What Determines the Characteristics of a Wave?

[baywax]

This is a simple question by a simple reader. What are waves made of. We seem to know that molecules are made of atoms and atoms are made of sub-atomic particles and there is speculation that sub-atomic particles are made of waves (in very simplistic terms). So, I'm wondering what makes a wave a wave.

There must be a dense to less-dense ratio that helps define a wave. What makes up the density and what offers the medium that is less dense so that the wave is able to vibrate at various frequencies?

If this question belongs somewhere else, feel free to put it there, thank you!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sound: Pressure variations in the air or other fluids.
EM [raio, light, X-Rays, etc]: Varying electric and magnetic fields
Matter: Varying probabilities for the state of the system, such as the location of a particle.

Strictly speaking though, a wave is a mathematical concept that is often represented by a simple sine function. When a dynamical system can be described mathematically as a wave, we call it a wave.

 

[baywax]

Sound: Pressure variations in the air or other fluids.
EM [raio, light, X-Rays, etc]: Varying electric and magnetic fields
Matter: Varying probabilities for the state of the system, such as the location of a particle.

Strictly speaking though, a wave is a mathematical concept that is often represented by a simple sine function. When a dynamical system can be described mathematically as a wave, we call it a wave.

Thank you Ivan. I'm sure this is physics 001.

As with sound and pressure variations, are there density variations of em in order to distinguish em radiation from empty space?

 

[mikelepore]

As with sound and pressure variations, are there density variations of em in order to distinguish em radiation from empty space?

Comparing it to the ripples in a pond, where the displacement of the water (above or below the level of the undisturbed pond) is zero at particular point in space at a particular point in time: With an electromagnetic wave, the electric field and the magnetic field are zero at a particular point in space at a particular point in time.

 

[baywax]

Comparing it to the ripples in a pond, where the displacement of the water (above or below the level of the undisturbed pond) is zero at particular point in space at a particular point in time: With an electromagnetic wave, the electric field and the magnetic field are zero at a particular point in space at a particular point in time.

Can I compare morse code to the manipulation of light waves through fiber optics as a means of transferring information? Is it the manipulation of wave frequencies (configured as 1s and 0s) that encodes light with data?

 

[mikelepore]

Morse code is turning something on and off in a meaningful pattern. It doesn't have much to do with the properties of waves. Morse code uses a wave just so that it can send a large number of cycles, then interrupt the signal, going some time without sending any cycles.

 

[mikelepore]

Fiber optics work by the principle of total internal reflection. A wave in a medium in which it travels slower can under some circumstances pass through a barrier to a medium in which the wave can travel faster. If the angle in the first medium is beyond a certain critical angle then a wave in the first medium is reflected back into the first medium instead of passing through the boundary to the second medium. So bend the fiber any way you want, and the light inside of it won't be able to escape through the sides to get out.

 

[baywax]

Fiber optics work by the principle of total internal reflection. A wave in a medium in which it travels slower can under some circumstances pass through a barrier to a medium in which the wave can travel faster. If the angle in the first medium is beyond a certain critical angle then a wave in the first medium is reflected back into the first medium instead of passing through the boundary to the second medium. So bend the fiber any way you want, and the light inside of it won't be able to escape through the sides to get out.

Thank you mikelepore,

Is background radiation a wave or a field?

 

[mikelepore]

If you mean the background radiation that comes from all directions in the sky, it's electromagnetic waves in the microwave band of frequencies (lower frequency than infrared).

 

[baywax]

If you mean the background radiation that comes from all directions in the sky, it's electromagnetic waves in the microwave band of frequencies (lower frequency than infrared).

I mean the background radiation that is considered to be throughout the universe.

In every direction, there is a very low energy and very uniform radiation that we see filling the Universe. This is called the 3 Degree Kelvin Background Radiation, or the Cosmic Background Radiation, or the Microwave Background. These names come about because this radiation is essentially a black body with temperature slightly less than 3 degrees Kelvin (about 2.76 K), which peaks in the microwave portion of the spectrum.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/cbr.html

1). Is there a difference between a field and a bunch of waves radiating in every direction?

2). Whenever this is radiation, is it always in the form of waves?

Thank you.

 

[mikelepore]

Your're welcome!

(1) A field doesn't travel anywhere, it's a mathematical mapping that assigns a value to every point in space. For example, the electric field, it's a what-if consideration, if some electric charge were placed here, and here, and here, and every other point in space, what force, magnitude and direction, would it experience? A mathematical expression that expresses that hypothetical force per unit charge, for all points, even when no charge is there, is called the electric field. A gravitational field expresses, if a mass were inserted at each arbitrary point in space, what gravitational force per unit mass, magnitude and direction, would it experience? Note that nothing is moving there, it's just a kind of map that has a value for every location. So you don't want to confuse a field with a wave. A wave actually travels somewhere, and it carries energy with it.

