Using Wave Equation to Prove that EM Waves are Light

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The original poster attempts to use the wave equation to demonstrate that electromagnetic (EM) waves are equivalent to light. The discussion involves the wave equations for electric and magnetic fields, as well as the relationships between their derivatives.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss differentiating the equations for electric and magnetic fields to derive relationships resembling the wave equation. There are questions about the origin of certain terms and the validity of the derivation steps. Some participants suggest reconsidering the approach to proving the equivalence of EM waves and light.

Discussion Status

There is ongoing exploration of the derivation process, with some participants offering clarifications and pointing out potential errors. Multiple interpretations of the problem are being discussed, particularly regarding the implications of the derived equations and the nature of light as an electromagnetic wave.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the challenge of proving that EM waves are light, suggesting that while similarities can be shown, definitive proof may not be achievable through the current approach. There are indications of confusion regarding the application of certain equations and the role of physical constants.

izchief360
Messages
7
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I'm working on using the wave equation to prove that EM waves are light.


Homework Equations


Here's what I'm working with:

E = Em sin(kx-wt)
B = Bm sin(kx-wt)

∂E/∂x = -∂B/∂t
-∂B/∂x = μ0ε0 ∂E/∂t

and the wave equation: ∂2y/∂x2 = 1/v^2(∂2y/∂t2)


The Attempt at a Solution



I've differentiated the two equations with respect to x and t (after substituting in the equations for E and B) to get something resembling the wave equation, where y=E and y=B.

∂2E/∂x2 = 1/v^2(∂2E/∂t2) --> (w^2)Bm sin(kx-wt) = (1/v^2)(k^2)Bm sin(kx-wt) (1/μ0ε0)

which simplifies to: w^2 = (k^2)/(v^2)(1/μ0ε0)

Now I'm stuck, because I can't figure out a way to prove this last relation.
 

Attachments

  • physics.jpg
    physics.jpg
    32.8 KB · Views: 612
Physics news on Phys.org
∂2E/∂x2 = 1/v^2(∂2E/∂t2) --> (w^2)Bm sin(kx-wt) = (1/v^2)(k^2)Bm sin(kx-wt) (1/μ0ε0)

which simplifies to: w^2 = (k^2)/(v^2)(1/μ0ε0)
Here - let me help, you just wrote:$$\frac{\partial^2E}{\partial x^2} = \frac{1}{v^2}\frac{\partial^2E}{\partial t^2} \implies \omega^2 B_m\sin(kx-\omega t) = \frac{1}{v^2}k^2 B_m\sin(kx-\omega t)\frac{1}{\mu_0\epsilon_0}$$ ... which simplifies to: $$\omega^2 = \frac{k^2}{v^2}\frac{1}{\mu_0\epsilon_0} $$ ... is this correct?
I'm guessing you wanted that first equation to be a "B" equation?
It is unclear were the permitivity and permiability came from in the RHS of the second equation.
I suspect you have got a bit mixed up between the different equations.

Now I'm stuck, because I can't figure out a way to prove this last relation.
Note: if you have a stationary periodic function ##y(x)=\sin kx##, then the same function as a wave moving in the ##+x## direction with speed ##v## is ##y(x-vt) = \sin k(x-vt) = sin(kx-\omega t)## so ##\omega=kv## ... does that help?

Also: $$c^2=\frac{1}{\mu_0\epsilon_0}$$

It is not clear how you expect to "prove" that EM waves are light by this approach.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the help!

So, if w = kv, then (w^2) = (k^2)(v^2) and:


w^2 = (k^2)/(v^2)(1/μ0ε0) simplifies to (v^2) = (1/v^2)(c^2) which goes to (v^4) = (c^2)

...now?
 
izchief360 said:
Thanks for the help!

So, if w = kv, then (w^2) = (k^2)(v^2) and:w^2 = (k^2)/(v^2)(1/μ0ε0) simplifies to (v^2) = (1/v^2)(c^2) which goes to (v^4) = (c^2)

...now?
Where did the (1/μ0ε0) go?
Edit: Ah, you used Simon Bridge's equation. Looks like there is an error in the derivation of your equation, not sure where.

I'm working on using the wave equation to prove that EM waves are light.
This is impossible. You can show that electromagnetic waves travel at the same speed of light, you can show their energy/momentum relation agrees with light and so on - but that does not prove light is an electromagnetic wave, it could be a wave of something different.
 
I've looked over my derivation (attached in original post) and can't seem to find any errors.
 
You seem to have got mixed up between the different equations.
Go back through the derivation one step at a time, and document your reasoning.
Note: you cannot use this approach to prove that EM waves are light.

You are starting from:$$\frac{\partial}{\partial x}E= -\frac{\partial}{\partial t}B\\ \frac{\partial}{\partial x}B= -\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}E$$
Differentiating the first equation wrt x, and the second equation wrt t, gets you:$$\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}E= -\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}B\\
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}B= -\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}E$$
IF$$\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}B=\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}B$$

THEN... you should be able to take it from there.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
995