Prove: EM Waves Addition Superposition Equivalence

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the equivalence of the superposition of three electromagnetic waves with specific frequencies and the resultant wave that is modulated by a sinusoidal function. The subject area includes wave mechanics and the principles of superposition in electromagnetism.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the initial equations for the electric fields of the waves and question whether they are appropriate for the problem. There is exploration of the implications of using complex exponentials versus real-valued functions. Some participants suggest considering phase factors and the importance of wave direction in the context of wave propagation.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants sharing their attempts at summing the waves and expressing concerns about the complexity of the resulting expressions. There is a recognition of the need for trigonometric identities to simplify the results, and some participants have provided guidance on how to approach the summation of the waves.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the assumption that all waves travel at the same speed and discuss the implications of phase differences in their calculations. There is also mention of potential errors in arithmetic during the summation process, highlighting the challenges faced in reaching the desired result.

fluidistic
Gold Member
Messages
3,934
Reaction score
286

Homework Statement


Show that the superposition of three waves with frequencies [tex]\omega _c[/tex], [tex]\omega _c + \omega _m[/tex] and [tex]\omega _c - \omega _ m[/tex] and same amplitude are equivalent to another wave of frequency [tex]\omega _c[/tex] which is modulated by a sinusoidal wave with frequency [tex]\omega _m, i.e. E=E_0 \left [ 1+a \cos (\omega _m t) \right ] \cos (\omega _c t)[/tex].


Homework Equations


Not sure, but I started with [tex]E_1=E_0 e^{i (\omega _c t + k_1 x)}[/tex], [tex]E_2=E_0 e^{i \left [ (\omega _c + \omega _m )t + k_2 x \right ]}[/tex] and [tex]E_3=E_0 e^{i \left [(\omega _c + \omega _m)t + k_1 x \right ]}[/tex].


The Attempt at a Solution


Using the equations in the Relevant part, I just summed them up and factorized by [tex]E_0[/tex]. I'm wondering if I started with the right equations. What do you think? I'm asking this question because I'm unsure and further I don't really see how to reach the answer from the equations I've put.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'd assume that the speed of the wave is the same for all 3 constituent waves, allowing you to express [itex]k[/itex] for each one.

Also, I'd imagine that you are supposed to assume the fields are real; so you will either want to use cosines/sines or take the real part of complex exponentials. For example, the electric field [itex]\textbf{E}[/itex] of a plane wave is often taken to be the real part of a complimentary complex-valued field:

[tex]\tilde{\mathbf{E}}=\tilde{\mathbf{E}}_0{\rm{e}}^{{\rm{i}}(\textbf{k}\cdot\textbf{r}-\omega t)}[/tex]

Where the tildes denote complex-valued quantities. This is done since exponentials are often easier to do calculations with.
 
Thanks gabba hey. Yes I would take the real part when I'm done with the simplifications.
So I wasn't wrong take a wave of the form [tex]E=E_0 \cos (\ometa t + \vec k \codt \vec r)[/tex]?
 
Yes, [itex]\LaTeX[/itex] typos aside (where in the Greek alphabet is "\omet[/color]a" located? :biggrin:), that assumed form should be fine. You could even include a phase factor if you want (i.e. [itex]\textbf{E}=\textbf{E}_0\cos(\textbf{k}\cdot\textbf{r}-\omega t+\delta)[/itex]) as long as you assume that all 3 waves are in phase (have the same [itex]\delta[/itex]).
 
gabbagabbahey said:
Yes, [itex]\LaTeX[/itex] typos aside (where in the Greek alphabet is "\omet[/color]a" located? :biggrin:), that assumed form should be fine. You could even include a phase factor if you want (i.e. [itex]\textbf{E}=\textbf{E}_0\cos(\textbf{k}\cdot\textbf{r}-\omega t+\delta)[/itex]) as long as you assume that all 3 waves are in phase (have the same [itex]\delta[/itex]).

Oops, ometa and codt instead of cdot...
Now I notice that you put a minus sign in "[tex]-\omega t[/tex]". Is it important? I didn't use any minus sign, should I? Isn't just the direction of propagation that changes?
 
Yes, the negative sign simply means that the wave will propagate in the same direction as [itex]\textbf{k}[/itex] instead of opposite to it. It is convention to assume that [itex]k=||\textbf{k}||[/itex] is positive and so in order for the waves to travel with positive speed, forwards in time, you use the negative sign.
 
Ok thanks, I'll use the negative sign.
 
I just summed up E_1 with E_2 and it's already very messy, I can't believe that adding E_3 will simplificate anything.
I reach [tex]E_1+E_2=2E_0 \left [ \cos \left ( \frac{(k_1+k_2)x-(2 \omega _c + \omega _m)t + 2 \alpha}{2} \right) \cdot \cos \left ( \frac{(k_1-k_2)x+ \omega _m t}{2} \right ) \right ][/tex].
If I sum the third wave I'll get a function of the form [tex]\cos ( \cos (...))[/tex] which doesn't seem to simplificate and I won't reach the answer. Am I missing something?
 
