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.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top