Shape and speed of electromagnetic waves

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature and representation of electromagnetic waves in three dimensions, including their shape, speed, and the behavior of their electric and magnetic fields. Participants explore theoretical concepts, visualizations, and mathematical descriptions related to electromagnetic waves in a vacuum.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question how electromagnetic waves appear in 3D and whether they can be visualized as vortices or other shapes.
  • There is a discussion about the relationship between the sine wave representation of electric and magnetic fields and the actual motion of electromagnetic waves, with some suggesting that the sine waves do not represent motion but rather variations in field direction.
  • One participant proposes that the amplitude of the wave indicates energy levels at specific locations, while others clarify that the fields oscillate in direction but do not follow a longer path than the axis.
  • Some participants explore the implications of converting sine waves into circular representations and question the resulting linear speeds, leading to confusion about the calculations involved.
  • Mathematical expressions related to Maxwell's equations are presented, with some participants inviting others to verify the relationships and spot any errors.
  • There is a debate about whether a 3D form of electromagnetic waves exists, with some asserting that solutions can be derived from 2D representations and others suggesting that 3D solutions are possible in specific contexts, such as dipole antennas.
  • Participants share links to visual aids and applets that help illustrate the concepts being discussed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the visualization and interpretation of electromagnetic waves, with no clear consensus on the existence of a definitive 3D representation. Disagreements arise regarding the implications of mathematical representations and the physical meaning of amplitude and wave motion.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions involve assumptions about the nature of wave propagation and the interpretation of sine waves, which may not be universally agreed upon. The mathematical relationships presented depend on specific conditions and interpretations that are not fully resolved.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying electromagnetism, physics, or engineering, particularly in understanding wave behavior and visual representations of electromagnetic phenomena.

nuby
Messages
336
Reaction score
0
What are electromagnetic waves supposed to look like in 3D?

Also, in the vacuum of space, electromagnetic waves are supposed to travel at light speed. Is this the linear speed? Or the speed of the flux as it curves?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The sine wave of the electric field, the sine wave of the magnetic field, and the direction in which the wave propagates (at velocity c) are all mutually perpendicular.
 
Last edited:
I guess I'm trying to picture what a electric / magnetic sine wave looks like, if it were possible to view in 3D. Maybe an 3D electromagnetic wave would appear as a vortex?
 
Last edited:
If I look at a single Photon on EM wave, how does its trajectory looks like ? does it move on a straight line or does it move like a Sine wave ?
 
Last edited:
So, for example, if a very large electromagnetic wave is moving at light speed, the actual curves of the sine wave would have cover more distance that the axis of the wave(s). Would that be considered the flux? And could it be moving faster than light?
 
the curve is the amplitude and gives information about the energy at a certain location on the wave and is not the way in which light travels (which would be sphereical waves or planar waves when viewed from far away from the source) if you follow a single peak it can go faster than light, but the "wave-itself" is going c if in vacuum. according to general relativity, light always travels in straight lines and it is space-time that is curved... i think
 
So a 30hz electromagnetic wave, has a wavelength of 10,000,000 meters.
it moves at 300,000,000 m/s (c)

Now, If this sine wave was converted to a circle, with a circumference of 10,000,000 meters.
And a diameter of 3,183,098 meters. It would travel this distance 60 times, every second, which would be traveling at a linear speed of 190,985,900 m/s. ?

Another example could be the theoretical frequency of the Earth 7.5hz, with a wavelength of 40,000,000 meters, which is basically the circumference of the Earth (40,075.16 km) . Would travel the distance of15 diameters of the Earth every second. 190,985,900 m/s ?

Am I doing something wrong?
 
nuby said:
So a 30hz electromagnetic wave, has a wavelength of 10,000,000 meters. it moves at 300,000,000 m/s (c)

so far you're making sense.

Now, If this sine wave was converted to a circle, with a circumference of 10,000,000 meters.

now you're not. that sine wave of one cycle is on a radial line that extends 107 meters outward from your sinusoidal source (antenna).

And a diameter of 3,183,098 meters. It would travel this distance 60 times, every second, which would be traveling at a linear speed of 190,985,900 m/s. ?



Another example could be the theoretical frequency of the Earth 7.5hz, with a wavelength of 40,000,000 meters, which is basically the circumference of the Earth (40,075.16 km) . Would travel the distance of15 diameters of the Earth every second. 190,985,900 m/s ?

