Waveguide phase and group velocities ($v_{\mathrm{ph}}{v}_g=c^2$)

For a propagating branch of an ideal vacuum-filled rectangular electromagnetic waveguide, the phase velocity tracks constant wave phase along the axis, whereas the group velocity describes a sufficiently narrow, weakly distorted wave packet. Using ${\omega }^2=c^2{\beta }^2+{\omega }_c^2$ givesThus $v_{\mathrm{ph}}>c$, $0<v_g<c$, and $v_{\mathrm{ph}}{v}_g=c^2$. Differentiating the dispersion relation proves the second formula; dividing it by ${\beta }^2$ proves the first. This is the same mathematical structure as Klein-Gordon packet velocities. In the stipulated $f=1.25f_c$ example,Over $0.30\mathrm{m}$, the corresponding narrow-envelope delay is $(0.50\mathrm{m})/c$, approximately $1.668\mathrm{ns}$. Timing a carrier wave crest would give $0.6004\mathrm{ns}$; it does not time the arrival of a newly introduced message.

There is an independent energy check. For the forward ${\mathrm{TE}}_{10}$ fields, the average axial Poynting vector is $⟨S_z⟩=\beta |E_y{|}^2/(2{\mu }_0\omega )$. Integrating across the guide gives average power $P$ and average electromagnetic energy per unit length $U^{\prime }$:The transverse sine and cosine squared each integrate to $a/2$; ${\beta }^2+(\pi /a{)}^2={\omega }^2/c^2$ then makes the integrated electric and magnetic contributions to $U^{\prime }$ equal. The axial energy transport therefore agrees with the group velocity in this ideal model.

As $\omega \downarrow {\omega }_c$, $v_g\to 0$ and $v_{\mathrm{ph}}\to \infty$; exactly at cutoff $\omega /\beta$ is undefined. Strong wave dispersion close to cutoff also limits the narrow-packet approximation. Neither a large phase velocity nor a pulse peak establishes superluminal information velocity; front velocity asks a separate causal question. In a uniform filling with constant positive permittivity $\epsilon$ and magnetic permeability $\mu$, replace $c$ by $u=1/\sqrt{\epsilon \mu }$, giving $v_{\mathrm{ph}}{v}_g=u^2$. Frequency-dependent material response or significant loss requires differentiating the actual dispersion relation, so this product is not universal.