Light is made by an electric field wave and a magnetic field wave. Induction laws state that a variation in the electric field creates a magnetic field  and vice versa. Therefore can it be said that the simultaneous presence of magnetic wave and electric wave in electromagnetic waves is due to induction ? Can it be said there is an repetitive self induction in the electromagnetic waves such that the electric wave induces the magnetic wave which induces back the next electric wave period ? Can it be said that such back and forth is responsible for the light trajectory ?
106968
Frequently when EM waves are taught, it is said that the change in electric field causes a change in the magnetic field, which then causes a change in the electric field, and so on and so forth.   But from my understanding of basic electromagnetics, it is not necessarily a changing electric field that creates a change in magnetic field, but instead an accelerating charge. and it is this charge that creates both the electric and magnetic field. Again, from my understanding, a changing magnetic field is not generated by a changing electric field, but instead just happens to always be present perpendicular to a changing electric field due to the laws of electromagnetism.   Am I wrong? Or is the "mutual generation" concept between the electric and magnetic components of an EM wave an actual thing?
87891
I am able to understand how light can be modeled to have wave characteristics from Young's double slit experiment.  But I am unable to comprehend how we can understand light to have particle characteristics from the photoelectric experiment. How is it wave character not able to explain the phenomena observed in this experiment? And how is it that particle nature defeats the wave theory?
121417
Perpendicular electric and magnetic field creates light or other electromagnetic waves. Is it a necessary property to have a perpendicular fields? If not what would happen when the fields are not perpendicular?
9492
Im confused about fire. The way I see it :   Heat creates (kinetic) energy in mass and this creates stronger vibrations of atoms. When those vibrations are strong enough the electrons interact stronger due to electromagnetic forces. This causes the electrons to fly away. This is the creation of a plasma and the direction of most electrons is the direction of the flame. the shape and heat of the flame depends mainly on the amount of electrons and their velocity ( apart from the source of heat and the considered gas and solid material) the electrons move freely ( but not random ) in the flame. there is a chemical reaction going on that usually produces smoke or such. the entropy increases in all the above 6 steps and the process is repeated. the electromagnetic energy is converted into kinetic energy of the electron and conductivity in the plasma (flame). the moving electrons create an electromagnetic field.   That is more or less how I see it. What steps are ok ?  And the main question , why is there light involved ?  I mean why cant we just have kinetic energy of the electrons and a changing magnetic field ? Why are there photons ? If the electrons are in a high energy state why cant they just move faster instead of emitting a photon ???  Why is the light usually visible ? is that because of our structure of air ?  If the light is an electromagnetic wave why does the flame go up ? does that imply all electromagnetic waves go up ?? But electromagnetic waves are not influanced by gravity or buoyancy are they ??  What is the final destiny of the electrons and photons if the heat is gone ??  I am puzzled by this.
12714
Can a magnetic field be induced without an electric field? Because, as far as I know, a time varying electric field induces a magnetic field an vice versa.  But in the case of conductors carrying currennt, it doesn't seem that electric field varies with time, then how is a magnetic field induced?
84961
Given that:  1) virtual photons mediate the electric and magnetic force fields  2) the magnetic field is the curl of the magnetic vector potential  3) the electric field is the negative gradient of the electric scalar potential  How do we understand the vector and scalar potentials in terms of virtual photons?   Specifically, I mean curl-free magnetic vector and gradient-free electric scalar potential fields, where no electromagnetic waves or physical forces are present.   For instance, what's actually happening outside of the solenoid in the Aharonov-Bohm experiment that alters the phase of the passing electron? Are virtual particles involved there? This question has really stumped me because I only have an undergrad level of understanding in physics. Thanks for any help.
70887
If there is no source then also there is electromagnetic waves described by Maxwell equation. how if there is no source then existence of EM waves. What gives energy to this EM  waves. Is it vacuum fluctuation or something else?
19429
We can think that the electric field and the gravitational field operate similarly in the sense that the forms of their governing laws (namely, Coulomb's law and Newton's law respectively) are strikingly similar. The only difference one can point out is that while the electric charges come in two flavors, the gravitational masses come in just one.  Now, I have read that when a charged particle moves, the electric field lines associated with are distorted in a fashion because of the finite time required for the information about the change in the position of the charge to get propagated. And, I have led to the understanding that this is the cause of the existence of the magnetic field (and that if calculus is used it can be proven mathematically).   So (if this is true then) why doesn't the same thing happen to the gravitational field? Why is there nothing like a gravitational magnetic field? Or, is there?  Note  I have changed the language and the tone of the question massively. Although the question was fairly well received, I believe it was really ill-posed. As pointed out by ACuriousMind in the comment, the ''reason''described here behind the existence of the magnetic field is something that cannot be found a good support for. But still, due to the similarity between the equations describing their static behavior of electric and gravitational fields, one can still ask as to whether a boost would create some sort of a gravitational magnetic field if the original frame only had a static gravitational field. As the accepted answer points out, the answer is, roughly, a yes but the Maxwell-type equations for gravity aren't as well-behaved as are the original Maxwell equations of electromagnetism--one should note. In particular, the equations for gravity take the Maxwell-like form in appropriate weak limits only in some appropriately chosen gauges--and aren't Lorentz covariant.
