Understanding Wave Concept: Troubleshooting a Time Gap

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion regarding the instantaneous transmission of forces between particles in a wave. It argues that while disturbances at point A affect point B immediately, the wave itself takes time to propagate through the medium to point D. The key point is that forces are not felt instantaneously; they propagate at a finite speed, specifically the speed of light. This understanding clarifies the apparent time gap between the disturbance and the wave reaching the final point. Ultimately, wave propagation is governed by the finite speed of force transmission, not instantaneity.
sadhu
Messages
155
Reaction score
0
I have got a trouble with wave concept

suppose wave is passing through a medium ( let it ,just started)

suppose there are four points in the medium (particles)
A,B,C,D

as soon as A is disturbed even by an infinitesimally small distance , B experiences a forces (forces act instantaneously ) . time taken =0;
same happens from B to C
then C to D


time in each case is 0
so net time is 0;

but wave takes some time to reach D, I can't understand why that time gap is coming .as every thing is happening instantly.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why are you assuming the force from one particle is instantaneously felt by the next?

The fact is that the force is not instantaneously felt by the second particle.
 
if i remember correctly, force is limited at the same speed as light
 
that means every wave should have a speed of light
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

Confusion about the derivation of the speed of sound
Replies
8
Views
3K
Relaxation times of molecules during sound propagation
Replies
3
Views
3K
I Understanding Bolted Joints: Shigley's Explanation & Real-Life Testing
Replies
8
Views
4K
I The Plane in the Wind Puzzle: Does a Constant Wind Affect the Round Trip Time?
Replies
5
Views
3K
Phase of a wave - My interpretation
Replies
4
Views
2K
I Mechanism of Energy Conservation in Zero-Amplitude Sum of EM Waveforms
Replies
12
Views
700
Understanding the Poynting Theorem
Replies
5
Views
1K
Uncertainties For Wave Packets
Replies
4
Views
957
Please help me understand how transverse waves reflect at a boundary
Replies
13
Views
2K
Concept of Free Fall in question
Replies
5
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top