Agree or Disagree? Analyzing Wave Amplitudes

  • Thread starter Thread starter member 731016
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Amplitudes Wave
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
2 replies · 1K views
member 731016
Homework Statement
Please see below
Relevant Equations
Please see below
For this,
1682629098130.png


The two statements highlighted do not seem to agree. I think the first statement highlighted is referring to A as initial amplitude (which we can denote ##A_i##) of the traveling waves before there constructive interference to form antinodes with an amplitude 2A and nodes of an amplitude 0. Where I think the second highlighted statement is referring to when A is the resultant amplitude of standing wave which we can denote ##A_f = 2A_i##.

Is my understanding please correct?

Many thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ChiralSuperfields said:
The two statements highlighted do not seem to agree. I think the first statement highlighted is referring to A as initial amplitude (which we can denote ##A_i##) of the traveling waves before there constructive interference to form antinodes with an amplitude 2A and nodes of an amplitude 0. Where I think the second highlighted statement is referring to when A is the resultant amplitude of standing wave which we can denote ##A_f = 2A_i##.

Is my understanding please correct?

Many thanks!
I believe you are right. There is also the very first sentence of that extract, which also says ##\pm A##. I assume A is defined in some preceding text, so both the A references should be 2A.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 731016
haruspex said:
I believe you are right. There is also the very first sentence of that extract, which also says ##\pm A##. I assume A is defined in some preceding text, so both the A references should be 2A.
Great, thank you for your help @haruspex!
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman