# Should we reinvent wavefunction math?

Preliminary note: This post may cause brain damage. đ If you haven’t worked yourself through a good introduction to physics – including the math – you will probably not understand what this is about. So… Well… Sorry. đŠ But if you have… Then this should be very interesting. Let’s go. đ

If you know one or two things about quantum math – SchrĂ¶dinger’s equation and all that – then you’ll agree the math is anything but straightforward. Personally, I find the most annoying thing about wavefunction math are those transformation matrices: every time we look at the same thing from a different direction, we need to transform the wavefunction using one or more rotation matrices – and that gets quite complicated !

Now, if you have read any of my posts on this or my other blog, then you know I firmly believe the wavefunction represents somethingÂ realÂ or… Well… Perhaps it’s just the next best thing to reality: we cannot know das Ding an sich, but the wavefunction gives us everything we would want to know about it (linear or angular momentum, energy, and whatever else we have an operator for). So what am I thinking of? Let me first quote Feynman’s summary interpretation ofÂ SchrĂ¶dinger’s equationÂ (Lectures, III-16-1):

âWe can think of SchrĂ¶dingerâs equation as describing the diffusion of the probability amplitude from one point to the next. [âŠ] But the imaginary coefficient in front of the derivative makes the behavior completely different from the ordinary diffusion such as you would have for a gas spreading out along a thin tube. Ordinary diffusion gives rise to real exponential solutions, whereas the solutions of SchrĂ¶dingerâs equation are complex waves.â

Feynman further formalizes this in his Lecture on Superconductivity (Feynman, III-21-2), in which he refers to SchrĂ¶dingerâs equation as the âequation for continuity of probabilitiesâ. His analysis there is centered on the local conservation of energy, which makes me think SchrĂ¶dingerâs equation might be an energy diffusion equation. I’ve written about thisÂ ad nauseamÂ in the past, and so I’ll just refer you to one of my papers here for the details, and limit this post to the basics, which are as follows.

The wave equation (so that’s SchrĂ¶dinger’s equation in its non-relativistic form, which is an approximation that is good enough)Â isÂ written as:The resemblance with the standard diffusion equation (shown below) is, effectively, very obvious:As Feynman notes, it’s just that imaginary coefficient that makes the behavior quite different.Â HowÂ exactly? Well… You know we get all of those complicated electron orbitals (i.e. the various wave functionsÂ that satisfy the equation) out of SchrĂ¶dinger’s differential equation. We can think of these solutions as (complex)Â standing waves. They basically represent someÂ equilibriumÂ situation, and the main characteristic of each is theirÂ energy level. I won’t dwell on this because – as mentioned above – I assume you master the math. Now, you know that – if we would want to interpret these wavefunctions as something real (which is surely whatÂ IÂ want to do!) – the real and imaginary component of a wavefunction will be perpendicular to each other. Let me copy the animation for theÂ elementaryÂ wavefunction Ï(Îž) =Â aÂ·eâiâÎžÂ =Â aÂ·eâiâ(E/Ä§)Â·tÂ = aÂ·cos[(E/Ä§)ât]Â âÂ iÂ·aÂ·sin[(E/Ä§)ât] once more:

So… Well… That 90Â° angle makes me think of the similarity with the mathematical description of an electromagnetic wave. Let me quickly show you why. For a particle moving in free space â with no external force fields acting on it â there is no potential (U = 0) and, therefore, the VÏ term – which is just the equivalent of the theÂ sinkÂ or sourceÂ term S in the diffusion equation – disappears. Therefore, SchrĂ¶dingerâs equation reduces to:

âÏ(x, t)/ât =Â iÂ·(1/2)Â·(Ä§/meff)Â·â2Ï(x, t)

Now, the key difference with the diffusion equation – let me write it for you once again: âÏ(x, t)/ât = DÂ·â2Ï(x, t) – is thatÂ SchrĂ¶dingerâs equation gives usÂ twoÂ equations for the price of one. Indeed, because Ï is a complex-valued function, with aÂ realÂ and anÂ imaginaryÂ part, we get the following equations:

