1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Differentiating an exponential with a complex exponent

  1. Feb 18, 2016 #1
    Hello, folks. I'm trying to figure out how to take the partial derivative of something with a complex exponential, like
    [tex] \frac{\partial}{\partial x} e^{i(\alpha x + \beta t)} [/tex]
    But I'm not really sure how to do so. I get that since I'm taking the partial w.r.t. x, I can treat t as a constant term and thus pretend it's something like
    [tex] \frac{\partial}{\partial x} e^{i(\alpha x +\beta)} [/tex]
    But then my confusion comes from me not being able to separate the exponent into some suitable form like
    [tex] e^{\alpha + \beta i} [/tex]
    I guess I could separate it into two separate ones, like
    [tex] e^{i\alpha x}e^{i\beta} [/tex]

    How should I deal with this, any pushes in the right direction?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 18, 2016 #2

    fresh_42

    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    You should apply the chain rule of differentiation to ##e^{f(x)}##.
     
  4. Feb 18, 2016 #3
    Thanks, lemme take a shot.

    [tex]\frac{\partial}{\partial x}e^{i(\alpha x +\beta t)} = e^{i (\alpha x + \beta t)} \cdot \frac{\partial}{\partial x}[i(\alpha x + \beta t)]= i \alpha e^{i (\alpha x + \beta t)}[/tex]
     
  5. Feb 18, 2016 #4
    Is this correct, I guess? I got the same thing by the product rule.

    Edit: it must be, because when I applied this bit to the larger problem I was working on I got it right! Thanks so much!
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2016
  6. Feb 18, 2016 #5

    fresh_42

    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Yes, except you lost the ##t## in your product rule. It's going to zero (in one term) as it is viewed as a constant by partial differentiation but you must not just drop it before and then again pull it out of the hat again.
     
  7. Feb 18, 2016 #6
    Uh oh, I don't get what you just said, let me work it out again both ways and see where I'm making the mistake.
     
  8. Feb 18, 2016 #7

    fresh_42

    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    ##t## has gone.
    And you said you got the same result by product and by chain rule, so there is a ##t## again of the exponent in the result.
     
  9. Feb 18, 2016 #8
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Loading...