Understanding EM Waves in Conductors

[aaaa202]

I don't really understand how electromagnetic waves in wires are created. Sure you can see from the Maxwell equations that the fields satisfy the wave equation. But if you plug some cables onto a battery isn't the situation more or less static. I mean the electric field from the battery has existed since t=-∞ so I don't see why it should take time for the electric field to reach the other end of the cables.
Also it seems that there in general two ways to reach the equations for transmission in a cable. the telegraph equations. One goes by simply solving maxwell equations and applying the boundary conditions that a linear media gives. Another seems to be to view a cable as a sum of small capacitors and conductors. Either way you find precisely the same speed for the signal. Why is that? Surely Maxwells equations don't incorporate anything about the capacitance or inductance of the linear media.

 

[tiny-tim]

hi aaaa202!

… if you plug some cables onto a battery isn't the situation more or less static. I mean the electric field from the battery has existed since t=-∞ …

no, when you first connected the battery to the circuit, it took a finite time for the charge to get round

Also it seems that there in general two ways to reach the equations for transmission in a cable. the telegraph equations. One goes by simply solving maxwell equations and applying the boundary conditions that a linear media gives. Another seems to be to view a cable as a sum of small capacitors and conductors. Either way you find precisely the same speed for the signal. Why is that? Surely Maxwells equations don't incorporate anything about the capacitance or inductance of the linear media.

Maxwell's equations include the ampere-maxwell-law …

curlB = µ j_free + µε ∂E/∂t ​

which include µ and ε, the permeability and permittivity, which could be (but aren't) called "inductivity" and "capacitivity" respectively

 

[Studiot]

Electromagnetic waves are not created in conductors they are created on and around conductors.
The conductance of conductors is so high that any waves attenuate very very rapidly.

This is known as the skin effect.

 

[aaaa202]

studiot: okay that makes sense, although I don't see what the telegraph equations describe then. Is the potential in it the potential around the conducting wires?

Tim: I do realize that it takes time for the charges to move. But we are conserned about how the field from our battery drives the current around right? And that field has existed always so I don't understand how it should take time for the field to propagate information around. Or what field are we really looking it when we study this apparent wavel like behaviour?

 

[Studiot]

We do not usually calculate this way but the wave dues to electric power at 50/60 Hz have wavelengths of thousands of kilometers in air but nanometres in copper.

The telegraph equations and the transmission line equations describe waves in a transmission medium between two conductors, not in the conductors.

The waves, of course propagate at the local speed of light, which is close to c in air but much slower in copper.

If you search the forums I posted some calculations and figures at PF about this.
I do not have more time now.

 

[aaaa202]

To continue this discussion: What is it that is actually responsible for the wave motion of the field. At first I thought that it's the electrons bouncing into each other but that would be a transversal wave and it doesn't seem right since electromagnetic waves don't need a medium.

 

[Studiot]

and it doesn't seem right since electromagnetic waves don't need a medium.

This question caused controversy for a century or so.

In terms of wave motion one way to think of it is to consider the electromagnetic wave as carrying its medium with it, in a manner that feeds on itself.

It is a fundamental experimental observation that a changing electric field gives rise a magnetic one and a changing magnetic field gives rise to an electric one. There is no theoretical requirement for this in classical physics but it is observed to be so.

 

[AJ Bentley]

To continue this discussion: What is it that is actually responsible for the wave motion of the field. At first I thought that it's the electrons bouncing into each other but that would be a transversal wave and it doesn't seem right since electromagnetic waves don't need a medium.

Several people have already said this but you seem to be missing it.

A transmission line is not a wire. It's (usually) a coaxial cable used to transmit AC signals.

The theory is about EM waves traveling down such a cable - not about electricity from a battery running down a wire.

 

[PhilDSP]

It is a fundamental experimental observation that a changing electric field gives rise a magnetic one and a changing magnetic field gives rise to an electric one. There is no theoretical requirement for this in classical physics but it is observed to be so.

Hi Studiot,

You bring up an important observation but it's resolution may not be what you believe it to be. We should remember that none of the Maxwellians (and Faraday and Maxwell himself) assumed that the cause of a changing magnetic field is a changing electric field (and vice versa). That seems to be a 20th century bit of confusion. Please see Jefimenko's clear analysis of the actual causal relationships (or a secondary source such as Jackson's textbook).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefimenko's_equations

In regard to the OP, in Maxwell theory there are 2 kinds of current:

conduction current - the movement of electrons or other charged particles
displacement current - the movement of energy whose characteristics are described by 'fields'

The Maxwell equations give us the rules for determining how both types of current affect each other.

 

[Studiot]

Hello Philip.

You bring up an important observation but it's resolution may not be what you believe it to be.

Look at the title of this thread.
It is about waves.
How much displacement current exists in a conductor?

Thank you for the link,

However, Jefimenko's equations show an alternative point of view.[6] Jefimenko says, "...neither Maxwell's equations nor their solutions indicate an existence of causal links between electric and magnetic fields. Therefore, we must conclude that an electromagnetic field is a dual entity always having an electric and a magnetic component

Does it not imply that it is theoretically impossible to avoid having a magnetic field without an electric one and vice versa?

Yet the conventional view is that it is change of one that gives rise to the other.
If this is true it, does it not preclude the possibility of a steady uniform field throught time and space?

 

[PhilDSP]

The displacement current is perfectly described by wave equations.

Yes, I think you are pointing out that the observation of the changing of an electric field is very often linked to the changing of a magnetic field. So the difference between correspondence and a causal relationship is a bit subtle. But there are cases where one or both of the fields propagate as evanescent waves. That is, they aren't traveling waves and their changing values don't continuously propagate. In those situations you may find exceptions.

P. S. The Poynting theorem is good to look at in conjunction with these questions. It shows the movement of energy (which is also described by wave equations related to field fluctuations). But the Poynting theorem shows that the energy moves at right angles to the flow of electrons in the wire - from outside the wire into it.

 

[Studiot]

I think all this is a digression. Do gauge theories (on which I am not an expert) have any place in the classical physics section?

Further I don't see the connection between mass and conductivity in either view. Conductors are conductors because of their electron arrangement, not because of their proton arrangement. Neutron matter offers an enormous density but does it have high conductivity?

 

[PhilDSP]

To continue this discussion: What is it that is actually responsible for the wave motion of the field. At first I thought that it's the electrons bouncing into each other but that would be a transversal wave and it doesn't seem right since electromagnetic waves don't need a medium.

The movement of charges in the wire induces a displacement current outside of the wire (and to some extent inside the wire). The displacement current propagates as an evanescent wave according to the Maxwell equations.

 

[Studiot]

...outside of the wire...

Which is the point we have been trying to get over to aaaa2002.

 

[ZapperZ]

While the electrons in a conduction current can't behave as waves because of the comparatively large amount of mass concentrated in a small volume, the displacement current is perfectly described by wave equations.

I don't understand this at all. How does the "large amount of mass concentrated in a small volume" have anything to do with non-wave behavior?

I can look at the current in an AC circuit, and I definitely see electron current being described as a wave.

And if you are arguing about the actual physical behavior, then there's the circuit equivalent of the 2-slit experiment, such as in SQUIDs. Those are certainly wave-like description to me.

Zz.

 

[PhilDSP]

I don't understand this at all. How does the "large amount of mass concentrated in a small volume" have anything to do with non-wave behavior?

Yes, I was thinking about what you said as I wrote it. The mass only changes the velocity that the free electron moves at (slower than c of course). The free electron should still move in the same manner as a wave more or less. But the Lorentz force law probably best describes its potential movement.

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes, I was thinking about what you said as I wrote it. The mass only changes the velocity that the free electron moves at (slower than c of course). The free electron should still move in the same manner as a wave more or less. But the Lorentz force law probably best describes its potential movement.

That still doesn't explain anything.

A buckyball is many orders of magnitude more massive than an electron. No one can say now that a buckyball doesn't exhibit wave-like behavior after we've show that it can produce 2-slit interference pattern!

But this is neither here nor there. The very fact that we have experimental observation of wavelike behavior of conduction electrons should be enough to falsify what you said. So if you disagree with this, you need to address directly these experimental facts, not some other conjectures.

Zz.

 

[Studiot]

Yes, I was thinking about what you said as I wrote it. The mass only changes the velocity that the free electron moves at (slower than c of course). The free electron should still move in the same manner as a wave more or less. But the Lorentz force law probably best describes its potential movement.

This does not address my objection to the same quote.

I do not know Jackson, but Griffiths is oft quoted here.

Section 9.4 of Griffiths is entitled Electromagnetic Waves in Conductors and follows the conventional path I described.

P396 has a particularly good sketch of the rapid attenuation of an EM wave attempting to propagate in a conductor.
Beneath is a good question
"Find the skin depth in a good conductor in nanometers...

