0

Is the standing wave just the superposition of two waves travelling in opposite direction in same medium or does it need specific conditions to be formed like frequency and amplitude ?

  • 1
    If the two waves have the same frequency, are moving in different directions, and are overlapping, they will form a standing wave pattern. – S. McGrew Feb 04 '19 at 22:55
  • will they necessary form also a resonance wave pattern ? – Antonios Sarikas Feb 04 '19 at 23:08
  • I don't know what you mean by "resonance wave pattern". – S. McGrew Feb 05 '19 at 00:34
  • @S.McGrew The waves need to also have the same amplitude, right? – BioPhysicist Feb 05 '19 at 19:07
  • No. There will be a standing wave even if the waves do not have the same amplitude. When the amplitudes are different, there will be a DC component to the intensity pattern, but there will still be a stationary standing wave. – S. McGrew Feb 05 '19 at 19:56
  • @S.McGrew Don't you need to have nodes (places where the intensity is $0$ for all times) to have a standing wave? Maybe my standing wave qualifications are too strict – BioPhysicist Feb 05 '19 at 20:34
  • No, you don't need intensity to be zero anywhere for there to be a standing wave. You just need the intensity pattern (formed by the two overlapping light waves) to have peaks and troughs and be stationary. – S. McGrew Feb 05 '19 at 22:14
  • @S.McGrew Sorry. I meant there needs to be well-defined nodes. If the waves have different amplitudes I don't see how you can get the pattern to be stationary. Even working a simple example of $\sin(x+t)+2\sin(x-t)$ doesn't appear to be a standing wave. – BioPhysicist Feb 06 '19 at 01:38
  • OK, how would you define a standing wave? The amplitude of a standing wave is time-dependent, but its intensity is not. Intensity is proportional to the square of the amplitude. In your example, square the sum of the amplitudes, then do the trig needed to reduce the result to terms containing only t and terms containing only x -- and see what you think. Note that a term like sin(wt) does not imply movement in the x direction; it's just a very fast oscillation. – S. McGrew Feb 06 '19 at 05:24
  • So, for example, sin(wt) cos(x) + sin(wt) is a standing wave. It oscillates everywhere according to wt, but reaches a minimum wherever cos(x) = 0 and a maximum wherever cos(x) = 1. The extra sin(wt) term just adds a uniform-intensity component. – S. McGrew Feb 06 '19 at 05:29
  • Frequently, when we speak of stationary wave, we are speaking of solution of a wave equation (D'Alembert for example). And $\sin (\omega t)$ alone is not such a solution ? If the amplitudes of the two progressive waves in opposit directions are differents, the standing wave ratio will be different from 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_wave_ratio – Vincent Fraticelli Feb 06 '19 at 06:05
  • @S.McGrew But that example isn't a superposition of two waves traveling opposite directions. If you have just two waves of the same frequency and wave number traveling in opposite directions, they need to also have the same amplitude to form a standing wave. Just plot my example and you will see that a standing wave is not produced. – BioPhysicist Feb 06 '19 at 16:44
  • @S.McGrew Also, if you want me to see that you are replying to me, you should tag me in your comment with '@AaronStevens' – BioPhysicist Feb 06 '19 at 16:50
  • @AaronStevens, if you represent the two waves as e^(x+it) and 2e^(x-it), it's easier to see. – S. McGrew Feb 06 '19 at 19:04
  • @S.McGrew I plotted the superposition of the two waves $\sin(x+t)+2\sin(x-t)$ and the result is not a standing wave. I don't know what else to say really. – BioPhysicist Feb 06 '19 at 19:07
  • If two spread-out beams from the same laser are overlapped, a stationary interference pattern (that is, a standing wave) is formed even where the beams are not equal intensity. If math disagrees, there's an error in the math -- or an error in interpreting the results of the math. – S. McGrew Feb 06 '19 at 19:07
  • @S.McGrew I don't understand how there can be an error in the math... Maybe I don't understand what you are doing with the superposition. Is looking at the plot of my example not what I should be looking at? – BioPhysicist Feb 06 '19 at 19:12
  • Can you send a picture of your math? – S. McGrew Feb 06 '19 at 19:16

