Question on Two theorems for the group velocity in dispersive media

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of two theorems regarding group velocity in dispersive media, particularly focusing on whether group velocity can exceed the speed of light and the role of causality in these derivations. Participants explore the theoretical underpinnings and assumptions related to the Kramers-Kronig relation and the behavior of wave pulses in dispersive media.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confidence in the validity of the paper's results but questions the sufficiency of the causality principle alone to account for the speed of light limitations in the context of group velocity.
  • Another participant points out that the equation for group velocity, v_g=dw/dk, is derived from a Taylor expansion and may not hold under the conditions considered in the paper, emphasizing that the front of a wave pulse cannot exceed the speed of light.
  • A different participant seeks to understand the general conditions under which group velocity might be constrained by the speed of light, suggesting that causality may be less restrictive than the constraints imposed by special relativity.
  • One participant argues that reliance on the derivative dw/dk is irrelevant in the context of the paper's claims.
  • Another participant agrees with the limitations of group velocity but asserts that it can still be calculated unambiguously, questioning whether the authors adequately considered the constraints imposed by Maxwell's equations and relativistic mechanics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the paper's assumptions and the implications of causality. There is no consensus on whether the authors' use of causality sufficiently addresses the constraints related to the speed of light.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential limitations in the assumptions made regarding the refractive index and the applicability of the Kramers-Kronig relation without considering the implications of Maxwell's equations.

lalbatros
Messages
1,247
Reaction score
2
Question on "Two theorems for the group velocity in dispersive media"

In the paper (1), the authors show that the group velocity can be faster than light, slower than light, infinite, or even negative without contradicting the causality principle.

I have no doubt about the validity of this result, simply by considering some examples.

However, their derivation is based only on the causality principle.
The causality principle, as I understand it, does not forbit faster than light transmission of a signal.
The causality principle only assumes that effects follow their cause.

In the derivation, the causality principle is formulated from the Kramers-Kronig relation.
There is no further hypothesis about the refraction index.
It is not even assumed that it must conform to classical relativistic physics.
This where I have a problem.

Indeed, the index of refraction is the result of the responses of the material to an excitation.
These responses should satisfy the Maxwell's equations and the laws of motion from special relativity.
Therefore, in these responses, the speed of light should play a particuliar role: never "a signal" should go faster than light.

My impression is that the limitation by the speed of light is not taken into account by only using the Kramers-Kronig relation.
Therefore, I cannot be totally sure that the derivation in (1) is fully valid.
I cannot exclude that, by taking the limitation by the speed of light into account, the result would not be modified.
One way, maybe, to solve this problem could be the use a retarded potentials formulation where the limitations by the speed of light would be automatically taken into account.

Could you help me on that question?


(1) http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/optics/bolda_pra_48_3890_93.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org


I have not (and don't have time to) read the paper in detail, but they seem to use the equation v_g=dw/dk throughout. That equation is derived from the first order term in a Taylor expansion of w(k). It is only valid for slow variation of w(k), and not for the cases the consider. Several textbooks show that, for any variation of the index of refraction, the front of a wave pulse cannot exceed c. The top of the pulse may exceed c as the pulse distorts and breaks up, but not the front.
 


You are right Clem.
However, I am interrested in the (possibly general) conditions under which the group velocity might be constrained below the speed of light, or in the conditions for being not contrained SLT.
Therefore, my concern is more about understanding their assumptions and specially their use of causality.
It seems to me that the hypothesis of causality is less restrictive than slower than light constraints. Therefore, I have some doubt about the reach and interrest of their theorem 1.
 


My point is that anything based on dw/dk for anything is irrelevant in their circumstances.
 


Clem,

I agreed totally with your remark: the relevance of the GV is limited.

Nevertheless, the GV is always defined in an non-ambiguous way and can always be calculated, even though its meaning and relevance is limited.

My question is about a property claimed in this referenced paper.
I would like to know if their use of causality covers all the constraints that should be taken into account.
I believe they did not take into account the delay related to the speed of light that arise from the Maxwell's equations.
They did not constrain the refraction index in any way.
Taking into account that the refractive index should be obtained from Maxwell's equation and relativistic mechanics is, I think, a stronger constraint than causality.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K