Showing that this equation is a solution to the linear wave equation

In summary: You don't need the chain rule for$$\frac{d}{dx}(x^2+x).$$ Parentheses, brackets, etc. don't automatically mean the chain rule.Based on what you initially wrote, you seemed to be thinking$$\frac{\partial}{\partial x} \frac{1}{x-vt} =\frac{1}{\frac{\partial}{\partial x}{(x-vt)}} = \frac 11 = 1.$$ I hope you see that the first equality is wrong. That's not how differentiation works.Many thanks for explaining that!I guess we also have to use chain rule here because we can't bring the x up because
  • #1
member 731016
Homework Statement
Please see below
Relevant Equations
Please see below
For this problem,
1675825070687.png

Where equation 16.27 is the wave equation.

The solution is
1675825115838.png

1675825132452.png


I don't understand how they got the second partial derivative of ##y## with respect to
##x## circled in red.

I thought it would be ##1## since ##v## and ##t## are constants

Many thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Callumnc1 said:
Homework Statement:: Please see below
Relevant Equations:: Please see below

For this problem,
View attachment 321932
Where equation 16.27 is the wave equation.

The solution is
View attachment 321933
View attachment 321934

I don't understand how they got the second partial derivative of ##y## with respect to
##x## circled in red.

I thought it would be ##1## since ##v## and ##t## are constants

Many thanks!
You are likely over-thinking this. Use the chain rule.

Big hint:
##\dfrac{ \partial }{ \partial x} \dfrac{1}{x - vt} \rightarrow \dfrac{ \partial }{ \partial u } \dfrac{1}{u} \cdot \dfrac{ \partial u}{ \partial x}##

What would you use for u?

-Dan
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016
  • #3
topsquark said:
You are likely over-thinking this. Use the chain rule.

Big hint:
##\dfrac{ \partial }{ \partial x} \dfrac{1}{x - vt} \rightarrow \dfrac{ \partial }{ \partial u } \dfrac{1}{u} \cdot \dfrac{ \partial u}{ \partial x}##

What would you use for u?

-Dan
Thank you for your reply @topsquark !

##u = x- vt##

Sorry do you please know why we need to use the chain rule?

Thank you!
 
  • #4
Callumnc1 said:
why we need to use the chain rule?
Because that is what tells you how to differentiate ##\frac 1{x-vt}## wrt ##x##. First, you differentiate it wrt ##x-vt##, 'cos that's easy, then you multiply by the derivative of ##x-vt## wrt ##x##.
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016 and topsquark
  • #5
Isn't ##y = f(x - vt)## a solution to the wave equation, for any twice differentiable ##f##?
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016, topsquark and haruspex
  • #6
Callumnc1 said:
I thought it would be ##1## since ##v## and ##t## are constants
Perhaps you "misspoke" here? ##t## is the time variable, as you must be aware?
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016 and topsquark
  • #7
haruspex said:
Because that is what tells you how to differentiate ##\frac 1{x-vt}## wrt ##x##. First, you differentiate it wrt ##x-vt##, 'cos that's easy, then you multiply by the derivative of ##x-vt## wrt ##x##.
Thank you for your reply @haruspex !

Sorry could you please explain a bit more why we need to use the chain rule? I have not done partial derivatives from multivariate calculus yet.

Many thanks!
 
  • #8
PeroK said:
Isn't ##y = f(x - vt)## a solution to the wave equation, for any twice differentiable ##f##?
Thank you for your reply @PeroK !
 
  • #9
Redbelly98 said:
Perhaps you "misspoke" here? ##t## is the time variable, as you must be aware?
Thank you for your reply @Redbelly98 !

Yeah I agree that ##t## is a time variable, however, I thought I was meant to treat it has a constant along with ##v## since we are partially differentiating ##y## with respect to ##x##.

Many thanks!
 
  • #10
Callumnc1 said:
Yeah I agree that ##t## is a time variable, however, I thought I was meant to treat it has a constant along with ##v## since we are partially differentiating ##y## with respect to ##x##.
Ah, okay. Yes, for the purposes of doing partial derivatives w.r.t. other variables, that's right.
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016
  • #11
Redbelly98 said:
Ah, okay. Yes, for the purposes of doing partial derivatives w.r.t. other variables, that's right.
Thank you for your reply @Redbelly98 !
 
