Talk:Impedance of free space

Merge?

I'd guess that impedance of free space is a far commoner term than vacuum impedance, and that the latter is in turn far commoner than references to the band Impedance of Free Space. Google seems to confirm this with factors of 41 and 16 respectively.

Search term	Google hits
"impedance of free space"	37,800
"vacuum impedance"	912
"impedance of free space" (IDM OR electronica)	57

I must concede that I've probalby missed some references to the band - I don't know mmuch about them, other than they've got a good name. Anyway, I'd like to move/rename vacuum impedance -> impedance of free space, and then add a hatnote like the one on this page: Kepone, linking to Impedance of Free Space. --catslash 17:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that Alessio Damato 16:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion above. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Vacuum impedance → Impedance of free space – This is a purely procedural nomination. See comments in section above. I have no opinion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

• Support linas 00:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support (see #Merge?) --catslash 15:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

Discussion

Add any additional comments below.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent (Feb 2008) edits

Hi Brews ohare, I'm going to take issue with some of your recent edits - I'll try to give good reasons in each case. Do you by any chance have some connection with the NIST? --catslash (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've restored the 'Exact value' section. I think it's relevant that this constant has an exact value by definition, and is not subject to experimental error. Also the value is not obtained from the NIST, it's obtained by multiplication. --catslash (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Is it necessary to give values when mentioning ε₀, μ₀ and c? It's clearer when it's less cluttered I think. --catslash (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No connection. However, they and BIPM have the best web sites for finding things.

No problem with your edits: I did change a few minor things. Brews ohare (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Define/Choose... The constants Z₀, ε₀ etc. are defined as constants of proportionality between various physical quantities (force, current, distance etc.). These quantities have to be measured in various units (A, m etc.) which themselves need to be defined. A cunning scheme for defining these units is to choose the values of the constants (did I put the values or the numerical values? - maybe not). Anyway, the definition of the units keeps changing while the definition of the constants is constant (-ish). So if in 2011 the definition of the ampere changes, then the numerical value of Z₀ could change but its definition will be the same, it will just be measured against a slightly different yardstick. Also, the numerical value of Z₀ will then (probably (unless the kg (and therefore the N) are redefined at the same time)) be subject to experimental error, whereas at the moment it is not. This interesting and relevant, but peripheral to significance of Z₀, being more to do with the definition of the units. I intended to convey this when I originally wrote the 'Exact value' section - but I was too terse. --catslash (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• (this is a similar point to the preceding one, but after more thought)... (1) The speed of light (for example) 'existed' as a physical quantity before the invention of the metric system. And (2), I wouldn't consider ${\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}$ to be a symmetric relation. So I'm happy with

$1\mathrm {metre} {\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}c{\frac {1\mathrm {second} }{299792458}}$

but not

$c{\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}299792458\mathrm {metre} /\mathrm {second}$

because

• If we were to choose a different number, then the size of the metre changes (relative to (say) my height), but the magnitude of the speed of light stays the same (relative to (say) the speed of a snail).
• The size of the metre has changed in the past, and with it the number of metres per second in the speed of light - but the actual speed of light stayed the same and the universe went on unchanged.

Does that make any sense? --catslash (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

One should not use defined as for exactly equal to. The relation c = 299792458 metres/second defines the metre, not c. In the style i use, the defined quantity is shown in quotes, so c = 299792458 "metres"/second, would mean this thing called "metre" is defined as 1 metre =def== c.second/299792458. When the quotes surround a number, a group of different values might be grouped under this, eg 1 metre = "39.37" inches, suppose the metre and inch have different definitions, and 39.37 is a value representing many different ones. Around an equal sign, it supposes the equality is to be taken, eg light "=" electromagnetic radiation, since both of these had previous existances.Wendy.krieger (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a neat and logical notation - but I fear that it would not be widely understood without an explanation. You have prompted me to finally get rid of the $\scriptstyle {\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}$-stuff though - it was just wrong. --catslash (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Effects of SI redefinition

With the SI Units Redefinition, the numerical value will be subject to measurement and experimental error. This should be reflected in the article, and I leave it to those with a better understanding than I. Njsustain (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Explanation as to why free space possess impedance?

I came to this page already knowing the impedance of free spaces numerical value, but not why free space possessed an impedance at all. I think the page could be improved if the how and why were explained. Whole Oats (talk) 3:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: There is no explanation as to why free space possesses impedance, because it is an antiquated idea based on the 19th century aether model of free space. Rather it is simply a combination of fundamental constants with the units of Ohms. It is a handy value, however, as one can express Maxwell's equations in terms of the impedance of free space and the speed of light, as people do who study electromagnetic radiation. Physically the energy "lost" in an antenna radiates outward, usually as a transmitted signal. (See any good E&M textbook.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwkeohane (talk • contribs) 16:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't this explanation be put on the wikipedia page then? It is currently written as if free space really does have an impedance, and the energy "lost" isn't just radiating outward. Whole Oats (talk) 3:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

It is true that it is not always possible to explain physical phenomena in terms of more fundamental principles - ultimately the laws of physics just are what they are. The laws of physics must however be consistent with each other. Conservation of energy requires an impedance of free space if there is to be radiation. The electromagnetic field at one point in space cannot transfer its energy to an adjacent point unless the latter provides some load for the field to do work against. In this view, the impedance of free space is analogous to the characteristic impedance of a transmission line.

The concept of the impedance of free space does not presume the existence of a luminiferous aether.

It is also true that the energy supplied to a transmitting antenna is radiated outward rather than "lost", but for this to happen, the transmitter has to do work against some load in order to satisfy conservation of energy. The load in this case is the radiation resistance of the antenna. This radiation resistance is a real thing - the voltage between the antenna terminals has a component in-phase with the current there, just as if the antenna was a resistor. catslash (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)