What is the relationship between the magnitude of a sound wave and distance?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter dimensionless
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Image Magnitude
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The relationship between the magnitude of a sound wave and distance is clarified through the equations y = 1/r and y = 1/(4πr²). The former equation is derived from basic acoustic theory, while the latter aligns with the inverse square law, which is applicable under certain conditions. The discussion emphasizes that sound intensity, measured in watts/m², adheres to the inverse square law when accounting for energy conservation. However, the RMS pressure and in-phase particle velocity of sound waves behave as 1/r, leading to a nuanced understanding of sound propagation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Basic acoustic theory
  • Understanding of wave equations
  • Knowledge of RMS pressure and particle velocity
  • Familiarity with the inverse square law
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the inverse square law in acoustics
  • Study the relationship between RMS pressure and sound intensity
  • Explore the concept of particle velocity in wave mechanics
  • Review the scientific paper from the 1970s referenced in the discussion
USEFUL FOR

Acoustic engineers, physicists, and students studying sound wave propagation and intensity relationships will benefit from this discussion.

dimensionless
Messages
461
Reaction score
1
In basic acoustic theory a sound source reflects across a boundary in a fasion similar to light. The magnitude of the reflected wave can be determined by adjusting it for the reflection loss and the distance traversed.
I am looking at a scientific paper from the 70's. In it they use the following equation to caculate the magnitude of a wave emanating from an image x meters away.
[tex] y = \frac {1} {x}[/tex]
My intuition would tell me that the magnitude of a wave emanating from an image as a function of distance would be described by the following:
[tex] y = \frac {1} {4 \pi x^2}[/tex]
Does anyone know if the former equation is really correct? Why is the inverse square law not used?
 
Last edited:
Science news on Phys.org
dimensionless said:
In basic acoustic theory a sound source reflects across a boundary in a fasion similar to light. The magnitude of the reflected wave can be determined by adjusting it for the reflection loss and the distance traversed.
I am looking at a scientific paper from the 70's. In it they use the following equation to caculate the magnitude of a wave emanating from an image x meters away.
[tex] y = \frac {1} {r}[/tex]
My intuition would tell me that the magnitude of a wave emanating from an image as a function of distance would be described by the following:
[tex] y = \frac {1} {4 \pi r^2}[/tex]
Does anyone know if the former equation is really correct? Why is the inverse square law not used?

the magnitude of any radiation intensity, that is something measured in watts/m^2 must be inverse square (assuming no transmission loss) to satisfy the conservation of energy axiom.

however for sound, the intensity of radiation is the product of the RMS pressure, which is 1/r for a spherically expanding wavefront, and the RMS of the in-phase component particle velocity, which is also 1/r. it turns out that the quadrature component of the particle velocity (that is the component that is 90o out of phase with the pressure wave) is 1/r^2, but that component does not contribute to power transmission. so if both pressure and in-phase particle velocity are 1/r, then their product is 1/r^2 or inverse square.

there is another thread here called Inverse Square Relationship that you might want to check out. if not, do check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_square_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss's_law

the first link talks a little about acoustic waves and 1/r vs. 1/r^2
 
So is the pressure of the sound wave [tex]P = \frac {1} {4 \pi r}[/tex]?? Or is it [tex]P = \frac {1}{r}[/tex]?? The references don't seem to make it terribly clear.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K