Wave Formula Differs in 3-D | Why?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter asdf1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula Wave
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the differences in wave formulas when transitioning from one-dimensional to three-dimensional contexts, particularly focusing on the representation of wave vectors and the implications of wave shape on these representations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the wave formula in 3-D depends on four variables (x, y, z, t), while in 1-D it only depends on two (x, y).
  • One participant clarifies that in 3-D, kx becomes kr as a natural extension, emphasizing rotational invariance.
  • Another participant proposes that k*x can be rewritten in terms of the components kx, ky, and kz corresponding to each spatial dimension.
  • A participant introduces the three-dimensional Pythagorean formula to explain the relationship between r and the spatial coordinates x, y, z.
  • Different wave shapes, such as plane waves and spherical waves, are discussed, highlighting how their mathematical representations differ.
  • One participant questions the relationship between k and r in the context of wave shapes, leading to a discussion about the infinite variety of wave shapes based on combinations of oscillators.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between wave shape and the variables k and r, with no consensus reached on the implications of these differences.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the nature of wave shapes and their mathematical representations, which may not be universally agreed upon.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in wave mechanics, mathematical physics, and the conceptual understanding of wave behavior in different dimensions may find this discussion relevant.

asdf1
Messages
734
Reaction score
0
Why is the wave formula different in 3-D?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Eh? Because it dependants from four values x,y,z,t and the one dimensional only on two value x,y.
 
opps~ i think i didn't make myself clear...
what i meant was why in 3-D does kx become k*r?
 
Because that's the natural extension. It reduces to one kx in 1D and is rotationally invariant: the predictions does not change by rotating your coordinate axes.
 
you can rewrite k*x as k*x=kx*x+ky*y+kz*z where kx, ky and kz are the corresponding wave vectors of x, y and z.
 
@@a
isn't r the radius? what does that have to do with the wave vectors, x, y, z?
 
According to the three-dimensional Pythagorean formula:

[tex]r^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2[/itex]<br /> <br /> Something that might be causing confusion here is that the formula for a three-dimensional wave depends on the "shape" of the wave. For a plane wave (whose maxima form a series of planes marching through space),<br /> <br /> [tex]\psi(x, y, z, t) = A \cos (\vec k \cdot \vec r - \omega t) = A \cos (k_x x + k_y y + k_z z - \omega t)[/tex]<br /> <br /> where the [itex]\vec k[/itex] vector and its components are constant.<br /> <br /> For a spherical wave (whose maxima form a series of concentric spheres spreading out from a central point, let's say the origin),<br /> <br /> [tex]\psi(x, y, z, t) = A \cos (kr - \omega t) = A \cos (k \sqrt{x^2 + y^2 + z^2} - \omega t)[/tex]<br /> <br /> At each point in a spherical wave the [itex]\vec k[/itex] vector points radially outward from the origin, so the direction is different everywhere but the magnitude [itex]k = \sqrt {k_x^2 + k_y^2 + k_z^2}[/itex] is constant.[/tex]
 
Last edited:
so k and r is different depending on the wave's shape?
how many different kinds of different shapes are there?
 
asdf1 said:
so k and r is different depending on the wave's shape?
how many different kinds of different shapes are there?

Infinitely many. As many as there are combinations of simple oscillators of different frequency and amplitude.
 
  • #10
thanks! :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K