Determine the direction and speed of the wave from a given wave equation

Ryker
Messages
1,080
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


Given an equation for a wave \psi(x,t) = A e^{-a(bx+ct)^{2}} determine the direction of its propagation if you know \psi(x,t) = f(x \pm vt) and use this to find its speed.

Homework Equations



The Attempt at a Solution


I figured I would just rearrange the expression in the exponent, so as to yield x + \frac{c}{b}t, and then just read off v = \pm\frac{c}{b}. However, if we don't know whether \psi(x,t) = f(x + vt) or \psi(x,t) = f(x - vt), can we really determine the direction of its propagation?

Also, I found somewhere the answer to this question would uniquely be v = -\frac{c}{b} by letting bx + ct = C, and then after solving for x, x = \frac{C}{b} - \frac{c}{b}, taking the derivative with respect to time, yielding the above unique solution with the minus sign. Is this the proper way of doing things instead of just rearranging the expression like I did?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Either way is fair game!
 
Ryker said:
I figured I would just rearrange the expression in the exponent, so as to yield x + \frac{c}{b}t, and then just read off v = \pm\frac{c}{b}. However, if we don't know whether \psi(x,t) = f(x + vt) or \psi(x,t) = f(x - vt), can we really determine the direction of its propagation?
The only difference between f(x+vt) and f(x-vt) is the direction that the wave propagates. f(x-vt) represents a wave moving in the +x direction, and f(x+vt) represents a wave moving in the -x direction, where v>0 is the speed of the wave. Whether v=±c/b depends on the signs of b and c.
 
klawlor419 said:
Either way is fair game!

vela said:
The only difference between f(x+vt) and f(x-vt) is the direction that the wave propagates. f(x-vt) represents a wave moving in the +x direction, and f(x+vt) represents a wave moving in the -x direction, where v>0 is the speed of the wave. Whether v=±c/b depends on the signs of b and c.
Thanks for the replies! After thinking about it some more, that's what I figured, as well, as I just couldn't justify why there would necessarily be a minus sign.
 
To solve this, I first used the units to work out that a= m* a/m, i.e. t=z/λ. This would allow you to determine the time duration within an interval section by section and then add this to the previous ones to obtain the age of the respective layer. However, this would require a constant thickness per year for each interval. However, since this is most likely not the case, my next consideration was that the age must be the integral of a 1/λ(z) function, which I cannot model.
Back
Top