High School [SOLVED] Regarding the Superposition of Two Plane Waves

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the superposition of two plane waves, specifically the choice of sine and cosine functions in wave equations. The sine function, represented as ##\sin(Kx - \omega t)##, is identified as the oscillation part due to its faster spatial variation compared to the cosine function, which has a slower varying amplitude. The derivation relies on the assumptions that ##\mathrm{d}k \ll k## and ##\mathrm{d}\omega \ll \omega##, leading to a clearer understanding of wave behavior in terms of wavelength and amplitude modulation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of wave mechanics and superposition principles
  • Familiarity with trigonometric identities and their applications in physics
  • Knowledge of wave parameters such as wave number (k) and angular frequency (ω)
  • Basic calculus for interpreting derivatives and spatial functions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of wave superposition using trigonometric identities
  • Explore the concept of amplitude modulation in wave mechanics
  • Learn about the implications of the assumptions ##\mathrm{d}k \ll k## and ##\mathrm{d}\omega \ll \omega## in wave analysis
  • Investigate the phenomenon of beats in wave interference and its mathematical representation
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, particularly those studying wave mechanics, educators teaching wave superposition, and anyone interested in the mathematical foundations of oscillatory motion.

Slimy0233
Messages
167
Reaction score
48
1692357716134.png

My professor was teaching me about the superposition of two waves and after this derivation, he marked ##2Acos(\frac{dk}{2}x -\frac{d\omega}{2}t)## as the oscillation part and ##sin (Kx-\omega t)## as the oscillation part, I don't understand why? Any answers regarding this would be considered helpful.

My main question would be, why did he choose sin part as the oscillation and why not the cos part and more importantly, why not both? I mean, my bad intuition tells me, that I should include both.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The answer is in the assumption that ##\mathrm{d}k \ll k## and ##\mathrm{d} \omega \ll \omega##. First, think about ##y## as function of ##x## at a fixed time. The cos-factor has a spatial period of ##4 \pi/\mathrm{d} k## and the sin-factor one of ##2 \pi/k\ll 4 \pi/\mathrm{d} k##. So the first cos factor is much slower varying than the sin factor as a function of ##x##. So you can interpret this as something oscillating in space with a wave length ##\lambda=2 \pi/k## and a position dependent amplitude, where the dependence of this amplitude on ##x## is much slower, i.e., the corresponding wave-length of these variations is ##\lambda'=4 \pi/\Delta k \gg \lambda##.

The analogous arguments hold also for the variations of the factors with time at a fixed position in space.
 
vanhees71 said:
The answer is in the assumption that ##\mathrm{d}k \ll k## and ##\mathrm{d} \omega \ll \omega##. First, think about ##y## as function of ##x## at a fixed time. The cos-factor has a spatial period of ##4 \pi/\mathrm{d} k## and the sin-factor one of ##2 \pi/k\ll 4 \pi/\mathrm{d} k##. So the first cos factor is much slower varying than the sin factor as a function of ##x##. So you can interpret this as something oscillating in space with a wave length ##\lambda=2 \pi/k## and a position dependent amplitude, where the dependence of this amplitude on ##x## is much slower, i.e., the corresponding wave-length of these variations is ##\lambda'=4 \pi/\Delta k \gg \lambda##.

The analogous arguments hold also for the variations of the factors with time at a fixed position in space.
beautiful analogy! thank you!
 
[SOLVED]
 
Slimy0233 said:
My main question would be, why did he choose sin part as the oscillation and why not the cos part and more importantly, why not both? I mean, my bad intuition tells me, that I should include both.
I am not very comfortable with the derivation. While I understand what your prof is trying to do, his/her methods seem unnecessarilly capricious. In particular exact derivations can be found for adding waves. Let's add two waves $$f(x,t)=cos(k_1x-\omega_1t)+cos(k_2x-\omega_2t) $$ then using trig identities $$ =2cos\left( \frac {(k_2-k_1)x-(\omega_2-\omega_1)t} 2 \right)cos\left( \frac {(k_2+k_1)x-(\omega_2+\omega_1)t} 2 \right)$$ $$=2f_1(x,t)f_2(x.t)$$
Typically the differences are smaller than the sums and f1 "modulates" f2. For your ear at x=0 this will give sound "beats" at the small difference frequency in the usual way.
 
  • Like
Likes Slimy0233, Ibix and vanhees71
hutchphd said:
I am not very comfortable with the derivation. While I understand what your prof is trying to do, his/her methods seem unnecessarilly capricious. In particular exact derivations can be found for adding waves. Let's add two waves $$f(x,t)=cos(k_1x-\omega_1t)+cos(k_2x-\omega_2t) $$ then using trig identities $$ =2cos\left( \frac {(k_2-k_1)x-(\omega_2-\omega_1)t} 2 \right)cos\left( \frac {(k_2+k_1)x-(\omega_2+\omega_1)t} 2 \right)$$ $$=2f_1(x,t)f_2(x.t)$$
Typically the differences are smaller than the sums and f1 "modulates" f2. For your ear at x=0 this will give sound "beats" at the small difference frequency in the usual way.
thank you for this sir!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 131 ·
5
Replies
131
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K