Intensity, Radius (Calculations)

AI Thread Summary
A point source of sound emits energy uniformly, and when the intensity is halved, the listener must adjust their distance to maintain the same perceived loudness. The intensity of sound is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source, leading to the conclusion that if intensity decreases by half, the listener must move closer by a factor of the square root of two. The calculations indicate that to compensate for the reduced intensity, the listener should move to a distance of r/(2^(1/2)). This adjustment accounts for the relationship between intensity and distance, ensuring the sound remains equally loud. Understanding these principles is crucial for solving similar sound intensity problems.
Gunman
Messages
25
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A point source of sound emits energy equally in all directions at a constant rate and a person 8m from the source listens. After a while, the intensity of the source is halved. If the person wishes the sound to be seem as loud as before, how far should he be now?


Homework Equations


intensity is inversely proportional to radius(distance from the source)


The Attempt at a Solution


I = (K)/(r^2)
I*(r^2)=K
So i presumed that since K has to be constant, and I has been halved. The radius would be (2)^(1/2). So why isn't the answer (2^(1/2))r ? I can understand that the answer is not correct because it is not possible for the intensity to be the same when the radius has increased. So can someone point out to me which part I went wrong? Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Since they are inversely proportional the person needs to get closer by some factor. If it were simply

I \alpha \frac{K}{r}

and the intensity dropped by a factor of two then that is the equivalent of saying that the person went twice as far away, so in the case of the intensity of source being independent then to keep the same sound the person would half to cancel it out by going r/2.

Now in the case of it being inversely proportional to the square of the radius, if the intensity decreases by a half, it could have happened because someone traveled 2^(1/2) away, so if it were actually the source that decreased by a half then the person can cancel that effect just as if they could have caused it by doing the opposite, and traveling 2^(1/2) closer (i.e. r/(2^1/2)).

If it helps to see the algebra in addition to the qualitative observations here is how it would go for the two:
I \alpha \frac{1}{2} \frac{K}{r/2} = \frac{k}{r}

I \alpha \frac{1}{2} \frac{K}{(r/\sqrt{2})^2} = \frac{k}{r^2}
 
Last edited:
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top