Show that the given electric field is a plane wave

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on demonstrating that a given electric field represents a plane wave. It begins with the definition of a wavefront and the manipulation of the cosine argument to establish a relationship involving position and time. A participant identifies an error in the rearrangement of the equation but acknowledges that it resembles the scalar equation of a plane. The conversation confirms that the derived equation indeed indicates a plane wave, emphasizing the simplicity of the conclusion. Overall, the participants agree on the relationship between the equation and the characteristics of a plane wave.
Blanchdog
Messages
56
Reaction score
22
Homework Statement
Show that each wavefront of the electric field forms a plane
Relevant Equations
## E(r, t) = E_0 \text{cos}(k(\hat{u} \cdot r - c t) + \phi)##
A wavefront is defined as a surface in space where the argument of the cosine has a constant value. So I set the argument of the cosine to an arbitrary constant s.

## k(\hat{u} \cdot r - c t) + \phi = s ##

The positional information is is in r, so I rearrange the equation to be

## \hat{u} \cdot r = \frac s k + ct + \phi = \text{const}##
## u_x x + u_y y + u_z z = \text{const} ##

And that's where I'm stuck.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You made a small error in the rearrangement, but once corrected the last line is almost right; that's the general equation of a plane of normal ##\hat{n}##, but ##\hat{u} \cdot r## depends on ##t## so isn't constant in time (that's why the plane translates).
 
ergospherical said:
You made a small error in the rearrangement, but once corrected the last line is almost right; that's the general equation of a plane of normal ##\hat{n}##, but ##\hat{u} \cdot r## depends on ##t## so isn't constant in time (that's why the plane translates).
Whoops you're right, I wasn't very careful with my minus signs since I knew it was all going to be wrapped up into a constant anyway.

It looks like my equation is in the form of the scalar equation of a plane... is it really that simple? I have the equation of a plane so it is a plane wave?
 
  • Like
Likes DaveE and ergospherical
Blanchdog said:
It looks like my equation is in the form of the scalar equation of a plane... is it really that simple? I have the equation of a plane so it is a plane wave?
Yeah, pretty much 😄
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Back
Top