Transform Maxwell Equations into k-space

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the transformation of Maxwell's equations into k-space, specifically addressing concerns about the assumption that the term \nabla \times E goes to zero at infinity. It is clarified that this assumption is valid under the premise that the electric field E(t,x) approaches zero as x approaches infinity. The conversation also highlights the process of expressing fields in terms of their Fourier transforms, demonstrating how Gauss's Law can be applied in this context. The use of Euler's identities is mentioned as a helpful tool for visualizing waveforms in exponential form. Overall, the discussion provides insights into the mathematical foundations of transforming electromagnetic equations into k-space.
spookyfw
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Dear fellow physicists,

looking at the derivation for the maxwell equations into k-space, I've stumbled upon something that seems not so logical to me. It is concerning the two parts where they transform \nabla \times E and \nabla \bullet E on page 27 (on the sheets 14).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15466480/EMFT-Exercises#page=27

After integrating by parts they just state that the first term goes to zero. But for negative infinity it appears more to me that this term is actually blowing up. Is there something that I am missing and someone could me to?

Thank you very much in advance,
spookyfw
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
The term is zero because they have assumed that E(t,x) -> 0 as x -> +/- infinity.
 
I don't find the exercise in this manuscript you link, but it's pretty simple. Just write all the fields in terms of their Fourier transform. Using the HEP-communities convention this reads, e.g., for the electric field
\vec{E}(t,\vec{x})=\int_{\mathbb{R}^4} \frac{\mathrm{d}^4 k}{(2 \pi)^4} \hat{\vec{E}}(k) \exp(-\mathrm{i} k \cdot x).
I use the west-coast convention, i.e.,
k_{\mu} x^{\mu}=:k \cdot x=(k^0 x^0)-(\vec{k} \cdot \vec{x}).
Now consider Gauss's Law as an example. In time-position representation it reads
\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{E}=\rho
(Heaviside-Lorentz units). Applying the differential operator on the Fourier transform gives
\int_{\mathbb{R}^4} \frac{\mathrm{d}^4 k}{(2 \pi)^4} \mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \hat{\vec{E}}(k) \exp(-\mathrm{i} k \cdot x)=\rho(t,\vec{x})=\int_{\mathbb{R}^4} \frac{\mathrm{d}^4 k}{(2 \pi)^4} \hat{\rho}(k) \exp(-\mathrm{i} k \cdot x).
Since the Fourier transformation is invertible this means that
\mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \hat{\vec{E}}(k)=\hat{\rho}(k).
In the same way you get all the other Maxwell equations in wave-number representation.
 
ah. that makes perfect sense. Thank you very much :).
 
It can also be very helpful to keep in mind Euler's identities which make it possible to visualize the waveform in exponential form:

e^{jx} = cos \ x + j \ sin \ x
e^{-jx} = cos \ x - j \ sin \ x

cos \ x = \frac{e^{jx} + e^{-jx}}{2}
sin \ x = \frac{e^{jx} - e^{-jx}}{2j}
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
533
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K