Narrow EM wave beam - how it propagates

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the propagation of a narrow electromagnetic (EM) wave beam, particularly its behavior in relation to Gauss' law. Participants explore the implications of an idealized E field configuration and whether it can exist without violating fundamental electromagnetic principles, including Maxwell's equations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the flux of the E field through walls of a cube placed near the YZ plane would be greater than through walls further away, raising a question about a potential violation of Gauss' law.
  • Another participant counters that the net flux is zero at all times, implying no violation of Gauss' law.
  • A different viewpoint argues that the hypothetical E field configuration is unrealistic, as real EM waves, including laser beams, cannot maintain a strictly unidirectional E field without some spreading, which is consistent with Maxwell's equations.
  • Some participants assert that any configuration of the E field that violates Gauss' law would also violate Maxwell's equations, suggesting such configurations cannot exist in reality.
  • There is a discussion about the geometric impossibility of having two facets of a cube perpendicular to the E field if the beam diverges, with one participant proposing a slight distortion of the cube to align edges with the E field.
  • Several participants express the futility of seeking EM wave configurations that would violate Gauss' law, reiterating the necessity for all real-world EM waves to conform to Maxwell's equations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit disagreement regarding the possibility of configurations that could violate Gauss' law. While some argue that such configurations cannot exist, others explore the implications of hypothetical scenarios, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in their assumptions about the E field and its behavior, particularly regarding the idealization of the beam and the implications for Gauss' law and Maxwell's equations.

htg
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
Consider a narrow beam of EM waves that propagates in the Z direction and is concentrated near the YZ plane, so its intensity fades rapidly as we move away from the YZ plane in the X direction. Let the E field be in the X direction.
Consider a cube with edges parallel to the X, Y and Z axes, respectively. Let the cube be placed at some distance from the YZ plane, and let its side length be much smaller than the wavelength.
It seems that the flux of E through a wall closer to the YZ plane will be bigger than the flux of E through a parallel wall furter from the YZ plane, so it seems to violate the Gauss' law.
Why doesn't it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
htg said:
It seems that the flux of E through a wall closer to the YZ plane will be bigger than the flux of E through a parallel wall furter from the YZ plane
This is not correct, the net flux is 0 at all times.
 
htg said:
it seems to violate the Gauss' law.
Why doesn't it?

I think that part of the problem with this notion is the hypothetical E field. Not even a laser beam has a Poynting vector which points strictly in the z direction, without some spreading. This being the case, I don't believe that the E field, pointing strictly in the x direction, can be achieved in a real world EM wave. Indeed, it is inconsistent with Maxwell's equations, and if we believe that all instances of the electromagnetic field must be consistent with those equations, then it seems to be a non-issue. In general, all EM waves must be consistent with the wave equation, which in turn can be derived from Maxwell's equations. As I mentioned in a previous thread, I was sympathetic with the notion that Gauss' law might fail in certain cases. But I found that not to be the case with a relativistically oscillating point charge inside of various shaped surfaces.
 
htg said:
It seems that the flux of E through a wall closer to the YZ plane will be bigger than the flux of E through a parallel wall furter from the YZ plane, so it seems to violate the Gauss' law.
Why doesn't it?

It does violate Gauss's Law, because you constructed it so that it would. This means that it is impossible to produce this configuration of E field in practice, as far as we know.

A real beam of light in which the amplitude of the E field decreases towards zero at points away from the axis must also diverge or converge (become wider or narrower). See for example the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_beam" .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even though the beam diverges, it seems possible to place my cube so that two of its facets will be perpendicular to E. It still seems to violate Gauss' law.
 
htg said:
Even though the beam diverges, it seems possible to place my cube so that two of its facets will be perpendicular to E.
What would make you think this? If the beam diverges then by definition the field lines are not parallel to each other. If they are not parallel then it is geometrically impossible for two faces to each be perpendicular.
 
It is futile to try to find EM wave beams that violate Gauss Law because if they do so they violate Maxwell Equations too and thus the EM wave cannot be a wave that can be produced in real world( because we assume that all real world EM waves satisfy Maxwell's equations).
 
Delta² said:
It is futile to try to find EM wave beams that violate Gauss Law because if they do so they violate Maxwell Equations too and thus the EM wave cannot be a wave that can be produced in real world( because we assume that all real world EM waves satisfy Maxwell's equations).
Yes, exactly. And well said. Since Gauss' Law is one of Maxwell's equations any field which violates Gauss' Law by definition does not obey Maxwell's equations and is therefore not an electromagnetic field.
 
It is good to develop proper intuition. I am doing it by trying to understand why my beam will not violate the Gauss' law.
 
  • #10
DaleSpam said:
What would make you think this? If the beam diverges then by definition the field lines are not parallel to each other. If they are not parallel then it is geometrically impossible for two faces to each be perpendicular.
You are right, but I can slightly distort my cube to make some of its edges parallel to E. If the beam intensity decreases fast enough, I would have a violation of the Gauss' law.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Transmission Line EM Wave vs EM Wave in Free Space
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
Undergrad How does the magnetic component of an EM wave affect surroundings?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Undergrad Energy emitted by EM sources under constructive interference
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Graduate EM waves, longitudinal EM propagation?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Undergrad Mechanism of Energy Conservation in Zero-Amplitude Sum of EM Waveforms
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
Graduate Electric and magnetic field lines in a plane wave of finite extent
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad EM wave reflected or transmitted?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
High School How Do Electromagnetic Waves Propagate in Space?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Graduate EM wave generation using a single charge in a vaccum?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Graduate Variance of the EM wave equation under Galilean transformation
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K