Velocity of 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional waves

  • Thread starter Thread starter atat1tata
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Velocity Waves
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion regarding wave velocity in different dimensions, particularly in 2D and 3D waves compared to 1D transverse elastic waves. The original poster references Halliday-Resnick's assertion of constant wave velocity but questions its applicability to circular waves and the relationship between wave velocity and mass density. Responses clarify that in homogeneous media, properties like mass density remain constant, contradicting the idea that density could vary with radius. The conversation emphasizes the need for a proper understanding of wave equations and the distinction between 1D and higher-dimensional wave characteristics. Ultimately, the participants seek a proof for the constancy of wave velocity in various wave types.
atat1tata
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
My book (an old copy of Halliday-Resnick) gives a proof for the fact that the wave velocity is constant in 1-dimensional transversal elastic waves, but it says nothing about other types of waves. Basically it makes a tacit assumption that all waves have constant velocity.
However it proves that the amplitude of a circular wave (a ripple in water) decreases proportionally to \frac{1}{r^2}. I think that it assumes that the wave velocity is constant.
From another point of view if one uses cowishly the relation v^2 = \frac{T}{\mu} one could say that, at least for an elastic circular wave, \mu is proportional to r and the wave velocity should vary.
As you can see I'm a bit confused and I would like to ask if someone could at least provide me with a proof of why the wave velocity is constant in water waves, 2- and 3-dimensional elastic waves and acoustic waves.

PS: I would be extremely grateful if someone could correct my English where I made mistakes in the language
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Why would \mu be proportional to r? These are homogeneous wave equations (I assume) meaning that the material properties in regards to the wave characteristics are constant throughout the medium.
 
Born2bwire said:
Why would \mu be proportional to r? These are homogeneous wave equations (I assume) meaning that the material properties in regards to the wave characteristics are constant throughout the medium.

If you think of the medium as a giant rope that starts at a points and gradually broadens to cover concentric increasing circles (you can think of a circular sector which constitutes the rope in the limiting case of an angle of 2pi) then the cross-section increases lineary and so does the mass per unit "length" of the rope. I understand this is a bit nonphysical, but I'd like to see a proof for the fact that velocity is constant for 2- and 3-dimensional waves
 
Last edited:
No, that's not how it would work. Like I said, the medium is homogeneous, the inherent characteristics of the medium, like the mass density, would remain constant. Your first problem I think is using mass per unit length, that is a 1 dimensional characteristic. You need to do mass per unit area for two dimensions and volume for three dimensions. A 2D surface is a sheet, which you can deconstruct into an infinite number of ropes that radiate out of a single point, or in any other configuration should you desire I guess but ropes are a bad way of thinking because it restricts the propagation along the ropes. In bulk materials you can get shear and plane waves which would not exist together in your given rope configuration.
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top