Converting between wavenumber and wavelength

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the conversion between wavenumber and wavelength, highlighting a misunderstanding in the definitions used. The correct definition of wavenumber (k) should include "radians in 1 wave" over "distance of 1 wave," clarifying that k relates to the phase change per wavelength. The confusion arises from the interpretation of dimensional analysis, which can lead to incorrect conclusions about constants. The key takeaway is that the expression for λk should equal 2π, not 1/2π, emphasizing the importance of precise definitions in mathematical expressions. This illustrates how ambiguous symbols can lead to significant errors in calculations.
aliens123
Messages
75
Reaction score
5
Homework Statement
Converting between wavenumber and wavelength
Relevant Equations
None
By dimensional analysis, we have that the wavenumber: $$k = \frac{\text{radians}}{\text{distance}}$$
And the wavelength:
$$\lambda = \frac{\text{distance}}{1 \text{wave}}$$

Then:
$$\lambda k = \frac{\text{radians}}{\text{distance}}\frac{\text{distance}}{1 \text{wave}} = \frac{\text{radians}}{1 \text{wave}}$$
Now:
$$2\pi \text{radians} = 1 \text{wave} $$
$$\frac{\text{radians}}{1 \text{wave}} = \frac{1}{2\pi} $$
So
$$\lambda k = \frac{1}{2\pi} $$
But this contradicts the "well known"
$$\lambda k = 2\pi $$
So where did I go wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You were not specific enough with your definition of ##k##. Instead of ##k=\dfrac{\mathrm{radians}}{\mathrm{distance}}##, you should have said ##k=\dfrac{\mathrm{radians~in~1~wave}}{\mathrm{distance~of~1~wave}}##. Then you get the definition for the wavenumber ##k## with "radians in 1 wave"= ##2\pi## and "distance of 1 wave"= ##\lambda##. Dimensional analysis is not a good heuristic tool for figuring out where constants go, if they belong anywhere.
 
  • Like
Likes aliens123
I agree with @kuruman . Symbols such as ##\frac{\text{radians}}{\text{wave}}## can be ambiguous.

For example suppose I write ##\frac{\text{in}}{\text{ft}}##. What does this mean? If it's interpreted to mean the number of inches per foot, then it equals 12. But if it means the ratio of an inch to a foot, it equals 1/12.

You wrote
aliens123 said:
$$\lambda k = \frac{\text{radians}}{\text{distance}}\frac{\text{distance}}{1 \text{wave}} = \frac{\text{radians}}{1 \text{wave}}$$
Here, the meaning of ##\frac{\text{radians}}{1 \text{wave}}## is the number of radians of phase in one wavelength. So it equals ##2\pi##.

Then you wrote
Now:
$$2\pi \, \text{radians} = 1 \text{wave} $$
$$\frac{\text{radians}}{1 \text{wave}} = \frac{1}{2\pi} $$
Here, the meaning of the first equation ##2\pi \, \text{radians} = 1 \text{wave} ## is to say that moving along a wave such that the phase increases by ##2\pi \, \text{radians}## is the same as moving 1 wavelength. You could rearrange this as ##\frac{2\pi \, \text{radians}}{1 \text{wave}} = 1##. The ratio on the left equals 1 in the sense that the numerator and the denominator represent the same amount of movement along the wave. Dividing both sides by ##2 \pi## then gives the second equation. But note that now the meaning of ##\frac{\text{radians}}{1 \text{wave}}## is the ratio of how much you need to move along a wave to change the phase by 1 radian to moving along a wave by one wavelength. This ratio is ##\frac{1}{2 \pi}##. That is, changing the phase by 1 radian only takes you along the wave by ##\frac{1}{2 \pi}## of a wavelength.

So, here the meaning of the symbol ##\frac{\text{radians}}{1 \text{wave}}## is different than the meaning of the same symbol when you used it in your expression for ##k \lambda##.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes aliens123
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
580
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
46
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K