Uncovering the Mystery of Wave Momentum Transfer

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of wave momentum transfer, revealing that mechanical waves, like photons, may exhibit net momentum transfer, challenging conventional understanding. A reference by Carl Mungan highlights that many physics professors incorrectly believe mechanical waves transfer zero net momentum. The conversation suggests that waves could be interpreted similarly to quantum mechanics' description of photons, as both waves and particles. Participants express interest in quantifying the momentum of sound waves and explore applications like ultrasonic acoustic levitation. The quest for equations and methods to understand these phenomena is emphasized, indicating a desire for deeper insights into wave mechanics.
Maxwell's Demon
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Apparently what I thought I understood about waves is wrong: there seems to be a net momentum transfer with mechanical waves, as well as photons (it seems they're perfectly analogous). I hope some of the experts on the board can help to clarify this issue; perhaps it’s less surprising to others here than it is to me.

I recently found this discussion on the topic of wave momentum started by Carl Mungan, Associate Professor at the US Naval Academy: http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Scholarship/WaveMomentum.html There’s a list of references at the bottom of the page, and this reference was cited in Dr. Mungan’s last post as his key reference: Reuben Benumof, "Simple harmonic motion in harmonic waves," AJP 48, 387-392 (May 1980)

If this is true, then everything else I’ve read online about wave momentum, and all the applets I’ve seen, are wrong (or at least confined to one special case scenario). And following the discussion in that link, it appears that most physics professors also incorrectly believe that mechanical waves transfer zero net momentum.

This question has gotten me thinking that maybe we can interpret any wave in the manner QM describes photons, as both a wave and a particle.

Help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Indeed any wave can be quantised -- leading to a particle of that particular wave. In condensed matter physics this is often done, leading to phonons, plasmons, etc.
 
genneth said:
Indeed any wave can be quantised -- leading to a particle of that particular wave. In condensed matter physics this is often done, leading to phonons, plasmons, etc.

Thanks genneth. It gives one a whole new perspective to look at macroscopic phenomena like waves on water as ‘wavicles.’ Weird.

I’m having some trouble finding the method for determining the net momentum of a sound wave – all the papers in Munga’s thread cost $19/ea for us untermenchen. I'd like to see what it would take to build a self-lifting ultrasonic acoustic levitation device (driven by an external power source).

Here's a video of acoustic levitation, which I think is pretty cool stuff: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=acoustic+levitation&hl=en

Anyone got those equations handy? I’d be much obliged (well at least $19 worth ;)
 
Last edited:
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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?
Back
Top