Adding Electric Fields - Find Simplification Solution

PhDorBust
Messages
141
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Have two electric fields.

\hat{x} E_1 e^{i(kz- \omega t)}
\hat{x} E_2 e^{i(-kz- \omega t)}

Where E_1, E_2 are real.

Sum them such that the result can be expressed as one magnitude and exponential, e.g., |E|e^(iq), Where E is real.

I have no clue how I would begin to simplify this. Any ideas? It's from an undergraduate text.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Factor out the common factor of e-iωt. Use Euler's formula, e=cos θ + i sin θ.
 
Sure.. but that's trivial detail and not key step.

e^{-i \omega t}[(E_1 + E_2) cos(kz) + i(E_1 - E_2) sin(kz)]
 
Well, the rest is even more trivial, so I have no idea where you're getting stuck.
 
Perhaps wording is unclear. Here is answer. Looks little complex for name of trivial, so long that I attach rather than typeset in latex =].

Disregard the unit vector.
 

Attachments

  • untitled.GIF
    untitled.GIF
    10.5 KB · Views: 525
PhDorBust said:
Sure.. but that's trivial detail and not key step.

e^{-i \omega t}[(E_1 + E_2) cos(kz) + i(E_1 - E_2) sin(kz)]

So now, how do you calculate the absolute value of a complex number? And its argument? That's just converting from cartesian to polar coordinates in the complex plane (if we ignore the factor e^(-iωt) which you can set apart).

(The only non-trivial part apart from that conversion will be using the identity sin² φ + cos² φ = 1).
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top