Can Electromagnetic Wavelength Replace Geometrical Length as a Distance Measure?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter TrickyDicky
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Wavelength
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
6 replies · 2K views
TrickyDicky
Messages
3,507
Reaction score
28
Could electromagnetic wavelength be used as a legitimate distance pattern? I mean is it OK to exchange geometrical length with physical wavelength? For example, given a bundle of light rays following geodesics in empty space, can the length between a given pair of geodesics be equivalent to a wavelength?
I recall vaguely that the General Conference on Weights and Measures in 1983 adopted as a primary length standard, or reference length, the wavelength of the iodine stabilized HeNe laser,He−Ne = 632.99139822 nm.Thus, in physical metrology seems to be a common practice to use an appropriate wavelength of electromagnetic radiation as the reference length. But I don't know if it is physically straightforward to interchange geometrical lengths with wavelengths as in switching in a given Physics formula the wavelength with an equivalent geometrical length.

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I understand wavelengths are interchangeable with lengths in every physical situation.
Anyone thinks otherwise?
 
TrickyDicky said:
Could electromagnetic wavelength be used as a legitimate distance pattern? I mean is it OK to exchange geometrical length with physical wavelength? For example, given a bundle of light rays following geodesics in empty space, can the length between a given pair of geodesics be equivalent to a wavelength?
I recall vaguely that the General Conference on Weights and Measures in 1983 adopted as a primary length standard, or reference length, the wavelength of the iodine stabilized HeNe laser,He−Ne = 632.99139822 nm.Thus, in physical metrology seems to be a common practice to use an appropriate wavelength of electromagnetic radiation as the reference length. But I don't know if it is physically straightforward to interchange geometrical lengths with wavelengths as in switching in a given Physics formula the wavelength with an equivalent geometrical length.

Thanks
It's not clear what you are asking; electromagnetic radiation is used as a *time* standard, not a length standard (frequency vs. wavelength). However, because 'c_0' is a constant, it's possible to think of the meter being standardized in terms of a wavelength as well- as long as you mean wavelength in vacuum, or otherwise correct for the index of refraction.

That said, 'length' is 'length'... I don't understand what you mean by 'geometric' length vs. 'physical' length. Certainly, it's possible to scale physical parameters in an equation to obtain nondimensional groups (scaling the navier-stokes equation to obtain the Reynolds number, for example).
 
I Googled 'geometrical length' to try and find out what the OP is talking about.

I came up with this thread as the only reference. :smile:
 
The speed of light is 'by definition' 299,792,458 metres per second. So yes, a wavelength is as good a distance measure as nature offers.