Chapter 10 of Griffiths relates to your earlier intervention, although I cannot find any dependence on mass in any of the equations presented, there is certainly none in Maxwell.


However I think Plonus has a more comprehensive treatment of the subject (EM waves) in his chapter 13. It includes many practical examples, facts and figures.

 

[PhilDSP]

So if you disagree with this, you need to address directly these experimental facts, not some other conjectures.

Yes, I agree. The word wave-like fits very well. What I really meant was that momentum needs to be factored into the equations of motion for the electron in addition to the wave equations.

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes, I agree. The word wave-like fits very well. What I really meant was that momentum needs to be factored into the equations of motion for the electron in addition to the wave equations.

That is a very strange statement. I can have momentum in a classical wave! The classical treatment of EM wave certainly has momentum in it, and this is without having to resort to having any mass either!

Zz.

 

[PhilDSP]

Studiot, It wasn't clear what your objection was. If it is this:

Further I don't see the connection between mass and conductivity in either view. Conductors are conductors because of their electron arrangement, not because of their proton arrangement. Neutron matter offers an enormous density but does it have high conductivity?

In a medium, the conductivity tensor is often determined by the amount of (spatial density of) each species of free charged particle. The species of particle gives both mass and charge: positive or negative as well as number of charges if the particle is composite (an atom, ion or molecule). That's often simplified by ignoring the contribution of heavier particles since electrons move much farther and faster in response to changing fields. The movement of any charged particle induces additional field fluctuations of course.

Neutronic matter in free particles will affect the conductivity because it increases the mass of ions, atoms and molecules. But only meagerly. I mean it affects conductivity meagerly.

 

[PhilDSP]

That is a very strange statement. I can have momentum in a classical wave! The classical treatment of EM wave certainly has momentum in it, and this is without having to resort to having any mass either!

Yes, of course! The beauty of the wave equations associated with the Maxwell equations for fields is that they are transparent to momentum of the fields. If you are aware of any literature studying why that can be so, I'd be very interested in considering it.

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes, of course! The beauty of the wave equations associated with the Maxwell equations for fields is that they are transparent to momentum of the fields. If you are aware of any literature studying why that can be so, I'd be very interested in considering it.

What does it mean to be "transparent to momentum of the fields"? I wish you'd state your case more clearly here, because you seem to be backpeddling with each post, but at the same time, still hanging on your original statement.

If the wave description has the ability to include momentum, then what you said is no longer true. In fact, I find it difficult to find what part of your argument remains true.

Zz.

 

[Studiot]

But you have suggested that the conductivity is is some way related to the mass.

If the mass of say an electron were suddenly quintupled or that of the proton divided by 1000 what difference would that make to your calculations?

I also asked another two questions (post# 10) about your equations, you have yet to comment on.

Surely if you are prepared to post theory you must be prepared to offer the calculated consequences as I have done?

 

[PhilDSP]

To ZapperZ: I mean that no explicit factor for momentum needs to introduced into the wave equation in order to account for its effects (for fields)

But the exact same equation doesn't work for massive particles. The particle velocity factor will no longer be c. As far as I have seen, rigorous equations of motion for charged particles such as a free electron require the use of either the constitutive relations or the Lorentz force law or both.

 

[ZapperZ]

To ZapperZ: I mean that no explicit factor for momentum needs to introduced into the wave equation in order to account for its effects (for fields)

But the exact same equation doesn't work for massive particles. The particle velocity factor will no longer be c. As far as I have seen, rigorous equations of motion for charged particles such as a free electron require the use of either the constitutive relations or the Lorentz force law or both.

I have no idea where this is heading.

Let me refresh your memory. I interjected into this thread because you said this:

While the electrons in a conduction current can't behave as waves because of the comparatively large amount of mass concentrated in a small volume, the displacement current is perfectly described by wave equations.

So let's cut to the chase. Do you STILL believe that "conduction current can't behave as waves", despite the arguments/evidence that I have shown?

Zz.

 

[PhilDSP]

If the mass of say an electron were suddenly quintupled or that of the proton divided by 1000 what difference would that make to your calculations?

Yes, if no other parameter were changed, an electron mass change would affect the conductivity. The determination of the conductivity tensor is no simple matter. And it's further complicated in a solid conductor for the reasons you may have alluded to earlier - the atoms or molecules comprising the conductor are mostly rigid and often have a certain geometry.

I also asked another two questions (post# 10) about your equations, you have yet to comment on.

