The Logic Behind Equating Differential Operators to Numbers in Electromagnetism

AI Thread Summary
In electromagnetism, differential operators like the nabla symbol (∇) and the time derivative (∂/∂t) can be equated to complex numbers, specifically ik and -iω, respectively, when analyzing plane-wave solutions. This equivalence arises from the Fourier decomposition of fields, where these operators transform into algebraic relations in frequency-wavevector space. For example, applying the nabla operator to a plane wave results in ∇φ equating to i k φ, demonstrating this relationship. Similarly, the time derivative can be represented as ∂/∂t = -iω, facilitating the conversion of differential equations into algebraic ones. Understanding this logic is essential for solving electromagnetic wave equations effectively.
mertcan
Messages
343
Reaction score
6
hi, nowadays I try to get involved electromagnetic waves equations, and I came across that $$ \nabla $$ is treated like $$ ik $$ and $$ \frac {\partial } {\partial t} $$ is treated like $$ -iw $$ And if you look at the part painted with orange in my attachment, afterwards you can see that $$ \nabla $$ and $$ \frac {\partial } {\partial t} $$ is equated to the $$ ik $$ and $$ -iw $$ respectively. It is so weird because those operators are equated to a number. How is it possible? What is the logic of this situation ? Is there a proof of that situation?
I am looking forward to your valuable responses. Thanks in advance...
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
You should relabel your question as category B. I guess, it is also good advice to learn vector calculus first. A very good short summary can be found in many textbooks in electrodynamics, as in the textbooks by Abraham and Becker, Schwartz, or Griffiths.

In Cartesian coordinates the nabla symbol represents the differential operator
$$\vec{\nabla}=\vec{e}_x \partial_x + \vec{e}_y \partial_y + \vec{e}_z \partial_z=\sum_{j=1}^3 \vec{e}_j \partial_j.$$
For a plane-wave ansatz of an arbitrary field
$$\phi(t,\vec{x})=\phi_0 \exp(-\mathrm{i} \omega t+\mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \vec{x}),$$
you have, e.g.,
$$\partial_x \phi=\mathrm{i} k_x \phi_0 \exp(-\mathrm{i} \omega t+\mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \vec{x})=\mathrm{i} k_x \phi(t,\vec{x}),$$
i.e.,
$$\vec{\nabla} \phi=\mathrm{i} \vec{k} \phi.$$
Thus for such fields you can indeed set ##\vec{\nabla} \rightarrow \mathrm{i} \vec{k}##.

The time derivative in the same sense is obviously equivalent to the substitution ##\partial_t=-\mathrm{i} \omega##.

This underlines the merit of the Fourier decomposition of fields: The vector operators in time-position representation become algebraic relations with ##\omega## and ##\vec{k}## (i.e., in frequency-wavevector space), i.e., the field equations become algebraic equations, and often you can solve problems by transforming the solutions of these algebraic equations back to time-position space.
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top