Synchronous Sources and Interference

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definitions and implications of "synchronous sources" in the context of interference, particularly comparing it to the term "coherent." Participants explore the conditions under which interference occurs and the terminology used in different educational contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • One participant defines "synchronous sources" as having the same frequency and a constant phase relationship, often assuming a phase difference of zero.
  • Another participant suggests that "coherent" is the more commonly used term in English for this concept, questioning whether "synchronous" and "coherent" are interchangeable.
  • A participant expresses uncertainty about the term "synchronous," noting it is not commonly used in their experience and suggesting it may be a linguistic issue arising from translation.
  • One participant shares their background in physics, stating that coherent sources are necessary for interference and expressing confusion about the use of "synchronous" in a secondary school textbook.
  • Another participant speculates that "coherent" refers to individual sources having well-defined frequencies and coherence times, while "synchronous" might imply that both sources share the same frequency.
  • There is a mention of potential linguistic oddities in translated physics texts, highlighting the need for clear definitions in educational materials.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the interchangeability of "synchronous" and "coherent." There are multiple competing views regarding the definitions and implications of these terms, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the term "synchronous" may not be well-defined in the context of interference, and there is uncertainty about its meaning compared to "coherent." The discussion highlights the potential for confusion arising from translations of physics terminology.

bgq
Messages
162
Reaction score
0
Hi,

What is the scientific definition of "synchronous sources" when we talk about the conditions of interference?

Thank you.
 
Science news on Phys.org
Same Frequency and a Constant Phase relationship between them. ("Usually" the phase difference is assumed to be zero.)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bgq
In English, we usually say "coherent" instead of "synchronous" in this context.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bgq
Well, is this mean that "coherent" and "synchronous" are the same? Is it just a linguistic issue?
 
Where have you seen the term "synchronous sources" in the context of interference? I've never seen it, before this thread. "Coherent" is the standard term, in English-language textbooks etc.

I said "usually" in my previous post because I wanted to leave myself a loophole in case someone actually gave an example. :oldwink:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bgq
Actually, I have completed two years general physics in university, I have learned that the sources should be coherent (talking about interference).

A student in the secondary school asked me about synchronous. In his textbook (translated from french), they say about the conditions of interference that the sources should be synchronous and coherent. I tried to understand the word "synchronous" literally, but I cannot find anything that makes a sense.

It seems from the examples in his textbook, that they mean by "synchronous" having same frequency. But I thing this doesn't make any sense because coherent sources have already same frequency; beside this, I cannot understand how the word "synchronous" could mean having same frequency.
 
I've not heard the term either. But "coherent" could be describing each source as having a well defined frequency and a long coherence time individually, and "synchronous" adding that both coherent sources have the same frequency.

I guess, anyway. There certainly are linguistic oddities with translated physics.

The text ought to define its own terms somewhere. I take it there are no helpful index or glossary entries?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bgq
OK, thank you all very much :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
10K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K