|
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 Wikipedia,
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 (knighted 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
|