Intuitive explanation why frequency is fixed

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pivoxa15
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Explanation Frequency
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of why the frequency of light remains fixed when transitioning between different media, exploring both intuitive and mathematical explanations. Participants reference Huygen's theory and Maxwell's equations, examining the implications for wave behavior in various contexts, including mechanical and electromagnetic waves.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that light behaves similarly to mechanical waves, where frequency remains constant while wavelength changes depending on the medium.
  • Others argue that boundary conditions at an interface require incident, reflected, and transmitted waves to maintain the same frequency.
  • A participant suggests that the analogy of tied strings of differing mass densities illustrates how the frequency must remain constant across boundaries in both mechanical and electromagnetic waves.
  • Another participant explains that using Gauss's Law and Ampere's Law, one can demonstrate that electric and magnetic fields must remain continuous across boundaries, implying that differing frequencies would lead to discontinuities.
  • Some participants question how frequency ties into the mathematical wave equations, seeking clarification on the implications of frequency consistency across media.
  • A later reply indicates that while electric fields can differ in amplitude and wavelength, their frequencies must match at the boundary to maintain equality over time.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the relationship between frequency and wave behavior, with no consensus reached on the implications of Huygen's theory versus Maxwell's equations. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the intuitive understanding of frequency constancy in light.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include assumptions about wave behavior in different media, the dependence on definitions of frequency and wavelength, and the complexity of boundary conditions that may not be fully addressed.

pivoxa15
Messages
2,250
Reaction score
1
From treating light as a wave it is possible using Huygen’s theory to deduce that the frequency of the light will not change whether in vacuum or some other material. I have seen a mathematical proof of it and understand it but is there an intuitive explanation for it? Does it match Maxwell theory of light?

What about this explanation: Light is emitted by an accelerating charge that is also changing direction so after the light is emitted the frequency is fixed but wavelength change depending on the material. This explanation is just like treating light as a mechanical wave. Water waves are generated by a vibrator and if the medium it travels through changes the frequency is the same but wavelength changes. Correct? If so than its as if Huygen is treating light as a mechanical wave. Which is wrong as proved by Maxwell? So frequency is really not fixed according to Maxwell?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The boundary conditions of a wave at an interface can only be satisfied at all times if the incident wave and the reflected and transmitted waves all have the same frequency.
 
Meir Achuz said:
The boundary conditions of a wave at an interface can only be satisfied at all times if the incident wave and the reflected and transmitted waves all have the same frequency.

Could you give an example?

So not only mechanical (i.e. sound, water) but electromagnetic waves also obey the law that frequency is fixed in any material?
 
If you tie two strings of differeing mass densilties together, the end of each stilng will oscillate at the frequency of the knot. The same is true for the E and B fields at a change of dielectric constant.
 
pivoxa15 said:
Could you give an example?

Using Gauss's Law (one of Maxwell's equations), one can show that the component of the electric field E parallel to a boundary between two media must be continuous across the boundary. That is, it can't "jump" discontinuously as you cross the boundary. One can also show that at a boundary that carries no net surface charge, the perpendicular component of E must also be continuous across the boundary. See for example

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node59.html

Using Ampere's Law, one can come to similar (but sort of "opposite") conclusions about the magnetic field B: the perpendicular component must always be continuous, and the parallel component must be continuous across a boundary that carries no net surface current.

If an electromagnetic wave had different frequencies on the two sides of a refracting boundary, the E and B fields would have to be usually discontinuous at the boundary.
 
Meir Achuz said:
If you tie two strings of differeing mass densilties together, the end of each stilng will oscillate at the frequency of the knot. The same is true for the E and B fields at a change of dielectric constant.

For a smooth oscillation of the two strings tied together, the place of the knot must oscillate smoothly and each string must also oscillate smoothly. Smooth oscillation imply constant frequency - correct? Hence the knot frequency must match the frequency of both strings. The knot is the end of one string and the start of the other. Therefore the frequency of the two strings are equal.

When applied to E and B fields upon entering two different media, consider the electric fields E1 and E2 in media 1 and 2 respectively. Even though they are different, they must be tied together and oscillate smoothly so from the above analogy must oscillate at a single constant frequency. Same applies for B.
 
Last edited:
jtbell said:
Using Gauss's Law (one of Maxwell's equations), one can show that the component of the electric field E parallel to a boundary between two media must be continuous across the boundary. That is, it can't "jump" discontinuously as you cross the boundary. One can also show that at a boundary that carries no net surface charge, the perpendicular component of E must also be continuous across the boundary. See for example

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node59.html

Using Ampere's Law, one can come to similar (but sort of "opposite") conclusions about the magnetic field B: the perpendicular component must always be continuous, and the parallel component must be continuous across a boundary that carries no net surface current.

If an electromagnetic wave had different frequencies on the two sides of a refracting boundary, the E and B fields would have to be usually discontinuous at the boundary.


Could you explain a bit more about how the frequency ties in with this example? Should I be thinking about the E and B wave equations?
 
pivoxa15 said:
Should I be thinking about the E and B wave equations?

Yes. For example, start with

[tex]E = E_{max} \sin (kx - \omega t + \phi_0) = E_{max} \sin \left( \frac {2 \pi x}{\lambda} - 2 \pi f t + \phi_0 \right)[/tex]

You have two waves like this, one on each side of the boundary.

[tex]E_1 = E_{1,max} \sin \left( \frac {2 \pi x}{\lambda_1} - 2 \pi f_1 t + \phi_{01} \right)[/tex]

[tex]E_2 = E_{2,max} \sin \left( \frac {2 \pi x}{\lambda_2} - 2 \pi f_2 t + \phi_{02} \right)[/tex]

For simplicity, let x = 0 at the boundary so the terms with x disappear. Now suppose [itex]f_1 \ne f_2[/itex]. Can you make [itex]E_1 = E_2[/itex] at all times t, while keeping [itex]E_{1,max}[/itex], [itex]E_{2,max}[/itex], [itex]\phi_{01}[/itex] and [itex]\phi_{02}[/itex] constant?
 
So you first proved the electric fields in both media must equal at the boundary for all time.

Then one can see that the wave equation for E at a given location has one variable t. The constant scaling this variable is f. In order to keep both E equal at the boundary for all t, the freqeuncy must be the same for both E (otherwise as t changes the two E will differ). The other constants such as Emax, lambda, thi can be different for each E (note the term [tex]2\pi[/tex]ft will occur in both equations) provided they 'combine' in the end so that both E are equal

This would be Maxwell's way of showing that frequency is fixed in any media? So it agrees with Huygen's method by treating light as a water wave. So no matter what sort of wave the frequency will be the same in any media while the velocity and wavelength change.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K