Plot graph of 1D wave equation (using d'Alembert's formula)

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around plotting the graph of a 1D wave equation using d'Alembert's formula. The original poster presents the general solution and specific initial conditions for the wave function, including the form of u(x,0) and the derivative with respect to time.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the application of d'Alembert's formula and the implications of the initial conditions on the wave function. There are attempts to substitute values into the formula and questions about how to interpret the resulting expressions for plotting. Some participants express confusion about the relationship between u(x, t) and u(x, 0), and the graphical representation of the initial conditions.

Discussion Status

Several participants are actively engaging with the problem, exploring different interpretations of the initial conditions and their implications for the graph. Some guidance has been offered regarding the plotting of the initial function, but there is still uncertainty about the correct approach to visualize the wave function at the specified time.

Contextual Notes

Participants note constraints related to the specific ranges for x and the behavior of the wave function outside those ranges. There is also mention of potential misunderstandings regarding the graphical representation of linear functions defined by the initial conditions.

whatisreality
Messages
286
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement

[/B]
Don't know if this goes here or in the advanced bit, thought I'd try here first!

I know the general solution of a 1D wave equation is given by d'Alembert's formula

##u(x,t) = 0.5[u(x+vt,0) + u(x-vt,0)] + \frac{1}{2v} \int_{x-vt}^{x+vt} \frac{\partial u}{\partial t}(x,0) \mathrm dx##.

And I've been given that for my particular wave, ##\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}(x,0)## = 0 for all x, so that's nice because I don't have to worry about the integral in d'Alembert's.

I've also been given that u(x,0) is x+a for -a≤x≤0
and u(x,0) is a-x for 0≤x≤a
and 0 otherwise.

##a## is a real positive constant.

Plot u(x,t) as a function of x at time t=2a/v.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


My y-axis is going to be labelled u(x) and my x-axis is x. I've subbed in t=2a/v into d'Alembert's, and got

##u(x, \frac{2a}{v}) = 0.5[u(x+2a,0) + u(x-2a,0)]##

So u(x+2a) = x+3a for -a≤x≤0
u(x-2a) = x-a for -a≤x≤0

Which means that for -a≤x≤0, my u(x) = 0.5(2x+2a) = x+a

Is that the right sort of thing to do? I'm pretty sure it's not, since it takes me back to where I started.I don't know how to make use of that set of conditions for -a≤x≤0 etc.

I'm really confused about how to plot this.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
whatisreality said:
My y-axis is going to be labelled u(x) and my x-axis is x. I've subbed in t=2a/v into d'Alembert's, and got

##u(x, \frac{2a}{v}) = 0.5[u(x+2a,0) + u(x-2a,0)]##
OK

So u(x+2a) = x+3a for -a≤x≤0
u(x-2a) = x-a for -a≤x≤0

Which means that for -a≤x≤0, my u(x) = 0.5(2x+2a) = x+a

I don't follow what you did here. Recall that if you know the graph of f(x), then you can easily plot the graph of f(x+b) where b is a constant. In this problem, you know the graph of u(x, 0) for all x. So, it should be easy to plot the graphs of u(x+2a, 0) and u(x-2a, 0).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: whatisreality
TSny said:
OK

I don't follow what you did here. Recall that if you know the graph of f(x), then you can easily plot the graph of f(x+b) where b is a constant. In this problem, you know the graph of u(x, 0) for all x. So, it should be easy to plot the graphs of u(x+2a, 0) and u(x-2a, 0).

The graph I'm actually plotting is u(x, 2a/v), and I have no idea how that relates to u(x,0).

What I did here:
whatisreality said:
##u(x, \frac{2a}{v}) = 0.5[u(x+2a,0) + u(x-2a,0)]##

So u(x+2a) = x+3a for -a≤x≤0
u(x-2a) = x-a for -a≤x≤0

So I'm having to plot ##u(x, \frac{2a}{v}) = 0.5[u(x+2a,0) + u(x-2a,0)]##

Then I tried to work out the values of u(x+2a,0) and u(x-2a,0) to sub into the equation for u(x, 2a/v). I did this using the constraints given: u(x,0) is x+a for -a≤x≤0

I'm working out u(x+2a,0), so I replaced x with x+2a to get u(x+2a,0) is (x+2a)+a for -a≤x≤0, and repeated the same process with (x-2a).

Then u(x, 2a/v) = 0.5[u(x+2a,0) + u(x-2a,0)] = 0.5( x+3a + x-a ) = x+a for -a≤x≤0.

I don't know how to plot y = x+a for -a≤x≤0. Or even if that's what I should be plotting.
 
whatisreality said:
The graph I'm actually plotting is u(x, 2a/v), and I have no idea how that relates to u(x,0).
Recall, you have ##u(x, \frac{2a}{v}) = 0.5[u(x+2a,0) + u(x-2a,0)]##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: whatisreality
TSny said:
Recall, you have ##u(x, \frac{2a}{v}) = 0.5[u(x+2a,0) + u(x-2a,0)]##.
Oh, right, I see. I have trouble plotting u(x,0) in the first place though, which is why I did those calculations. I suppose both ways should give the same answer?
 
TSny said:
Recall, you have ##u(x, \frac{2a}{v}) = 0.5[u(x+2a,0) + u(x-2a,0)]##.
Actually, to be more specific, I have trouble plotting u(x,0) because I'm not sure what

u(x,0) is x+a for -a≤x≤0

means for a graph, for example y=x+a for x between -a and 0? What does that look like? A horizontal line?
 
whatisreality said:
Actually, to be more specific, I have trouble plotting u(x,0) because I'm not sure what

u(x,0) is x+a for -a≤x≤0

means for a graph, for example.
It means that when x is greater than -a and less than 0, you want to graph the function y = x + a. You can see it's a linear function. So, the graph will be a straight line. What is the value of y at x = -a? What is the value at x = 0?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: whatisreality
TSny said:
It means that when x is greater than -a and less than 0, you want to graph the function y = x + a. You can see it's a linear function. So, the graph will be a straight line. What is the value of y at x = -a? What is the value at x = 0?
I can't believe I even wrote that. I can definitely graph y = x+a! But I'd convinced myself I didn't know. It's the graph of y = x translated down by a, so at x = 0 y= -a and at x = 0 y = a. What an incredibly silly thing to do!

Thank you for being very patient and helping!
 
Last edited:
whatisreality said:
at x = 0 y= -a and at x = 0 y = a.

OK. I guess you meant to type at x = -a, y = 0.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
TSny said:
asdfasdfOK. I guess you meant to type at x = -a, y = 0.
Yes, I did. Sorry. Must be a sign, too late at night for maths.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K