Oscillating Electric Field Lines

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the nature of electric fields in the context of oscillating charges and electromagnetic waves. Participants explore the relationship between electric field lines, their orientation, and the forces experienced by charged particles in the presence of these fields, touching on concepts from electromagnetism and wave propagation.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about why electric field lines are perpendicular to the direction of wave propagation in electromagnetic waves, contrasting this with the parallel nature of field lines around stationary charges.
  • Another participant explains that in unconfined propagating waves, electric and magnetic fields are always perpendicular to the direction of travel, with exceptions in specific cases like guided waves.
  • A follow-up question is posed regarding the forces experienced by oscillating charges, questioning whether they would feel a force parallel to the wave.
  • In response, it is noted that charges can experience a force in the direction of propagation due to the magnetic vector component of the electromagnetic wave, with the Lorentz force being relevant in this context.
  • Further elaboration indicates that while a static electric field component exists, it diminishes with distance, and the discussion of near-field versus far-field effects complicates the understanding of these forces.
  • Another participant seeks equations related to the static and oscillating fields, expressing interest in the differences in force magnitude experienced by charges in these fields.
  • It is clarified that static fields differ from oscillating fields, and the near-field is described as trapping energy around the source, while propagating waves do not have a component in the direction of propagation.
  • Specific equations for an idealized dipole antenna are provided, illustrating how different components of the electric field behave as one moves away from the source.
  • A final point emphasizes that the magnitude of the force on a charge is independent of whether the field is static or oscillating, with the oscillation affecting the force's time-dependence rather than its magnitude.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a mix of agreement and disagreement, particularly regarding the nature of forces experienced by charges in oscillating fields and the implications of static versus oscillating electric fields. No consensus is reached on the complexities of near-field and far-field interactions.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in understanding the contributions of static and oscillating fields, particularly in the near-field region, and the dependence on specific conditions and definitions related to electromagnetic waves.

jchodak2
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I'm have some conceptual problems with electric fields and waves. When I think of electromagnetic waves I imagine field lines emanating from a charge that is oscillating, consequently causing the field lines to oscillate. In diagrams showing field lines, the electric field runs parallel with the field lines, yet with diagrams showing electromagnetic waves the electric field is perpendicular to the direction the wave propagates. Why isn't there a component of the electric field that runs parallel with the wave?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Because in an unconfined propagating wave, the electric and magnetic fields are always perpendicular to the direction of travel. Only in a few cases like guided waves, surface waves, maybe plasmas, etc. are there exceptions. And often, the exceptions are not exactly true. In many waveguides, the electric and magnetic fields still travel perpendicular to the direction of propagation, they however, are not traveling perpendicular to the direction of guided propagation.

Electromagnetic waves are governed by Maxwell's equations and there are only a few cases where the solution to these equations allows for a wave to have a component in the direction of propagation.
 
So that's the way it simply is. Somehow that's not a very satisfying answer. So be it, but I have a quick follow-up: So if I had some oscillating charges, and some distance away I had some other charged particles, would there no longer be an attractive force pulling them together or pushing them apart? They would oscillate up and down due to the perpendicular force, but they wouldn't feel a force parallel to the wave?
 
The charges can experience a force in the direction of propagation due to the magnetic vector component of an electromagnetic wave. The Lorentz force on a charge due to the magnetic field is the velocity cross the B field. The electric field will give the charges a velocity along its direction, which is perpendicular to the magnetic field. Since the velocity vector will be in the same plane as the electic and magnetic fields, then the cross with the magnetic field will be along the direction of propagation. However, when it comes to a good or perfect conductor, the currents are isolated near or on the surface of the scatterer. So there is little or no penetration of the currents in the direction of propagation. This would be different for a low loss material like a dielectric.
 
jchodak2 said:
So if I had some oscillating charges, and some distance away I had some other charged particles, would there no longer be an attractive force pulling them together or pushing them apart? They would oscillate up and down due to the perpendicular force, but they wouldn't feel a force parallel to the wave?

Loosely speaking, the radial "static" component of the electric field still exists, but it decreases as [itex]1/r^2[/itex] from the source, whereas the amplitude of the transversely oscillating electromagnetic wave decreases as 1/r. So when you get far enough from the source, the static component becomes negligible compared to the wave component.

The "near field" is pretty complicated because of the contributions from the two components, so we usually talk only about the "far field" in order to simplify things.
 
Thank you.
 
Ah, so the radial static electric field still does exist! I should find this out for myself, but can you give me the relevant equations or a link to a site expressing them? I find it very interesting that the magnitude of the force "felt" should be different for a static field as opposed to an oscillating field!
 
There isn't any general equations though. But a static field is different from a wave. To be static means that the field is time-independent, which will never form an electromagnetic wave. jtbell is talking about the near-field that occurs around an electromagnetic wave source. What happens is that the near-field, the fields in the space surrounding the immediate volume of the source, traps energy in and around the electromagnetic source. I would not call it static since it is still a time-harmonic field, it is more or less static only in the sense of spatial propagation. The portions of the near-field that contribute fields in the direction of propagation do not propagate out, they are trapped and stored. The waves that do propagate out and leave the near-field will not have a component in the direction of propagation.

jtbell uses the term "radial" component because with a point source, or any source viewed from a large enough distance away such that it becomes point-like, the propagating waves in the far-field confine their electric and magnetic fields to the theta and phi directions in terms of spherical coordinates. The radial component would be in the direction of propagation.

If you look at the exact electric field equations for an idealized dipole antenna,

[tex]E_r=\frac{Z}{2\pi}\,I_0\,\delta l\left(\frac{1}{r^2}-i\,\frac{\lambda}{2\pi\,r^3} \right) e^{i(\omega t-k\,r)}\,\cos(\theta)[/tex]

[tex]E_\theta=i\frac{Z}{2\lambda}\,I_0\,\delta l\left(\frac{1}{r}-i\,\frac{\lambda}{2\pi\,r^2}-\frac{\lambda}{4\pi^2\,r^3} \right) e^{i(\omega t-k\,r)}\,\sin(\theta)[/tex]

You will notice that the radial component will drop off as 1/r^2 and 1/r^3 as opposed to the theta component which drops off as 1/r and more. When we move any appreciable distance away from the source, say where

[tex]kr >> 1[/tex]

what happens is that when you look at the wave equations as a whole, the contribution from 1/r dominates in comparison to the contributions from 1/r^2 and 1/r^3. So, in the far-field, the theta component dominates dramatically. This is why we state that the near-field is trapped power, the radial component and higher order terms of the transverse components do not contribute to the fields at any distance away from the source.

The reason why we have this radial component as opposed to what I stated earlier is the presence of the source. If you solve for the wave equations with no sources, then my earlier statements hold. But a source can allow for components in the direction of propagation. At the same time though, since these components are non-propagating, can you still define a direction of propagation at all for them? In that sense, these are akin to the confined wave condition that I stated earlier in which you can get components in the direction of propagation.


EDIT:
jchodak2 said:
I find it very interesting that the magnitude of the force "felt" should be different for a static field as opposed to an oscillating field!
In response to this, the magnitude of the force acting upon a charge is independent of whether or not the applied field is static or time-harmonic. The Lorentz force,
[tex]\mathbf{F} = q(\mathbf{E} + \mathbf{v}\times\mathbf{B})[/tex]
does not differentiate between the two. The only consequence with an oscillating field is that the force will oscillate along with it.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K