Am I doing something wrong?

maybe.

i think it goes arount the Earth about 7.5 times in a second. 15 times pi isn't 7.5.
 
  • #10
I've realized that the picture I posted from Wikipedia is somewhat misleading. The sine waves do not represent motion. They represent the variation in the electric and magnetic fields. These fields are vectors, which means that they have a magnitude and a direction. Sometimes the electric field points up; sometimes it points down. But the field is not moving up or down in space. It is just varying in direction.

There is nothing following a longer path than the axis. The fields are on the axis. It is only their directions which oscillate.

I'm sorry; I didn't think about that when I posted the picture.
 
  • #11
Phlogistonian said:
I've realized that the picture I posted from Wikipedia is somewhat misleading. The sine waves do not represent motion. They represent the variation in the electric and magnetic fields. These fields are vectors, which means that they have a magnitude and a direction. Sometimes the electric field points up; sometimes it points down. But the field is not moving up or down in space. It is just varying in direction.

There is nothing following a longer path than the axis. The fields are on the axis. It is only their directions which oscillate.

I'm sorry; I didn't think about that when I posted the picture.

So a single photon on EM wave moves on a straight line ?
What is the physical meaning of the amplitude ? the field becomes weaker and then stronger ?
 
  • #12
For an EM wave traveling in the z direction, there are two mutually perpendicular fields, one electric and one magnetic

E_x = E_0sin(\omega t + kz)

B_y = B_0c^{-1}sin(\omega t + kz)

This satisfies Maxwells equations. For instance,

\frac{d\vec{E}}{dt} = c^2( \nabla\times\vec{B})

which you can easily verify.

\frac{d\vec{E}}{dt} = \frac{d}{dt}\[ \left[ \begin{array}{c}<br /> E_x \\\<br /> 0 \\\<br /> 0 \end{array} \right]\]
which is
\[ \left[ \begin{array}{c}E_0\omega cos(\omega t + kz) \\\<br /> 0 \\\<br /> 0 \end{array} \right]\]<br /> ------------------ (1)

The right hand side -
\nabla\times\vec{B} = \nabla\times\[ \left[ \begin{array}{c}<br /> 0 \\\<br /> B_y \\\<br /> 0 \end{array} \right]\]

only has one non-zero term
\[ \left[ \begin{array}{c}<br /> \frac{d}{dz}B_y \\\<br /> 0 \\\<br /> 0 \end{array} \right]\]

and, because \omega = kc this is the same as (1) if cB_0 = E_0

I leave the details (and spotting any errors) as an exercise.
 
  • #13
GT1 said:
So a single photon on EM wave moves on a straight line ?

Yes, unless it interacts with matter.

What is the physical meaning of the amplitude ? the field becomes weaker and then stronger ?

Yes, the fields become weaker and stronger. More than that, they flip direction periodically (hence the sine wave).
 
  • #14
So, there is no known 3D form to an electromagnetic wave, it is just two 2D planes?

rbj said:
now you're not. that sine wave of one cycle is on a radial line that extends 107 meters outward from your sinusoidal source (antenna)..

A full wave? I'm having a hard time seeing this.
 
  • #15
nuby said:
So, there is no known 3D form to an electromagnetic wave, it is just two 2D planes?

A full wave? I'm having a hard time seeing this.

This thread is getting to be a bit strange. Why isn't there a 3D solution to the EM wave? Solve the field of a simple dipole antenna in 3D and you'll see the 3D solution. Or solve the Poisson equation for a waveguide, and you'll have a 3D solution.

So what is the problem here? Or am I missing something?

Zz.
 
  • #17
nuby,
Yeah, that is a good graphic. But the equations also say it all.
 
  • #18
nuby said:
So, there is no known 3D form to an electromagnetic wave, it is just two 2D planes?

There is a theorem that says that just about any function can be expressed as a sum of sines and cosines. So if you know the plane wave solution, then in principle you know all that you need to know. Any solution can be constructed by adding together plane waves.
 
  • #19
Maybe the best picture that I have seen showing a plane wave is http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Onde_plane_3d.jpg" . It shows red planes that represent the maximum of the electric or the magnetic field. The very tops of sine waves in three dimensional space, if you like.

But I think what nuby means is three dimensional picture of the vector field of a single photon. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
6K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
976
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
22K