[SOLVED] Regarding the Superposition of Two Plane Waves

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the superposition of two plane waves, specifically addressing the choice of sine and cosine functions in the context of wave oscillations. Participants explore the implications of different mathematical representations and their physical interpretations, with a focus on the assumptions underlying these choices.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the professor chose the sine function as the oscillation part instead of the cosine function, suggesting that both might be included.
  • Another participant explains that the choice is based on the assumptions that the differences in wave numbers and frequencies are small, leading to slower variations in the cosine function compared to the sine function.
  • This participant further elaborates that the cosine factor has a longer spatial period, indicating a slower varying amplitude, while the sine factor oscillates more rapidly.
  • Some participants express discomfort with the professor's methods, suggesting that exact derivations for adding waves exist and may provide clearer insights into the phenomenon.
  • One participant provides a mathematical derivation using trigonometric identities to combine two cosine waves, arguing that this approach may yield a better understanding of the modulation effects in wave superposition.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriateness of the professor's approach, with some supporting the sine-cosine distinction based on assumptions, while others advocate for alternative methods and derivations. There is no consensus on the best approach to understanding wave superposition.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of assumptions regarding the smallness of differences in wave numbers and frequencies, which may affect the interpretation of the oscillation components. The discussion also reflects varying levels of comfort with the derivation methods presented.

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.
 
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: Slimy0233
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   Reactions: 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!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: hutchphd

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K