Supersonic motion: no backward propagating shock waves

AI Thread Summary
A recent discussion clarified misconceptions about supersonic motion and shock wave propagation. The original claim that a supersonic body emits backward-propagating shock waves was found to be incorrect. It was established that while every point of a supersonic body generates sonic pressure waves, these do not form shock waves in all directions, particularly not to the rear. The misunderstanding stemmed from conflating pressure waves with shock waves in supersonic contexts. The thread has been reopened for continued discussion on this topic.
voko
Messages
6,053
Reaction score
391
There was a recent thread (now closed) where I claimed that a body accelerating beyond the speed of sound emits a shock wave that propagates spherically backward in the rear hemisphere.

I have reviewed literature on fluid dynamics and it is quite clear to me now that I was wrong. There is no backward-propagating shock waves, spherical or otherwise.

It might perhaps be interesting for the participants of the discussion why I had that idea. In fact, in one message I revealed my underlying reasoning, even though I did not expand on that. My chief mistake was in thinking that every point of a supersonic body excites shock waves, which then propagate spherically in all directions. That is not correct. Every point of a body moving in a fluid, super- and subsonically alike generates sonic pressure waves; in some directions, in supersonic motion, these sonic pressure waves interfere and form shock waves, not everywhere and certainly not in the rear.

It is not clear why I thought that pressure waves were always shock waves in supersonic motion. That seems very strange to me in retrospect. Either way I am happy that I have got rid of that misconception and I thank everyone who participated in the thread.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Glad to hear that voko. Maybe the mods can merge this thread into the old closed one.
 
Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...

Thread re-opened. This is an allowed continutaion of the previous (now locked) thread.
 
Last edited:
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