The theory must imply a visualization. I am not being able to think or find any. I know the sine wave representation. But light obviously not goes like a physical string. right?

  • $\begingroup$ It is a vector field (or two actually). Difficult to draw, but this is something I made: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PlaneVectorWave.gif This one by someone else is very good: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/… $\endgroup$ – Pieter Oct 4 '17 at 6:36
  • $\begingroup$ Someone had downvoted the question, but I think it is an excellent one. I have asked masters students in electrical engineering this question, and most could not answer. Or gave wrong answers (about photons moving up and down, for example). $\endgroup$ – Pieter Oct 5 '17 at 22:42
  • $\begingroup$ "Theory must imply a visualization."$^{[\text{citation needed}]}$ $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Oct 6 '17 at 17:02

Light has two vector field components. An electric field $(\vec{E})$ and a magnetic field $(\vec{B})$ component. $(\vec{E})$ and $(\vec{B})$ components are perpendicular to each other and to the propagation of light. Here is a visual representation of the electromagnetic wave.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ well i know that. but light obviously doesn't go like a physical string. $\endgroup$ – Touhid Oct 5 '17 at 8:12
  • $\begingroup$ You're right, @Touhid that light doesn't work like a string, but the mathematics that we use to describe strings also works for other types of waves and oscillations, like light. That's why we use these to visualise light waves. The vectors show the amplitude and polarity of the electric and magnetic fields, rather than the displacement of the string. $\endgroup$ – Jim421616 Oct 5 '17 at 19:40

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.