Speed of sound as the sqrt(elasticity/density) and why it must always be < C

AI Thread Summary
The speed of sound in a medium is always less than the speed of light due to the relationship defined by the equation sqrt(elasticity/density). As particles in a wavefront approach relativistic speeds, their mass increases, leading to an effective density that approaches infinity, which affects the speed of sound. The discussion highlights the need for full relativistic equations to accurately describe wave propagation under extreme conditions. There is also consideration of how the instantaneous response of the medium, as suggested by Hooke's law, influences sound speed. Further calculations and explorations of perfect fluids may provide deeper insights into this phenomenon.
pyrotix
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
The question in the title. Speed of sound in a medium obviously must be less than the speed of light. Speed of sound is usually given by the equation sqrt(c/p). Wondering what causes this to always be less than the speed of light.

Gar. Just realized something as I'm typing this. Now that I think about it, in the relativistic limit the equation would be different. As the particles in the wavefront started moving at a speed close to the speed of light they would gain mass. As they approached the speed of light the density would approach infinity.

I think I'll try and derive out what the actual equation is.

Leaving this up here in case people have interesting comments.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
An interesting question this one. The particles traveling at relativistic speeds won't save you! Linear waves can have an amplitude as small as you like and still propagate at the same speed, so the speed of individual particles can be made tiny. As you say, you have to use full relativistic equations, and these will be important if you've got some really amazing equation of state with massive pressures or something. I'm not quite sure exactly what it is physically that'll save us. I guess the best way to work it out is to do perfect fluids first and see what happens. I might do a calculation later; I'll post what I find.
 
after thinking about it you're right. I got confused. The speed of particles depends on du/dt and can -> 0 without any effect on the c^2 term.

Maybe the trick is when doing the hooke's law derivation of the wave is to compensate for the fact that the "springs" do not react instantly but only at the speed of light.

Atlernately there might be some density elasticity dependency that saves you.

I'll think about it some more.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top