If I were you, I'd start with adding E_2 and E_3 instead :wink:
 
  • #10
Indeed, I should have thought more before heading to the arithmetics.
I now reach [tex]E_2+E_3=2E_0 \left [ \cos \left ( \left ( \frac{k_2+ k_3}{2} \right ) x + \alpha - \omega _c t \right ) \cos \left ( \left ( \frac{k_2 - k_3}{2} \right ) x - \omega _m t \right ) \right ][/tex]. I'm sure this simplifies more and I should do it before adding [tex]E_1[/tex]. I'm not sure which trigonometric relation to use here. What do you think?
 
  • #11
Usually waves of different frequency traveling in the same medium will have the same speed, so you expect

[tex]k_1=\frac{\omega_c}{c}, \;\;\;\;\;\; k_2=\frac{\omega_c+\omega_m}{c}\;\;\;\;\;\; \text{and}\;\;\;\;\;\;k_3=\frac{\omega_c-\omega_m}{c}[/tex]
 
  • #12
gabbagabbahey said:
Usually waves of different frequency traveling in the same medium will have the same speed, so you expect

[tex]k_1=\frac{\omega_c}{c}, \;\;\;\;\;\; k_2=\frac{\omega_c+\omega_m}{c}\;\;\;\;\;\; \text{and}\;\;\;\;\;\;k_3=\frac{\omega_c-\omega_m}{c}[/tex]

Ah right. I reach [tex]E_2+E_3=2E_0 \cos \left [ \omega _c \left ( \frac{x}{c}-t \right ) + \alpha \right ] \cos \left [ \omega _m \left ( \frac{x}{c} -t \right ) \right ][/tex].
The "alpha" term seems bothering, it's the phase of any of the 3 waves. Now I must add this expression to the first wave... I guess it'll be complicated. Let's see.

Edit: I just summed the first wave to the last expression. I get that [tex]E_1+E_2+E_3=3 E_0 \cos \left [ \omega _c \left ( \frac{x}{c}-t \right ) +\alpha \right ] + 2 E_0 \cos \left [ \omega _m \left ( \frac{x}{c}-t \right ) \right ][/tex].
I really don't see how to reach the result.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Adding [itex]E_1[/itex] should be a piece of cake since [itex]E_1=E_0 \cos \left [ \omega _c \left ( \frac{x}{c}-t \right ) + \alpha \right ][/tex] <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":wink:" title="Wink :wink:" data-smilie="2"data-shortname=":wink:" />[/itex]
 
  • #14
gabbagabbahey said:
Adding [itex]E_1[/itex] should be a piece of cake since [itex]E_1=E_0 \cos \left [ \omega _c \left ( \frac{x}{c}-t \right ) + \alpha \right ][/tex] <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":wink:" title="Wink :wink:" data-smilie="2"data-shortname=":wink:" />[/itex]
[itex] <br /> Well yes. I've edited my last post to include where I headed. <br /> Now I believe I should use a trigonometric trick, but I don't see how to get rid of alpha.[/itex]
 
  • #15
fluidistic said:
Ah right. I reach [tex]E_2+E_3=2E_0 \cos \left [ \omega _c \left ( \frac{x}{c}-t \right ) + \alpha \right ] \cos \left [ \omega _m \left ( \frac{x}{c} -t \right ) \right ][/tex].
The "alpha" term seems bothering, it's the phase of any of the 3 waves. Now I must add this expression to the first wave... I guess it'll be complicated. Let's see.

Edit: I just summed the first wave to the last expression. I get that [tex]E_1+E_2+E_3=3 E_0 \cos \left [ \omega _c \left ( \frac{x}{c}-t \right ) +\alpha \right ] + 2 E_0 \cos \left [ \omega _m \left ( \frac{x}{c}-t \right ) \right ][/tex].
I really don't see how to reach the result.

I don't see how you ended up with that:confused:

[tex]\begin{aligned}E_1+E_2+E_3 &= E_0 \cos \left [ \omega _c \left ( \frac{x}{c}-t \right ) + \alpha \right ] +2E_0 \cos \left [ \omega _c \left ( \frac{x}{c}-t \right ) + \alpha \right ] \cos \left [ \omega _m \left ( \frac{x}{c} -t \right ) \right ] \\ &= E_0 \cos \left [ \omega _c \left ( \frac{x}{c}-t \right ) + \alpha \right ] \left(1+2\cos \left [ \omega _m \left ( \frac{x}{c} -t \right ) \right ]\right)\end{aligned}[/tex]

Which is your desired result:wink:
 
  • #16
Ok thank you. I made an arithmetics error, I was too fast.
So the answer is slightly different from the one provided but I think we've done a more general case (i.e. considering a phase) although I'm not 100% sure.
Problem solved. :smile: Thanks for all.
 
  • #17
The point is that [itex]E_0 \cos \left [ \omega _c \left ( \frac{x}{c}-t \right ) + \alpha \right ][/itex] is a wave of frequency [itex]\omega_c[/itex], and [itex]\cos \left [ \omega _m \left ( \frac{x}{c}-t \right )\right ][/itex] is a sinusoidal wave of frequency [itex]\omega_m[/itex], so

[tex]E_{\text{total}}=E_0 \cos \left [ \omega _c \left ( \frac{x}{c}-t \right ) + \alpha \right ] \left(1+2\cos \left [ \omega _m \left ( \frac{x}{c} -t \right ) \right ]\right)[/tex]

is a wave of frequency [itex]\omega_c[/itex], modulated by a sinusoidal wave of frequency [itex]\omega_m[/itex]...which is exactly what the question asked you to show.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K