I Why does cos(phi1- phi 2 +kX)=cos(kx)?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the equation cos(phi1 - phi2 + kx) = cos(kx) in the context of two interfering fields. This equality holds true when the phase difference (phi1 - phi2) is a multiple of 2π, indicating that the waves are in phase. The conversation also touches on the assumption that both waves have the same phase velocity, leading to a simplification where phi1 equals phi2. There is some confusion regarding the definitions of phi and its relation to the wave's amplitude and time. Overall, the discussion seeks to clarify the conditions under which the cosine equality is valid in wave interference scenarios.
thegirl
Messages
40
Reaction score
1
In the case of two fields interfering with each other when calculating the total electric field, cos (phi1-phi2 + kx) = cos( kx) where kx is the path difference between the two fields.

How does cos (phi1-phi2 +kx)=cos(kx) Isit just algebra?
Screen Shot 2016-05-05 at 15.32.24.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is it said anything about ##\phi_1-\phi_2##? Those equality can be true if ##\phi_1-\phi_2## is a multiple of ##2\pi##.
 
Earlier on a general interference between two waves is obtained and it is assumed that they have the same phase velocity and so phi1=phi2, and the function collapses. Perhaps this is the case here?
 
Is ##\phi = \omega t ##?
 
I don't think it is, as wt is mentioned seperately when phi is mentioned. Phi is mentioned when defining the amplitude of the wave Eo= |Eo|e^iphi{Eo}, where {Eo} is the unit vector.
 
I've no clue, what's discussed here. Do you have two plane waves interfering, i.e., something like
$$\phi=A_0 \cos(\omega t-k x+\phi_1)+A_1 \cos(\omega t-k x+\phi_2)?$$
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top