Comparing K and k in Hecht's Optics Book

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter manimaran1605
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Book Optics
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the differences between the propagation number (K) and the wave number (k) as defined in Hecht's Optics book. Participants explore the definitions, units, and implications of these terms in the context of wave equations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asks about the difference between propagation number (K) and wave number (k), noting both are defined in terms of wavelength (λ) but questioning their implications.
  • Another participant points out that while the units of K and k appear the same (meter inverse), they are conceptually different, with K being in radians/m and k in cycles/m, emphasizing the importance of unit distinction in wave equations.
  • A third participant corrects the definitions, stating that Hecht defines k as 2π/λ and K as 1/λ, and notes that the notation can be confusing due to the use of different symbols (k, κ, K).
  • One participant mentions that using k = 2π/λ is convenient for working with angular frequency (ω), allowing for simpler expressions in wave equations.
  • Another participant suggests that the original poster should compare specific equations in Hecht's book to understand the relationships between different constants in wave equations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definitions and notations of K and k, with some agreeing on the confusion surrounding the symbols while others provide corrections. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these definitions.

Contextual Notes

There is a lack of consensus on the practical reasons for the different notations and their usage in various contexts, such as spectroscopy versus general wave mechanics.

manimaran1605
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
What is the difference between propagation number(K) and wave number(k) described in Optics book written by hecht

He defined K=2π/λ and k=1/λ and both of them have the same units (i.e, meter inverse)
What does wave number of a Harmonic function tells about?
 
Science news on Phys.org
The units look the same, but they aren't quite the same. It's a somewhat confusing notation in my opinion (especially when you use 'K' and 'k'!)

K=2π/λ is in units of radians/m and k=1/λ has units cycles/m, where "radians" and "cycles" are usually omitted. You just have to remember which kind of units you're using, so you know whether there needs to be a factor of 2π inside the sine/cosine/exponential.

For example, a wave of "propagation number(K)" would be sin(Kx), while a wave with "wave number(k)" would be sin(2πkx).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
manimaran1605 said:
[Hecht] defined [propagation number] K=2π/λ and [wave number] k=1/λ

You have it backwards. He defines the propagation number as ##k = 2 \pi / \lambda## (lower-case Latin letter "k") and the wave number as ##\kappa = 1 / \lambda## (lower-case Greek letter "kappa", not upper-case Latin letter "K"). Those different symbols (##k##, ##\kappa##, and ##K## in LaTeX; or k, κ, and K in PF's default font) tend to confuse people. Look carefully! :smile:

As olivermsun noted, the units are different. ##k## is much more commonly used. ##\kappa## is mainly used by spectroscopists. I don't know if they have a practical reason for it, or if it's just a historical convention.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
The ##k = 2 \pi / \lambda## version is often convenient for working with waves when you also use the angular frequency ##\omega = 2 \pi / T## (where ##T## is the wave period).

That way, you can write things like ##e^{i(kx - \omega t)}## without having ##2\pi##s all over the place. :smile:
 
olivermsun said:
That way, you can write things like ##e^{i(kx - \omega t)}## without having ##2\pi##s all over the place. :smile:

Exactly. The OP (manimaran1605) should compare equation (2.24) in Hecht with the other equations in that group on page 16, which are different ways of writing the same wave equation using different combinations of constants.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
33K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K