1. Re(âÏ/ât) = â(1/2)Â·(Ä§/meff)Â·Im(â2Ï)
2. Im(âÏ/ât) = (1/2)Â·(Ä§/meff)Â·Re(â2Ï)

Huh?Â Yes. These equations are easily derived from noting that two complex numbers a +Â iâb and c +Â iâd are equal if, and only if, their real and imaginary parts are the same. Now, the âÏ/ât =Â iâ(Ä§/meff)ââ2Ï equation amounts to writing something like this: a +Â iâb =Â iâ(c +Â iâd). Now, remembering thatÂ i2Â = â1, you can easily figure out thatÂ iâ(c +Â iâd) =Â iâc +Â i2âd = â d +Â iâc. [Now that we’re getting a bit technical, let me note that theÂ meff is the effective mass of the particle, which depends on the medium. For example, an electron traveling in a solid (a transistor, for example) will have a different effective mass than in an atom. In free space, we can drop the subscript and just write meff = m.] đ OK.Â Onwards !Â đ

The equations above make me think of the equations for an electromagnetic wave in free space (no stationary charges or currents):

1. âB/ât = ââĂE
2. âE/ât =Â c2âĂB

Now, these equations – and, I must therefore assume, the other equations above as well – effectively describe a propagation mechanism in spacetime, as illustrated below:

You know how it works for the electromagnetic field: it’s the interplay between circulation and flux. Indeed, circulation around some axis of rotation creates a flux in a direction perpendicular to it, and that flux causes this, and then that, and it all goes round and round and round. đ Something like that. đ I will let you look up how it goes,Â exactly. The principle is clear enough.Â Somehow, in this beautiful interplay between linear and circular motion, energy is borrowed from one place and then returns to the other, cycle after cycle.

Now, we know the wavefunction consist of a sine and a cosine: the cosine is the real component, and the sine is the imaginary component. Could they be equally real? Could each represent half of the total energy of our particle? I firmly believe they do. The obvious question then is the following: why wouldn’t we represent them asÂ vectors, just like E and B? I mean… Representing them as vectorsÂ (I meanÂ realÂ vectors here – something with a magnitude and a direction in aÂ realÂ space – as opposed to state vectors from the Hilbert space) wouldÂ showÂ they are real, and there would be no need for cumbersome transformations when going from one representationalÂ baseÂ to another. In fact, that’s why vector notation was invented (sort of): we don’t need to worry about the coordinate frame. It’s much easier to write physical laws in vector notation because… Well… They’re theÂ realÂ thing, aren’t they? đ

What about dimensions? Well… I am not sure. However, because we are – arguably – talking about some pointlike charge moving around in those oscillating fields, I would suspect the dimension of the real and imaginary component of the wavefunction will be the same as that of the electric and magnetic field vectors E and B. We may want to recall these:

1. EÂ is measured inÂ newton per coulombÂ (N/C).
2. BÂ is measured in newton per coulomb divided by m/s, so that’s (N/C)/(m/s).

The weird dimension of BÂ is because of the weird force law for the magnetic force. It involves a vector cross product, as shown by Lorentz’ formula:

F = qE + q(vĂB)

Of course, it is onlyÂ oneÂ force (one and the same physical reality), as evidenced by the fact that we can write B as the following vector cross-product: BÂ = (1/c)âexĂE, withÂ exÂ the unit vector pointing in the x-direction (i.e. the direction of propagation of the wave). [Check it, because you may not have seen this expression before. Just take a piece of paper and think about the geometry of the situation.] Hence, we may associate the (1/c)âexĂ operator, which amounts to a rotation by 90 degrees, with the s/m dimension. Now, multiplication by i also amounts to a rotation by 90Â° degrees. Hence, if we can agree on a suitable convention for the directionÂ of rotation here,Â we may boldly write:

BÂ = (1/c)âexĂE = (1/c)âiâE

This is, in fact, what triggered my geometric interpretation of SchrĂ¶dingerâs equation about a year ago now. I have had little time to work on it, but think I am on the right track. Of course, you should note that, for anÂ electromagnetic wave, the magnitudes of E and B reach their maximum, minimum and zero point simultaneouslyÂ (as shown below). So theirÂ phaseÂ is the same.

