- #1

Jeno

- 17

- 0

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Jeno
- Start date

- #1

Jeno

- 17

- 0

- #2

AngeloG

- 104

- 0

After, you will then realize why it travels in a particular direction.

If you're still having troubles; make a rough sketch or something of what you think is happening with the force body diagram. However, I can write it down/scan it and post it up if you cannot and you can reaffirm your thoughts.

- #3

russ_watters

Mentor

- 21,855

- 8,822

- #4

Doc Al

Mentor

- 45,433

- 1,881

And as Russ says, if you just pluck the rope symmetrically, you'll get pulses in both directions.

- #5

Jeno

- 17

- 0

which program should i use to draw it? AngeloG, can you post your diagram? thank you.

oh, so if i pluck the rope anywhere (not exactly to be in the middle) but not the ends of the rope, the pulses will be in both direction? but how to explain it? what is the mechanism in it?

As AngeloG was alluding to, the forces on each side of a traveling pulse are not the same. On the leading edge, the forces accelerate the ropeawayfrom the undisturbed position; on the trailing edge,back.

i m not quite understand what do you mean here. are you saying that the forces on both sides of the pulse are different? what makes it different?

thank you for answering me

- #6

arunma

- 927

- 4

how can i post my diagram if i have no scanner?

which program should i use to draw it? AngeloG, can you post your diagram? thank you.

oh, so if i pluck the rope anywhere (not exactly to be in the middle) but not the ends of the rope, the pulses will be in both direction? but how to explain it? what is the mechanism in it?

Yes, if you pluck a rope somewhere other than at one of the ends, the wave will travel in both directions. It's because there's no preferred direction for the wave to travel. Furthermore, the wave equation allows for disturbances in both directions. The only reason a disturbance at one end of a string will cause a disturbance in a single direction is because the wave has nowhere to go in the other.

This actually screwed me up for quite awhile when I was doing my senior thesis. At one point I had to write a program to get a wave to propagate in one direction down a string. For some reason, the wave propagated in both directions. It turns out that it was because I had simply put the wave equation into my program without recognizing that disturbances can travel in both directions. I had to

Last edited:

- #7

vanesch

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 5,109

- 18

This is why, when you start with a STILL situation (pluck the rope) and have a first derivative wrt time implicitly set to 0, that you get a different solution, than when you consider a wave that "was already travelling" (and which has, when it takes on the same immediate position, does not have the first derivative wrt time equal to 0).

So, although the immediate position (form, f(x)) at a given time t0 can be the same, the solution can be different simply because the other half of the initial conditions needed (the first time derivative) will be different. It is this difference (which would give nevertheless the same photo of the rope at t0), which makes a travelling wave, eh, travel in a certain direction, and a plucked rope send out travelling waves in both directions.

- #8

russ_watters

Mentor

- 21,855

- 8,822

well, what happens if you pluck a string quickly? You make a little symmetrical dimple in it, with each little element of the string pulling on the section next to it. And that's how a transverse wave propagates.oh, so if i pluck the rope anywhere (not exactly to be in the middle) but not the ends of the rope, the pulses will be in both direction? but how to explain it? what is the mechanism in it?

- #9

Jeno

- 17

- 0

This is why, when you start with a STILL situation (pluck the rope) and have a first derivative wrt time implicitly set to 0, that you get a different solution, than when you consider a wave that "was already travelling" (and which has, when it takes on the same immediate position, does not have the first derivative wrt time equal to 0).

So, although the immediate position (form, f(x)) at a given time t0 can be the same, the solution can be different simply because the other half of the initial conditions needed (the first time derivative) will be different. It is this difference (which would give nevertheless the same photo of the rope at t0), which makes a travelling wave, eh, travel in a certain direction, and a plucked rope send out travelling waves in both directions.

Thank you for your explanation. I get some picture after reading it (although i still need time to understand it completely).

Most of what i found on here are explaining the mechanism of PLUCKING the string or INITIATING the pulse. I have understand that part, thank you. However, i still wondering that what is the mechanism of a TRAVELLING pulse that make it continue to travel in a particular direction.

well, what happens if you pluck a string quickly? You make a little symmetrical dimple in it, with each little element of the string pulling on the section next to it. And that's how a transverse wave propagates.

Just like Russ_Watters say here. When the pulse is travelling to the right of a string, why is that the little element at the peak only pull the section next to it (on its right) but never pull the section before it (on its left)? How to explain it in physical view (although vanesch has explained it by methametical means that the 1st time derivatives, which is the velocity of each element, also contributes to the determining of its motion)? thank you.

Last edited:

- #10

vanesch

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 5,109

- 18

Thank you for your explanation. I get some picture after reading it (although i still need time to understand it completely).

However, i still wondering that what is the mechanism of a TRAVELLING pulse that make it continue to travel in a particular direction.

Well, a travelling pulse, at any moment t1, will have:

1) a certain form f(x)

2) a certain time derivative of the form d/dt f(x)

(these are independently specified in initial conditions, but have a linked relationship in a pulse "that is already travelling in one direction").

