Physics Stack Exchange sign up log in

Questions Tags Users Badges Ask

4 Non-complex proof that the electric and magnetic fields are perpendicular in a plane wave
electromagnetism electromagnetic-radiation

I'm looking for a proof that the electric and magnetic fields in a plane wave are perpendicular that doesn't
invoke complex E and B fields. I haven't been able to find one.

If the proof requires complex fields, can you explain why?

share improve this question

Luke Burns asked

483 ● 7 ● 18 Mar 31 '15 at 23:36

By complex, do you mean phasor representation? – Alfred Centauri Mar 31 '15 at 23:37

Yes, phasors fall under that category –  Luke Burns Mar 31 '15 at 23:41

add a comment

4 Answers order by votes

In one sense the problem is simple, in that any solution with complex numbers (say with phasors)
4 can be literally translated into a real version (just equate the real and imaginary parts of each
complex equation as two real equations). However many phasor type setups are designed to only
look for solutions of a particular type, so it might be considered question begging.

It is a tricky problem. The reason is that there are many many solutions to Maxwell's equation, and
only after specifying the boundary conditions do we get a unique solution. If you specify the correct
boundary conditions, then you will get a plane wave, and the electric and magnetic fields will be
orthogonal, but it can look like a mathematical chicken-and-egg problem when you try to make a
proof.

There are many possible starting points, you might assume that there is a nonzero poynting vector
that is uniform. You might assume a sinusoidal solution with surfaces of constant phase. You
might specify an initial spatial slice and evolve it into a full 4d spacetime solution. You might
specify boundary conditions on just a surface in space, but specify them to be harmonic in time.

And these requirements are necessary. For instance, a constant electric field is unphysical (in the
sense that it has an infinite total field energy, but then again so does a perfect plane wave), but a
constant and uniform electromagnetic field is a solution to the vacuum Maxwell equation, so you
can add it to a vacuum plane wave solution, and it will be another vacuum solution. And if your
plane wave is polarized so the electric field goes in the ±x ^ direction and propagates in the z ^

direction then you can point your constant electric field in the y^ and have your consnat magnetic
By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy, and our
field be zero, and then the total electric and total magnetic fields are not orthogonal. So it is not
Terms of Service.
required for a vacuum solution, it is a particular feature of particular solutions.
 So if you pick a particular solution you can just note that it has that property. Otherwise you need
something that is specific enough to pull out one of those solutions (and not any of the many
where the fields are not orthogonal), and then show that it gives you the property you want.
So does the plane wave require those boundary conditions, or do the boundary conditions require
the plane wave? There is no free lunch. Any proof of anything has to start with something. Just
being a vacuum solution of Maxwell isn't enough to get you that the electric and magnetic fields are
orthogonal.
As for proofs with a particular gauge choice. That is not a problem. You are free to pick any gauge
to compute with, it doesn't change what fields you get. It doesn't resolve any aspect of question
begging or chicken-and-egg issues.

share improve this answer

Timaeus answered
22.1k ● 1 ● 17 ● 55 Apr 1 '15 at 7:38

It is not clear from the question, but let's assume we are in free space/vacuum. Then the Maxwell
7 equations read:

∇ ⋅ E = 0

∇ ⋅ B = 0

∂B
∇ × E = −
∂t

∂E
∇ × B = μ0 ε0
∂t

A plane wave can be written as

^
E = E cos(ωt − kr + φe )

^
B = B cos(ωt − kr + φm )

with constant amplitude vectors E , B.

^ ^

Now let's put the plane wave in the third Maxwell equation:

By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy, and our
Terms of Service.
 ∂Ez ∂Ey
∇ × E = ( − ^
)x
∂y ∂z

∂Ex ∂Ez
+ ( − ^
)y
∂z ∂x

∂Ey ∂Ex
+ ( − )^
z
∂x ∂y

^ ^
^
= [(E z ky − E y kz ) x

^ ^ ^
+ (E x kz − E z kx ) y

^ ^
+ (E y kx − E x ky ) ^
z ] sin

(ωt − kr + φe )