In contrast, the phase of the real and imaginary component of the wavefunction is not the same, as shown below.

In fact, because of the Stern-Gerlach experiment, I am actually more thinking of a motion like this:

But that shouldn’t distract you. đ The question here is the following: could we possibly think of a new formulation of SchrĂ¶dinger’s equation – usingÂ vectors (again,Â realÂ vectors – not these weirdÂ state vectors)Â rather than complex algebra?

I think we can, but then I wonder why theÂ inventorsÂ of the wavefunction – Heisenberg, Born, Dirac, and SchrĂ¶dinger himself, of course – never thought of that. đ

Hmm… I need to do some research here. đ

Post scriptum: You will, of course, wonder how and why the matter-wave would be different from the electromagnetic wave if my suggestion that the dimension of the wavefunction component is the same is correct. The answer is: the difference lies in the phase difference and then, most probably, the different orientation of the angular momentum. Do we have any other possibilities? đ

P.S. 2: I also published this post on my new blog:Â https://readingeinstein.blog/. However, I thought the followers of this blog should get it first. đ

# Maxwell’s equations and the speed of light

Pre-script (dated 26 June 2020): Our ideas have evolved into a full-blown realistic (or classical) interpretation of all things quantum-mechanical. In addition, I note the dark force has amused himself by removing some material, which messed up the lay-out of this post as well. So no use to read this. Read my recent papers instead. đ

Original post:

We know how electromagnetic waves travel through space: they do so because of the mechanism described in Maxwellâs equation: a changing magnetic field causes a changing electric field, and a changing magnetic field causes a (changing) electric field, as illustrated below.

So we needÂ someÂ First Cause to get it all startedÂ đ i.e. some current, i.e. some moving charge, but then the electromagnetic wave travels, all by itself, through empty space, completely detached from the cause. You know that by now â indeed, you’ve heard this a thousand times before â but, if you’re reading this, you want to know how it worksÂ exactly. đ

In my post on the Lorentz gauge, I included a few links to Feynman’sÂ LecturesÂ that explain the nitty-gritty of this mechanism from various angles. However, they’re pretty horrendous to read, and so I just want to summarize them a bitâif only for myself, so as to remind myself what’s important and not. In this post, I’ll focus on the speed of light: why do electromagnetic wavesÂ â lightÂ â travel at the speed of light?

You’ll immediately say: that’s a nonsensical question. It’s light, so it travels at the speed of light. Sure, smart-arse!Â Let me be more precise: how can we relate the speed of light to Maxwell’s equations? That is the question here. Let’s go for it.

Feynman deals with the matter of the speed of an electromagnetic wave, and the speed of light, in a rather complicated exposĂ©Â on the fieldsÂ from someÂ infinite sheet of charge that is suddenly set into motion, parallel to itself, as shown below. The situation looks â and actually isÂ âÂ very simple, but the math is rather messy because of the rather exotic assumptions: infinite sheets and infinite acceleration are not easy to deal with. đ But so the whole point of theÂ exposĂ©Â is just to proveÂ that the speed of propagation (v) of the electric and magnetic fields is equal to the speed of light (c), and it does a marvelous job at that. So let’s focus on that hereÂ only. So what I am saying is that I am going to leave out most of the nitty-gritty and just try to get to that v = cÂ result as fast as I possibly can. So, fasten your seat belt, please.

