Wave Vector Algebra: Proving k = 2∏/λ

Syrus
Messages
213
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I'm having difficulty showing that the general equation k = 2∏/λ holds from the component equations kx = 2∏/λx etc..., k = √(kx2 + ky2 + kz2), and λ = √(λx2 + λy2 + λz2). Any help? There is a photo from a textbook with the equations also below.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 

Attachments

  • img001.jpg
    img001.jpg
    27 KB · Views: 455
Physics news on Phys.org
what are you defining λ to be?

edit: also, if you use λ in the equation k = 2∏/λ then you can see it doesn't work.
 
Yes, I'm just tryin to derive the formula for λ from the component formulae, but obviously (as you state) it doesn't seem to work. What then, is the justification for the association between the general wavenumber and the component wavenumbers if they don't correspond in the natural way?
 
the general wavenumber does correspond in the natural way to the component wavenumbers. But the general wavenumber does not correspond in the natural way to the component wavelengths. Is this what you were thinking about?
 
Yes, precisely. I wonder, then, how the component wavenumbers (and their corresponding component wavelengths) are related to the general wavenumber and wavelength?
 
if you think about the vector wavenumber and vector wavelength: (kx,ky,kz) (call it k) and (λx,λy,λz) (call it λ) then there is a nice equation you can write, which involves the two vectors k and λ (hint: what kind of operation can you use between two vectors?)
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top