Wave sources vibrating out of phase (destructive/constructive)

AI Thread Summary
Changing the phase of vibrating sources to be completely out of phase results in a significant alteration of the interference pattern. When sources are in phase, constructive interference occurs at points where crests and troughs align, creating nodes and antinodes. However, if the sources are out of phase, the roles of nodes and antinodes reverse, leading to destructive interference at points that were previously constructive. This shift is due to the path differences, where half of the waves travel an additional half wavelength, resulting in a new pattern of interference. Understanding this phase relationship is crucial for analyzing wave behavior in various physical contexts.
kurt1992
Messages
4
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



If the phase of vibrating sources was changed so that they were vibrating completely out of phase, what effect would this have on an interference pattern?


Homework Equations



n/a


The Attempt at a Solution



This question undermines my understanding of interference, 2 sources in phase of equal wavelength will cause both destructive and constructive interference, the pattern consists of a constructive band m=0, 2 destructive bands n=±1, 2 constructive bands m=±1 etc.

I thought that constructive/destructive interference all depended on the existence of a point of distance x from each source (the waves could overlap or be shifted by ∏/2 rads along the x axis)

My question to you, physics people is: is this question viable, how will the interference pattern change if the sources are completely out of phase.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
kurt1992 said:

Homework Statement



If the phase of vibrating sources was changed so that they were vibrating completely out of phase, what effect would this have on an interference pattern?


Homework Equations



n/a


The Attempt at a Solution



This question undermines my understanding of interference, 2 sources in phase of equal wavelength will cause both destructive and constructive interference, the pattern consists of a constructive band m=0, 2 destructive bands n=±1, 2 constructive bands m=±1 etc.

I thought that constructive/destructive interference all depended on the existence of a point of distance x from each source (the waves could overlap or be shifted by ∏/2 rads along the x axis)

My question to you, physics people is: is this question viable, how will the interference pattern change if the sources are completely out of phase.

Suppose you have 2 sources in phase. They create an interference pattern of fringes on a screen some distance away from the slits.

If you were to cause these sources to vibrate out of phase, I believe nodes and antinodes would switch their roles.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
I had a gut feeling that the nodes and anti nodes would reverse roles, seems to agree with the whole idea in math than an inverse cause will have an inverse effect.

If anyone has any more info why the nodes and anti-nodes switch roles please enlighten me :)
 
kurt1992 said:
I had a gut feeling that the nodes and anti nodes would reverse roles, seems to agree with the whole idea in math than an inverse cause will have an inverse effect.

If anyone has any more info why the nodes and anti-nodes switch roles please enlighten me :)

I believe it has to do with the path differences.

If waves are in phase, then the path differences are such that the waves reach the screen with crests superimposing crests and troughs superimposing troughs. This happens when the periods of each wave are equal or the paths themselves differ by a whole number multiple of the wavelength (λ, 2λ, 3λ, ...).

Now make these waves out of phase. Then half of the waves will travel half a wavelength farther than the rest. So the path difference will be 0.5λ, 1.5λ, 2.5λ, ...
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top