Most of the nitty-gritty in Feynman’sÂ exposĂ©Â is about how to determine the direction and magnitude of the electric and magnetic fields, i.e. E and B. Now, when the nitty-gritty business is finished, the grand conclusion is that both E and B travel out in both the positive as well as the negative x-direction at some speed vÂ and sort of ‘fill’ the entire space as they do. Now, the regionÂ they are filling extends infinitely far in both the y- and z-direction but, because they travel along the x-axis, there are no fields (yet) in the region beyond x = Â± vÂ·t (t = 0 is the moment when the sheet started moving, and it moves in the positive y-direction). As you can see, the sheet of charge fills the yz-plane, and the assumption is that its speed goes from zero to u instantaneously, or very very quickly at least. So the E and B fields move out like a tidal wave, as illustrated below, and thereby ‘fill’ the space indeed, as they move out.

The magnitude of E and B is constant, but it’s not the same constant, and part of the exercise here is to determine the relationship between the two constants. As for their direction, you can see it in the first illustration: B points in the negative z-direction for x > 0 and in the positive z-direction for x < 0, while E‘s directionÂ is opposite to u‘s directionÂ everywhere, so EÂ points in the negative y-direction. As said, you should just take my word for it, because the nitty-gritty on thisÂ â which we doÂ notÂ want to deal with hereÂ â is all in Feynman and so I don’t want to copy that.

The crux of the argument revolves around what happens at the wavefront itself, as it travels out. Feynman relates flux and circulation there. It’s the typical thing to do: it’sÂ at the wavefront itselfÂ that the fieldsÂ change: before they were zero, and now they are equal to that constant. The fields do notÂ change anywhere else, so there’s no changing flux or circulation business to be analyzed anywhere else.Â So we define two loops at the wavefront itself: Î1Â and Î2. They are normal to each other (cf. the top and side view of the situation below), because the E and B fields are normal to each other. And so then we use Maxwell’s equations to check out what happens with the flux and circulation there and conclude what needs to be concluded. đ

We start with rectangle Î2. So one side isÂ in the region where there are fields, and one side is in the region where the fields haven’t reached yet. There is some magnetic flux through this loop, and it is changing, so there is an emf around it, i.e. some circulation of E. The flux changes because the area in which B exists increases at speed v.Â Now, the time rate of change of the flux is, obviously, the width of the rectangle L times the rate of change ofÂ the area, so that’s (BÂ·LÂ·vÂ·Ît)/Ît = BÂ·LÂ·v, with Ît some differential time interval co-definingÂ how slow or how fast the field changes. Now, according to Faraday’s Law (see my previous post),Â this will be equal to minus the line integral ofÂ EÂ around Î2, which is EÂ·L. So EÂ·L = BÂ·LÂ·v and, hence, we find:Â E = vÂ·B.

Interesting! To satisfy Faraday’s equation (which is just one of Maxwell’s equations in integral rather than in differential form), E must equal B times v, with v the speed of propagation of our ‘tidal’ wave. Now let’s look at Î1. There we should apply:

Now the line integral is just BÂ·L, and the right-hand side is EÂ·LÂ·v, so, not forgetting that c2Â in frontâi.e. the squareÂ of the speed of light, as you know!âwe get:Â c2B =Â EÂ·v, or E = (c2/v)Â·B.Â

Now, the E = vÂ·B and E = (c2/v)Â·B equations mustÂ bothÂ apply (we’re talking one wave and one and the same phenomenon) and, obviously, that’sÂ onlyÂ possible if v =Â c2/v, i.e. if v = c. So the wavefront mustÂ travel at the speed of light! Waw !Â That’s fast. đ Yes. […] Jokes aside, that’s the result we wanted here: we justÂ provedÂ that the speed of travel of an electromagnetic wave must beÂ equal to the speed of light.

As an added bonus, we also showed the mechanism of travel. It’s obvious from the equations we used to prove the result: it works through the derivatives of the fields with respect to time, i.e.Â âE/ât andÂ âB/ât.

Done!Â Great! Enjoy the view!

