"Electromagnetic waves" do NOT EXIST!!!

[martillo]

Cptbork:

Just one final comment because is too hard to "talk" with you:
I think you re making the same mistake as alphanumeric in other forum. You are considering the general equation for waves which admit more general solutions. The problem with the "electromagnetic waves" solutions is that they start from 4 (four) equation for the fields (Maxwell's equations) and so they have more constraints and that's why only plane waves solutions are possible for the electric and magnetic fields.
This is well adressed at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_waves
You will find near the end of the page: "But these are only two equations and we started with four, so there is still more information pertaining to these waves hidden within Maxwell's equations..."

You must study deeper the derivation of the "electromagnetic waves" from Maxwell's equations to see that only plane waves are predicted and may be you would need the intuition of an electric engineer to "get" that there is no possible source that could generate such kind of solutions for the electric and magnetic fields what seems to go beyond your expertisse...

 

[przyk]

You are considering the general equation for waves which admit more general solutions. The problem with the "electromagnetic waves" solutions is that they start from 4 (four) equation for the fields (Maxwell's equations) and so they have more constraints...

These extra constraints only apply to the orientation and relationship between the Electric and Magnetic fields - which the Wikipedia article you linked to then goes on to cover. For example:

$$\left{ \vec{E} = E_{0} \cos( k z - \omega t ) \vec{1_{z}} \\
\vec{B} = B_{0} \cos( k z - \omega t ) \vec{1_{z}} \right.$$​

is a "plane wave" solution to the two wave equations for $$\vec{E}$$ and $$\vec{B}$$, but it's not a solution to Maxwell's equations in a vacuum (since, for example, $$\vec{\bigtriangledown} \cdot \vec{E} = - E_{0} k \sin( k x - \omega t )$$, while it should be zero).

This, however:

$$\left{ \vec{E} = E_{0} \cos( k z - \omega t ) \vec{1_{x}} \\
\vec{B} = \frac{E_{0}}{c} \cos( k z - \omega t ) \vec{1_{y}} \right.$$​

is a solution to Maxwell's equations. It's a similar story for cylindrical and spherical waves.

 

[James R]

martillo:

What kind of waves (if any) does a point source of light (such as an ordinary light bulb viewed from 100 metres, say) emit, according to you?

Plane waves?

 

[martillo]

przyk:

These extra constraints only apply to the orientation and relationship between the Electric and Magnetic fields

Not only that. The general wave equation admit "wave solutions" in the three coordinates at the same time while the "electromagnetic waves solution" admit only palne waves where the fields are constant over the entire plane and parallel to that plane. This is much more constrained than the solutions of just the general equation for any wave.

 

[martillo]

James R:

What kind of waves (if any) does a point source of light (such as an ordinary light bulb viewed from 100 metres, say) emit, according to you?

Plane waves?

No wave at all! Light is made by photons with no "wave" associated to it. I defend the "particle" approach for light and that there is a "wave-like" behavior for light. You can see at my site how, with the right structure for the photons, all those "wave-like" behaviors can be perfectly explained: interference, diffraction refraction, signal transmission by photons (radio, tv, etc) and also much more: quantization of energies in atoms, photoelectric emission and absorption, electron/positron pair annihilation and creation, difraction of electrons, structure for protons, neutrons and the atom, the spin, subatomic particles, etc, etc...

You should take a look at my site: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics

A new Physics could rise...

 

[draqon]

or maybe we can just explain everything with aether...lolz

 

[phlogistician]

James R:

No wave at all! Light is made by photons with no "wave" associated to it. I defend the "particle" approach for light and that there is a "wave-like" behavior for light. You can see at my site how, with the right structure for the photons, all those "wave-like" behaviors can be perfectly explained:

All of those things can already be adequately explained by current models, and they work really well. 'Wave' is a mathematical description of the observed behaviour, nothing more. Seems you think you can actually pigeon hole light, and define what it actually is. There is no value in that, really, we only need to observe, model, and predict behaviours.

It's not like labelling light as being purely a 'photon' helps understand it any better anyway, it's still rather an abstract concept.

 

[przyk]

Not only that. The general wave equation admit "wave solutions" in the three coordinates at the same time while the "electromagnetic waves solution" admit only palne waves where the fields are constant over the entire plane and parallel to that plane. This is much more constrained than the solutions of just the general equation for any wave.

