Frequency and phase relationship

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
4 replies · 28K views
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.