Stephen,
I really need to know what triggered Stephen Crothers into investigating
the relative phases of E and H in a TEM Wave. This is a major subject.
Note Wikipedia
is wrong, second Google hit for "transverse electromagnetic
wave" when it says "A transverse wave is a moving wave
that consists of oscillations occurring perpendicular to the direction
of energy transfer. If a transverse wave is moving in the positive
x-direction, its oscillations are in up and down directions that
lie in the y-z plane." Note that a Google search for "transverse
electromagnetic wave" finds as the second hit; "Transverse
wave", not "Transverse Electromagnetic Wave".
The key issue is whether a TEM Wave is necessarily sinusoidal. This
issue is hidden behind a smokescreen of Fourier Series - that all
waves are combinations of sine waves, so only the sine wave need
be considered.
Underlying this is the dual
version of the TEM Wave . Although, extraordinarily, the 1950s
Kip text book has E and H in phase and yet E causing H and H causing
E - The Rolling Wave - it is more orthodox for "The Rolling
Wave" to maintain pride of place in academia and text books
by the subterfuge of keeping the relative phase of E and H in confusion.
Clearly, pace Kip, the idea of E and H causing each other when they
are in phase is ridiculous.
Note "Mathverse"
, that even if E and H were out of phase, the idea of mutual causality
breaks down on the rock of 180 degrees versus 360 degrees.
Generally, indifference to, and ignorance of, the TEM Wave is a
major underpinning of the false view of the matter among professors
and text book writers. Does the word "wave" mean "sine
wave"? Confusion is buttressed by semantic confusion.
Note that a search for "transverse electromagnetic wave"
gives as the first hit Bigelow, who is wrong as to phase, and as
a second hit Wuikipedia, which implies (wrongly) that a TEM Wave
is necessarily sinusoidal. It's therefore not surprising that the
fourth hit (out of 5,000) is my "The TEM wave, a lost concept;
Scandals in electromagnetic theory ... ".
When discussing "The
Catt Question" , both Pepper and Josephson discuss frequency,
which should not come into "The Catt Question".
If only professors, Sir Michael Pepper (kinighted for services to
physics) and text book writers would show an interest in these matters,
and apply a few of their neurons to the matter, we could make progress.
With only a little comprehension followed by a little sffort from
The Establishment (Royal Society, IET, Trinity College etc.), it
would be easy to clear up this mess. Members of The Establishment
would only be doing their duty, which so far they all neglect.
Ivor
|