Calculating the Ratio of Electromagnetic Wave Speeds in Vacuum and Materials

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the ratio of electromagnetic wave speeds in vacuum versus materials using the relationships between permittivity and permeability. The speed of light in vacuum is defined as c = 1/sqrt(ε0μ0), while in materials, the speed v is expressed as v = 1/sqrt(εμ). The ratio of these speeds is given by c/v = 1/sqrt(κκm), where κ is the dielectric constant and κm is the relative permeability of the material. Participants clarify the correct application of these formulas and relationships, ultimately confirming the calculations. The conversation emphasizes the importance of substituting the material properties correctly to derive the desired ratio.
yjk91
Messages
73
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Electric and magnetic fields in many materials can be analyzed using the same relationships as for fields in vacuum, only substituting relative values of the permittivity and the permeability, ε = κε0 and μ = κmμ0, for their vacuum values, where κ is the dielectric constant and κm the relative permeability of the material. Calculate the ratio of the speed of electromagnetic waves in vacuum to their speed in such a material. (Use the following as necessary: κ, κm, ε0, and μ0.)

The Attempt at a Solution



c= sqrt(epsilon0*mu0)
and by analogy,
v= sqrt(/epsilon/mu)
So,
c/v = 1 / sqrt ( kappa * kappa m)


would the c = 1/ sqrt( epsilon0*mu0)

that would give me 1/(epsilon*mu0)

either of them are wrong..
any hint?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


yjk91 said:
c= sqrt(epsilon0*mu0)
and by analogy,
v= sqrt(/epsilon/mu)
So,
c/v = 1 / sqrt ( kappa * kappa m)
Not quite. The relationship between the permeability and permitivity and c is
c = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_o \; \mu_o}}
Make use of the fact that in the material \epsilon = \kappa \epsilon_o and \mu = \kappa_m \mu_o
 


i got it thanks always helping :)
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top