now let ##N## be the number density of bound electrons. Then the polarization of the medium is
$$\vec{P}=q N \vec{x}.$$
So multiplying the equation of motion with ##q N## leads to
$$\ddot{\vec{P}}+\omega_0 \gamma \dot{\vec{P}} + \omega_0^2 \vec{P}=\omega_{\text{P}}^2 \vec{E}$$
with the plasma frequency
$$\omega_{\text{P}}=\sqrt{\frac{N q^2}{m}}.$$
Now assume a harmonic time dependence for all fields and assume further that the frequency is much lower than the relaxation time of the medium, you can assume that
$$\vec{P}(\omega,\vec{x})=[\epsilon(\omega,\vec{x})-1] \vec{E}(\omega,\vec{x}),$$
which is in linear response approximation (valid for fields \vec{E} small against the binding fields of the electrons) and ##\epsilon(\omega,\vec{x})## is the usual permittivity of the medium. Plugging this into the equation of motion and the Maxwell equations,
$$\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{E}=-\frac{1}{c} \partial_t \vec{B}, \quad \vec{\nabla} \cdot{\vec{B}}=0, \quad \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{E}=0, \quad \vec{\nabla} \times \vec{B}=\frac{1}{c} (\partial_t \vec{E}+\partial_t \vec{P}).$$
leads to
$$\epsilon(\omega,\vec{x}) = 1+\frac{\omega_{\text{P}}^2}{\omega_0^2-\omega^2-\mathrm{i} \gamma \omega}.$$
Plugging all this into the equation for ##\vec{E}## leads to a propagator ##G## such that
$$\vec{P}(t,\vec{x})=\int_{\mathbb{R}} \mathrm{d} t' G(t-t',\vec{x}) \vec{E}(t',\vec{x})$$
with
$$G(t)=\int_{\mathbb{R}} \mathrm{d} \omega \frac{1}{2 \pi} [\epsilon(\omega,\vec{x})-1].$$
and you can calculate the propagation of a wave entering from the vacuum into the medium by using the appropriate boundary conditions (a la Fresnel's equations with ##n(\omega,\vec{x})=\sqrt{\epsilon(\omega,\vec{x})}##).

The assumption of a practically instantaneously relaxing medium leads to dispersion only in frequency and time. Under more general conditions, e.g., for a plasma you also have to take into account spatial dispersion. For details see Landau&Lifshitz vol. 8.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
928
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
895
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
955
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K