These initial conditions are exactly what is necessary to have as a dynamical evolution at t1 + dt:

1) a certain form f(x - v.dt)

2) the time derivative d/dt f(x - v.dt)

In other words, the pulse is now displaced over v.dt to the right, and the initial conditions are exactly the same there now. So this continues for ever.

If you think that it is kind of a miracle that these initial conditions come out EXACTLY as it should, it isn't in fact. The solution set of the wave equation is just so, that the most general solution can be written as:

f(x-vt) + g(x+vt) with f and g arbitrary functions. If you *already have* a travelling wave which means that you only have the first term in your solution, then this is exactly what is needed to satisfy the above "miraculous" conditions.

So the "miracle" is in your specification of already having a pulse travelling in one direction. Once it does (and hence takes on the form f(x-vt)), then the wave equation is simply such that it continues to do so, and that, at any moment t1, there's the correct link between the instantaneous form and its time derivative, to serve as the right initial conditions to continue the movement as it was set off.

- #11

russ_watters

Mentor

- 21,855

- 8,822

As I said, the deformation of the string isJust like Russ_Watters say here. When the pulse is travelling to the right of a string, why is that the little element at the peak only pull the section next to it (on its right) but never pull the section before it (on its left)? How to explain it in physical view (although vanesch has explained it by methametical means that the 1st time derivatives, which is the velocity of each element, also contributes to the determining of its motion)? thank you.

- #12

CPL.Luke

- 441

- 0

The answer to that question is conservation of momentum, the wave carries with it some momentume, and a such it has to keep going in whatever direction it wa going in originally.

- #13

Jeno

- 17

- 0

But these all only valid if we can describe the system by 2nd derivative in time, right? I m not sure what do you mean by this, is it the wave equation (d'Almbert's equation, the first equation that in arunma's calculation)? Or any other equation? Can you please tell me what is the equation? thank you.

CPL.Luke, ya, you get what i meant. But in classical view, does a pulse carries a momentum? How is it? Can you explain it further? thank you.

- #14

russ_watters

Mentor

- 21,855

- 8,822

Actually, no, a longitudinal wave does not carry momentum in the direction it moves.

- #15

Mentz114

- 5,432

- 292

If you shake one end of a rope you can get a transverse wave travelling in one direction.

- #16

Doc Al

Mentor

- 45,433

- 1,881

Traveling pulses along a stretched rope are transverse waves.

- #17

russ_watters

Mentor

- 21,855

- 8,822

Sorry, that was an error in my post. I'll leave it since several people replied, but that should have said there is no momentum carried in transverse waves. Really, though, I wouldn't say that either type of wave carries momentum. Not in the same way as light, for example, carries momentum. Any particle on or influenced by the wave will oscillate and have a net displacement of zero.

Last edited:

- #18

vanesch

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 5,109

- 18

Thank you Vanesch. I get what you want to say. You are trying to say that, when the pulse is formed, from the general solution, f(x-vt) + g(x+vt), we know that the pulse will travel in both ways, just like russ watters has told me. However, when the pulse is travelling in one direction, the instantaneous f(x) and d/dt f(x) allow it to continue to travel in the same direction. The pattern of f(x) and d/dt f(x) would not change but they are just looked like moving with the pulse. Hence, they keep the pulse moving on that direction. Am i correct?

Yes. What I meant to say was, that if the pulse is already travelling in the right direction, then if you take a specific instant t1, and you look at the dynamical situation at that moment, and consider that as the "initial conditions" for the time evolution that will follow after t1, then the relationship between "configuration" (that's f(x)) and "momentum" (the time derivative of it) in these initial conditions will be such that the pulse will simply travel on in the same direction.

But these all only valid if we can describe the system by 2nd derivative in time, right? I m not sure what do you mean by this, is it the wave equation (d'Almbert's equation, the first equation that in arunma's calculation)? Or any other equation? Can you please tell me what is the equation? thank you.

Yes, it is the standard wave equation, the first one in arunma's calculation.

Note that this is very similar to a much simpler problem. A ball is thrown in space, and has a certain velocity and position. Now, imagine we look at the ball's motion at t1. It is at a certain position. But that by itself doesn't give you the right motion at the next instant ! You also need the right velocity (or momentum) at t1. Now, in this case, this is trivial because it is a constant momentum. But if you take, at t1, as "initial conditions" the position of the ball at t1, and the momentum of the ball at t1 (which is constant...), then, oh miracle, the ball will continue EXACTLY the same motion as it was doing up to then. So what made the ball move "in the right direction" ? Its initial conditions containing both position and momentum.

It is the fact that Newton's equation is second-order in time that makes us need initial conditions which are both position and velocity. If Newton's equations were first order in time, position would have been enough, and there wouldn't have been a means to "transmit" the momentum to the next instant.

- #19

Jeno

- 17

- 0

Oh, Ok. thank you very much. I understand already. thank you.

Share:

- Last Post

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 67

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 114

- Last Post

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 575

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 379

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 429

- Replies
- 16

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 405

- Replies
- 16

- Views
- 760

- Replies
- 19

- Views
- 370

- Last Post

- Replies
- 15

- Views
- 746