Relating Arc Length and Standing Wave Patterns

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the relationship between arc length and standing wave patterns on a string, particularly in the context of the nth harmonic. It clarifies that for the first harmonic, the length of the string is equal to half the wavelength, which is often misunderstood. The participant initially confuses arc length with the physical length of the string, leading to incorrect conclusions about wavelength and length. The conversation emphasizes that the length of the string is a fixed measurement, while the wavelength is defined by the distance between nodes or antinodes. Ultimately, it concludes that understanding the wave equation and its solutions is crucial for accurately relating these concepts.
ThomasMagnus
Messages
138
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I am currently reviewing the physics of 'standing waves on a string'. I know that for the nth harmonic, the length of the 'string' is \frac{n\lambda}{2}. Instead of just memorizing these, I have been trying to apply my knowledge of Calculus to figure out why these numbers are what they are. However, I am having a bit of trouble. Here's what I have tried to do thus far:

The Attempt at a Solution



If you take the graph of Sin(x), the arc length of the curve between 0 and a can be calculated with the following integral:

\int \sqrt{1+cos(x)^{2}}dx (with limits 0 and a). So one wavelength would be equal to a distance of 2\pi. The integral between 0 and \pi \approx 3.82 while the integral between 0 and 2\pi \approx 7.64

So, that means if we had a wave that was a sine function defined between 0 and \pi, the wavelength would be 1/2 that of a sin function between 0 and 2\pi and it would have a length of 1/2 that of the function defined between 0 and 2\pi.

What I am confused about is that I keep just getting:

First Harmonic \frac{\lambda}{2}=\frac{L}{2} (\lambda=L)

Apart from it being the wrong answer, this would mean the wavelength, \pi, is equal to L which by the arc length formula is 3.82. Furthermore, would the wavelength have to be the same as the arc length (i.e. length of the string?)

Also if I said I wanted to find the length of the sine wave between 0 and \pi wouldn't I be able to say that the wavelength= \pi and by definition L=wavelength/2 for first harmonic. Then I would get \pi/2 = 3.82. 1.57≠3.82

Maybe by Length of the string they don't mean arc length?

Am I just completely missing something here, or am I using Calculus in the wrong place.

Thanks!(EDIT) I think I figure it out. I was making it WAY more complicated then it has to be. Since there are two nodes on each end, it is like fixing a string in two positions and pulling it up, so the length of the string can't change then.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
(EDIT) I think I figure it out. I was making it WAY more complicated then it has to be. Since there are two nodes on each end, it is like fixing a string in two positions and pulling it up, so the length of the string can't change then.
Well done :)

Basically the model is for those situations where the overall length of the string can change while the tension remains constant and the separation of the endpoints is a constant ... where there are not a lot of losses. If there are no losses, the standing wave does not even have to be a sine wave. (i.e. pluck it in the middle and you have a triangular standing wave.)

The equation you start with for calculus is the wave equation in one dimension:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_equation
... the solution is generally not trivial (from scratch) but the upshot is that the solutions can be expanded in a trigonometric series, and you are back to counting nodes and antinodes between 0 and L.

Aren't you glad you asked ?!
 
ThomasMagnus said:
Maybe by Length of the string they don't mean arc length?

Correct. The wave length λ is the straight line distance between two nodes (or antinodes). The length of string refers to the length with no wave on it.

Edit: oops my post crossed with Simons.
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
712
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K