Talk:Wave

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Portal:Physics
 Physics Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high importance within physics.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wave article.
Wikipedia CD Selection Wave is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.
To-do list for Wave: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • need some information about resonance
  • a breakdown of topics, from first conception to quantum mechanics

Contents

[edit] Introduction

I would like to comment on the beginning paragraph of the definition. I agree with the poster "Patrick" for pointing out somewhat the same issue. It says that while mechanical waves travel through a medium, ElectroMagnetic waves and gravitation waves can travel through a "vaccum," without a medium. Now I contest that in all logical thought, waves need a medium first to travel through to even be called waves in the first place. To say that gravitation and electromagnetic waves can travel through a vaccum is foolish. For what disturbance to cause the wave to form can happen inside a vaccum? With no matter to matter reactions occuring, or even any vaccum to matter reactions occuring. And if they did happen, it wouldn't be a vaccum anymore. The definition falls on it's head. There is only one medium. That's the problem mainstream academics has in realizing. This makes things simple in all actuality. Humans have a tendency to see parts and not wholes, that's because we are but partial beings ourself. It's natural we think in such ways. To break the cycle however we must realize that occoms razor is true. The simplest explanation is that we are seeing many parts of one medium and trying to explain new facets causes us to probe further. Only then we come to mesh all of the information together, grouping it. So it is that we have compound words... like neighborhood. And .... biochemistry. So in turn we realize that we can group this into one. There is an ether. Whatever you want to call it, it is there. The ether is the medium that all waves propagate through. It's the only one that unifies and makes sense. As the sun orbits the galaxy, and the planets around the sun, and as we turn around our own axis, we are in one constant motion through one constant medium, constantly. Of course this is all obvious. To simply assume, because mainstream academics doesn't really know, what gravity is and not understand it, then make convictions about it's nature and it's qualities, saying it propagates through a vaccum, is foolish. We know there is no vaccum in space. Yet, we assume there is one. We feel because we cannot see what we choose not to, that there is nothing there to learn or to spark our curiosity. In effect our minds are already made up. The books are sealed. I say the particles are only as small as we are able to create new devices to see further. And if we could see big enough, we would see a galaxy cluster as a particle, or cell. It has a center, and it has a cloud. However, the journey to the center is continual, as to the "event horizon." """Vacuum: A state of being sealed off from external or environmental influences; isolation.""" You see, by it's very definition from dictionary.com (which I hope would be a reliable source of information, considering our younger generations have access to it for their education), the 3rd one, the qualities of a vacuum would not allow "waves" to travel through them. Not even the mysterious gravitational wave, which isn't so hard to understand after all. It's a function of wave phasing and heterodyning, at the proper ratio. Allowing waves to dump through a "wormhole" infinitely and accelerating. The ether is one big standing wave. And stars are born just like sonoluminescence. Just as the bubbles, and their collapsing releasing light, so does this happen in the ether. As the ancients have said that the creation was born by the breath, the sound, the word. AUM, HUM, OM, whatever. So does the sonar excite the water. A vacuum also has no location. How can there be vacuums in between solar systems and galaxies? It doesn't make sense. So how can something material, bearing mass, propagate through nothing? The answer is it can't. And if it can, then that means that E=mc2 and every substance in the universe is from THE SAME MEDIUM. And if this statement is true then that means that nothing is something, and something nothing, and we have ourselves one big scientific mess. Not to mention a spiritual revelation. This I mean as for our greater questions in life. All there is is Maya. It's like asking curious george a question.

There is coming a breakdown in our backbone "laws" of "science." It's already begun. Semantical issues. Theoretical constraints. Experimental roadblocks. And political STONEWALLS beasting out the cutting edge thinkers so that we remain as a race enslaved to a select few. I wouldn't mind it so much if they knew what they were doing.... but maybe they do after all.

signed, Brandon Crandall (I'm sure there are some things missing that i could've added, however for the sake of your concentration I cut it short)

[edit] Wavelength

I think λ should be explained with a link to wavelength. Also I is not explained. The article should start with a definition, not with period and frequency.

The angular frequency formula is correct. --AxelBoldt

--- Reorganized concentrating on simpler topics first. Come on... don't formula look better in another font:

 like this?

--sodium

Hmm. Sorry, didn't check this page before, I just changed it back. With my browser/settings, formulae look much better like this:

v = ω / k = λf ,

than like this:

  v = ω / k = λf .

But that's just for me. Feel free to change it back. -- DrBob

Examples of waves Sea-waves, which are perturbations that propagate through water (see also surfing and tsunami). Sound - a mechanical wave that propagates through air, liquid or solids, and is of a frequency detected by the auditory system. Similar are seismic waves in earthquakes, of which there are the S, P and L kinds. Light, radio waves, x-rays, etc. make up electromagnetic radiation. Propagating here is


'a disturbance of the electromagnetic field. '


does it want to mean that before "pass a light wave" there is a quiet magnetic field?

I agree that is was oddly formulated. I changed it. - Patrick 15:23 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Perfect, but now i think there is another little incongruence. The first paragraph say about waves: "Waves have a medium through which they travel and can transfer energy from one place to another without any of the particles of the medium being displaced permanently". Is not correct to say that for all the kind of waves and to say a few lines later that electromanetic waves don't need a medium...


PS: I would correct it myself but my englis is very bad. (Sorry by the lot of mistakes that is sure I have wroten in this short comment).

