Why does a wave pulse invert when it hits a fixed boundary on a string?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy87
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    String Wave
AI Thread Summary
A wave pulse traveling down a rope inverts upon hitting a fixed boundary due to the interaction of forces at the boundary. When the upward 'kink' in the rope reaches the wall, it exerts an upward force, prompting the wall to exert a downward force on the string. This results in the reflected wave being inverted. The conservation of momentum is maintained throughout this process, as the wave's energy is transferred to the boundary and then reflected back. Understanding the resultant displacement at the wall clarifies the direction of the reflected wave.
Jimmy87
Messages
692
Reaction score
19
Hi, please could someone explain why a wave pulse traveling down a rope inverts when it strikes a fixed boundary. Is it something to do with conservation of momentum?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are no any problems with conservation of momentum: if we consider a longitudinal wave, then a wave pulse will push a fixed boundary which pushes the Earth which changes slightly its orbit.
 
At least two ways of understanding it...

(1) Assume (though we don't have to) that the wave is transverse and in the vertical plane, and that the pulse is an upward 'kink' in the rope. When the start of the kink reaches the wall it exerts an upward force on the wall. So what is the direction of the force that the wall exerts on the string (initiating the reflected wave)?

(2) What is the RESULTANT displacement of the string at the wall due to the incident and reflected waves? What therefore must be the direction of the reflected wave at the wall?
 
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