Velocity Derivative of a Sinusoidal Wave (Counter-Intuitive)

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the differentiation of a sinusoidal wave function, specifically the position function y(x,t) = xmsin(xk(0) - ωt), to derive its velocity function. The correct derivative, U = -xmωcos(-ωt), is confirmed for x = 0, highlighting a common misconception regarding the appearance of the kx term in the cosine argument. Participants clarify that the velocity at x = 0 is derived from the definition of velocity in oscillatory motion, emphasizing the importance of accurate interpretation in physics. The conversation concludes with an acknowledgment of the initial confusion and the resolution of the misunderstanding regarding the derivative's behavior over time.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of calculus, specifically differentiation techniques.
  • Familiarity with sinusoidal wave functions and their properties.
  • Basic knowledge of classical physics, particularly wave motion.
  • Ability to interpret mathematical expressions in a physical context.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of velocity from wave functions in classical mechanics.
  • Learn about the implications of oscillatory motion in physics.
  • Explore common pitfalls in differentiating trigonometric functions in physics applications.
  • Investigate the relationship between angular frequency (ω) and wave number (k) in wave equations.
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, particularly those studying wave mechanics, as well as educators and tutors seeking to clarify concepts related to differentiation of wave functions and their physical interpretations.

Alpha Scope
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
What's the matter:
So, I think I have some skills when it comes to differentiation after taking calculus 2 last semester, but when it starts to intertwine with physics, and interpreting physical phenomenon through equations, It appears I could use some help. Anyway, the problem that I got hung up on is admittedly simple by anyone's standards; introductory classical physics, more specifically dealing with waves.

If you take the dy/dt of position function, in this case a sinusoidal wave function, you find it's velocity function.
y(x,t)=xmsin(xk(0)-ωt) you should get:
U=-xmωcos(-ωt)
However, that's not what happens.
BTW. Two different sources attest to this being the right answer.
http://[URL=http://s172.photobucket.com/user/Alpha_Scope/media/Derivative%20Question_zpsryocyscm.jpg.html][PLAIN]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w15/Alpha_Scope/Derivative%20Question_zpsryocyscm.jpg
Derivative%20Question_zpsryocyscm.jpg


It's counter-intuitive to me since this seems like a simple derivative, and I'm unable justify it through the logic that one uses when manipulating mathematics to fit physical interpretation. As I mentioned previously, I'm still getting the hang of all this. Perhaps a little sooner with your help.

Anyone care to shed some light?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Your image does not show, you cannot link to things which are in your yahoo account and expect them to be visible to others.

Furthermore, your derivative is missing the kx of the cosine argument.
 
Okay, should I expect it to appear now? I did so intentionally because x is said to equal 0.
 
Alpha Scope said:
y(x,t)=xmsin(xk(0)-ωt) you should get:
U=-xmωcos(-ωt)
This is the correct derivative if x = 0 (or a multiple of pi/k).
 
Apparently this is a typo, can't have ##\pi/t## there but the correct is ##\pi/5##. I am not sure though what you don't understand. Why dy/dt is the velocity of the point of matter at x=0? It is by the definition of velocity, we know that the point of matter at x=0 does an oscillation given by ##y_0=f(0,t)=-4sin(-\pi t/5)##, hence the velocity of this oscillation is ##\frac{dy_0}{dt}=\frac{df(0,t)}{dt}=-4(-\frac{\pi}{5})cos(-\frac{\pi t}{5})##.
 
Okay, maybe there ain't a problem here after all. I found this solution (if I should even call it one) to this problem reiterated a couple different times, so I thought I made a mistake. I guess nothing's the matter, since this ain't my bad.

THANKS GUYS!
 
Ok i see now the term ##\pi/t## if it was correct it would mean that the velocity goes to zero as time grows larger (goes to infinity) which we know it isn't correct for an oscillating point of matter. I wonder how can it be that many different sources reproduce this obvious(both mathematically and physically) mistake.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K