I What defines a wave according to the wave equation?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter FAS1998
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Wave Wave equation
FAS1998
Messages
49
Reaction score
1
If I’m not mistaken, a system can be described as a wave if it follows the wave equation.

On Wikipedia, the general solution for the one-dimensional wave equation is written as u(x,t) = F(x - ct) + G(x + ct).

I don’t see the connection between this solution and what I understand waves to be. Don’t waves need to by cyclical? This general solution doesn’t seem to require the functions to be periodic or cyclical in any sense. What would be a good description of a wave according to the wave equation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Perhaps (for the 1D case): " A distortion that propagates without changing shape "
 
  • Like
Likes FAS1998
FAS1998 said:
If I’m not mistaken, a system can be described as a wave if it follows the wave equation.

On Wikipedia, the general solution for the one-dimensional wave equation is written as u(x,t) = F(x - ct) + G(x + ct).

I don’t see the connection between this solution and what I understand waves to be. Don’t waves need to by cyclical? This general solution doesn’t seem to require the functions to be periodic or cyclical in any sense. What would be a good description of a wave according to the wave equation?
Differentiation turns multiplication into addition, the linear approximation: ##d(f\cdot g) = f\cdot dg + g\cdot df##. Integration does the opposite and turns addition into multiplication, which is why we use the exponential function as template for solutions: ##\exp(x+y)=\exp(x) \cdot \exp(y)##. This is roughly what's going on.

Now the wave equation is ##y''+y=0##. If we set ##y=ae^{cx}## then we get ##ac^2+a=0##. We are not interested in the solution ##a=0##, so we have ##c=\pm i## instead, and ##y=ae^{\pm i cx}## which is a circle in the complex plane and ##y## thus a cyclic function.
 
  • Like
Likes FAS1998
FAS1998 said:
On Wikipedia, the general solution for the one-dimensional wave equation is written as u(x,t) = F(x - ct) + G(x + ct).

I don’t see the connection between this solution and what I understand waves to be. Don’t waves need to by cyclical? This general solution doesn’t seem to require the functions to be periodic or cyclical in any sense.

Did you look further down to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_equation#Plane_wave_eigenmodes
 
  • Like
Likes FAS1998
FAS1998 said:
Don’t waves need to by cyclical?
No, they don't need to be periodic (the usual term for what I assume you mean by "cyclical.").

Consider the disturbance that you produce on the surface of water in a pond or bathtub when you poke your finger into the water and withdraw it quickly, once. This is described by the same differential wave equation as the periodic disturbance that you get when you poke your finger into the water and withdraw it, many times at regular intervals.
 
  • Like
Likes FAS1998 and jim mcnamara
There is the following linear Volterra equation of the second kind $$ y(x)+\int_{0}^{x} K(x-s) y(s)\,{\rm d}s = 1 $$ with kernel $$ K(x-s) = 1 - 4 \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \dfrac{1}{\lambda_n^2} e^{-\beta \lambda_n^2 (x-s)} $$ where $y(0)=1$, $\beta>0$ and $\lambda_n$ is the $n$-th positive root of the equation $J_0(x)=0$ (here $n$ is a natural number that numbers these positive roots in the order of increasing their values), $J_0(x)$ is the Bessel function of the first kind of zero order. I...
Are there any good visualization tutorials, written or video, that show graphically how separation of variables works? I particularly have the time-independent Schrodinger Equation in mind. There are hundreds of demonstrations out there which essentially distill to copies of one another. However I am trying to visualize in my mind how this process looks graphically - for example plotting t on one axis and x on the other for f(x,t). I have seen other good visual representations of...

Similar threads

Back
Top