Show that the function is a solution of the wave equation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The function u = (t)/(a²t² - x²) is proposed as a solution to the wave equation utt = a²uxx. The discussion highlights the calculation of the first and second partial derivatives of u with respect to both x and t. The user initially encounters an issue with an extra negative sign in the equation -utt = a²uxx, which is identified as a result of incorrectly canceling a negative sign during simplification. The resolution of this mistake confirms that the function satisfies the wave equation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of wave equations, specifically utt = a²uxx
  • Proficiency in calculus, particularly partial derivatives
  • Familiarity with the quotient rule for differentiation
  • Experience with algebraic manipulation and simplification of equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the derivation of wave equations in mathematical physics
  • Practice calculating partial derivatives using the quotient rule
  • Explore common mistakes in algebraic simplification
  • Study examples of functions that satisfy the wave equation
USEFUL FOR

Students studying differential equations, mathematicians, and educators looking to deepen their understanding of wave equations and their solutions.

robertmatthew
Messages
48
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Show that the function is a solution of the wave equation utt = a2uxx.

u = (t)/(a2t2-x2)

Homework Equations


Quotient rule
(f/g)' = (g*f ' - f*g') / g2

The Attempt at a Solution


I began with the first and second partials of u with respect to x:
http://imageshack.com/a/img661/7646/Xnbsd2.png
I'm fairly confident that this part is correct, because I checked it with an online calculator.
Then I did the first partial of u with respect to t:
http://imageshack.com/a/img537/4254/5hYVrv.png
Then the second partial:
http://imageshack.com/a/img537/7426/Xr15AC.png So I'm getting -utt = a2uxx. I've done this several times now, and I keep getting the extra negative sign in utt. I can't figure out where it's coming from; I'm sure it's some silly mistake with a dropped sign somewhere. I'd appreciate the help of anyone who could help me spot it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
*Edit* Sorry I misspoke on the initial response.
It looks like in your simplification of the second partial wrt t, you cancel a negative sign incorrectly.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: robertmatthew
Ah, I see it now. No idea why I kept thinking I could do that; I must have done this problem five or six times and did that every time. Thanks for your help!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K