Frequency and phase relationship

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between frequency and phase, particularly whether frequency can be considered the time derivative of phase. Participants explore different interpretations of phase in the context of waveforms and modulation schemes.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if frequency is the time derivative of phase and seeks clarification.
  • Another participant asserts that frequency is not the time derivative of phase, defining phase as a parameter that indicates the relative position of periodic waveforms.
  • A third participant introduces the concept of group delay, stating it is a derivative of phase with respect to angular frequency.
  • One participant references a book discussing the time derivative of phase in the context of I and Q demodulation, but notes the lack of explanation in the text.
  • A later reply acknowledges the source of confusion, suggesting that terminology differences between electrical engineering and physics may lead to misunderstandings regarding the definition of phase.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definition and interpretation of phase, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain without consensus.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights potential confusion arising from varying definitions of phase in different fields, such as electrical engineering versus physics, and the implications this has for understanding frequency and phase relationships.

likephysics
Messages
638
Reaction score
4
Frequency is the time derivative of phase? But how?
Can someone explain?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
No, it is not.
At least not if you use the normal meaning of "phase", in which case it is a parameter (usually a constant) which tells you the relative postion in time of two or more periodic waveforms

e.g. if you have

[itex]\sin (2\pi ft+\theta)[/itex])

then [itex]\theta[/itex] would be the phase. Note that it is only meaningfull to talk about phase when you are comparing waveforms; the "starting point" for a periodic function is arbitrary so there is no such thing as absolute phase.
 
Group delay is a derivative of phase with respect to angular frequency:

[tex]\tau_g = -\frac{d\phi}{d\omega}[/tex]
 
OK, now I understand where you got that from.
This is why I was referring to the "normal meaning of phase" above.

People (meaning EEs) who work with modulations schemes (in this case FM) have a tendency to refer to the argument of the sine function as "phase" ; i.e "the phase" in this case would be [itex]\omega t+\theta[/itex] and if you take the time derivative of this you obviously get [itex]\omega[/itex] (which also happens to be the angular frequency, not the frequency).

So -unless I am missing something- this is just another case of confusion due to differences between EE and physics terminology.
The "definition" of phase I wrote above is certainly what you would find in a physics book.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
13K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
7K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K