I really don't know where you're getting this idea that Maxwell's equations in a vacuum only allow plane wave solutions. What is true, as others have explained here, is that every solution can be expressed as a superposition of plane waves (all propagating at c), but generally a superposition of plane waves isn't itself a plane wave. A case in point is the type of solution to the wave equation I think you had in mind:

$$E = \cos( k_x x - \omega t ) \cos( k_y y )$$​

is a solution to the wave equation (provided $$\frac{\omega^2}{c^2} = {k_x}^2 + {k_y}^2$$) and it's not a plane wave. But it's an interference pattern generated by the sum of two plane waves propagating at c, since:

$$\cos( k_x x - \omega t ) \cos ( k_y y ) = \frac{1}{2} \left[ \cos( k_x x + k_y y - \omega t ) + \cos( k_x x - k_y y - \omega t ) \right]$$​

so it's very definitely a solution to Maxwell's equations.

 

[martillo]

przyk:

but generally a superposition of plane waves isn't itself a plane wave.

I disagree with this. The plane waves means planes of constant electric and magnetic fields over the entire plane which is perpendicular to the direction of propagation and for each "x" you have tath kind of plane. Now if you sum two "constant planes" you still will have a constant plane what means that adding "plane waves" you will only obtain other "plane wave".

Now, the problem you present is about interference and here I'm not sure how it is related to Maxwell's equations.
I'm not sure but I think the equations you present don't satisfy Maxwell's equations but I'm not totally sure and I would need to do the math what would be good but I don't know how much time it would take to me and if I would have that time since I have much work nowadays.
You use equations with "x" and "y" and this is not a normal formulation of a plane wave derived from Maxwell's equations since I have only seen solutions in one coordinate being independent of the other coordinates. This perfectly shows they are made by constant planes and why the "electromagnetic waves" derived from Maxwell's equations are called "plane waves".

 

[CptBork]

Now, the problem you present is about interference and here I'm not sure how it is related to Maxwell's equations.
I'm not sure but I think the equations you present don't satisfy Maxwell's equations but I'm not totally sure and I would need to do the math what would be good but I don't know how much time it would take to me and if I would have that time since I have much work nowadays.

It should take you less than a minute, unless you've never done this stuff in your entire life. I did it in my head in ten seconds. That's a tiny fraction of the time you've spent just posting here, let alone working on your website. Then you can come explain to everybody why the calculation worked while everything you've said so far contradicts it.

 

[przyk]

The plane waves means planes of constant electric and magnetic fields over the entire plane which is perpendicular to the direction of propagation and for each "x" you have tath kind of plane. Now if you sum two "constant planes" you still will have a constant plane what means that adding "plane waves" you will only obtain other "plane wave".

This argument only holds if you sum two waves propagating in the same direction. $$\cos(x) + \cos(y)$$ isn't a plane wave, for example. Also, even if you add two sinusoidal waves propagating in the same direction, they'll only give a sinusoidal wave if their wavenumbers are the same.

I'm not sure but I think the equations you present don't satisfy Maxwell's equations but I'm not totally sure and I would need to do the math what would be good but I don't know how much time it would take to me and if I would have that time since I have much work nowadays.

Well you'd need to turn E into a vector and find its associated magnetic field first. A full solution (if I haven't made any errors) is:

$$\left{ \vec{E} \: = \: \cos(k_x x - \omega t) \, \cos(k_y y) \, \vec{1_z} \\ \vec{B} \: = \: \frac{k_y}{\omega} \, \sin(k_x x - \omega t) \, \sin(k_y y) \, \vec{1_x} \: - \: \frac{k_x}{\omega} \, \cos(k_x x - \omega t) \, \cos(k_y y) \, \vec{1_y} \right.$$​

for $${k_x}^2 + {k_y}^2 = \frac{\omega^2}{c^2}$$.

You can plug this into Maxwell's equations and see if it works out.

You use equations with "x" and "y" and this is not a normal formulation of a plane wave derived from Maxwell's equations since I have only seen solutions in one coordinate being independent of the other coordinates. This perfectly shows they are made by constant planes and why the "electromagnetic waves" derived from Maxwell's equations are called "plane waves".

The general form of a plane (real) wave is:

$$A \, \cos( \vec{k} \cdot \vec{r} - \omega t - \varphi )$$​

It's direction of propagation is the vector $$\vec{k}$$. The expression $$\vec{k} \cdot \vec{r} \equiv k_x x + k_y y + k_z z$$ is constant in the plane perpendicular to $$\vec{k}$$.

