Question about wave interference and coherence

AI Thread Summary
Interference occurs when two or more coherent waves superpose, resulting in a wave whose amplitude is the vector sum of the constituent waves. Constructive interference increases amplitude, while destructive interference decreases it. If the resultant wave's amplitude is greater than one constituent wave but less than another, it is classified as neither constructive nor destructive. Coherence is crucial for stable interference patterns, as non-coherent sources lead to varying amplitudes and phase relationships. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding wave interactions beyond categorical definitions, advocating for a focus on the underlying mathematics.
Fionn Munnelly
Messages
1
Reaction score
1
I have encountered the following definition of interference:

Interference is a wave phenomenon in which two or more waves from coherent sources meet and superpose to form a resultant wave such that the amplitude of the resultant wave at any point is the vector sum of the amplitudes of the constituent waves at that point.

If constructive interference occurs, then the amplitude of the resultant wave is greater than the amplitude of anyone of the constituent waves.

If destructive interference occurs, then the amplitude of the resultant wave is less than the amplitude of anyone of the constituent waves.

If the amplitude of the resultant wave is greater than the amplitude of one constituent wave but less than the amplitude of another constituent wave, is the interference constructive or destructive?

In addition, why must the sources of the waves be coherent? Is this only so that any interference pattern produced is stable and unchanging with time? Is the superposition of waves from non-coherent sources to form a resultant wave not still, technically, interference?
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
Science news on Phys.org
Fionn Munnelly said:
Is the superposition of waves from non-coherent sources to form a resultant wave not still, technically, interference?
There will be a resultant of phasor addition of the two sources at all points in space. If the sources are of slightly different but constant frequencies then, at all points, this resultant will constantly vary in amplitude and phase. If you take a snapshot of the pattern at anyone time, you will see an interference pattern. This pattern will be for ever changing - marching over the field at the rate determined by the frequency difference and the speed of the wave.

If you insisted, I could possibly agree that there will be a pattern for any pair of waves but it wouldn't be easy to detect and it becomes a bit of a nonsense. Consequently, we reserve the term Interference Pattern for situations when the two sources are either precisely the same frequency or when their frequencies are near enough to identify an interference pattern which 'crawls' very slowly.

The other point about coherence is that every source has phase noise and that gives a finite length over which the phases of two sources maintain the same relationship any point. This gives rise to the idea of coherence length which, as a practicality, limits the width of the optical two slits pattern because of the significantly different path lengths from the two slits relative to this coherence length. The fringes at the edges get fuzzier and fuzzier.
 
  • Like
Likes Fionn Munnelly
Fionn Munnelly said:
If the amplitude of the resultant wave is greater than the amplitude of one constituent wave but less than the amplitude of another constituent wave, is the interference constructive or destructive?
This is where the English language descriptions get a bit fuzzy so you should just stick to the math. Nature doesn't really care what we call it. Perhaps an English language term that would satisfy you as being more consistently in line with the math over the full range would be simply "interaction" between the waves.
 
  • Like
Likes SammyS and sophiecentaur
phinds said:
simply "interaction" between the waves
Yes. You pretty much fully described the situation when you said
"the resultant wave at any point is the vector sum of the amplitudes of the constituent waves at that point."
Sometimes when you add vectors they get bigger, sometimes smaller, that is all.
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur
@phinds and @DaveE This is yet another result of 'teaching by numbers'. Students are taught in terms of categories rather than how to understand what's actually going on. They are (or at least they feel they are) assessed in terms of sound bytes. The result is confusion when in the real world.
 
phinds said:
Perhaps an English language term that would satisfy you as being more consistently in line with the math over the full range would be simply "interaction" between the waves.
DaveE said:
Yes. You pretty much fully described the situation when you said
"the resultant wave at any point is the vector sum of the amplitudes of the constituent waves at that point."
Sometimes when you add vectors they get bigger, sometimes smaller, that is all.
Among physicists, the commonly used term for this is "superposition" of waves.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes tech99, phinds and Terry Bing
Fionn Munnelly said:
If the amplitude of the resultant wave is greater than the amplitude of one constituent wave but less than the amplitude of another constituent wave, is the interference constructive or destructive?

It's neither.
 
sophiecentaur said:
Students are taught in terms of categories rather than how to understand what's actually going on.

I'm sure that that happens quite often. But even if the teacher emphasizes sense-making, many students will still revert to that answer-making strategy as their go-to learning scheme.
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur
Mister T said:
students will still revert to that answer-making strategy
Especially when so many questions are multiple choice.
 
  • Sad
Likes SammyS
Back
Top