View Single Post
Mar27-12, 05:03 AM
P: 219
Ok, so the wavelength is the length between two crests. Is it also the length of a complete wave? (sorry if I sound really stupid) The period is the time taken for one particle that makes up the wave to complete its oscillation, and it is also the time taken to make one complete wave. But I don't understand why this is so. I may be complicating matters, but I can't seem to stop thinking about it until I get it right. There is energy being transferred from particle to particle in a wave. When the first particle gets its kinetic energy from the source of vibration, it starts to move up and down, and transfers its energy to anther particle or it to start moving up and down, and this continues for all consecutive particles which make up the eventual wave. Since there is time lost while energy is being transferred from one particle to
Another, doesn't this
Mean that the first particle will complete it's oscillation before the other particles. How then, will they all manage to make one complete wave in a particular period?

Here is the question that got me thinking:(it's not supposed to be tough, but again , I like to think a lot. )
The speed of a transverse wave on a string is 450m/s. while the wavelength is 0.18m. The amplitude of the wave is 2.0mm. How much time is required for a particle for the string to move through a total distance of 1.0 km? I can deduce from this that a particle on the string covers 8.0mm in one oscillation, but I don't see how how the wavelength applies when we are talking about the particles. If anyone can enlighten me on these questions whih have been bugging me since a few days ago, pls help . Thank you !!
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on
Physicists discuss quantum pigeonhole principle
First in-situ images of void collapse in explosives
The first supercomputer simulations of 'spin?orbit' forces between neutrons and protons in an atomic nucleus