Group velocity dispersion and normal, anomalous dispersion?

AI Thread Summary
Normal and anomalous dispersion occur due to the phase velocity being a function of the wave number (k), causing different components of a group to spread over time. Group velocity dispersion refers to the spreading effect resulting from varying group velocities, which implies that phase velocities also differ. In optics, the dispersion relation connects the frequency (ω) to the wave number (k) through the index of refraction, influencing how wave packets propagate. Typically, materials exhibit normal dispersion where the index of refraction increases with wave number, but anomalous dispersion can occur when it decreases, particularly near resonances. Despite group velocities exceeding the speed of light in certain cases, this does not violate causality, as the actual signal propagation remains bounded by the speed of light in vacuum.
applestrudle
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
From my understanding, normal and anomalous dispersion are because the phase velocity is a function of k so it is different for different components of a group so the group will spread out over time.

So what's group velocity dispersion? Is it the same affect (dispersion/ spreading out) because of the group velocities being different? But if the group velocities are different wouldn't the phase velocities be too?

:confused:

Please help me understand!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let's look at this for the most simple case of a wave propagating along the x direction. The wave is described in terms of a Fourier transform
f(t,x)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{\mathrm{d} k}{2 \pi} \tilde{f}(k) \exp[-\mathrm{i} \omega(k) t+\mathrm{i} k x].
The dispersion relation
\omega=\omega(k)
depends on the specific physical situation. In optics for the most simple case of an unmagnetic homogeneous and isotropic material it's related to the dielectricity function \epsilon or the index of refraction n(\omega).

Now suppose we have a wave packet which is nearly monochromatic, i.e., \tilde{f}(k) is rather sharply peaked around a wave number k_0. Then we can approximate
\omega(k) \simeq \omega(k_0)+\omega'(k_0) (k-k_0).
Plugging this into the above Fourier integral we get
f(t,x)=\exp[-\mathrm{i} \omega(k_0) t+\mathrm{i} k_0 x] \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{\mathrm{d} k}{2 \pi} \tilde{f}(k) \exp[-\mathrm{i} k (\omega'(k_0) t - \mathrm{i} x)].
This means that the envelope of the wave packet approximately travels with the speed
v_{\text{g}}=\omega'(k_0),
because in this approximation the shape of the envelope is unchanged, because
|f(t,x)| =F[\omega'(k_0) t-x].
This approximation, of course holds only true if \omega(k) doesn't change too rapidly around k_0.

For optics the dispersion relation reads
\omega(k)=\frac{c k}{n(k)}.
Then the group velocity for quasi-monochromatic signals with wave numbers around k_0 becomes
v_g=\omega'(k_0)=\frac{c}{n(k_0)} \left [1-k_0 \frac{n'(k_0)}{n(k_0)} \right].
For visible light, for most materials usually the index of refrection is increasing with increasing wave number (i.e., decreasing wave length since k=2 \pi/\lambda). This is called normal dispersion. However, it can also happen that, for some frequencies, the index of refraction becomes decreasing with increasing wave number. Then it's called a region of anomalous dispersion.

Particularly in regions of k, where there are resonances, the approximation breaks down, and the group velocity looses the physical interpretation just given. In optics around a resonance frequency of the atoms, molecules, the crystal lattice, etc. \omega'(k_0) can even become negative or larger than the speed of light in vacuum (anomalous dispersion), but this in reality doesn't mean any violation of Einstein causality in electrodynamics, because in such cases the signal becomes significantly deformed and the approximation made above to introduce the group velocity invalid. One can analytically show that the wave front only propates maximally with the speed of light in vacuum. This has been demonstrated already around 1910 by Sommerfeld and Brillouin. For a good explanation about these phenomena see A. Sommerfeld, Lectures on Theoretical Physics, Vol. 4 (Optics) or J. D. Jackson, Classical electrodynamics.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top