Well… Yes and no. If you’re smart, you’ll say: we got this result because of the c2Â factor in that equation, so Maxwell had already put it in, so to speak. Waw! You really areÂ aÂ smart-arse, aren’t you? đ

The thing is… Well… The answer is: no. Maxwell didÂ notÂ put it in. Well… Yes and no. Let me explain. Maxwell’s firstÂ equation was the electric flux lawÂ âÂ·E = Ï/Î”0: the flux of E through a closed surface is proportional to the charge inside. So that’s basically an other way of writingÂ Coulomb’s Law,Â and Î”0Â was just some constant in it, the electric constant. So it’s a constant of proportionality that depends on the unit in which we measure electric charge. The only reason that it’s there is to make the units come out alright, so if we’d measure charge not in coulombÂ (C)Â in a unit equal to 1 C/Î”0, it would disappear. If we’d do that, our new unit would be equivalent to the charge of some 700,000 protons. You can figure that magical number yourself by checking the values of the proton charge and Î”0. đ

OK. And then Faraday came up with the exactÂ laws for magnetism, and they involved current and some other constant of proportionality, and Maxwell formalized that by writing âĂBÂ = ÎŒ0j, withÂ ÎŒ0Â the magneticÂ constant. It’s not a flux law but a circulation law: currents cause circulationÂ of B. We get the flux rule from it by integrating it. But currents are movingÂ charges, and so Maxwell knew magnetism was related to the same thing: electric charge. So Maxwell knew the two constants had to be related. In fact, when putting the full set of equations together â there are four, as you knowÂ âÂ Maxwell figured out that ÎŒ0Â timesÂ Î”0Â would haveÂ toÂ be equal to the reciprocal of c2, with cÂ the speed of propagation of the wave. So Maxwell knew that, whatever the unit of charge, we’d get two constants of proportionality, and electricÂ and aÂ magneticÂ constant, and that ÎŒ0Â·Î”0Â would be equal to 1/c2. However,Â while he knew that,Â at the time, light and electromagnetism were considered to be separate phenomena, and so Maxwell did not say that cÂ was the speed of light: the only thing his equations told him was thatÂ cÂ is the speed of propagation of thatÂ ‘electromagnetic’ wave that came out of his equations.

The rest is history.Â In 1856, the great Wilhelm Eduard Weber â you’ve seen his name before, didn’t you? â did a whole bunch of experiments which measured the electric constant rather precisely, and Maxwell jumped on it and calculated all the rest, i.e. ÎŒ0, and so then he took the reciprocal of the square root of ÎŒ0Â·Î”0Â and â Bang!Â â he hadÂ c, the speed of propagation of the electromagnetic wave he was thinking of. Now, cÂ was some value of the order of 3Ă108Â m/s, and so thatÂ happenedÂ to be the same as the speed of light, which suggested that Maxwell’sÂ c and the speed of light wereÂ actually one and the same thing!

Now, I am a smart-arse too đ and, hence, when I first heard this story, I actually wondered how Maxwell could possibly know the speed of light at the time: Maxwell died many years beforeÂ the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally established the value of the speed of light. [In case, you wonder: the Michelson-Morley experiment was done in 1887. So I check it. The fact is that the Michelson-Morley experiment concluded that the speed of light was anÂ absoluteÂ value and that, in the process of doing so, they got a rather precise value for it, but the value of cÂ itself has already been established, more or less, that is, by aÂ Danish astronomer, Ole RĂ¶mer, in 1676 ! He did so by carefully observing the timing of the repeating eclipses of Io, one of Jupiter’s moons. Newton mentioned his results in his Principia, which he wrote in 1687, dulyÂ noting that it takes about seven to eightÂ minutes for light to travel from the Sun to the Earth. Done! The whole story is fascinating, really, so you should check it outÂ yourself. đ

In any case, to make a long story short, Maxwell was puzzled by this mysterious coincidence, but he was bold enough to immediately point to the right conclusion, tentativelyÂ at least, and so he told the Cambridge Philosophical Society, in the very same year, i.e. 1856, that “we can scarcely avoid the inference that light consists in the transverse undulations of the same medium which is the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena.”

