Help with a wave equation derivation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the derivation of a wave equation influenced by the Doppler effect, specifically transitioning between stationary and moving frames using Lorentz transformations. The original equation, which exhibits a small typo, is linked to a superposition of waves, and participants confirm the equivalence of two derived forms through exponential manipulation. There is a focus on clarifying the transition from complex exponentials to trigonometric forms, with participants questioning the subtraction of wave amplitudes in the superposition context. The conversation also touches on the implications of using sine and cosine identities in the derivation process. Overall, the thread emphasizes the importance of understanding the mathematical transformations and their physical interpretations in wave mechanics.
mysearch
Gold Member
Messages
523
Reaction score
0
Hi,
Apologises if I have submitted this issue into the wrong Math forum. However, I was wondering if anybody could help me with 2 steps in a derivation of an equation. Simply by way of background, the derivation is linked to formation of a superposition wave subject to a Doppler effect

[1] \phi = Ae^{i \left( ct+r \right)k/\gamma \left(1+\beta \right)} - Ae^{i \left( ct-r \right)k \gamma \left(1-\beta \right)}

So based on [1], the derivation states that [2] can be obtain by a process of multiplying exponents, rearranging and factoring.

[2] \phi = Ae^{ik \gamma \left( ct + \beta r \right)} \left( e^{ik \gamma \left( \beta ct+r \right)} - e^{-ik \gamma \left( \beta ct+r \right)} \right)

However, so far, I have only managed to create a bit of a mess as I haven’t found a way of rationalising the different expressions in the exponentials. Would really appreciate any help that might confirm that step [2] is valid from [1] and/or any pointers as to how it is done. Thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Equation [1] was obtained by applying a Lorentz transformation from a 'stationary frame' {x',t') to a 'moving frame' {x,t}.
If you go back to the 'stationary frame', you will easily see the equivalence of [1] and [2] .
The equivalence of [1] and [2] in the moving frame is then obvious.

note1: there is a small typo in [1]
note2: remember the Lorentz transformation: x' = γ (x + β c t) and c t' = γ (c t + β x)
 
maajdl said:
Equation [1] was obtained by applying a Lorentz transformation from a 'stationary frame' {x',t') to a 'moving frame' {x,t}. If you go back to the 'stationary frame', you will easily see the equivalence of [1] and [2] . The equivalence of [1] and [2] in the moving frame is then obvious.
note1: there is a small typo in [1]
note2: remember the Lorentz transformation: x' = γ (x + β c t) and c t' = γ (c t + β x)

Many thanks for the helpful reply in #2. Your suggestion about collapsing [1] back to the stationary frame allowed me to spot a mistake I was making with my exponential algebra, it has been awhile! The following equations are primarily for confirmation and for future cross reference. However, I would like to know exactly where you think the ‘small typo’ in [1] lies as it is correct to the source. As suggested, switching back to the stationary frame, i.e. v=0, allows the following substitutions:

[0] \beta=\frac{v}{c}=0; \left(1-\beta \right)=1; \gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\beta^2}}=1; \gamma \beta=0

This allows [1] to be reduced to:

[1] \phi = Ae^{i \left( ct+r \right)k/\gamma \left(1+\beta \right)} - Ae^{i \left( ct-r \right)k \gamma \left(1-\beta \right)}

[1a] \phi = Ae^{i \left( ct+r \right)k} - Ae^{i \left( ct-r \right)k}

[1b] \phi = Ae^{i \left( \omega t+kr \right)} - Ae^{i \left( \omega t-kr \right)}

The second version is just to highlight the normal format of a standard wave equation within the exponential, which I believe can be transposed back into a trigonometric form using the following identity:

[TI-1] e^{i \theta} = cos \theta + i sin \theta

However, using only the ‘real’ part allows [1b] to be written as:

[1c] \phi = A cos \left( \omega t+kr \right) - A cos \left( \omega t-kr \right)

I don’t know where you think the typo was in [1], as the solution in [1c] looks OK to me, except I don’t understand why the two wave amplitudes are subtracted as this is a description of superposition wave. While I am still investigating this issue, I suspect it is because the following identity [TI-2] is used later in the derivation - see [2]/[3] below, although the substitution looks incorrect to me:

[TI-2] sin(\theta)= \frac{e^{i\theta} – e^{-i\theta}}{2i} \Longrightarrow e^{i\theta} – e^{-i\theta}=(2i)sin(\theta)

[TI-3] cos(\theta)= \frac{e^{i\theta} + e^{-i\theta}}{2} \Longrightarrow e^{i\theta} + e^{-i\theta}=(2)cos(\theta)

Anyway, converting [2] to a stationary form using the substitutions in [0] above gives:

[2a] \phi = Ae^{ik*1 \left( ct + 0*r \right)} \left( e^{ik*1 \left( 0+r \right)} - e^{-ik*1 \left( 0+r \right)} \right) \Longrightarrow Ae^{i \left( \omega t \right)} \left( e^{i \left(kr \right)} - e^{-i \left(kr \right)} \right)

[2b] \phi = Ae^{i \left( \omega t \right)}e^{i \left(kr \right)} -Ae^{i \left( \omega t \right)}<br /> e^{-i \left(kr \right)} \Longrightarrow Ae^{\left( i \omega t +ikr\right)} - Ae^{\left( i \omega t - ikr\right)}

[2c] \phi = Ae^{i \left( \omega t + kr\right)} - Ae^{i \left( \omega t - kr\right)}

So, as you indicated, the equivalence of [1b] and [2c] appears to be confirmed. However, I still don’t really understand why the derivation proceeds from [2] as follows, which appears to be dependent on [TR-2], but then seems to lose the complex value in [3]:

[2] \phi = Ae^{ik \gamma \left( ct + \beta r \right)} \left( e^{ik \gamma \left( \beta ct+r \right)} - e^{-ik \gamma \left( \beta ct+r \right)} \right)

[3] \phi = 2Ae^{ik \gamma \left( ct + \beta r \right)} sin \left[ k \gamma \left( \beta ct + r \right) \right]

However, if [2] was changed to reflect a superposition of 2 additive waves it would presumably become:

[2’] \phi = Ae^{ik \gamma \left( ct + \beta r \right)} \left( e^{ik \gamma \left( \beta ct+r \right)} + e^{-ik \gamma \left( \beta ct+r \right)} \right)

If so, the [TR-3] could then be used such that [3] would become:

[3’] \phi = 2Ae^{ik \gamma \left( ct + \beta r \right)} cos \left[ k \gamma \left( \beta ct + r \right) \right]

Finally, using [TR-1], I would have thought that the remaining complex exponential could also be replaced by taking only the ‘rea partl’, such that [3’] would become:

[4] \phi = 2A cos \left[ k \gamma \left( ct + \beta r \right) \right] cos \left[ k \gamma \left( \beta ct +r \right) \right] \Longrightarrow 2A cos \left[ \gamma \left( \omega t + \beta k r \right) \right] cos \left[ \gamma \left( \beta \omega t + kr \right) \right]

Anyway, as stated, much of this is purely for future reference, but would appreciate the correction of the 'maths' on my part. I still need to take a closer look at the Lorentz transformation in this wave process and while I already have some issues to resolve within this derivation, it is presumably best if I raise these in another PF forum, e.g. general physics? Again, I really appreciate the help. Thanks
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top