Re: Not understanding some parts of wave refraction

On Apr 5, 11:56 am, "Jim Kelley" <jwkel...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
K7ITM wrote:
On Apr 5, 7:36 am, "MRW" <mr.whate...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I am skimming thru the Propagation chapter of the ARRL handbook, and I
am having a difficult time understanding the shortening of wavelength
and the retainment of frequency. They have an equation showing that
wave velocity is: c = f*w (c = m/s, f = frequency, w = wavelength).
It also states that during refraction "the wavelength is
simultaneously shortened, but the wave frequency (number of crests
that pass a certain point in a given unit of time) remains constant."

I don't understand. If the wavelength is shortened, then shouldn't the
frequency increase instead of remaining constant?

Others have posted, correctly, that the propagation velocity is slower
in some mediums than in others. I think it's a mistake, though, to
say that c changes! c is supposed to be a constant, the speed of
electromagnetic wave propagation in a vacuum--in fact, I suppose, in a
vacuum with no gravitational fields in it. A description of fields in
an electromagnetic wave often used the permittivity, epsilon, and
permeability, mu, of the medium through which the wave is travelling.
If it's through a vacuum, the values of epsilon and mu have values
that are used often and have special notation--epsilon-sub-zero and mu-
sub-zero. For convenience here, call them eo and uo. Then note that
eo*uo = 1/c^2. As you might suspect, the propagation in a medium with
larger values of e and u than eo and uo is slower than c. In fact, it
should be velocity = sqrt(1/(e*u)).

Note that e has the units of capacitance/length -- commonly farads/
meter -- and u has the units of inductance/length -- commonly henries/
meter. But a farad is an ampere*second/volt, and a henry is a
volt*second/amp, so the units of sqrt(1/(e*u)) are sqrt(1/((A*sec/
V*meter)*(V*sec/A*meter))) = sqrt(meter^2/sec^2) = meters/sec. A unit
analysis is often useful to insure you haven't made a mistake in your
manipulation of equations.

So...in summary, c = f*w is actually not quite correct. It should be
wave_velocity = f*w. c should be reserved to mean only the speed of
light in a vacuum. If you're in a non-vacuum medium, and measure very
accurately, you'll measure the same frequency, but a shorter
wavelength: the wave doesn't travel as far to push a cycle past you,
as compared with in vacuum. It's going slower.

If the propagation medium is, for example, solid polyethylene (the
dielectric of most inexpensive coax cable), you'll find that w is
about 0.66 times as much as it is in a vacuum, and the propagation
velocity is similarly 0.66*c.

Cheers,
Tom

Hi Tom -

That's certainly one way to look at it. (Though it is a little like
saying there is only one speed of sound.) Another way is to say that
c = 1/root(mu*epsilon) for any media. Light does after all, always
travel at the speed of light. ;-) Besides, it's more difficult to
explain Cherenkov radiation without the expression 'faster than the
speed of light in that medium'.

I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion you and Owen were (are) having
regarding amplifiers.
Thank you for that.

73, Jim AC6XG


Hi Jim,

Some people may use only c-sub-zero for the speed of light in a
vacuum, but most commonly I see it simply as c, a fundamental physical
constant. To avoid confusion, I would HIGHLY recommend that either
you be very explicit that you're using co as the constant, and c as
the speed of light in whatever medium you're dealing with -- OR that
you're using c as the constant and whatever other notation for the
speed elsewhere.

NIST lists the constant both ways: c, c-sub-zero. SEVERAL other
places I just looked (reference books from my bookshelf; a web survey
including US, UK and European sites--mostly physics sites; several
university sites) only used c as the constant, except the NIST site
and one other, which both listed it as c or c-sub-zero with equal
weight.

It's clearly a matter only of notation, but I'll elect to stay with
the most commonly used notation, and from what I've seen just now,
most think c is a constant.

Cheers,
Tom

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: if c is constant why redshifts?
    ... The observer of any wave has no idea what velocity is that wave propagating at, but can experience a specific number of wave quanta per standard time units. ... Light is a wave, therefore it has a different speed of propagation per medium but may never be identified without a source and a target to make sense of the length interval, which is being related to the interval of time required for travelling between source and target. ... The hidden fact is that a constant speed per medium dictates the invariance of the wavelength and the frequency within the medium, hence, an observer may suffer only a frequency shift under relative motion while the wavelength must remain invariant unless we force a postulate of the constancy of the speed of light. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: if c is constant why redshifts?
    ... The observer of any wave has no idea what velocity is that wave ... between the source and the target, ... The measured speed then is that of the wave in the medium relative to ... invariance of the wavelength and the frequency within the medium, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Not understanding some parts of wave refraction
    ... am having a difficult time understanding the shortening of wavelength ... It also states that during refraction "the wavelength is ... permeability, mu, of the medium through which the wave is travelling. ... If it's through a vacuum, the values of epsilon and mu have values ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)
  • Re: Not understanding some parts of wave refraction
    ... permeability, mu, of the medium through which the wave is travelling. ... If it's through a vacuum, the values of epsilon and mu have values ... wavelength: the wave doesn't travel as far to push a cycle past you, ... The boundary between infra-red and radio waves will ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)
  • Re: if c is constant why redshifts?
    ... >> The observer of any wave has no idea what velocity is that wave ... >> The measured speed then is that of the wave in the medium relative to ... >> invariance of the wavelength and the frequency within the medium, ... and I am quite aware of what "relativity" says. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)