Using Wave Equation to Prove that EM Waves are Light

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around using the wave equation to demonstrate that electromagnetic (EM) waves are light. The participant attempts to derive a relationship between angular frequency (ω), wave number (k), and the speed of light (c) through differentiation of the equations for electric (E) and magnetic (B) fields. However, they encounter confusion regarding the derivation and the role of permittivity (μ0) and permeability (ε0) in the equations. It is clarified that while one can show EM waves travel at light speed, this does not conclusively prove that light is an electromagnetic wave, as it could represent a different type of wave. The conversation emphasizes the need for careful documentation of each step in the derivation process to avoid errors.
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: 593
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.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top