I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment and this may be getting needlessly messianic for the OP. Can we deal with those sometime later?

 

[PhilDSP]

So let's cut to the chase. Do you STILL believe that "conduction current can't behave as waves", despite the arguments/evidence that I have shown?

That was too strong a statement in the context you bring up. I'd like to edit my first post to remove it or change it if that would be acceptable.

 

[Studiot]

I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment and this may be getting needlessly messianic for the OP. Can we deal with those sometime later?

When you are ready.

And thank you for bringing the Jefimenko theory to my attention. I'm just not sure it is appropriate to this thread.

 

[aaaa202]

Okay so now a few more are on this thread. Which field is it that these waves describe. When you plug a battery to a coaxical cable. What field is it that progates through the wave. It can't be the battery for that field has existed always and the information of its existence should long ago have reached the outer ends of the cable.

 

[Studiot]

What makes you think that the electromagnetic disturbance created when you connect the terminals of a battery by cabling is a wave?

 

[Q-reeus]

Articles referred to in following links are not exactly what OP was asking for (voltage source is initially charged capacitor rather than battery), but provide insights (plus detailed maths in pdf articles) not so far covered. First two take into account finite surface field propagation - last three articles involved earlier relaxation simulations that assumed infinite propagation speed.

http://galaxy.cofc.edu/rcircuits.html
http://galaxy.cofc.edu/pubs/AJP01187.pdf

http://galaxy.cofc.edu/pubs/tpt99
http://galaxy.cofc.edu/circuits.html
galaxy.cofc.edu/pubs/AJP01002.pdf

 

[aaaa202]

well studiot: when is a disturbance then created. I did an experiment today with a long coaxial cable where you send a square pulse down the wire. I just want to know what this disturbance is. Is it the field disturbance or what is it. I don't understand it. And since I assume same would happen if you plugged it onto a battery I would ask the same question for that.

 

[tiny-tim]

hi aaaa202!

I did an experiment today with a long coaxial cable where you send a square pulse down the wire. I just want to know what this disturbance is. Is it the field disturbance or what is it.

I don't really understand how electromagnetic waves in wires are created …

… we are conserned about how the field from our battery drives the current around right? And that field has existed always so I don't understand how it should take time for the field to propagate information around. Or what field are we really looking it when we study this apparent wavel like behaviour?

the pulse is in the field

whether you call it a wave (in the field) is a matter of taste

there was a field in the coaxial cable before you created the pulse (presumably almost zero)

it's like a pipe filled with water, or a bar that you hit at one end … if you suddenly dump extra water into the top of the pipe, or suddenly hit the end, a pressure pulse will move through the water, or the bar, at the speed of sound

(you can call it a wave if you want)

you ask, what is this disturbance? for the water or the bar, the pressure is a disturbance in the water or the metal … the molecules are displaced from an equilibrium position

for an electromagnetic wave, however, nothing is disturbed, the disturbance just "is" … the pulse is a pulse in nothing but the field itself

(the pulse certainly moves the electrons it passes through, but it isn't "made of" their motion)

 

[aaaa202]

okay but would this happen if I plugged a battery to a coaxial transmission line? Because the field inside the battery has presumably existed since always. I can see the field must bring out information in the case of switching on direct current suddenly, but with a battery you wouldn't see any wave propagation would you?

 

[Studiot]

I think we need to distinguish between steady state conditions and transient ones.

I think we need to recognise that the electric field (There is no magnetic field despite what Phil said earlier in the thread) around a battery changes when we make a connection.

This change we call a transient.

With a battery as a source this is not a oscillatory wave (ie periodic) although it obeys the 'wave equation'. Not all solutions of the wave equation are oscillatory.

This transient tends to die out as the field tends towards a new steady state condition.

The changing electric field gives rise to a transient magnetic field.
This tends to die out as the system tends to a steady state.

I think we further need to be clear that you cannot have a single 'square' pulse.

Yes you can have a single pulse or a square wave (with equal on and off periods).

To obtain oscillatory wave excitation we need and oscillatory source.
And yes I know you can get some 'ringing' in a transmission line if you get a single pulse and the line parameters right (or wrong depending upon what you are seeking).

 

[aaaa202]

okay so with a battery we wouldn't have any waves while with for instance an oscilloscope we would have?

 

[Q-reeus]

okay so with a battery we wouldn't have any waves while with for instance an oscilloscope we would have?

