B Energy of a Wave: Amplitude vs Frequency

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between wave energy, amplitude, and frequency. It is noted that for mechanical waves, energy is primarily related to amplitude, while frequency can also play a role in energy transmission. The conversation highlights that electromagnetic waves do not exhibit the same dependency on frequency for energy as mechanical waves do. The distinction between these types of waves raises questions about the definitions of wave energy and the influence of the medium. Ultimately, the energy of a wave can vary based on its type and the parameters considered.
Lyakhnitskiy Dmitriy
Messages
2
Reaction score
2
I need help with this question. The energy of wave related to its amplitude but not to frequency. If we talk about wave as disturbance carring energy we can imagine a swinging rope that gives potential energy to body by pushing it up. Bigger amplitude means getting high and increasing Potential energy of the body.
But bigger frequency means bigger amount of pushing the body up So the wave carries more energy.

P.S. Sorry for my bad English
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Lyakhnitskiy Dmitriy said:
The energy of wave related to its amplitude but not to frequency.
That depends on the type of wave, what you define as amplitude and the way you treat other parameters. Which wave do you mean and what is held constant?
 
mfb said:
That depends on the type of wave, what you define as amplitude and the way you treat other parameters. Which wave do you mean and what is held constant?
Amplitude is the biggest inclination from equilibrium position, I guess. Frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating disturbance per unit of time. The thing is I got information about independency of energy of machenic wawe regarding to its frequency and wavelength from Khan Academy "Since the mediums are the same, we can focus on the wave energy increasing with the wave amplitude; not the frequency, wavelength or wave shape." But then I recognized photo effect when electrons need light of high frequency to be photo electrons. Electrons need more energy to be extricated from atom so is there depending between frequency and energy?
 
Lyakhnitskiy Dmitriy said:
The energy of wave related to its amplitude but not to frequency.
The usual meaning for "the engergy of a wave" would be the "energy per unit time" it transmits. Perhaps you saw the statement that this energy does not depend on the frequency of wave in the context of electromagnetic waves.

In mechanical waves, the frequency matters. For example, http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys207/lectures/waves/wave_energy.html

Perhaps somebody can comment of whether this distinction between E&M versus mechanical waves is due to the absence of a material medium for E&M waves or whtether it is due to using two different definitions for "the energy of a wave".
 
  • Like
Likes Lyakhnitskiy Dmitriy
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top