Converting between wavenumber and wavelength

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the conversion between wavenumber (k) and wavelength (λ) using dimensional analysis. It establishes that the relationship λk = 2π is correct when k is defined as the number of radians per distance of one wave. The confusion arises from ambiguous definitions of k, where the distinction between radians per wave and the ratio of radians to distance is crucial. The correct interpretation clarifies that changing the phase by one radian corresponds to moving along the wave by 1/(2π) of a wavelength.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of dimensional analysis
  • Familiarity with wave mechanics
  • Knowledge of trigonometric functions and their applications in physics
  • Basic grasp of mathematical symbols and their meanings in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the relationship between wavenumber and wavelength in greater detail
  • Learn about the implications of phase shifts in wave mechanics
  • Explore dimensional analysis techniques in physics
  • Investigate common ambiguities in mathematical notation and their resolutions
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators teaching wave mechanics, and professionals in fields requiring precise mathematical communication will benefit from this discussion.

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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: aliens123

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · 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
7K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K