Cannot make sense of this statement, but anyway just wondering if you actually bothered to look at especially pdf article as per 2nd link given in #32. If you had done so, why keep asking questions that are perfectly well answered there? Agrees with the broad thrust of some other postings, but provides all the math detail together with graphical plots of time evolution. There is no basic difference in the underlying phenomenon - initial establishment of current - whether voltage source is a capacitor or battery. The much longer time-scale behavior differs, but that is irrelevant wrt what was asked in #1.

 

[aaaa202]

oh sorry yes. I completely forgot about it. I will read it now and hope to get a better understanding - although I have read a lot of articles and am still not sure if I understand it.

What I meant with the statement was:
So far I have learned that what travels down with the speed of light is the information of an electric field originating from your voltage source. So if you plug a battery to a coaxial transmission line should there be a wave motion down it bringing information of the existence of an electric field? Because unlike an oscilloscope where you actually change the field suddenly there is a constant field in space in the case of a battery.
So basically I ask this: Does the electrons in a conductor, wire or whatever feel the existence of a battery even when it is not directly connected to it? I feel it should since I don't see why the electric field from the battery should vanish in the space between them.

 

[Q-reeus]

oh sorry yes. I completely forgot about it. I will read it now and hope to get a better understanding - although I have read a lot of articles and am still not sure if I understand it.

OK fine, but at least give this one a shot.

What I meant with the statement was:
So far I have learned that what travels down with the speed of light is the information of an electric field originating from your voltage source. So if you plug a battery to a coaxial transmission line should there be a wave motion down it bringing information of the existence of an electric field?

There will be wave motion of the field itself. But it should be understood this wave is a bound surface wave and is intimately tied to and coupled with disturbance of the conduction charge distribution in the surface layer of the conductor. As discussed in previous postings - and that pdf article.

Because unlike an oscilloscope where you actually change the field suddenly there is a constant field in space in the case of a battery.

Don't have great experience with oscilloscopes, but ones I have used act as detection/recording devices - not as signal source. Maybe some higher end models can act as source too. I guess you meant scope as a signal source.

So basically I ask this: Does the electrons in a conductor, wire or whatever feel the existence of a battery even when it is not directly connected to it? I feel it should since I don't see why the electric field from the battery should vanish in the space between them

.
The tiny field of a battery is felt, but virtually nothing happens since battery and leads/load act as two isolated systems until electrical contact allows flow of charge between them. Said flow then attempts to establish one system in an equipotential state - achieved only when battery has fully discharged (resistive load), or potentials equalize (capacitive load or open-circuit at far end). But 'ringing' most often occurs in between start and end. Here's one animation which may or may not be of much use in explaining such 'ringing': http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~wrscott/applet_bounce/Reflect1.html It represents a different regime to that discussed in pdf article of #32 - one where multiple reflections die slowly owing to mismatch in impedance between line and load, plus negligible loss in line.

 

[aaaa202]

I tried to read the articles but was a little bit confused of this idea of surface charges. I think I should get a more basic understanding of what waves on a conductor are before I dive into that subject. So instead I read a more (for me) illuminating article: https://www.speedingedge.com/PDF-Files/BTS002_Characteristic_Impedance.pdf
But seeing how many questions I asked I am still confuzzled about the basic question: What do these waves transmit? Is it disturbances in the electric field? So that when you quickly switch on the voltage these waves transmit information that there has been created an electric field back at the voltage source. If this is the correct understanding please tell me so.
My increased confusion comes from the fact that I overheard two classmates discussing what this wavemotion represents. They said it was the electrons' movement causing it. So when you have too much negative charge at the - pole your excess electrons tries to get away by bouncing into the electrons in front of them and they in turn bounce into the next electrons in the line thus creating some kind of longitidiunal disturbance propagating through the wire. Is this what the wave equation describes? I doesn't really make sense for me that it should be since it would then seem that electromagnetic waves use electrons as their propagation medium...

 

[Q-reeus]

I tried to read the articles but was a little bit confused of this idea of surface charges. I think I should get a more basic understanding of what waves on a conductor are before I dive into that subject.

They are intimately connected! Always keep this in mind - the source of any EM field, whether static or a propagating wave, is always charge, whether static or in motion. So when a guided wave moves down a line, it is always a coupled system of field and charge/current distribution that constitutes that wave.

So instead I read a more (for me) illuminating article: https://www.speedingedge.com/PDF-Fil..._Impedance.pdf
But seeing how many questions I asked I am still confuzzled about the basic question: What do these waves transmit? Is it disturbances in the electric field? So that when you quickly switch on the voltage these waves transmit information that there has been created an electric field back at the voltage source. If this is the correct understanding please tell me so.