114509
My physics professor explained to me that electromagnetic waves are consisted of two components - electric and magnetic - which cause each other.   Which part of the mirror actually reflects the wave? Which of those two wave components? Both? How come the wave doesn't get heavily distorted in the process?     I guess the actual electrons of atoms of silver play a role, but why isn't every material reflective, then? Because is isn't "perfectly" flat? If I lined up atoms of a non-metal element in a perfect plane (maybe several rows), would it reflect light just as mirrors do?
1974
This is perhaps a total newbie question, and I will try to formulate it the best I can, so here it goes. How does an electromagnetic wave travel through for example, the vacuum of space?   I usually see that waves are explained using analogies with water, pieces of rope, the strings of a guitar, etc, but it seems to me that all those waves need a medium to propagate. In fact, from my point of view, in those examples the wave as a "thing" does not exist, it's just the medium that moves (involuntary reference to The Matrix, sorry).   But in space there is no medium, so how does a wave travel? Are there free particles of some sort in this "vacuum" or something? I believe , so supposedly there isn't a medium for the wave to travel through.   Moreover, I've seen other answers that describe light as a perturbation of the electromagnetic field, but isn't the existence of the field, potential until disturbed? How can it travel through something it does not exist until it's disturbed by the traveling light in the first place? (this last sentence is probably a big misconception by me).
78804
I've seen some conflicted answers to this question in texts and on the web, in the case of a dipole, for example.   Do magnetic fields do work directly, or is it their induced electric fields that do work?
97292
Is it possible to create an electromagnetic wave of near zero frequency?   An electromagnetic wave carries energy. If we can make the frequency of an EM wave vanishingly small and make it practicality DC, will it also carry energy? I don't think it is possible. Hence there should be some fundamental limit on the minimum frequency of an EM wave.   Is there any such thing?
105662
this is my first question on PhysicsSE (I'm already an user of MathSE).   I'm a mathematics students trying to understand Faraday's law, that is   $$\varepsilon= -\frac{d \Phi_B}{dt}$$  where $\varepsilon$ means electromotive force and   $$\Phi_B=\iint \mathbf{B}\cdot d\mathbf{S}$$   means flux of magnetic field. As my textbook points out, there is an interpretation problem here: if the change in magnetic flux is due to movement of the conductor, then free charges in it are subject to Lorentz force, which then causes a current. On the contrary, if the conductor holds steady in a changing magnetic field, the induced current must be explained in terms of an electric field $\mathbf{E}$, described by the equations   $$\begin{cases} \nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}=\frac{\rho}{\varepsilon_0} \\ \nabla \times \mathbf{E} = - \frac{\partial \mathbf{B}}{\partial t}\end{cases}.$$  Question Do those equations hold if we have a moving conductor in a stationary magnetic field? I guess not: this would mean $\mathbf{E}=\mathbf{0}$. How to solve this?
16766
How is the following classical optics phenomenon explained in quantum electrodynamics?   Reflection and Refraction   Are they simply due to photons being absorbed and re-emitted? How do we get to Snell's law, for example, in that case?  Split by request: See the other part of this question .
19930
At the end of this nice video (), she says that  is a chain reaction of electric and magnetic fields creating each other so the chain of wave moves forward.  I wonder where the  is in this explanation. What is the relation between electromagnetic wave and photon?
50114
How the electro-magnetic waves are produced by the accelerating charged particle? Graphical explanations are most welcomed. Is the explanation given by the below mentioned article correct regarding the movement of electromagnetic waves?
43352
Since electromagnetic energy is carried by photons and moves in forms of waves, does it mean that a single photon when propagating through space doesn't follow the straight path but instead always moves up and down, up and down like a wave. If so another question arises the speed of propagation of light in vacuum is fixed meaning that it will always take the same amount of time for it to travel from point A to point B, but if a photon always moves up and down it will also mean that it travels longer distance than the distance between A and B and so it ill travel faster than light propagates, is it even possible, could you please clarify these concepts for me?