What is the Second Step in Feynman's Deduction of the Sound Wave Equation?

AI Thread Summary
The second step in Feynman's deduction of the sound wave equation involves a linear approximation, where the equality is more accurately represented as an approximation. This approximation uses the derivative of the function f evaluated at d0 to estimate the change in f as d varies slightly. Specifically, the expression f(d0 + de) is approximated by f(d0) plus the product of de and the derivative f'(d0). This method relies on the concept that the change in the function can be approximated by the slope of the tangent line at the point d0. Understanding this approximation clarifies the relationship between the terms in the equation.
PeSoberbo
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I am studying the sound wave equation deducted by Feynman in his lectures. In section 47-3:

P0 + Pe = f(d0 + de) = f(d0) + de f'(d0)

Where f'(d0) stands for the derivative of f(d) evaluated at d=d0. Also, de is very small.

I do not understand the second step of the equality. Can anyone help me?
Link to the lectures: http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_47.html#Ch47-S1
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
PeSoberbo said:
I am studying the sound wave equation deducted by Feynman in his lectures. In section 47-3:

P0 + Pe = f(d0 + de) = f(d0) + de f'(d0)

Where f'(d0) stands for the derivative of f(d) evaluated at d=d0. Also, de is very small.

I do not understand the second step of the equality. Can anyone help me?
Link to the lectures: http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_47.html#Ch47-S1
The last expression in your equation is only an approximation to the second expression, so '=' should really be ##\approx##. The approximation is called a linear approximation that uses a value on the tangent line at (d0, f(d0)) instead of the value at (d0 + de, f(d0 + de)).

The underlying concept is this:
$$\frac{f(d_0 + d_e) - f(d_0)}{d_e} \approx f'(d_0)$$
Multiply both sides by de and then add f(d0 to both sides to get the relationship you show.
 
Thank you Mark!
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top