I was not quite happy with this incongruence either; I have put the exception higher up. May be you can improve it further. Do not worry too much about the English, that can be corrected. - Patrick 22:54 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)


It's confusing that "x" is used in the picture to refer to the amplitude. There is an equation down below where "y" is used. --dave

I've changed the image. If it is generally agreed that this new one is better, someone should go to the image discription page and delete the old one. Theresa knott 23:32 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)

I am not happy with the sentence from the introduction where it says that particles oscilate around a fixed point. This is only true under "stationary" conditions, as every surfer knows. Which terminology can be used to describe phenomena like surf?

i am not happy with this recent addition, waves in ponds are circular: Waveguy 03:27, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ripples on the surface of a pond are actually a combination of transverse and longitudinal waves; therefore, the points on the surface follow elliptical paths.

I'm sorry. But I think that it is the 'wavefront' of the 'pond waves' (in case the initial disturbance is localized e.g. by throwing a stone in the pond)that is circular and not the nature of 'wave'. Any suggestions?Rahuljp

Your right Rahuljp. The ripple spread out in a circular pattern, but a point on the suface does not necessarily follow a sinusiodial path. Perhaps a diagram would make the matter clearer? (I'll get to work on one right away)Theresa knott 16:54, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thank you Theresa knott. But this does suggest that I did not use the correct language. Can you do it? Rahuljp

Personally I don't think I can do any better than you. IMO it's practically impossible to convey abstract scientific ideas with words. Pictures are much better. Theresa knott 17:13, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Good job, Theresa. Rahuljp Thanks.I'm glad you liked it theresa knott 11:40, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm confused about ripples. Is it possible to provide an explanation of how a wave front moves? That is, consider the first wave front moving across a pond. At some moment a particle on the surface of the pond will be higher than it was previously. On the face of it, that is paradoxical. It is especially confusing since the water itself does not move with the wavefront--it's not like snow being pushed along by a snowplow. What is the explanation for how a bulge shape can move along the surface of the water? -- RussAbbott

Requestion peer review at wave vector. I just sort of made up this definition basd on what I've seen in papers and on some math website. I think it's okay, but see what you think. --Chinasaur 02:07, May 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

Several sections of this article need cleanup. The section Media is misleading (a general medium may by any combination or none of the classifications given). The secion on The wave equation also needs some rewriting, particuarly to avoid repeated use of "In the most general" and to explain the meaning of the various symbols used (x, y, z, and t)

done Ancheta Wis 08:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

This seems like a pretty obvious merger to me. Dan Granahan 00:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Merged articles Babbler 07:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism

I am not sure if this is vandalism, but I removed:

"If you are in Merina Foster's Physics class this website will be no help whatsoever."

it was made by an IP adress, then changed by the same one Factoid 22:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Standing Wave Math Expression

It seems being a paradox. For

\mathcal {\mid}\Psi(x,t){\mid}^2=A^2sin^{2}(kx)*cos^{2}({\omega}t)=0 {\neq}1

which means that it does not equal to 1. Thus caused not coresponse Normalization. Known a standing wave is expressed as

\mathcal, \Psi(x,t)=Asin(kx)*cos({\omega}t),.

Can anyone talk about your thoughts? Thanks.

By their math expression we can clearly find angular frequency of \mathcal V_p , \mathcal \omega which keeps constant when a wave vibrates up and down localized. That may because of energy transports into a wave is conservative,just like a particel moves up and down in a Y axis,localizedly(which keeps energy conservative).
But for another one,it travels in an X axis,that hints its phase-angular is the function of time. By time changes,then \mathcal \omega naturely changes either.

I'm a little not sure above. Could anyone discuss with me? --HydrogenSu 18:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nanometres

Regarding "For electromagnetic radiation, it is usually measured in nanometres." but what about e.g., 2-meter amateur radio etc.?!


[edit] Ripple diagram

I do not like the "elliptical trajectory" diagram. Trajectories are never elongated in the vertical, as drawn, but always in the horizontal, and only when the water is shallow. Also, the dashed red trajectory should not extend higher than the tops of the crests. This same diagram is part of the Ocean Surface Wave article, and I think it should also be changed there.Rracecarr 23:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dreadfully deficient

For such a general article this seems to have neglected lots of things. For example I wanted to explore the general scope of resonance in waves in this article, but found nothing. John Riemann Soong 00:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split

No, wave is a basic concept common in most of its meaning to advanced physics and everyday language, possibly unique in that regard. There may be special meanings that should be listed, but most uses of the word refer to the same concept and should lead to the same page, explaining that concept. David R. Ingham 07:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote yes for disambiguation

Physics is not the only field with waves. For example, there is a wave theory in historical linguistics. And, there are waves in the invasion of a beachhead. Physical waves are not general enough to cover the social senses, so someone will have to take on more abstract definitions. There is also a quasi-physical sense, such as a wave of fire. And there are waves of feeling: dizziness, nausea, disappointment, hysteria, etc. Not to mention cultural waves. If we don't make the distinction today we'll be making it later on.Dave 03:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. In my opinion, this is already a disambig page for the common wave concept used in the sciences. For example, it can be used for electromagnetic waves, seismic waves, etc. Besides, at the top, I see Wave (disambiguation) (immediately below the tag you inserted) for other uses of wave that doesn't involve the common terminology of reflection, wavelength, etc. +mwtoews 05:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/a/v/Talk%7EWave_0d4b.html"