  • #12
haruspex said:
Because that is what tells you how to differentiate ##\frac 1{x-vt}## wrt ##x##. First, you differentiate it wrt ##x-vt##, 'cos that's easy, then you multiply by the derivative of ##x-vt## wrt ##x##.
I guess one way of thinking about it is thinking that ##x -vt## is in brackets to the power of 1 since you must always use chain rule for brackets. I guess we also have to use chain rule here because we can't bring the x up because it is with the other terms.

Let me know if I am correct!

Many thanks!
 
  • #13
Callumnc1 said:
I guess one way of thinking about it is thinking that ##x -vt## is in brackets to the power of 1 since you must always use chain rule for brackets. I guess we also have to use chain rule here because we can't bring the x up because it is with the other terms.

Let me know if I am correct!

Many thanks!
$$\frac d {dx}\bigg (\frac 1 {f(x)}\bigg ) = -\frac {f'(x)}{(f(x))^2}$$
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016
  • #14
PeroK said:
$$\frac d {dx}\bigg (\frac 1 {f(x)}\bigg ) = -\frac {f'(x)}{(f(x))^2}$$
Thank you for your reply @PeroK!
 
  • #15
Callumnc1 said:
I guess one way of thinking about it is thinking that ##x -vt## is in brackets to the power of 1 since you must always use chain rule for brackets.
You don't need the chain rule for
$$\frac{d}{dx}(x^2+x).$$ Parentheses, brackets, etc. don't automatically mean the chain rule.

Based on what you initially wrote, you seemed to be thinking
$$\frac{\partial}{\partial x} \frac{1}{x-vt} =\frac{1}{\frac{\partial}{\partial x}{(x-vt)}} = \frac 11 = 1.$$ I hope you see that the first equality is wrong. That's not how differentiation works.

Because you're differentiating a quotient, you could use the quotient rule and not use the chain rule. Most people, however, would use the chain rule because the numerator is a constant. It might help to rewrite the problem as
$$\frac{\partial}{\partial x} (x-vt)^{-1}.$$

Callumnc1 said:
I guess we also have to use chain rule here because we can't bring the x up because it is with the other terms.
Right.
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016 and PeroK
  • #16
vela said:
You don't need the chain rule for
$$\frac{d}{dx}(x^2+x).$$ Parentheses, brackets, etc. don't automatically mean the chain rule.

Based on what you initially wrote, you seemed to be thinking
$$\frac{\partial}{\partial x} \frac{1}{x-vt} =\frac{1}{\frac{\partial}{\partial x}{(x-vt)}} = \frac 11 = 1.$$ I hope you see that the first equality is wrong. That's not how differentiation works.

Because you're differentiating a quotient, you could use the quotient rule and not use the chain rule. Most people, however, would use the chain rule because the numerator is a constant. It might help to rewrite the problem as
$$\frac{\partial}{\partial x} (x-vt)^{-1}.$$Right.
Thank you for your reply @vela! That is very helpful!
 

Related to Showing that this equation is a solution to the linear wave equation

What is the linear wave equation?

The linear wave equation is a second-order partial differential equation that describes the propagation of waves, such as sound waves, light waves, or water waves, through a medium. It is typically written as ∂²u/∂t² = c²∇²u, where u is the wave function, t is time, c is the speed of the wave, and ∇² is the Laplacian operator.

How do you verify that a given function is a solution to the linear wave equation?

To verify that a given function is a solution to the linear wave equation, you need to substitute the function into the equation and show that both sides of the equation are equal. This involves calculating the second partial derivatives of the function with respect to time and space and checking if they satisfy the wave equation.

What are common forms of solutions to the linear wave equation?

Common forms of solutions to the linear wave equation include sinusoidal functions, such as u(x,t) = A sin(kx - ωt) or u(x,t) = A cos(kx - ωt), where A is the amplitude, k is the wave number, and ω is the angular frequency. These functions represent traveling waves moving in a specific direction.

Why is the speed of the wave important in the wave equation?

The speed of the wave, denoted by c, is crucial because it determines how fast the wave propagates through the medium. In the linear wave equation, c² appears as a coefficient that relates the spatial and temporal changes in the wave function. It ensures that the wave fronts move at the correct speed.

Can the linear wave equation have non-sinusoidal solutions?

Yes, the linear wave equation can have non-sinusoidal solutions. Any function that can be expressed as a superposition of sinusoidal functions (via Fourier series or Fourier transform) can be a solution. This includes more complex waveforms such as square waves, sawtooth waves, and other periodic or aperiodic functions.

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
318
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
932
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
1K
Back
Top