That article provides a decent basic overview of a step-wave propagating in a transmission-line. What transmits is a coupled disturbance - field initiates change in charge distribution which then generates additional field which then...and we have a wave. Note that disturbance of charge distribution is *not* equivalent to motion of individual charges. Think of sound wave in water - speed is much higher than in air even though speed of water molecules is much lower than air molecules. What is transmitted is a pressure/displacement disturbance, not gross motion of water or air!

My increased confusion comes from the fact that I overheard two classmates discussing what this wavemotion represents. They said it was the electrons' movement causing it. So when you have too much negative charge at the - pole your excess electrons tries to get away by bouncing into the electrons in front of them and they in turn bounce into the next electrons in the line thus creating some kind of longitidiunal disturbance propagating through the wire. Is this what the wave equation describes? I doesn't really make sense for me that it should be since it would then seem that electromagnetic waves use electrons as their propagation medium...

As per that earlier pdf article, the extremely brief setup phase of surface fields involves a coupled disturbance of field and surface charges. they act in unison. It is never just one or the other. And rapidly settles to a steady distribution whose details depends on the relative contributions to steady-state impedance of both load and connecting leads - how much potential drop occurs where under steady conditions.

 

[aaaa202]

things are starting to make sense now. I hadn't realized that the actual wave motion takes place in the dielectric between our conductors. But it made me think. In the model of the telegraph equation you only consider the capacitance at a specific point to depend on the capacitance between that point and the same point on the return path of the circuit. Why is that?
And is all these considerations of wave motion in the dielectric caused by capacitance and inductance between our two conductors in agreement with your surface charge picture?
Also it occurred to me: Since the wave motion in a dielectric basically also is connected with the movement of electrons shouldn't the speed of the wave somehow be limited by how fast an electron can move? Or is the speed of an electron to be assumed infinite?
On a last note: The article discusses when no reflection occurs and says that it is when the characteristic impedance of the cable is equal to the resistor sitting at the end of the cable. Can you briefly explain what the idea of this is.

 

[Q-reeus]

I hadn't realized that the actual wave motion takes place in the dielectric between our conductors.

The EM portion yes - but as I have been at pains to point out, this is intimately coupled with an accompanying charge/current wave in the conductor surface region. And the latter is not the speed at which a charge carrier can move - have you already forgotten the analogy I gave with sound waves in water/air?

But it made me think. In the model of the telegraph equation you only consider the capacitance at a specific point to depend on the capacitance between that point and the same point on the return path of the circuit. Why is that?

Because one is relating the progression of a wavefront with the characteristics of the media through which it must advance. That media is assumed a continuum, with capacitance-per-unit-length and inductance-per-unit-length. Classically there is no lower limit to how finely one may sub-divide capacitance and inductance (and therefore the incremental advance in propagation distance), and indeed it is customary to take the limit of infinitely small values for C and L - to arrive at the wave equation for a continuum media/waveguide, as per e.g. "www.ece.msstate.edu/~donohoe/ece4333notes2.pdf" Given you have indicated previously having already studied something equivalent, I'm not sure what else to add.

And is all these considerations of wave motion in the dielectric caused by capacitance and inductance between our two conductors in agreement with your surface charge picture?

Yes - as per previous comments. But note that in the case of leads connected to a battery, in general such leads will form a very non-uniform waveguide and there will be horrifically complex distributed reflections going on owing to highly non-uniform impedance along such a 'transmission-line'. That's where those computer simulated surface charge simulations come in handy - all that is accounted for.

Also it occurred to me: Since the wave motion in a dielectric basically also is connected with the movement of electrons shouldn't the speed of the wave somehow be limited by how fast an electron can move? Or is the speed of an electron to be assumed infinite?

See above comments! What moves at wave speed is a disturbance in the distribution of charge carriers - having no relation to individual motion of such charges.

On a last note: The article discusses when no reflection occurs and says that it is when the characteristic impedance of the cable is equal to the resistor sitting at the end of the cable. Can you briefly explain what the idea of this is.

For reflection to occur there must be a change in line impedance - the wave equation for reflectionless propagation is based on uniform impedance of line/media. when such a line is terminated in a load having that same impedance, it is the same as if that line continued on indefinitely. When the terminating impedance is something else, a changed voltage is set up there that acts as a secondary source of signal that must then propagate a wave back down towards the original source.