Undergrad Finding Real and Imaginary Parts of the complex wave number

Click For Summary
In Griffiths' fourth edition, the complex wave number is discussed in section 9.4.1, with specific equations for its real and imaginary parts. The real part, denoted as k+, corresponds to k, while the imaginary part, κ (kappa), is denoted as k-. The inquiry focuses on why Griffiths chose the positive root of X when determining k+. The reasoning is that selecting the positive sign ensures k remains real, as a negative root would yield an imaginary value. This clarification emphasizes the importance of maintaining real values in the context of electromagnetic wave propagation in conductors.
sams
Gold Member
Messages
84
Reaction score
2
In Griffiths fourth edition, page 413, section 9.4.1. Electromagnetic Waves in Conductors, the complex wave number is given according to equation (9.124).

Capture.JPG


Calculating the real and imaginary parts of the complex wave number as in equation (9.125) lead to equations (9.126). I have done the derivation by myself and I present it here as follows:

Complete Derivation.jpg


Where,
k+ is the real part of the complex wave number = k in Griffiths.
k- is the imaginary part of the complex wave number = κ (kappa) in Griffiths.

My question here is mathematical rather than physical, why did Griffiths took the positive sign of the first root of X (since X here has two roots when evaluating the polynomial of 2nd degree) when finding the real part k+ of the complex wave number?

Any help is deeply appreciated! Many Thanks!
 

Attachments

  • Capture.JPG
    Capture.JPG
    40.3 KB · Views: 8,220
  • Complete Derivation.jpg
    Complete Derivation.jpg
    15.7 KB · Views: 2,400
Physics news on Phys.org
The positive sign must be taken for k to be real. Taking the negative sign would result in a negative value and hence k would be imaginary since the square root of a negative number is imaginary.
 
  • Like
Likes sams
I do not have a good working knowledge of physics yet. I tried to piece this together but after researching this, I couldn’t figure out the correct laws of physics to combine to develop a formula to answer this question. Ex. 1 - A moving object impacts a static object at a constant velocity. Ex. 2 - A moving object impacts a static object at the same velocity but is accelerating at the moment of impact. Assuming the mass of the objects is the same and the velocity at the moment of impact...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
426
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
4K