MRI question: Production of EM Waves using magnets

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion confirms that electromagnetic (EM) waves can be generated by accelerating a permanent magnet, such as by oscillating it back and forth. However, this method is ineffective for producing relevant frequencies. The conversation highlights the relationship between the rotating magnetization vector in MRI scans and the induced voltage in pickup coils, as described by Faraday's law. It emphasizes that while both voltage induction and EM wave production are valid interpretations, MRI typically operates in the near field, where the design of coils as loops is more appropriate than dipoles.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electromagnetic induction principles
  • Familiarity with Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction
  • Basic knowledge of MRI physics and magnetization vectors
  • Concept of near-field vs. far-field EM wave propagation
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the principles of electromagnetic induction in detail
  • Study the physics of MRI and the role of nuclear magnetic moments
  • Investigate the differences between near-field and far-field EM wave behavior
  • Research recent advancements in far-field MRI techniques
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, MRI technicians, electrical engineers, and anyone interested in the principles of electromagnetic wave production and MRI technology.

Alexander83
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Hi all,
I've got a quick clarification question. Generally when the production of electromagnetic waves are discussed, it's done in the context of an accelerating electric charge. Is it possible to generate EM waves by instead accelerating something like a permanent magnet? I.e. if I wiggle a permanent magnet back and forth, are EM waves produced? I'm pretty sure that the answer is yes, but I see this case discussed so infrequently that I'm doubting myself.

The motivation for this question comes from reading into the Physics of MRI scans, which involve generating a net magnetization vector (from alignment of nuclear magnetic moments) within a patient which is made to rotate. The scanner ultimately picks up the signal from this rotating magnetization vector. I've seen detection process described as reading a voltage signal induced in pickup coils due to the changing magnetic field from the magnetization vector as per Faraday's law. Alternatively, some references describe the rotating magnetization vector as giving off radio-frequency EM waves which are picked up by the coils.

My feeling is that these are both two aspects of the same phenomenon: there is an alternating voltage induced in the coils as they interact with the magnetic field component of the EM waves produced by the rotating magnetization vector within a patient. This lead me to think about simple experiments involving oscillating a magnet near a coil of wire and observing the current that results in the coil. This is usually described as an example of EM induction in textbooks, but I think it too would be an example of EM wave production. Is this correct?

Alex
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is it possible to generate EM waves by instead accelerating something like a permanent magnet? I.e. if I wiggle a permanent magnet back and forth, are EM waves produced?
Yes. It is a very ineffective way, however, and you cannot reach relevant frequencies.
My feeling is that these are both two aspects of the same phenomenon
Right.
This lead me to think about simple experiments involving oscillating a magnet near a coil of wire and observing the current that results in the coil.
This is not an effect of radiation. It is a near-field effect, and you don't see the contribution from radiation at all.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Alexander83 said:
Is it possible to generate EM waves by instead accelerating something like a permanent magnet? I.e. if I wiggle a permanent magnet back and forth, are EM waves produced? I'm pretty sure that the answer is yes, but I see this case discussed so infrequently that I'm doubting myself.
You are correct, no need for self-doubt here!

Alexander83 said:
The motivation for this question comes from reading into the Physics of MRI scans, which involve generating a net magnetization vector (from alignment of nuclear magnetic moments) within a patient which is made to rotate. The scanner ultimately picks up the signal from this rotating magnetization vector. I've seen detection process described as reading a voltage signal induced in pickup coils due to the changing magnetic field from the magnetization vector as per Faraday's law. Alternatively, some references describe the rotating magnetization vector as giving off radio-frequency EM waves which are picked up by the coils.
Both are valid interpretations, but I prefer to use the former interpretation. The reason is that MRI, at the common clinical frequencies, is generally done in the near field, which is why the coils are designed as loops rather than dipoles.

What most people think of as EM waves are in the far field. Those are the ones that radiate off to infinity and where the E and B are orthogonal to each other and to the direction of propagation. While some energy is radiated off to the far field in MRI, that is not what is generally detected. However, there has been some recent work on far field MRI (or at least farther-than-usual-field): http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7232/full/nature07752.html

Alexander83 said:
My feeling is that these are both two aspects of the same phenomenon: there is an alternating voltage induced in the coils as they interact with the magnetic field component of the EM waves produced by the rotating magnetization vector within a patient. This lead me to think about simple experiments involving oscillating a magnet near a coil of wire and observing the current that results in the coil. This is usually described as an example of EM induction in textbooks, but I think it too would be an example of EM wave production. Is this correct?
Yes, you cannot avoid the EM wave production. But again, you have to be careful not to overuse far-field intuition when you are dealing with the near-field.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K