Sunday 2 February 2020

homework and exercises - Why are EM waves transverse?


I was reading Griffiths' Introduction to Electrodynamics, specifically the section on plane waves. I can see that if we want a transverse wave traveling in the $z$ direction that we are only going to want our waves to have $x$ and $y$ components, but the reasoning in Griffiths' left me confused.


We start with electric and magnetic field waves of the form


$E(z,t) = E_{0}e^{i(kz-\omega t)}$



$B(z,t) = B_{0}e^{i(kz-\omega t)}$


Since we are in free space, we have that $\nabla \cdot E = \nabla \cdot B = 0$.


Now comes the crucial step: Griffiths claims that these two facts immediately imply that


$(E_{0})_{z} = (B_{0})_{z} = 0$


I wasn't sure how this followed. I know that if I want my waves to be planar, that I need the x and y derivates of the fields to be 0, so that I have a constant magnitude over a front of constant phase, but I wasn't sure how to see that z derivative had to be zero as well. It seems that if you had an electric field plane wave whose real part was varying in space as a sine function, that if you were to look at its z derivative that you would get a cosine function.



Answer



Let's take a slightly more general case: Consider a wave with wave vector $\vec k=(k_x,k_y,k_z)$, with the electric field given by $$\vec E=\vec E_0\ e^{i(\vec k \cdot \vec r-\omega t)} $$ where $\vec r=(x,y,z)$. Now, we wan't to satisfy Maxwell's equations in the vacuum, including Gauss' law: $$\vec \nabla \cdot \vec E=0$$ The derivative is quite easily evaluated explicitly $$ \vec \nabla\cdot \vec E=\vec \nabla \cdot \bigl(\vec E_0\ e^{i(\vec k \cdot \vec r-\omega t)}\bigr)=i\vec k \cdot \vec E_0 e^{i(\vec k \cdot \vec r -\omega t)} $$


In order to satisfy Gauss' law, we must impose: $$\vec k \cdot \vec E_0=\ \text{?}$$


Physically, this means that the direction of propagation is always $\dots$ to the electric field. The exact same argument applies for the $\vec B$-field.


I leave it as an exercise to the reader to convince him(/her/it)self that the question as originally posed is equivalent, i.e. that we can assume without loss of generality that $\vec k = (0,0,k_z)$, resulting in the conclusion reached by Griffiths.



No comments:

Post a Comment

Understanding Stagnation point in pitot fluid

What is stagnation point in fluid mechanics. At the open end of the pitot tube the velocity of the fluid becomes zero.But that should result...