0
$\begingroup$

When we have 1D standing waves, we can write them as the sum of two propagating wave in opposite directions that give the formula $\sin(kx)\cos(wt)$.

When I try to do this for 2D waves (I mean 2D by the fact there are $k_x$ and $k_y$) I don't have the right expression :

$$\exp\left(i\left(k_x x + k_y y - wt\right)\right)+\exp\left(i\left(k_x x + k_y y + wt\right)\right)=\exp\left(i\left(k_x x + k_y y\right)\right)2\cos(wt)$$

If I take the imaginary part I will have $\sin(k_x x +k_y y)$ and not $\sin(k_x x)\sin(k_y y)$.

Am I wrong somewhere or we can't say that 2D stationary waves are the sum of two propagating waves in opposite directions ?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ If you expand $\sin(a+b)$, you'll get sum of two terms of the form you look for. $\endgroup$ – Ruslan Apr 6 '16 at 15:16
  • $\begingroup$ Yeah but if I expand it I will get a sum indeed. But a 2D standing wave is supposed to be $sin(k_x.x)sin(k_y.y)sin(wt)$ and not something like $sin(k_x.x)cos(k_y.y)sin(wt)+cos(k_x.x)sin(k_y.y)sin(wt)$ right ? What I wrote would be a sum of stationnary waves and not a stationnary wave ? $\endgroup$ – StarBucK Apr 6 '16 at 15:20
  • $\begingroup$ For the future please note that in $\LaTeX$, standard functions like $\sin$ and $\exp$ should be written as $\sin$ and $\exp$ (note the backslash). Also to make the equation displayed (as opposed to inline), use double dollars like $$this$$. $\endgroup$ – Ruslan Apr 6 '16 at 16:17
  • $\begingroup$ Ok I take note of this $\endgroup$ – StarBucK Apr 6 '16 at 16:24
1
$\begingroup$

So, you summed two waves and got $[\sin(k_xx)\cos(k_yy)+\cos(k_xx)\sin(k_yy)]\cos(\omega t)$. Now, add two more with wavevector $(k_x,-k_y)$ and you will obtain $2\sin(k_xx)\cos(k_yy)\cos(\omega t)$, the standing wave you're looking for.

However, the function $\sin(k_xx+k_yy)\cos(\omega t)$ already is a standing wave, since the spatial and the temporal oscillations are independent: $f(x,y)g(t)$. Here nodes and anti-nodes consist of lines perpendicular to $\vec{k}$.

Experimentally, a standing wave results from the superposition of incident and reflected waves. In one dimension you need one wall (one reflection). In two dimensions you generally need two non-parallel walls; the second wall will reflect the incident wave and the wave reflected on the first wall, hence the need of four travelling waves to make a standing one. But, if you place a single wall perpendicularly to $\vec{k}$, you obtain (in 2D- or 3D-space) a one-dimensional standing wave, it just has a peculiar orientation. Experimentally this can be approximately obtained by placing a loudspeaker facing a wall.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you ! So if I summarise in 1D we only need one reflexion (so 2 propagative waves in opposite directions) whereas in 2D we need 3 propagative waves (kx,ky,+wt)+(kx,ky,-wt)+(kx,-ky,+wt) $\endgroup$ – StarBucK Apr 6 '16 at 15:53
  • $\begingroup$ 2+2=4. The second wall reflects both the incident wave and the wave reflected on the first wall. Also, I'll edit my answer because the function you obtained already is a standing wave. $\endgroup$ – L. Levrel Apr 6 '16 at 17:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.