 

[martillo]

przyk:

I have reviewed some things and I found you are right that not only plane waves are the possible solutions nevertheless the same claim stands for any solution:
There is no possible source of electric and magnetic fields for the "electromagnetics waves" solutions derived from the Maxwell's equations.

The question for you now is if your proposed solution of an "electromagnetic wave" could have a possible source of electric and magnetic field that can generate it.

My claim is based on the assumption that the "electromagnetic waves" were plane waves and it is easy to "see" that there is no possible source for them. Now I should have to work further to determine that the same claim is valid for all the possible solutions...

Przyk, I must thank you for your posts. You made me realize in the past that my argument against Relativity Theory about the invariance of the De Broglie relation wasn't really valid and I took it out. I don't forget that.
For me your posts have a high value and I think you really help to find what is really right and what is not.
I f there were more people like you in the forums I (or we...) could have developed a much more perfect manuscript. Unfortunatelly there aren't. I needed honest criticism with rational treatment with "open mind" in the sense that may be at least I could be partially right in my claims and propositions taking what is right and discarding what is wrong.
As I say in the main page I'm not infallible, I make mistakes (may be everyday) and my manuscript should be taken as a "guide" for a new theory in Physics. I believe I could be wrong in some things but also that I'm right in many things.
I also say that my "work" should be analyzed by more expert minds, that I think is ready to be analyzed scientifically.
I post in forums with the aim to find that kind of people but you know, is very hard to find.

I would apreciate any other kind of comment on my manuscript you could find appropiated.

Thanks a lot.

You know, I would like you could find something good in my manuscript that could inspire you to make somethhing really great in Physics. You deserve that.

 

[CptBork]

You complain about your treatment here. Read back to the previous page, I was perfectly happy to have a reasonable discussion about this and to work with you to help correct your misunderstandings, or to see how indeed you might be correct. Your reply was to tell me I didn't know what I was talking about and needed to learn the basic maths, and that I was being dishonest with the community by lying about my knowledge level. Now guess who it is who finally admits he didn't understand the basic maths (you, of course), and still expects an apology from the rest of us. Good luck with that one.

 

[martillo]

CptBork:

Your reply was to tell me I didn't know what I was talking about and needed to learn the basic maths, and that I was being dishonest with the community by lying about my knowledge level.

No CptBork, I didn't say that. I said you shoukld be honest with me and yourself and that you don't have the intuition of an electric engineer to relize that there are no possible source for the "electromagnetic" plane waves (you talked about labs water waves).
You should also review your posts to see you weren't any friendly or cordial.
But the main point is that you didn't make me realise in what point I was wrong as przyk did.

Anyway the same claim stands for you too: "There is no possible source of electric and magnetic fields for the "electromagnetics waves" solutions derived from the Maxwell's equations."

If I'm wrong just show me with rational argumentation and please, with cordiality.

 

[CptBork]

CptBork:

No CptBork, I didn't say that. I said you shoukld be honest with me and yourself and that you don't have the intuition of an electric engineer to relize that there are no possible source for the "electromagnetic" plane waves (you talked about labs water waves).

And what makes you think my knowledge of electromagnetism only extends to pen and paper calculations? I've worked with circuits, diodes, flip-flops, capacitors, inductors, Fourier optics, etc. I said there are ways of generating finite plane waves, or very good approximations of them, inside a bounded region such as a waveguide (although I didn't specifically mention waveguide by name). I never said anything about water waves, you're the one who brought that up to begin with.

Never did I say infinite plane waves exist, and you don't need a nanosecond of engineering experience or intuition to understand that. I merely said infinite plane waves aren't the only wave solutions to Maxwell's equations, and you got all touchy about that. Well now you understand that indeed Maxwell's equations can give rise to perfectly physical, realistic wave solutions, just like waves in water or on a string, no photons required. You also now understand that the extra conditions $$\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{E}=0$$ and $$\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{B}=0$$ only put constraints on the directions that these waves can vibrate, but do not restrict arbitrary shapes for the wavefronts.

You should also review your posts to see you weren't any friendly or cordial.
But the main point is that you didn't make me realise in what point I was wrong as przyk did.

Well I found your initial reply to be rude, insulting and presumptious, but maybe I overreacted. I'm sorry if that's the case, but przyk cleared this up for you so it's done now.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Martillo, do you even know any vector calculus? Do you know any electromagnetism?

Here's some really easy vector calculus questions : question 2

Go on, do question 2 here for us all to see. Now I wouldn't ask someone like CptBork to do that to prove his claims about being competant at such things because he's level headed, able to understand the basic mathematical discussion put forth in this thread and has discussed verified science in other threads. Despite having known you for much much longer, I cannot say that any of those things are true about you.

That question is so simple, it's bordering on insulting to anyone who knows anything about vector calculus and electromagnetism. Please show you know at least the very basic concepts in mainstream electromagnetism.

I'll leave the questions on deriving Maxwell's equations from a U(1) G bundle till later....

 

[CptBork]

Hehe, couldn't help myself, I had to do question 2 just for kicks. But I won't bother posting it yet so we have a chance to see Martillo's expertise in the field. Do you consider it cheating if I convert the spherical and cylindrical vectors to Cartesian before doing the calculations? Would be kind of annoying having to derive or look up the cylindrical and spherical expressions for curl.

 

[martillo]

CptBork:

I've worked with circuits, diodes, flip-flops, capacitors, inductors, Fourier optics, etc. I said there are ways of generating finite plane waves, or very good approximations of them, inside a bounded region such as a waveguide (although I didn't specifically mention waveguide by name).

The problem is that I sustain that what is really produced by antennas are photons and not waves. Please see Section 7.2: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section7-2_Hertz_experiments.htm and Section 7.3: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section7-3_Communicating_with_photons.htm.

The same phenomenon can be then explained just with photons!

Now, I disagree with the current accepted concept of the "wave-particle duality" becuase as I say: Is like to try to describe an animal stating that it sometimes behave as a fly and sometimes as a shark. This actually is not a good description of an animal and just hides that we are really not understanding what is going on.
Then I'm sustaining now that actually the "electromagnetic waves" do not exist and so I challenge you with the main claim which is the subject of this thread: "There is no possible source of electric and magnetic fields for the "electromagnetics waves" solutions derived from the Maxwell's equations."

So the problem is for the solutions you and anyone could determine to Maxwell's equations to find really possible theoretical sources for the electric and magnetic fields that must generate them.

I have chllenged przyk with this and now I'm challenging you, alphanumeric and any other one interested.

I know that for the infinite plane electromagnetic wave solution this is impossible. I know now that I should work further to demonstate that the same applies for those other possible solutions...

 

[AlphaNumeric]

The same phenomenon can be then explained just with photons!

QED already does that. Electromagnetism is an effective theory, in that it only deals with large numbers of photons over large distances (compared to quantum systems) and so you take the appropriate approximations to QED, which is the actual model.

And guess what, the effective model of QED is Maxwell's electromagnetism.

Anyone who has actually studied photons, which I'm certain you haven't done, should be aware of this.

And your model of photons is non-existent.

If you claim otherwise, give me the differential cross section of $$e^{-}+e^{+} \to \mu^{-}+\mu^{+}$$ under a single photon exchange.

If you know anything about photons then I shouldn't have to explain the meaning of the terms in that request.

I have chllenged przyk with this and now I'm challenging you, alphanumeric and any other one interested.

So you're challenging us while ignoring my challenge? How hypocritical. The question I linked to in my previous post takes less than 5 minutes to answer. Why did you ignore it?

Could it be you cannot do it?

Come on, show you can do even the simplest vector calculus. Or can't you?

 

[martillo]

alphanumeric:

So you're challenging us while ignoring my challenge? How hypocritical. The question I linked to in my previous post takes less than 5 minutes to answer. Why did you ignore it?

Could it be you cannot do it?

Come on, show you can do even the simplest vector calculus. Or can't you?

First of all I think that your "quetion 2" has nothing to do with my claim and really I don't have much time to stay in the forums as I would like to to spend it with unproductive subjects.

Second, You should review your posting to see that you are, how to say, too agressive and this always leave to very bad discussions. I know that because I have already discussed with you other times and because I have the experience to have discussed with others that behave like you and rarely those discussions could leave to a productive conclusion.

Do you know the meaning of cordiality? I think is a basic premise that should be mantained in all forums. We could agree or disagree with others but the discussions should be mantained cordial.