Undergrad Wave motion and a stretched string

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on understanding Griffiths' treatment of wave motion in a stretched string, particularly regarding the small angle approximation and the derivation of second partial derivatives. The small angle assumption is crucial, as it ensures that the string's displacement from equilibrium is minor, allowing the sine function to be approximated by the tangent function. The second derivative arises from applying Taylor series expansion, which provides a method to relate the change in the function to its derivatives. Clarification is sought on the significance of the term O(Δz²) in the expansion, indicating higher-order terms that become negligible for small displacements. Overall, grasping these concepts is essential for accurate analysis in electromagnetic wave theory.
mondo
Messages
27
Reaction score
3
I continue my reading of Griffiths electrodynamics (chapter 9, electromagnetic waves) and I got stuck on this:
237fe636e4cbb4c33a445f778634b7a4.png

Author tries to prove a stretched string supports wave motion and I found it very difficult to grasp.
In the second equation, why can we replace sin function with a tangents really? What guarantees that the angles are small? Is he trying to match it to partial derivative formula?
Next, how a difference of partial derivatives $\frac{\partial_{f}}{\partial_{z}}$ became a second partial derivative in the second equation?

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is the string's displacement from its stable equilibrium position (assumed horizontal) that is small (compared with the length of the string); a consequence of this is that the angle between the horizontal and the tangent to the string is everywhere small. If this assumption is not valid, then neither are the results of the analysis.

For your second question, you have from the Taylor series expansion of \frac{\partial f}{\partial z} wrt z that <br /> \left.\frac{\partial f}{\partial z}\right|_{z+ \Delta z} = \left.\frac{\partial f}{\partial z}\right|_{z} + \left.\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial z^2}\right|_{z}\Delta z + O(\Delta z^2).
 
mondo said:
What guarantees that the angles are small?
It's an assumption.
 
pasmith said:
It is the string's displacement from its stable equilibrium position (assumed horizontal) that is small (compared with the length of the string); a consequence of this is that the angle between the horizontal and the tangent to the string is everywhere small. If this assumption is not valid, then neither are the results of the analysis.

For your second question, you have from the Taylor series expansion of \frac{\partial f}{\partial z} wrt z that <br /> \left.\frac{\partial f}{\partial z}\right|_{z+ \Delta z} = \left.\frac{\partial f}{\partial z}\right|_{z} + \left.\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial z^2}\right|_{z}\Delta z + O(\Delta z^2).
Thanks for a repones.
As for the first part about the small angles - yes I think I got it. Thanks for mentioning the assumed position is horizontal - that helped me to visualize the movement.

As for the second derivative derivation, what is the last term in your formula -O(\Delta z^2). ?
I think in the book formula T (\frac{\partial_{f}}{\partial_{z}}|_{z+\delta z} - \frac{\partial_{f}}{\partial_{z}}|_{z}) is something (in the parenthesis) that at a glance looks very close to the derivative formula - we take value at time z+\delta z and subtract from a value at time z. The only missing thing (for it to be a derivative) is a division by this delta time. So, now, if we multiply it by this missing delta, and rewrite it as a derivative (which in this case is a second derivative) we get what's in the book. Am I right?
 
Topic about reference frames, center of rotation, postion of origin etc Comoving ref. frame is frame that is attached to moving object, does that mean, in that frame translation and rotation of object is zero, because origin and axes(x,y,z) are fixed to object? Is it same if you place origin of frame at object center of mass or at object tail? What type of comoving frame exist? What is lab frame? If we talk about center of rotation do we always need to specified from what frame we observe?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
471
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
431
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K