Transform Maxwell Equations into k-space

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the transformation of Maxwell's equations into k-space, specifically addressing the treatment of terms involving the curl and divergence of the electric field. Participants explore the implications of boundary conditions and the use of Fourier transforms in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the assumption that a term goes to zero as x approaches infinity, suggesting it may actually diverge.
  • Another participant asserts that the term is indeed zero based on the assumption that the electric field E(t,x) approaches zero at infinity.
  • A different participant provides a method for transforming the electric field into its Fourier representation, detailing the application of Gauss's Law in this context.
  • One participant expresses understanding after receiving clarification on the transformation process.
  • Another participant introduces Euler's identities to aid in visualizing waveforms in exponential form, although this point is somewhat tangential to the main discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is disagreement regarding the treatment of the term approaching infinity, with some participants asserting it goes to zero while others question this assumption. The discussion remains unresolved on this point.

Contextual Notes

The discussion involves assumptions about boundary conditions and the behavior of fields at infinity, which are not fully explored or agreed upon by participants.

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 [itex]\nabla \times E[/itex] and [itex]\nabla \bullet E[/itex] 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
[tex]\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).[/tex]
I use the west-coast convention, i.e.,
[tex]k_{\mu} x^{\mu}=:k \cdot x=(k^0 x^0)-(\vec{k} \cdot \vec{x}).[/tex]
Now consider Gauss's Law as an example. In time-position representation it reads
[tex]\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{E}=\rho[/tex]
(Heaviside-Lorentz units). Applying the differential operator on the Fourier transform gives
[tex]\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).[/tex]
Since the Fourier transformation is invertible this means that
[tex]\mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \hat{\vec{E}}(k)=\hat{\rho}(k).[/tex]
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:

[itex]e^{jx} = cos \ x + j \ sin \ x[/itex]
[itex]e^{-jx} = cos \ x - j \ sin \ x[/itex]

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

Similar threads

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