What is a wave with no frequency?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pinestone
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Frequency Wave
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of a wave with no frequency, exploring theoretical implications and interpretations. Participants consider various types of waves, including standing waves and static fields, and engage in a debate about the nature of frequency in wave phenomena.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the existence of a wave with zero frequency, suggesting that all waves inherently possess a frequency spectrum, including a 0 Hz component.
  • Others propose that a wave with no frequency could be conceptualized as a "static field" or a flat line, but this raises questions about the meaning of such a field.
  • A few participants argue that standing waves, while having a frequency, can appear motionless under certain conditions, leading to confusion about the relationship between frequency and perceived motion.
  • One participant suggests that zero frequency implies a direct current (DC), while another claims that a stationary wave would be traveling at the speed of light, which is contested by others.
  • There are calls for more clarity and definitions, with some participants requesting equations or visual representations to better understand the concept being discussed.
  • Several comments express skepticism about the validity of the original question and the context in which it is posed, with some participants suggesting that the inquiry lacks meaningful substance.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of a wave with no frequency. Multiple competing views are presented, with ongoing debate about the definitions and implications of frequency in wave theory.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty regarding the implications of zero frequency and its relation to established physical principles, such as the uncertainty principle. There are also references to the limitations of the original question due to the lack of a clear mathematical framework or visual representation.

pinestone
Messages
140
Reaction score
3
I'm not quite sure if this thread belongs here, but what would you call one wave that has no frequency. Zero Hz? A mobius ?:confused:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It would not be much of a wave without a frequency. I suppose maybe the cloest thing that at least i can think of is a standing wave. It has a frequency but the frequency and motion of the wave are such that the wave does appear to move.
 
Even standing waves have well defined frequency components. All waves possesses a frequency spectrum, the 0 Hz point is included in such a spectrum (even negative frequencies).

There really is no ambiguity here. All waves have a spectrum.

Claude.
 
How about calling it a "static field?"
 
Pengwuino said:
... standing wave. It has a frequency but the frequency and motion of the wave are such that the wave does appear to move.
Yes, I see- a wave that does not have an iteration (due to reflection) appears to be motionless within a frame of time.
 
Tide said:
How about calling it a "static field?"
Is there a specific static field that can be described as having a moebius form?
 
Last edited:
A wave with zero frequency is a flat line. Just look at any wave equation.

- Warren
 
pinestone said:
Is there a specific static field that can be described as having a moebius form?

I don't see what it even would *mean* for a field to have a moebius form, after all, it is a manifold and not a field, no ?
 
pinestone said:
I'm not quite sure if this thread belongs here, but what would you call one wave that has no frequency. Zero Hz? A mobius ?:confused:
Before we can answer the question, we need to see the equation for this "wave" amplitude vs. time. Can you post what you mean?
 
  • #10
berkeman said:
Before we can answer the question, we need to see the equation for this "wave" amplitude vs. time. Can you post what you mean?
I'm not using an equation. It is a visible image.
 
  • #11
pinestone said:
I'm not using an equation. It is a visible image.
Well, can you write an equation for it so we can "see" it too? Or else attach a JPG picture of it?
 
  • #12
berkeman said:
Well, can you write an equation for it so we can "see" it too? Or else attach a JPG picture of it?
I can't tell you much without making my patent lawyer upset. I will have plenty of images and a great description of my invention on my website within a couple of weeks.
 

Attachments

  • wave.jpg
    wave.jpg
    5.1 KB · Views: 591
  • #13
You're not going to get meaningful answers with a meaningless question and a meaningless picture, pinestone. :rolleyes:

- Warren
 
  • #14
chroot said:
You're not going to get meaningful answers with a meaningless question and a meaningless picture, pinestone. :rolleyes:

- Warren
I guess we will all have to wait...
 
  • #15
If your patent lawyer knew what he was doing, he could file a provisional patent application for you in a matter of hours. This would establish a first filing date and immeditely begin providing legal protection. Then you could share your project's details without fear of legal problems.

Otherwise, I'm afraid your questions and picture are entirely non-sensical.

- Warren
 
  • #16
chroot said:
If your patent lawyer knew what he was doing, he could file a provisional patent application for you in a matter of hours. This would establish a first filing date and immeditely begin providing legal protection. Then you could share your project's details without fear of legal problems.

Otherwise, I'm afraid your questions and picture are entirely non-sensical.

- Warren
Some things you just can't rush into:cool:
 
  • #17
I take it you don't know how to the patent process works, then. Patents are all about rushing.

- Warren
 
  • #18
chroot said:
I take it you don't know how to the patent process works, then. Patents are all about rushing.

- Warren
I do know how the process works, that is why we are doing it right the first time. My last patent cost me a small fortune because the patent office wasn't satisfied the first couple of times around. It must be nice using someone elses lab and resources. Kinda like living at home with mom:biggrin:
 
Last edited:
  • #19
And why wasn't the patent office satisfied with your previous applications?

- Warren
 
  • #20
chroot said:
And why wasn't the patent office satisfied with your previous applications?

- Warren
Because I tried to rush it through and there were some questionable items. ($2000.00 extra, each time).
 
  • #21
Since we aren't really getting anything resolved here, maybe it's time to quit this...:frown:
 
  • #22
We have people like you on here pretty frequently, pinestone... the sort who don't seem to know even basic physics or mathematics, yet have some incredible new secret invention in the works, patent pending, with which they need help. My advice: pick up a copy of Halliday and Resnick.

- Warren
 
Last edited:
  • #23
chroot said:
We have people like you on here pretty frequently, pinestone... the sort who don't seem to know even basic physics or mathematics, yet have some incredible new secret invention in the works, patent pending, with which they need help. My advice: pick up a copy of Resnick and Halliday.

- Warren
It won't be a secret much longer. Thanks for the advice.
 
  • #24
pinestone said:
It won't be a secret much longer. Thanks for the advice.

I wait with bated breath.

- Warren
 
  • #25
chroot said:
I wait with bated breath.

- Warren
No, really- thanks for the advice. I found the entire book on-line. It's quite comprehensive and will be quite helpful to me.:wink:
 
  • #26
Zero Hz directly implies "no frequency" of polarity change. This is called DC, or "direct current"
 
  • #27
pallidin said:
Zero Hz directly implies "no frequency" of polarity change. This is called DC, or "direct current"
A stationary wave would be traveling at the speed of light.
 
  • #28
Here's a question for you, Pinestone. Does your invention actually work?
 
  • #29
pinestone said:
A stationary wave would be traveling at the speed of light.
Wait...what?

No...
 
  • #30
Manchot said:
Here's a question for you, Pinestone. Does your invention actually work?
Yes. Very well, indeed.:smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
17K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K