Why is V=fl a dispersion relationship ?

AI Thread Summary
The equation V=fλ is often referred to as a dispersion relationship, but its application primarily describes non-dispersive waves where wave velocity is fixed by the medium. In such cases, frequency and wavelength are interdependent, with one being dependent on the other. While standing waves exhibit constrained velocities and fixed wavelengths, the discussion raises the question of whether there are scenarios where wave velocity is the independent variable. A true dispersion relation is defined mathematically as a function relating frequency to wave number, where phase velocity varies with wave number. Ultimately, all waves possess a dispersion relation, but the context of V=fλ may not always fit the traditional definition of dispersion.
parsec
Messages
112
Reaction score
1
Why is V=fl a "dispersion relationship"?

I've heard of V=fλ being referred to as "the simplest dispersion relationship", however it seems to be used to describe non dispersive traveling and standing waves, where the wave velocity is determined by the medium (fixed) and either f is a dependent variable (and λ independent), or vice versa. Is it correct to call this a dispersion relationship in this context?

For example, in sound, V is constrained by the properties of the gas. The frequency of excitation is set by the source (this could be considered the dependent variable), and the wavelength (indep var) is determined by the wave velocity and frequency.

Standing waves seem to have a constrained wave velocity and fixed wavelength, which selects the frequency (independent variable) when excited (by some broadband excitation like a string being plucked or a closed pipe being tapped).

Is there a situation where a wave is governed by the V=fλ relationship, and the velocity is the independent variable. For example, a wave that has both its frequency and wavelength determined by the physical excitation mechanism that then seeks an appropriate wave velocity?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is a dispersion equation in the same sense as ##y=x## is a quadratic equation, since ##y=0x^2+x## is indeed a quadratic.
 
A dispersion relation is an expression that relates the frequency of a wave to its wave length. We often deal with angular frequency \omega = 2\pi f and wave number k = 2\pi / \lambda.

Mathematically a dispersion relation is a equation of the form
\omega = g(k)

The phase velocity of the wave is

V_p=\frac {\omega} {k} = \frac {g(k)}{k}

and the group velocity of the wave is
V_g=\frac{\partial \omega} {\partial k} = \frac{\partial g(k)} {\partial k}

If the phase velocity depends on the wave number, then the wave is dispersive. But all waves have a dispersion relation.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top