So… Well… Maxwell still suggests light needs some medium here, so the ‘medium’ is a reference to the infamous aetherÂ theory, but that’s not the point: what he says here is what we all take for granted now: light is an electromagnetic wave.Â So now we knowÂ there’s absolute no reason whatsoever to avoid the ‘inference’, but… Well… 160 years ago, it was quite a big deal to suggest something like that. đ

So that’s the full story. I hoped you like it. Don’t underestimate what you just did: understanding an argument like this is like “climbing a great peak”, as Feynman puts it. So it is “a great moment” indeed. đÂ The only thing left is, perhaps, to explain the ‘other’ flux rules I used above. Indeed, you know Faraday’s Law:

But that other one? Well… As I explained in my previous post, Faraday’s Law is the integralÂ form of Maxwell’s second equation:Â ââB/ât =Â âĂE. The ‘other’ flux rule aboveÂ â so that’s the one with the c2Â in front and without a minus sign, is the integral form of Maxwell’s fourth equation: c2âĂBÂ = j/Î”0Â +Â âE/ât, taking into account that we’re talking a wave traveling in free space, so there are no charges and currents (it’s just a wave in empty spaceâwhatever that means) and, hence, the Maxwell equation reduces to c2âĂBÂ = âE/ât. Now, I could take you through the same gymnastics as I did in my previous post but, if I were you, I’d just apply the general principle that ”the same equations must yield the same solutions” and so I’d just switch E for B and vice versa in Faraday’s equation. đ

So we’re done… Well… Perhaps one more thing. We’ve got these flux rules above telling us that theÂ electromagnetic wave will travel all by itself, through empty space, completely detached from its First Cause. But… […] Well… Again you may think there’s some trick here. In other words, you may think the wavefront has to remain connected to the First Cause somehow, just like the whip below is connected to some person whipping it. đ

There’s no such connection. The whip is not needed. đ If we’d switch off the First Cause after some time T, so our moving sheet stops moving, then we’d have theÂ pulseÂ below traveling through empty space. As Feynman puts it: “The fields have taken off: they are freely propagating through space, no longer connected in any way with the source. The caterpillar has turned into a butterfly!Â

Now, the last question is always the same: whatÂ areÂ those fields? What’s theirÂ reality? Here, I should refer you to one of the most delightful sections in Feynman’s Lectures. It’s on theÂ scientific imagination. I’ll just quote the introduction to it, but I warmly recommend you go and check it out for yourself: it hasÂ no formulasÂ whatsoever, and so you should understandÂ all of itÂ without any problem at all. đ

“I have asked you to imagine these electric and magnetic fields. What do you do? Do you know how? How do I imagine the electric and magnetic field? What do I actually see? What are the demands of scientific imagination? Is it any different from trying to imagine that the room is full of invisible angels? No, it is not like imagining invisible angels. It requires a much higher degree of imagination to understand the electromagnetic field than to understand invisible angels. Why? Because to make invisible angels understandable, all I have to do is to alter their properties a little bitâI make them slightly visible, and then I can see the shapes of their wings, and bodies, and halos. Once I succeed in imagining a visible angel, the abstraction requiredâwhich is to take almost invisible angels and imagine them completely invisibleâis relatively easy. So you say, âProfessor, please give me an approximate description of the electromagnetic waves, even though it may be slightly inaccurate, so that I too can see them as well as I can see almost invisible angels. Then I will modify the picture to the necessary abstraction.â

Iâm sorry I canât do that for you. I donât know how. I have no picture of this electromagnetic field that is in any sense accurate. I have known about the electromagnetic field a long timeâI was in the same position 25Â years ago that you are now, and I have had 25Â years more of experience thinking about these wiggling waves. When I start describing the magnetic field moving through space, I speak of the EÂ andÂ BÂ fields and wave my arms and you may imagine that I can see them. Iâll tell you what I see. I see some kind of vague shadowy, wiggling linesâhere and there is an E and aÂ BÂ written on them somehow, and perhaps some of the lines have arrows on themâan arrow here or there which disappears when I look too closely at it. When I talk about the fields swishing through space, I have a terrible confusion between the symbols I use to describe the objects and the objects themselves. I cannot really make a picture that is even nearly like the true waves. So if you have some difficulty in making such a picture, you should not be worried that your difficulty is unusual.

