Is f(x,t)=Acos(K(x-vt)+phi) a wave equation solution?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether the function f(x,t) = Acos(K(x-vt) + φ) is a solution to the wave equation. It is established that any function of the form f(x,t) = g(x-vt) satisfies the wave equation, and the second-order partial derivative with respect to time is crucial for verification. Participants emphasize that understanding the wave equation inherently involves calculus, as it is a partial differential equation. Visualizing the function as frames of a moving graph helps in grasping the concept. Ultimately, no simpler method exists for demonstrating this relationship without involving derivatives.
leoflc
Messages
54
Reaction score
0
Can someone show me that f(x, t) = A\cos(K(x-vt) + \phi) is in fact a solution of the wave equation?
I kind of know how to show it by using calculus, but is there other way to show it?

Thank you very much!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Any function f that can be expressed as

f(x,t)=g(x-vt)

satisfies the wave equation. You don't even have to know what g is to show it.
 
Could you please show me a little more? I don't really get it why that will satisfie the wave equation...
Thank you very much!
 
We're supposed to give hints here, not complete answers, but if you compute the second-order partial derivative

\frac{\partial^2 f(x,t)}{\partial t^2}

using the formula

f(x,t)=g(x-vt)

you're almost there. Does the result look anything like any other second-order partial derivative that appears in the wave equation?
 
Thanks, I'll give it a try.
But I'm just wondering, is there any other way to show it beside using calculus?
Thanks again!
 
I don't think so. The wave equation is a partial differential equation, so any explanation would have to involve derivatives in some way.

I'm pretty sure that there's no easier way to understand the wave equation than the way I suggested. You should note that the graphs of the functions h_t, defined by

h_t(x)=g(x-vt)

can be thought of as the individual frames of a "movie" that shows the graph of g moving with velocity v.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top