Maxwell equation similar to a solution for a standing wave in a box [closed]

From Nature Of Photon:

Electromagnetic field

The set of Maxwell equations  for vacuum is:
\begin{align} \mathrm{rot} \mathbf{E} &= -∂\mathbf{B}/c∂t, \tag{1} \\ \mathrm{rot} \mathbf{B} &= ∂\mathbf{E}/c∂t, \tag{2} \\ \mathrm{div} \mathbf{E} &= 0, \tag{3} \\ \mathrm{div} \mathbf{B} &= 0 \tag{4} \end{align}
where:
$$\mathbf{E}$$ – vector of electric field,
$$\mathbf{B}$$ – vector of magnetic field,
$$t$$ – time,
$$c$$ – speed of light.

In the case of a monochromatic wave the expression for electric field $$\mathbf{E}$$ is:
$$\mathbf{E} (x, t) = \mathbf{E}_0 \sin (ωt), \tag{5}$$ where: $$\mathbf{E}_0$$ – amplitude of electric field.

A physically correct solution can be obtained if in the equation (2) the expression of electric field $$\mathbf{E}$$ is used from (5), i.e.,
$$\mathrm{rot} \mathbf{E} = ∂(\mathbf{E}_0 \sin (ωt)) /c∂t.$$

The result is:
$$\mathbf{B} (x, t) = \mathbf{B}_0 \cos (ωt). \tag{6}$$

Vector $$\mathbf{E}$$ is shifted according to vector $$\mathbf{B}$$ by 90 degrees (Fig. 1.). Fig. 1. Electric $$\mathbf{E}$$ and magnetic $$\mathbf{B}$$ field of the photon.

Where's that wrong?

closed as unclear what you're asking by garyp, G. Smith, John Rennie, Jon Custer, Emilio PisantyJul 18 at 12:46

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• What do you think is wrong? – garyp Jul 16 at 20:41
• @garyp IF that is a possible solution I would prefer to see in the Pointing vector a statistical or summarising value and to accept that the near field image of the EM radiation and the propagation of photons are shown in the sketch above correct. – HolgerFiedler Jul 16 at 20:47
• Your answer is incomplete, but not yet wrong. What do you think is wrong with it? – garyp Jul 17 at 10:25

The proposed solution for $$\vec{E}$$ needs to include the spatial variation if you want to be able to solve for $$\vec{B}$$. Otherwise you cannot evaluate curls. For a travelling plane wave, it would be of the form $$\vec{E} = \hat{x} E_0 \sin(\omega t - kz)$$ assuming $$\vec{E}$$ is along $$\hat{x}$$ and propagation is along $$\hat{z}$$.
The solution to $$\vec{\nabla}\times \vec{B} = \frac{1}{c} \frac{\partial\vec{E}}{\partial t}$$ is $$\vec{B} = \hat{y} \frac{\omega}{c k} E_0 \sin(\omega t - kz)$$ From the other curl equation you can find $$k=\pm\omega/c$$ for self-consistency.
If the spatial variation of the fields is different, we need to how it is different before we can comment. When there is a superposition of forward and backward traveling waves with the same amplitude, there will be a $$90^\circ$$ phase difference between $$\vec{E}$$ and $$\vec{B}$$ as your figure suggests.
• Ruslan: I believe you are mistaken. When propagation is along a single axis and the amplitudes of forward and backward traveling waves are equal, the wave impedance will always be imaginary, meaning a $\pm 90^\circ$ phase difference between $\vec{E}$ and $\vec{H}$. Another way to see this is that in this case the time-averaged Poynting vector will be zero, which for non-zero $\vec{E}$ and $\vec{H}$ can only happen if their phase difference is $\pm 90^\circ$. – Puk Jul 17 at 18:37
• No. For any non-zero $\omega$, $k = 0$ is not allowed. This can be seen from the fact that it makes $\vec{B}$ blow up. It is only allowed if $\omega = 0$, in which case $k = \pm \omega/c$ already gives zero. – Puk Jul 18 at 5:44