1
$\begingroup$

Following the book's very introduction to optics:

Suppose we have a monochromatic wave described by $$\psi = A e^{i (\mathbf{k} \cdot \mathbf{x} - \omega t)} = A e^{i \varphi}.$$

The apparent intuition given to the definition of the wave velocity is this: given a fixed value for $\varphi$, say, $\varphi_0$, the geometrical (3D) locus of the "phase of the wavefront" associated with $\varphi_0$ is propagating on space (as time passes), this displacement described by: $$ \varphi_0 = \mathbf{k} \cdot \mathbf{x} - \omega t. $$

Now it makes sense to wonder what is the velocity of said propagation of geometrical locus as it evolves with time. Therefore, we might implicitly differentiate the above expression w.r.t. time and get: $$ 0 = \mathbf{k} \cdot \left(\frac{\partial{\mathbf{x}}}{\partial t}\right)_{\varphi = \varphi_0} - \omega \;\; \Longrightarrow \;\; \frac{\omega}{k} = \left(\frac{\partial{\mathbf{x}}}{\partial t}\right)_{\varphi = \varphi_0} \cdot\mathbf{\hat{k}} $$

If we define $\mathbf{v}_\varphi = \left(\frac{\partial{\mathbf{x}}}{\partial t}\right)_{\varphi = \text{constant}}$ we get from above: $$ \frac{\omega}{k} = \mathbf{v_\varphi} \cdot \mathbf{\hat{k}} $$

we get the usual textbook definition of phase velocity $v_\varphi = \frac{\omega}{k}$ only if $\mathbf{v_\varphi}$ is parallel to $\mathbf{\hat{k}}$. My question is:

Where exactly does that supposition ($\mathbf{v_\varphi}$ is parallel to $\mathbf{\hat{k}}$) come from? Are there cases where it fails and, if it does fail, does the above dot product relation ($\frac{\omega}{k} = \mathbf{v_\varphi} \cdot \mathbf{\hat{k}}$) and definition of phase velocity still hold?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Not an answer, just an observation: choosing a different $\mathbf{v}_\phi$ that satisfied $\frac{\omega}{k} = \mathbf{v_\varphi} \cdot \mathbf{\hat{k}}$ would be equivalent to viewing the phase velocity as having a component parallel to the wave-front. In other words, you'd be saying that for a wave with $\hat{k} = \hat{z}$, with wavefronts parallel to the $xy$-plane, the phase velocity has a component in the $x$- or $y$-direction. This seems unnatural to me but I don't know of any reason to reject this definition out of hand. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 13, 2022 at 20:37

1 Answer 1

1
+50
$\begingroup$

If your phase is given by $$ \phi(\vec{x},t)=\vec{k}\vec{x}-\omega t $$ the phase fronts are by definition propagating along the direction of $\vec{k}$.

This is apparent as $\phi$ only changes in direction $\vec{k}$. Independent of time the phase is invariant under translations orthogonal to $\vec{k}$ and therefore definitely not propagating in these directions. To easily see this choose your coordinate system such that $\vec{k}\parallel\hat{z}$, that is $$ \phi=kz-\omega t \tag{1} $$

and observe how $\partial_x \phi=\partial_y \phi=0$.

So when we talk about propagation velocity of the phase it only makes sense to speak about phase propagation (and therefore a phase propagation velocity vector) in direction of $\vec{k}$

$$\vec{v}_\phi\parallel\vec{k}$$


To me it also does not make much sense just to apply the time derivative on the space coordinate and define this to be phase velocity. This is not inutitve to me. I think better is to ask the question by how much $\delta z$ does a phase front $\phi(z,t)=\phi_0$ travel during a time $\delta t$.

$$ \phi_0=\phi(z+\delta_z,t+\delta_t)=k(z+\delta z)-\omega(t+\delta t)=\phi(z,t)+k \delta z-\omega \delta t $$

$$ \rightarrow \frac{\delta z}{\delta t}=\frac{\omega}{k} $$ Interpreting this ratio as phase velocity is now obvious, as the phase travels the distance $\delta z$ in ime $\delta t$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ +1 and accepted answer (I will only be able to give bounty for it tomorrow) for bringing the discussion to $z$ coordinate only, as it certainly simplifies the argument and we can easily convert back to the general case using rotations in space. $\endgroup$
    – Petrini
    Commented Sep 13, 2022 at 23:49
  • $\begingroup$ I'm now wondering whether we could also argue that: since $\mathbf{k}$ is parallel to the (spatial) gradient (it defines the plane of the wavefront for given $t$), and the time derivative definition (it was given by the authors themselves) is restricted to constant $\varphi$, it necessarily has to point to same the direction of the gradient, and therefore, to $\mathbf{k}$... another evidence is that we insert the original equation into the wave equation $\partial_t \psi - c^2 \nabla^2 \psi = 0$ we get that such $c$ must be $c = \omega / k$, as expected (but it says nothing of direction) $\endgroup$
    – Petrini
    Commented Sep 13, 2022 at 23:51
  • $\begingroup$ @Petrini it all comes down to how you define phase propagation. You need to define its speed (that is fairly easy, see my second section) and you need to define a sensible direction (first section). If one just blindly differentiates with time without taking care of proper definitions it gets confusing. $\endgroup$
    – user326366
    Commented Sep 14, 2022 at 7:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.