3 Answers3

2

Well, let's start more general, and then become more specific if needed. Let's just consider two waves traveling in opposite directions (I will use complex exponential functions so as to not have to deal with trig identities, but we can take just the real or imaginary part of any of these expressions to move back to the "real world"): $$y_1=A_1e^{i(k_1x-\omega_1t)}$$ $$y_2=A_2e^{i(k_2x+\omega_2t)}$$ Note that I am assuming the amplitudes, frequencies, and wave numbers are constant in space and time.

Adding these together we have: $$y_1+y_2=A_1e^{i(k_1x-\omega_1t)}+A_2e^{i(k_2x+\omega_2t)}$$

There is not much we can do here now, so let's assume that $A_1=A_2=A$, then we have $$y_1+y_2=Ae^{i(k_1x-\omega_1t)}+Ae^{i(k_2x+\omega_2t)}=A[e^{i(k_1x-\omega_1t)}+e^{i(k_2x+\omega_2t)}]$$

Ok, it is getting a bit better. Let's assume $k_1=k_2=k$. $$y_1+y_2=A[e^{i(kx-\omega_1t)}+e^{i(kx+\omega_2t)}]=Ae^{ikx}[e^{-i\omega_1x}+e^{i\omega_2t}]$$

Almost there. Let's finally assume $\omega_1=\omega_2=\omega$ $$y_1+y_2=Ae^{ikx}[e^{-i\omega t}+e^{i\omega t}]=2Ae^{ikx}\cos(\omega t)$$ Or, taking the imaginary part of our expression: $$Im[y_1+y_2]=2A\cos(\omega t)\sin(kx)$$

This is the form of a standing wave (If you want, you can think of it as a sine wave in space whose amplitude varies cyclically as $2A\cos(\omega t)$, i.e. a standing wave).

Of course if we are looking at something like waves on a string, we would need to confine the region of the x-axis we look at to be such that there are nodes at the ends of each interval. But it looks like you need to have two waves with the same amplitude, frequency, and wave number to have a standing wave (of course I have just shown these conditions are sufficient, not necessary, but I think it should still hold based on my own tests).

BioPhysicist
  • 56,248
0

All waves in below example have the same wavelength.

Interference is just the effect of the resultant force applied by two different waves(string particles). Nodes are created when the force on a particle is constantly zero, i.e. the two waves create equal and opposite displacement on the same point.

For two waves with equal frequency and amplitude travelling in the opposite direction, the nodes will be formed as on some points where the displacement produced by each wave is the equal and opposite.

But, in the case of two waves with different amplitude, there cannot be a point with constant zero displacement as the change is curvature (amplitude) for the two waves with time will be different.

For waves having different frequencies and same amplitude $A$, suppose initially the displacement is zero at a point $P$(produced by $\frac{A}{2}$ of one wave and $-\frac{A}{2}$ for other) then the displacement for $P$ will change after some time as the shape of one wave changes faster than the other.

exp ikx
  • 3,390
0

If you want a standing wave and nothing else then you need them to be traveling in different directions with the same wavelength, speed, and amplitude.

If they are traveling in opposite directions in a closed tube (or electrons in a wire etc) then maybe they can maintain about the same amplitude for a reasonably long distance. In 2D or 3D it will be hard to arrange that they have the same amplitude across much of the surface or volume, so it kind of makes sense to say they should travel in opposite directions.

If you don't mind having some nonstationary waves happening along with your stationary waves, then you don't need them to have the same wavelength. All you need is that after fourier analysis they each have a component that has the same frequency. That will give you a standing wave, and everything else will get superimposed on top of it.

J Thomas
  • 2,970
  • 9
  • 30