I Don’t understand the general form of the Sinusoidal Wave Equation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the sinusoidal wave equation y(x,t) = A cos(kx - wt) and its extension to y(x,t) = A cos(kx - wt) + B sin(kx - wt) in quantum mechanics. The "B" term represents the amplitude of the sine component, and both A and B can be understood through a trigonometric identity that decomposes a wave into two components. This decomposition allows for the representation of waves with phase offsets, which is useful in various physics applications. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding these mathematical relationships for further studies in wave mechanics and quantum physics. Overall, the discussion emphasizes the utility of these equations in simplifying complex mathematical problems.
jjson775
Messages
112
Reaction score
26
TL;DR Summary
Don’t understand the general form of the sinusoidal wave equation.
I am a retired engineer, 81 years old, self studying modern physics using Young and Freedman University Physics.

I am familiar with the wave equation y(x,t) = A cos (kx - wt) where A = amplitude, k = wave number and w (omega) = angular frequency.

in the chapter introducing quantum mechanics, this equation is shown as:
y(x,t) = A cos (kx - wt) + B sin (kx - wt). What is the “B” part? Is it another amplitude? The equation is not shown in this form at all in the chapter on mechanical waves.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you familiar with the trigonometric identity ##C\sin(\theta+\phi)=C\sin(\theta)\cos(\phi)+C\cos(\theta)\sin(\phi)##? If you replace ##\theta## with ##kx-\omega t## can you see what ##A## and ##B## are?

By the way, if you're going to post maths here it's worth having a read of the LaTeX Guide, linked below the reply box. It makes maths much easier to read. There's a known bug that the maths doesn't render in preview, so you may possibly need to refresh the page to see the maths - if you see # marks in my previous paragraph, you need to refresh.
 
I still don’t see where this is headed.
 

Attachments

  • 1694312540063.png
    1694312540063.png
    5 KB · Views: 126
That's all there is to it.

The point is that with ##C\sin(kx+\omega t)##, at ##t=0## the amplitude at ##x=0## is always zero. But that isn't always what you want. Sometimes the amplitude is non-zero at ##x=0## and zero at some other point, which is to say that there is an offset in your wave, usually denoted ##\phi##. The equation of that wave is ##C\sin(kx+\omega t+\phi)##. You can get to the expression you asked about with the trigonometric identity I quoted.

What you have here is an example of decomposing a wave into two waves added together. The trigonometric identity shows you that a wave with some arbitrary phase offset can be written as a sine wave with a certain amplitude and no phase offset plus a cosine wave with a certain amplitude and no phase offset. It's purely a mathematical trick, but sometimes makes subsequent maths easier.

So the answer to your question is that ##A## and ##B## are the amplitudes of the sine and cosine waves with zero phase offset that you need to add together to get a single sine wave of amplitude ##C## and phase offset ##\phi##. You've worked out the mathematical relationships between ##A##, ##B## and ##C##.
 
  • Like
Likes scottdave, Juanda and vanhees71
Got it. Thanks! I have seen this equation pop up in lectures on YouTube and now in my textbook without any derivation or explanation. A useful mathematical trick, as you say.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman and Ibix
Your comment that it can make subsequent math easier is spot on. It showed up in my textbook to show how it satisfies the general wave equation using partial differentiation leading up to introduction of the Schrödinger equation.
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top