| @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Confusion over the relative phase of E and H in a TEM Wave.
17th April 2009
On 17 April 2009, the first hit of 12,000 on Google for "tem
wave" was http://info.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Teaching/Courses/EFT/transmission/html/TEMWave.html
, which has a moving picture of a sinusoidal TEM Wave where E and
H are in phase. It ways; "The wave you find is a TEM Wave,
the sort you might find in a coax cable ...."
Frustratingly, it does not state that E and H are in phase. This
is a universal omission in the literature. Only the moving picture
shows E and H in phase.
Google hit no. 2 http://www.websters-dictionary-online.org/TE/TEM-wave.html
states; "In a homogeneous isotropic medium, an electromagnetic
wave in which both the electric and magnetic field vectors are everywhere
perpendicular to the direction of propagation." Howevder, as
aways in the literature, it does not state that E and H are in phase.
Hit no. 3, http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/newsgroups/viewtopic.php?t=74709
, is symptomatic of the problem here discussed, and discussed by
me at http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/17136.htm ; "The
TEM Wave; a lost concept", which is hit no. 8. Also discussed
by me at Google hit no. 24; http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/20136.htm
. (In this last, the bolshie attitude of the IEE/IET to the problem
I raise here, is shown in Lago's review of my book in "IEE
Journal "Electronics & Communication Engineering"
oct95, p218 says; ".... There are many items in this [Catt's]
book which give cause for concern, for example the false statement
that 'The Transverse Electromagnetic Wave has virtually disappeared
from today's electromagnetic theory'." - B Lago". I quote
his review at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/9_review.htm ).
Google hit no. 4 illustrates the problem. It says; :"hi guys
n gals. i am a fresh one to EMT and I am facinf difficulty in understanding
the transverse electromagnetic wave. ...." He is not answered
usefully.
Hit no. 5 is not useful for our purpose. Nor is is hit no. 6;
http://www.epjap.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/epjap/pdf/2001/06/ap0092.pdf
Nor is hit no. 7; http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_the_TEM_wave_does_not_exist_in_the_optical_fiber
.
Nor is hit no. 8; http://www.woxikon.com/eng/TEM%20wave.php
Let us now turn to a Google search for "transverse electromagnetic
wave"
Here the picture darkens. The first hit out of 5,000 is http://www.play-hookey.com/optics/transverse_electromagnetic_wave.html
, where Ken Bigelow wrongly states that E and H are out of phase;
" Note especially that the electric and magnetic fields are
not in phase with each other, but are rather 90° out of phase.
Most books portray these two components of the total wave as being
in phase with each other, but I find myself disagreeing with that
interpretation, based on three fundamental laws of physics: ...."
Some seven years ago I tried to get Big to correct this error, without
success.
http://www.ivorcatt.com/2806.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.com/2613.htm
In stark contrast to Bigelow at Hit no. 1, the Wikipedia hit, no.
2, has a drawing clearly showing E and H in phase; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transverse_wave
. Typically, the diagram is the only assertion as to the relative
phases of E and H.
Hit no. 3 is correct as to the phases of E and H, but only in a
diagram, not in the text.
Hit no. 4; http://www.intota.com/experts.asp?strSearchType=all&strQuery=transverse+electromagnetic+wave
typically states the direction of electric and magnetic fields,
but not their relative phase; "Transverse Electromagnetic Wave
- An electromagnetic wave in which the electric-field vectors and
magnetic-field vectors are perpendicular to the direction of propagation."
Hit no. 7 shows the relative phases correctly, but only in a drawing.
Today, April 2009, Bigelow still comments on my intrusion;
http://www.play-hookey.com/optics/transverse_electromagnetic_wave.html
"Now, if the two component waves are assumed to be in phase
with each other, then the total energy of the wave varies from some
maximum value to zero, and then back up to the maximum value. This
requires that each photon send all of its energy somewhere else
twice per cycle, and then receive it back again. I have yet to see
any satisfactory explanation of either where it goes or why it would
come back to re-form the photon.
I've decided to end my argument page on the TEM dispute. The best
assumption I ever got from anybody was that the energy was in "another
part of the wave." But since the wave is necessarily composed
of individual photons, that requires that photons trade energy back
and forth with each other. This makes no sense anyway, and is quite
impossible in a laser beam, where all photons are in phase with
each other. Nevertheless, such photons must have the same properties
as they do in random light or any other electromagnetic wave."
(Following Big's line of reasoning, let us consider a pipe through
which water is flowing, but an air gap is part of the flow. Big
presumably thinks that it would not be possible for the water behind
the gap and the water ahead of the gap to flow happily along, with
the air gap flowing at the same speed as the water. However, ridiculing
Big does not saolve the problem, because he is hit no. 1 out of
5,000. As I remember, Big once said on his website that nobody except
me argued with him. Admittedly, this is contradicted by the fact
that someone told me that he had argued with Big. However, that
would be only two people trying to correct Big's error. This leads
one to the recent conclusion of Forrest Bishop and myself, that
virtually nobody in the world is concerned about electromagnetic
theory. Against this, there are plenty of people who make a field
day out of fancy maths dubiously attached to electromagnetic theory
{and imposing it on their students} http://videolectures.net/mit802s02_lewin_lec18/
(Note 1), but that is another matter. What is missing is rational,
scientific approach, and physical grasp. Except for a tiny number
of exceptions, these more or less do not exist throughout the world.)
Under a Google search for "transverse electromagnetic wave",
my comment is only hit no. 7 ; http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/20136.htm
, and does not discuss Bigelow, which I do at
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/17136.htm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Classical electromagnetic theory survives because of confusion
as to the nature of the TEM Wave, whether it is the "Rolling
Wave" or the "Heaviside Signal", see http://www.ivorcatt.com/2604.htm
. It survives because of confusion as to the relative phases of
E and H in a sinusoidal TEM wave. It survives because it is wrongly
thought that the only possible TEM wave is sinusoidal, or at least
that using Fourier Series, the sinusoidal wave is the only one that
needs to be addressed. All of these confusions make it impossible
for The Confused, which is everyone, to consider "The Catt
Questioin" http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/cattq.htm
rationally.
Classical electromagnetic theory survives because scientists do
not address it rigorously, in a scientific way. If scientists addressed
their classical electromagnetic theory scientifically, using the
usual precepts for scientific thinking, then classical electromagnetism
would collapse.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
It is interesting to notice the following contradiction in fashionable
theory. The standard signal in today's digital age is the logic
step, which has to be addressed by a viable electromagnetic theory.
(Similarly, Heaviside had to address it in 1880 when he sent Morse
signals from Newcastle to Denmark.) The logic step - the voltage
change from zero to 5v and back after a short time, to denote 000010000
, is ignored, using as justification Fourier Series; that any (recurring?)
waveform can be represented by a combination of sine waves, and
so theory about the sine wave suffices. However, fashionable theory
cleaves to "The Rolling Wave", where change of E causes
H and change of H causes E. Now this idea of causality from change
is plausible in a single sine wave, but ridiculous if as a result
of summing many sine waves into a square pulse, E and H are not
changing at a time when their changes are supposed to cause each
other. Of course, this anomaly is a subset of the problem discussed
in my article "Mathverse" at
http://www.ivorcatt.com/2613.htm .
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Note 1.
Note that the lecturer in exhalted MIT draws the D (or E) field
uniform across the plates of a capacitor. Like everyone else in
power, he does not know that the electromagnetic signal approaches
the capacitor from the south (energy current), and so cannot be
uniform - particularly if he thinks that the only possible waveform
is sinusoidal. The false assumption of uniform field in the capacitor
undermines his mathematics.
http://www.ivorcatt.com/3612.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.com/3803.htm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
http://science.howstuffworks.com/electricity.htm
http://science.howstuffworks.com/electricity1.htm
"Electricity Basics
Simplest model of an atom
Toward the end of the 19th century, science
was barreling along at an impressive pace. Automobiles and aircraft
were on the verge of changing the way the world moved, and
electric power was steadily making its way into more and more
homes. Yet even scientists of the day still viewed electricity as
something vaguely mystical. It wasn't until 1897 that scientists
discovered the existence of electrons -- and this is where electricity
starts.
Matter, as you probably know, is composed of atoms. .... ...."
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
|