Do non-monochromatic "waves" exist in dispersive media?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the existence of non-monochromatic waves in dispersive media, particularly focusing on the implications of superposing different monochromatic waves with varying phase velocities. Participants explore the mathematical formulations and physical interpretations of wave equations in both time and frequency domains.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether the superposition of two different monochromatic waves in a dispersive medium can still be considered a wave, given that they are solutions to different wave equations due to differing phase velocities.
  • Others suggest that writing the wave equation in the frequency domain provides a more intuitive understanding, referencing the Helmholtz equation and the role of permittivity.
  • A participant points out that the phase velocity's dependence on frequency complicates the situation, as it implies that waves of different frequencies are solutions to different equations.
  • There is a discussion about the interpretation of the wave equation in the time domain, with some proposing that the speed of light, ##c##, should be treated as a function of frequency, ##c(\omega)##.
  • One participant emphasizes that the equation presented is only valid for monochromatic modes and that a more general approach involves retarded integrals and neglects spatial dispersion.
  • Another participant corrects a previous claim regarding the wave equation, asserting that the correct form involves a medium's response function and highlights the importance of causality in the formulation.
  • There is mention of the limitations of the wave equation's validity, noting that it is approximately true under specific conditions regarding the permittivity's variation within the frequency range.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the treatment of wave equations in dispersive media, particularly regarding the validity of certain equations for non-monochromatic waves. There is no consensus on whether the superposition of waves leads to a valid wave solution or how to appropriately model such scenarios.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of wave equations in different domains, the unresolved nature of the mathematical steps involved in deriving the correct formulations, and the specific conditions under which the approximations hold true.

greypilgrim
Messages
582
Reaction score
44
Hi.

Is the superposition of two different monochromatic waves in a dispersive medium still a wave (i.e. a solution of a wave equation) if the phase velocity is not the same? Since the wave equation contains the phase velocity, the two individual waves are solutions of different wave equations. Is there a wave equation that is solved by the superposition?
 
Science news on Phys.org
greypilgrim said:
Since the wave equation contains the phase velocity, the two individual waves are solutions of different wave equations. Is there a wave equation that is solved by the superposition?
When more than one waves are present, it's more intuitive to write the wave equation in frequency domain
$$
\nabla^2 E(\mathbf{r},\omega) + \frac{\omega^2}{c^2}\epsilon(\omega)E(\mathbf{r},\omega) = 0
$$
where ##\epsilon(\omega)## is the medium's permittivity.
 
But isn't that the same problem? In the time domain the phase velocity depends on the frequency, now the permittivity does. Still, waves of different frequency are solutions to different wave equations.
 
It's still a linear PDE (the Helmholtz equation), and thus you can apply Fourier decomposition, i.e., you write
$$E(\vec{r},\omega)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \frac{\mathrm{d}^3 \vec{k}}{(2 \pi)^3} \tilde{E}(\vec{k},\omega) \exp(\mathrm{i} \vec{k} \cdot \vec{x}).$$
Plugging this into the equation leads to the dispersion relation
$$k=|\vec{k}|=\frac{\omega}{c} \sqrt{\epsilon(\omega)}.$$
This leads to
$$E(\vec{r},\omega)=\int_{\Omega} \mathrm{d}^2 \Omega A(\omega,\vartheta,\varphi) \exp(\mathrm{i} k \vec{n} \cdot \vec{x})|_{k=\omega \sqrt{\epsilon(\omega)}/c},$$
where ##\vec{n}=(\cos \varphi \sin \vartheta,\sin \varphi \sin \vartheta,\cos \vartheta)## and ##\mathrm{d}^2 \Omega=\mathrm{d} \vartheta \mathrm{d}\varphi \sin \vartheta##, ##\vartheta \in \{0,\pi \}##, ##\varphi \in \{0,2 \pi \}##, and ##A## is an arbitrary function. It can be evaluated from some initial condition (in the time domain).
 
So does that mean that ##c## in the wave equation (in the time domain) is not to be regarded as a constant but as a function of the frequency, ##c(\omega)##?
 
greypilgrim said:
So does that mean that ##c## in the wave equation (in the time domain) is not to be regarded as a constant but as a function of the frequency, ##c(\omega)##?
Yes, for a non-magnetic medium, the wave equation reads
$$
\nabla^2 E(\mathbf{r},t) - \frac{\epsilon(\omega)}{c^2} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}E(\mathbf{r},t) = 0
$$
 
Here you mix the frequency and time domains, and the above equation is not correct for a general wave packet but only for a monochromatic mode. The correct equation is the Helmholtz equation for ##\tilde{E}(\omega,\vec{r})## in #2. In the time domain you usually have a retarded integral between ##D## and ##E##
$$D(t,\vec{x})=\int_{\mathbb{R}} G_{\text{ret}}(t,t') E(t',\vec{x}),$$
and this is only the special case, where you neglect spatial dispersion. For details, see vol. VIII of Landau&Lifshitz (Macroscopic E&M).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: blue_leaf77
vanhees71 said:
Here you mix the frequency and time domains, and the above equation is not correct for a general wave packet but only for a monochromatic mode. The correct equation is the Helmholtz equation for ##\tilde{E}(\omega,\vec{r})## in #2. In the time domain you usually have a retarded integral between ##D## and ##E##
$$D(t,\vec{x})=\int_{\mathbb{R}} G_{\text{ret}}(t,t') E(t',\vec{x}),$$
and this is only the special case, where you neglect spatial dispersion. For details, see vol. VIII of Landau&Lifshitz (Macroscopic E&M).
My bad, you are right. The equation in time domain should have been
$$
\nabla^2 E(\mathbf{r},t) - \frac{1}{c^2} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}\int R(t-t')E(\mathbf{r},t') \, dt' = 0
$$
where ##R(t) = FT[\epsilon(\omega)]## is the so-called medium's response function, typically required to satisfy the condition ##R(t<0)=0##. This requirement has a physical meaning that the contribution to the present's field due to the field in the future is zero - causality principle. I think this function is what you meant by ##G(t)##. Basically, the convolution ##\int R(t-t')E(\mathbf{r},t') \, dt' ## is just the FT of ##\epsilon(\omega)E(\mathbf{r},\omega)##.
The wave equation in #6 is only approximately true when the permittivity varies slowly within the frequency range of the spectrum of the field, or equivalently when the field's spectrum is sufficiently narrow.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
10K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K