∂B
^
= − = ωB sin(ωt − kr + φm )
∂t

with the cartesian coordinate vectors x

^, y z.
^, ^

Here we see that the electric and magnetic components have to be in phase and hence can
^ ^
concentrate on the amplitudes E , B. To check for orthogonality, we evaluate the scalar product of

the amplitdues and use the representation of B

^
in terms of E
^
we just found:

^ ^
E ⋅ B/ω =

^ + Ey y
[Ex x ^ + Ez ^
z]

^ ^ ^
⋅ [(E z ky − E y kz ) x

^ ^ ^
+ (E x kz − E z kx ) y

^ ^
+ (E y kx − E x ky ) ^
z]

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
= E x E z ky − E x E y kz + E y E x kz

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
− E y E z kx + E z E y kx − E z E x ky

= 0

q.e.d.

share improve this answer

Cornelius Sicker answered

101 ● 6 Apr 1 '15 at 12:54

edited
Apr 2 '15 at 7:45

Big... That's why we use complex fields =). +1. – Physicist137 Apr 2 '15 at 2:08
By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy, and our
Terms of Service. add a comment
 In electrodynamics, one uses complex fields only as a calculation trick, since for instance terms
3 like

exp(iωt)

are usually more easy to handle as

cos(ωt)

. The same trick can be applied for example to the problem of the driven harmonic oszillator:
2
ẍ + 2γ ẋ + ω x = A cos(Ωt)
0

. Adding i (ẍi 2
+ 2γ ẋi + ω xi ) = iA sin(Ωt)
0
this gives

2
z̈ + 2γ ż + ω z = A exp(iΩt)
0

with z = x + i ⋅ xi ∈ C leaving the differential equation for z much more easy to solve for
complex functions. One can revert to the desired solution x by:

x = Re(z)

but caution has to be taken for operations like multiplication since in general
2 2
x ≠ Re(z )

. This concepts applies naturally to all linear differential equations like the wave equation in
electrodynamics. But just as above, one will be intrested in terms like

⃗  ⃗ 
Re(E ),  Im(E ),  etc.

share improve this answer

image answered
2,618 ● 13 ● 31 Apr 1 '15 at 0:30

edited
Apr 1 '15 at 9:55

This doesn't address my question. Can you modify your answer? –  Luke Burns Apr 1 '15 at 1:27

1 @LukeBurns: "If the proof requires complex fields, can you explain why?" → This is what my answer is aiming at. If you
want a final conclusion: The proof does not require complex fields in general, but it is a convenient way to do it. – image
Apr 1 '15 at 9:43

add a comment

Let us work in the Coulomb gauge, i.e. ϕ = 0 and ∇ ⋅ A = 0 . Then the electric and magnetic
1 fields are defined as

˙
E = −A, B = ∇ × A
By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy, and our
Terms of Service.
 Now one solves the wave equation for A . The constraint ∇ ⋅ A = 0 tells us that A is transverse
to the wave vector. Furthermore, the electric field is proportional to A0 times a cosine. Finally, we
have the magnetic field proportional to k × A0 , which by the rules of vector geometry, is
perpendicular to A0 , i.e. perpendicular to the electric field.

share improve this answer

Ryan Unger answered

6,654 ● 1 ● 19 ● 48 Apr 1 '15 at 0:53

Doesn't this depend on an arbitrary choice of A ? (Refer to physics.stackexchange.com/questions/173499/…) –  Luke

Burns Apr 1 '15 at 1:32

@LukeBurns Well yes, but everything here is kept arbitrary. It does not change the fact that E is perpendicular to B. –
 Ryan Unger Apr 1 '15 at 1:58

Can you justify why this fact is not dependent on your choice of gauge? –  Luke Burns Apr 1 '15 at 2:01

@LukeBurns Not in this approach, no. Alternatively, we can follow the proof in here, which does not invoke the gauge at
all. – Ryan Unger Apr 1 '15 at 2:07

add a comment

Your Answer

Body

Add picture

Log in

OR

Name

Email

By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy, and our
Terms of Service.
 By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Post Your Answer

meta chat tour help blog privacy policy legal contact us full site
2019 Stack Exchange, Inc

By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy, and our
Terms of Service.