Our science makes terrific demands on the imagination. The degree of imagination that is required is much more extreme than that required for some of the ancient ideas. The modern ideas are much harder to imagine. We use a lot of tools, though. We use mathematical equations and rules, and make a lot of pictures. What I realize now is that when I talk about the electromagnetic field in space, I see some kind of a superposition of all of the diagrams which Iâve ever seen drawn about them. I donât see little bundles of field lines running about because it worries me that if I ran at a different speed the bundles would disappear, I donât even always see the electric and magnetic fields because sometimes I think I should have made a picture with the vector potential and the scalar potential, for those were perhaps the more physically significant things that were wiggling.

Perhaps the only hope, you say, is to take a mathematical view. Now what is a mathematical view? From a mathematical view, there is an electric field vector and a magnetic field vector at every point in space; that is, there are six numbers associated with every point. Can you imagine six numbers associated with each point in space? Thatâs too hard. Can you imagine even one number associated with every point? I cannot! I can imagine such a thing as the temperature at every point in space. That seems to be understandable. There is a hotness and coldness that varies from place to place. But I honestly do not understand the idea of a number at every point.

So perhaps we should put the question: Can we represent the electric field by something more like a temperature, say like the displacement of a piece of jello? Suppose that we were to begin by imagining that the world was filled with thin jello and that the fields represented some distortionâsay a stretching or twistingâof the jello. Then we could visualize the field. After we âseeâ what it is like we could abstract the jello away. For many years thatâs what people tried to do. Maxwell, AmpĂšre, Faraday, and others tried to understand electromagnetism this way. (Sometimes they called the abstract jello âether.â) But it turned out that the attempt to imagine the electromagnetic field in that way was really standing in the way of progress. We are unfortunately limited to abstractions, to using instruments to detect the field, to using mathematical symbols to describe the field, etc. But nevertheless, in some sense the fields are real, because after we are all finished fiddling around with mathematical equationsâwith or without making pictures and drawings or trying to visualize the thingâwe can still make the instruments detect the signals from Mariner II and find out about galaxies a billion miles away, and so on.

The whole question of imagination in science is often misunderstood by people in other disciplines. They try to test our imagination in the following way. They say, âHere is a picture of some people in a situation. What do you imagine will happen next?â When we say, âI canât imagine,â they may think we have a weak imagination. They overlook the fact that whatever we are allowed to imagine in science must be consistent with everything else we know: that the electric fields and the waves we talk about are not just some happy thoughts which we are free to make as we wish, but ideas which must be consistent with all the laws of physics we know. We canât allow ourselves to seriously imagine things which are obviously in contradiction to the known laws of nature. And so our kind of imagination is quite a difficult game. One has to have the imagination to think of something that has never been seen before, never been heard of before. At the same time the thoughts are restricted in a strait jacket, so to speak, limited by the conditions that come from our knowledge of the way nature really is. The problem of creating something which is new, but which is consistent with everything which has been seen before, is one of extreme difficulty.”

Isn’t that great? I mean: Feynman, one of the greatest physicists of all time, didn’t write what he wrote above when he was a undergrad student or so. No. He did so in 1964, when he was 45 years old, at the height of his scientific career! And it gets better, because Feynman then starts talking aboutÂ beauty. What is beauty in science? Well… Just click and check what Feynman thinks about it. đ

Oh… Last thing. So what is the magnitude of the E and B field? Well… You can work it out yourself, but I’ll give you the answer. The geometry of the situation makes it clear that the electric field has a y-component only, and the magnetic field a z-component only. Their magnitudes are given in terms of J, i.e. the surface current density going in the positive y-direction:

Some content on this page was disabled on June 16, 2020 as a result of a DMCA takedown notice from The California Institute of Technology. You can learn more about the DMCA here: