2
$\begingroup$

Let's consider a plane wave described by $E = E_0\exp(i(kx-\omega t))$. We can either consider this wave to move forward (i.e. along increasing distance $x$) with a positive angular frequency $\omega > 0$, or consider it to move backward with a negative angular frequency $\omega < 0$. We usually say that the second choice is unreal and stick with the first one. However, what if we can no longer choose ?

Consider one beam of light in an optical fiber back-reflected by an imprinted grating (i.e. small oscillation of the refractive index in the fiber), that we consider here as a standing wave.

The forward- and backward- propagating beams of light move at a velocity $\pm c/n$, where $n$ is the glass's refractive index. These three waves are drawn in the following $\omega-k$ diagram: enter image description here

The black lines indicate the dispersion relations of waves propagating in vacuum at a velocity $c$ for reference only, while the blue lines represent the dispersion of the waves propagating at a velocity $c/n$ in our fiber. The two blue circles indicate the $\omega$ and $k$ of the two optical waves and are connected with the red line, representing the grating. The three waves being connected in this diagram indicates energy and momentum conservation.

Now, let's start observing these waves while moving at a velocity $u$ along the direction of the fiber, where $0 < u < c/n$. Applying Lorentz transformations to the three waves, we obtain the following modified diagram: enter image description here

The green curves in this diagram only indicate the path that the two blue circle follow when gradually increasing the velocity $u$ from $0$. We see that now our grating has a velocity with respect to us, and remains connected to the two waves, so momentum and energy are still conserved. Let's increase our velocity to $u = c/n$:

enter image description here

Here, we travel at the same velocity as the forward-propagating wave, so it now looks like a standing wave to us ($\omega = 0$). The waves remain connected, indicating momentum and energy conservation. Let's increase our velocity to $u > c/n$:

enter image description here

Now comes the interesting part. Normally we would see the initially forward-propagating wave propagating backwards since we move at a larger velocity than it (i.e. along the small-slope blue line), but momentum and energy conservation forces us to see this wave as a forward-propagating, negative $\omega$ wave, because this solution connects the three waves, indicating energy and momentum conservation, i.e. the red line, which has its length and direction given by Lorentz transformation, can only connect the backward-propagating wave (blue circle on the $k < 0$ side, also given by Lorentz transformation) to the blue circle on the $k> 0$ side, but cannot connect any dot on the small-slope blue line, corresponding to the $k < 0$ solution. So, by choosing $\omega > 0$ and $k < 0$, we would break energy and momentum conservation, and the only solution to conserve energy and momentum is to see this wave as having a negative angular frequency $\omega < 0$ and a positive $k > 0$. Would that be a way to observe negative-energy photons ? If not, how is this situation solved ?

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Both equations equally describe a scenario .I'm not aware of the derivation for photon energy, however thinking about the 2 equations in the context of EM theory, the energy in the wave is identical for both equations, so I would assume that the derivation for photon energy would arrive at this same conclusion. A way you can actually strictly keep $\omega$ positive is by using the 3d equation, ($\vec{k} \cdot \vec{r} - \omega t$). $\vec{k}$ controls the direction, not $\omega$. I believe it is sensible to define $\omega$ as a number that is strictly positive $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 6, 2022 at 20:25
  • $\begingroup$ Which equations ? I did not fully understand. The 3D equation does not work either, because in my example, it is also $k$ that controls the direction, and it can in principle be negative. $\endgroup$
    – Flav
    Commented Mar 8, 2022 at 20:30
  • $\begingroup$ It should be $e^{i(kx-\omega t)}$. $\endgroup$
    – my2cts
    Commented Mar 13, 2022 at 1:03
  • $\begingroup$ Negative frequencies can just refer to a polarization change, depending on the situation and assumptions of the model. You could, in principle, transform to a reference frame where the frequencies then positive and reverse the polarization. Does that make sense? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 17, 2022 at 13:20
  • $\begingroup$ Do you need a negative energy photon to have your energy conserved? $\endgroup$
    – Jinchen
    Commented Mar 18, 2022 at 10:39

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

I am not sure if this would answer your question. Because I didn't try to solve your example, including Lorentz transformation, energy and momentum conservation, photon energy etc.

But to me, there are two issues to be addressed. First one, to me, is (-k,+w) and (k,-w) are identical, if we think about how to express a plane wave.

For either mechanical wave or EM wave, we are talking about the vibrations with space x and time t. In principle vibrations are real numbers, so it is $E=E_0cos(kx-wt)$, and you can choose to keep $w$ positive and use $k$ to control the direction. But since complex numbers are more convenient (and since wave equations are linear), so we can use complex number $E=E_0e^{i(kx-wt)}$ for calculations and use the real component for physical interpretations.

So if the real component is concerned, $E=E_0e^{i(-kx+wt)}$ is identical to $E=E_0e^{i(kx-wt)}$

Or another way to see this is $E_0cos(kx-wt) = \frac{1}{2}(E_0e^{(kx-wt)} + E_0e^{(-kx+wt)})$. In complex expression, whether you have obtained positive omega part or negative omega part, you always have to add its complex conjugate to obtain the real component.

The second issue, which I am not sure in your case, is that do you need a negative energy photon to have your energy conserved? If so, then I guess somewhere breaks down when you have your observer's speed faster than the light speed in fiber?

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ About the description of the wave, I fully agree, but I don't think that it enables us to avoid this negative energy, since the energy and momentum conservation as well as Lorentz transformations are untouched by it. About the second point, indeed, this is when we travel at a faster speed than the speed of light in the medium that this negative energy appears, reminiscent of Cherenkov radiation. $\endgroup$
    – Flav
    Commented Mar 19, 2022 at 10:23

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.