Relation between Group velocity and Phase velocity

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the relationship between group velocity and phase velocity, emphasizing that both concepts are defined through Fourier transforms. It highlights that group velocity is meaningful only when the wave packet consists of wavenumbers within a narrow range. The equation v_g=dk/dw is derived from the first term of a Taylor expansion, which is crucial for accurate interpretations. Additionally, it points out that many studies misinterpret group velocities, often overlooking this essential detail. Understanding these relationships is vital for accurate wave analysis in physics.
neelakash
Messages
491
Reaction score
1
Is there any unconventional method to find out the relation between group velocity and phase velocity? know there is a method employing Fourier tarnsforms and another easier method as well
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Phase and group velocities only have meaning using a Fourier transform.
w/k and dk/dw are in terms of Fourier variables.
 
one thing to notice is that, for a group velocity to be meaningful, the wave packet has to be merely composed of wavenumber in a narrow range.
 
Fizik said:
one thing to notice is that, for a group velocity to be meaningful, the wave packet has to be merely composed of wavenumber in a narrow range.
That is a very good point. The equation v_g=dk/dw comes from keeping only the first term of a Taylor expansion. Many of the papers claiming funny group velocities for light miss the point you mention.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top