B Traveling wave solution notation

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter baseballfan_ny
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Notation Wave
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the notation for traveling wave solutions to the wave equation, specifically the forms f(kx - ωt) and f(-kx + ωt) for right-traveling waves. It clarifies that both notations can represent right-traveling waves, but the choice depends on the evenness or oddness of the function f. A misunderstanding arose from an algebraic mistake in deriving the reflection and transmission equations, which initially led to incorrect conclusions about the wave behavior. Ultimately, both forms can yield the same physical interpretation for even functions, although they may differ in shape. The key takeaway is that notation preference can influence the representation but does not change the fundamental wave direction.
baseballfan_ny
Messages
92
Reaction score
23
TL;DR Summary
Is there a difference between writing ## f(-kx + \omega*t) ## and ## f(kx - \omega*t) ## for right traveling waves?
This is probably kind of dumb, but it's really bothering me for some reason. I originally saw traveling wave solutions to the wave equation as ##f(kx−\omega t)## for right traveling (as t gets bigger, x needs to be bigger to "match" it's previous value) and ##f(kx+\omega t)## for left-traveling waves. And that all made sense to me. Then I saw some people writing ##f(−kx+\omega t)## for right-travelling waves. I'm pretty sure it's the same thing right? Like this also says that as t gets larger x needs to be larger to match it's original value? Is it just a notation preference when choosing between the two?

My confusion sort of stemmed from seeing the derivation of the reflection and transmittance for a traveling wave at a boundary:

IMG_20210326_104726998.jpg


where ##f_i## is the incident pulse, ##f_r## is the reflected, and ##f_t## is the transmitted.

The derivation for the reflectance and transmittance is like:

Because the wave function has to be continuous at the boundary, x = 0:
## f_i(\omega t) + f_r(\omega t) = f_t(\omega t) ##

Because it's space derivative has to be continuous at x = 0 so it doesn't have infinite acceleration:
## -k_1 f'_i(\omega t) + k_1 f'_r(\omega t) = -k_2 f'_t(\omega t) ##

And then integrating both sides of the second equation with respect to t
## \frac {-k_1} {\omega} f_i(\omega t) + \frac {k_1} {\omega} f_i(\omega t) = \frac {-k_2} {\omega} f_t(\omega t) ##

And then by the dispersion relation ## \omega = v*k ## so ## \frac {k} {\omega} = \frac {1} {v} ## ...
## \frac {-1} {v_1} f_i(\omega t) + \frac {1} {v_1} f_r(\omega t) = \frac {-1} {v_2} f_t(\omega t) ##

which gives ## -v_2 (f_i(\omega t) - f_r(\omega t)) = -v_1 (f_t(\omega t)) ##

and then we can solve this equation and the continuity of f and get

## f_r(\omega t) = \frac {v_2 - v_1} {v_1 + v_2} f_i(\omega t) = R f_i(\omega t) ##
## f_t(\omega t) = \frac {2v_2} {v_1 + v_2} f_i(\omega t) = T f_i(\omega t) ##

The problem is is that if I do this whole thing by saying the incident, right traveling wave is ##f_i(k_1x - \omega t)##, the reflected left traveling wave is ##f_r(k_1 + \omega t) ##, and the transmitted wave is ##f_t(k_2x - \omega t)##

I get these two equations to solve (using the same methods as above)

##f_i(\omega t) + f_r(\omega t) = f_t(\omega t)##
##v_2(f_i(\omega t) + f_r(\omega t)) = v_1 f_t(\omega t)##

which gives me ##f_r = \frac {v_2 - v_1} {v_1 - v_2} f_i = -f_i## and ##f_t = 0##.

So why is it necessary to write the right traveling waves as ##f_i(-kx + \omega t) ## and why does ##f_i(kx - \omega t) ## not work instead?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20210326_104726998.jpg
    IMG_20210326_104726998.jpg
    46.4 KB · Views: 150
Physics news on Phys.org
baseballfan_ny said:
Summary:: Is there a difference between writing ## f(-kx + \omega*t) ## and ## f(kx - \omega*t) ## for right traveling waves?
It depends if ##f## is even or not. If ##f## is even then there is no difference. Otherwise there is a difference.
 
Dale said:
It depends if ##f## is even or not. If ##f## is even then there is no difference. Otherwise there is a difference.

Ok. I'm not sure I 100% understand the difference. I drew some odd waves and they still seem to shift right with both forms.

The wave I was dealing with in post 1 is even, so I based on what you wrote I would expect both forms to give the same R and T. Turns out I made a stupid algebra mistake in this line of post 1:

baseballfan_ny said:
fi(ωt)+fr(ωt)=ft(ωt)

The ##f_i## and ##f_t## should have a negative argument, and then I follow through with the rest of the algebra and get the same answer -- as they're both even.
 
baseballfan_ny said:
I drew some odd waves and they still seem to shift right with both forms.
Yes, they will still shift right, but they will have a different shape with the two forms.
 
baseballfan_ny said:
Summary:: Is there a difference between writing ## f(-kx + \omega*t) ## and ## f(kx - \omega*t) ## for right traveling waves?
They both represent a wave traveling to the right. Obviously, for a given wave, you'd use different ##f##s in the two cases.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top