Energy conservation and interference

I have a problem with energy conservation in case of interfering waves. Imagine two harmonic waves with amplitudes A. They both carry energy that is proportional to A2, so the total energy is proportional to 2A2. When they interfere, the amplitude raises to 2A, so energy is now proportional to 4A2 and bigger than before. The equivalent question is what happens to the energy with the superposition of two waves that interfere destructively. Also, if someone could comment on the statement about this problem in my physics boo !"y ow, "uti ow, #ondratiew$% the sources of the waves wor with increased power during the interference because they feel the wave from the other source.

4 Answers
active oldest votes

It is guaranteed that finite wave pac ets always create places where the interference is constructive as well as places where it is destructive% the energy simply flows from the ma&ima to the minima. In your convention, it's guaranteed that the total energy at the end is always (in between( the energy from the constructive interference and the energy from the destructive one, which is simply the average

!4A )*$+2,2A ,
2 2

exactly as the original energy. Otherwise, the energy conservation can be proved even locally - as a continuity equation - directly from Maxwell's equations so it always holds. This is particularly easy to prove for vacuum Maxwell's equation - enough for propagation and interference of light,

http%++en.wi ipedia.org+wi i+-lectromagnetic.stress/energy.tensor

edited Mar ! '"" at "#$ %

&hat do you mean by saying that it is desctructive in some places' (ets for instance ta)e two waves propagating in circles, li)e the waves on the water, that have the same centre. *t there is no phase difference, then the displacement at any point is twice the displacement due to the single wave. + malina Mar ! '"" at "$ ,

-nd how does this explain the case of two waves in a counterphase that interfere only destructively' + malina Mar ! '"" at .$ " /malina$ -nd how do you generate two waves at exactly the same point' 0ow is this different from generating a wave with twice the same amplitude or no amplitude at all' 1ee there is no violation of conservation of energy. + 2as)olni)ov Mar .3 '"" at "3$..

"

The energy does not double. This is preventing in part by the "orn rule. 0onsider the state vector 1 , 2ncn1n, where it is easy to see cn , 1n. The energy eigenvalues are computed as H1n , En1n. 3or the single wave function the amplitudes are found by the modulus square 1 , 4 of the wave, where

1 , 2ncncn , 2nPn , 4
4ow consider the expectation of the 0amiltonian

1H1 , 2nPnEn.
To address this question directly we then consider the sum of two waves in a superposition with the state vectors 14 and 12,

14 , 2ncn,41n, 12 , 2ncn,21n,
where the two waves are expanded in their own coefficients which are normali5ed for the sum of the two waves. 6onsider the modulus square of the sum 1t

, 14 ) 1

2 of the two waves t1t , 2n!cn,4cn,4 ) cn,2cn,2 ) cn,4cn,2 ) cn,2cn,4$

-t this point you can now see the answer to the question, for the amplitude coefficients cn,4 and cn,2 are normali5ed to counter the growth by four of the modulus square of the amplitudes. This is particularly easy to see if cn,4 One might have cn,4 term

, cn,2, where now

the amplitudes for the two waves are normali5ed to 4+25 their independent values.

, exp!ikx4$cn and cn,2 , exp!ikx2$cn, where the interference

cn,4cn,2 ) cn,2cn,4 , cn!eik!x4 6 x2$ ) eik!x2 6 x4$$

which gives a oscillating term with respect to the difference x4

6 x2. Then further the

expectation of the 0amiltonian t1H1t is similarly expanded as

t1t , 2n!cn,4cn,4 ) cn,2cn,2 ) cn,4cn,2 ) cn,2cn,4$En

where there is clearly no increase in the energy.

answered Mar ! '"" at ".$#.

lin)improve this answer

(awrence 7. 6rowell #,#83.!

I thin that you are dealing with classical electrodynamics and I will answer within this domain. In #ostya answer in 78- about interference loo at the equations of parallel polari9ation that I copy here% Total field% E ,:i E*!cos:t)cos!t);$$. Intensity% I:E2*cos2t)2cos:tcos!t);$ )cos2!:t);$,E2*!4)cos;$, which nicely depends on the phase shift between the waves. When = we got E =0 and I=0. If the antennas are headed on the 7oyinting vector also cancels. Two waves and 9ero net field. And this means trouble as I will point out later and <ustifies the naive words of "y ov. This image from sbu.edu

we see in the image at left a constructive pattern and at right a destructive pattern. This game to 'shape the field' in space is played with antenna arrays always. What means the obvious difference in the intensities= Physically one radiator is moved apart from the other half wavelength, and the feed !current intensity, frequency,phase$ of both radiators was ept invariant. It appears that when the field cancels one !strange property$ must say to both radiators% 8top radiating> ?r as "y ov 'they feel the wave from the other source'. "ut this is complete nonsense. Thin of this% @oes the electrons in the radiators have sensor to all space to say % radiate in this direction and distanceA stop radiating because the other radiator is changing positionA then add B radiators,... We can use light originated in the stars and do they play this game= There is no theory to cover Bykov words. The problem is, as you say, 'the conservation of energy'. When I studied -C field !is light$, radiation, antennas, I never used the concept of 'photons' as particles, but only the '-C field'. We can cancel the field, as equations show, but can not cancel the 'particles' and lost the energy. A recent e&periment on 'anti laser' motivated me to as a question that is similar to your's. The e&periment is a head/on photon/photon cancelation consistent with the above -C equations.
lin)improve this answer answered Mar 8 '"" at "9$ #

0elder :ele5 ",.."."# (ater * will have to substitute the image because it has a copyright notice that * saw ;ust now.There are several available in the net. 1orry for the inconvenience. + 0elder :ele5 Mar 8 '"" at "8$." feedbac)

When sound waves interfere, a they (cancel( each other out. @oes this means sound energy ) sound energy , 9ero energy= We now that we <ust can't (cancel( energy. What actually happens is that a (sound wave( is actually the pressure or potential energy part of an acoustic wave. There is also a velocity component, or inetic energy part that people eep forgetting about. When two waves interfere the potential energy density part of the two waves does go to 9ero but the inetic energy density parts of the two waves double. -nergy is conserved. I prefer to thin of the collision as a way to change or transform the form of the energy density but not the fact of the energy density. The problem of (where did the energy go( is always that only one half of the total energy of the wave is being trac ed. If you trac both forms, you will see that the energy density stays constant, only its form changes. Art Bo&on, Acoustical -ngineer
answered <an % at "%$.#

lin)improve this answer

art noxon "