Why Do Electromagnetic Waves Propagate Independently of Their Source?

BobaJ
Messages
38
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Use Maxwell's equations to elaborate an coherent explication of why electromagnetic waves propagate independently of the source that produces them.

Homework Equations



Maxwell's equations in vacuum:
  • ##\nabla * E=0##
  • ##\nabla * B=0##
  • ##\nabla \times E = -\frac{\partial B}{\partial t}##
  • ##\nabla \times B=\mu _0 \epsilon _0 \frac{\partial E}{\partial B}##

The Attempt at a Solution



Honestly I don't know how to begin or proof it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
BobaJ said:

Homework Statement



Use Maxwell's equations to elaborate an coherent explication of why electromagnetic waves propagate independently of the source that produces them.

Homework Equations



Maxwell's equations in vacuum:
  • ##\nabla * E=0##
  • ##\nabla * B=0##
  • ##\nabla \times E = -\frac{\partial B}{\partial t}##
  • ##\nabla \times B=\mu _0 \epsilon _0 \frac{\partial E}{\partial B}##

The Attempt at a Solution



Honestly I don't know how to begin or proof it.
This is actually done in most textbooks. Hint: have you seen the wave equation? Do you know any identities containing curl and divergence of a vector field?
 
nrqed said:
This is actually done in most textbooks. Hint: have you seen the wave equation? Do you know any identities containing curl and divergence of a vector field?
Maybe you can recommend me a textbook where it is done?
Yes, I have seen the wave equation (and how to derive it from Maxwell´s equations).
 
BobaJ said:
Maybe you can recommend me a textbook where it is done?
Yes, I have seen the wave equation (and how to derive it from Maxwell´s equations).
AH ok. Then this is what shows that the waves propagate independently of the sources. When an em wave is produced, it propagates because the fields obey the wave equation.
 
Ahhh, so when they refer to different sources, they are just referring to either electric or magnetic ones?

So just by getting, the equations ##\nabla^2 E=\mu_0 \epsilon_0 \frac{\partial^2 E}{\partial t^2}## and ##\nabla^2 B=\mu_0 \epsilon_0 \frac{\partial^2 B}{\partial t^2}## I'm showing that the EM waves are independent of the source that produces them.

And they are propagating because they obey the wave equation.

So, when they are asking me to elaborate an coherent explanation to proof it, they are in reality asking me to derive and demonstrate the two equations previously mentioned? Is that right?
 
BobaJ said:
Ahhh, so when they refer to different sources, they are just referring to either electric or magnetic ones?

So just by getting, the equations ##\nabla^2 E=\mu_0 \epsilon_0 \frac{\partial^2 E}{\partial t^2}## and ##\nabla^2 B=\mu_0 \epsilon_0 \frac{\partial^2 B}{\partial t^2}## I'm showing that the EM waves are independent of the source that produces them.

And they are propagating because they obey the wave equation.

So, when they are asking me to elaborate an coherent explanation to proof it, they are in reality asking me to derive and demonstrate the two equations previously mentioned? Is that right?
Well, you are showing that the propagation of the em waves is independent of the sources. As for what they want as a "coherent explanation", I cannot say. It depends on what your instructor has in mind so I would not dare try to guess in case I would induce you in error.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top