(2) There are just a few instances in which the word "radiation" has been used to refer to something other than waves, probably the most famous one being the alpha rays -- some people have said alpha radiation -- which are not electromagnetic waves but are streams of particles, each alpha particle consisting of two protons and two neutrons. Generally, though, a reference to radiation is about waves. It's also correct to refer to the radiation of sound waves, although we don't hear that phrase too often.

 

[baywax]

Your're welcome!

(1) A field doesn't travel anywhere, it's a mathematical mapping that assigns a value to every point in space. For example, the electric field, it's a what-if consideration, if some electric charge were placed here, and here, and here, and every other point in space, what force, magnitude and direction, would it experience? A mathematical expression that expresses that hypothetical force per unit charge, for all points, even when no charge is there, is called the electric field. A gravitational field expresses, if a mass were inserted at each arbitrary point in space, what gravitational force per unit mass, magnitude and direction, would it experience? Note that nothing is moving there, it's just a kind of map that has a value for every location. So you don't want to confuse a field with a wave. A wave actually travels somewhere, and it carries energy with it.

(2) There are just a few instances in which the word "radiation" has been used to refer to something other than waves, probably the most famous one being the alpha rays -- some people have said alpha radiation -- which are not electromagnetic waves but are streams of particles, each alpha particle consisting of two protons and two neutrons. Generally, though, a reference to radiation is about waves. It's also correct to refer to the radiation of sound waves, although we don't hear that phrase too often.

You're a wealth of knowledge here mikelepore.. thanks a billion.

I guess "radiation" refers to the configuration and action of waves in that they "radiate" from the source in every direction possible (water being restricted by its medium).

 

[mikelepore]

"Radiate", like "radius", just comes from the Latin word meaning to go outward from a central source. It's not really technical. The petals of a daisy or the spokes of a wagon wheel are sometimes described as radiating.

 

[baywax]

"Radiate", like "radius", just comes from the Latin word meaning to go outward from a central source. It's not really technical. The petals of a daisy or the spokes of a wagon wheel are sometimes described as radiating.

Right you are. What hasn't been addressed is whether or not the radiant energy radiates inward.

So, if you have a radioactive isotope, does its radiation radiate toward its microscopic make up?

This begs me to ask the question... what is the original source of an em wave? You might tell me its the atom of such and such an element but, does the radiation only radiate outward or does it radiate in both directions?

 

[robertm]

The reality is people always run their mouths on what they do not understand. When someone else does they assimilate it into their experience and call it knowlege. The important thing is not the answer but the question. So many chase that finger that points and forget the prize.

Keep asking your questions, but do not worry to ask them others, for they will trample your worth under their feet for what they do not understand. Ask them to the greatest scientist I know... Yourself. It will always be yourself. Who else can it be?

What is the wave made of? LOL... Not one of the answers is valid. What is it that vibrates?

CERN CERN where are you show me that I exist... LOL

I have hope the boneheads will wake up.

I fail to see any logic in this statement. How can there be any reason to ask a question if not to derive an answer? I think we all agree that yes indeed the questions you ask can be nearly or even just as important as the answer, but the answers will always have value regardless of how trivial. Many times questions lead only to more questions but as of yet in human history answers lead to nothing but more and better questions. I refuse to allow the only point of me being alive to be the simple biological functions my body has been shaped to perform. I want to learn and to know and that is impossible to do without answers to the questions you ask.

Also yes people do and will run there mouths on what they do not understand, but who are you to say the people how have been trying to help baywax do not know what they are talking about? Do you personally know a single one of them? Didn't think so.

You would have died long ago without the accumulated knowledge of many great people who have come before you. Unless you have grown up in the wild and learned how to survive complete isolated from any human you have no right to make the claim that it is wrong to assimilate the knowledge of our predecessors. Just because an idea did not originate in your brain does not mean that you can not fully understand all the implications of that idea. If you are directing these comments towards people who don't care why and only want the how, then I apologize for my misunderstanding and I agree with you.

Humans are a socially animal by nature. It is utterly retarded to suggest that you should not ask questions to others who may or may not be able to help you. How can you expect to be able to answer ALL of your own questions? Agreed you should always try to find the answers for yourself first, but intelligent cooperation is a wonderful method for the advancement of knowledge. Information can still be considered knowledge even if the information did not originate from yourself (this statement deserves repetition).

As to what it is that vibrates, it has already been stated that waves are only a mathematical representation of something that cannot actually be seen. You can not comprehend what an EM wave is made of because there is no facet of the human mind that can comprehend energy with no mass, all we can do is see what it bounces off of. This is why we use math to describe their properties. And no I did not find by myself that EM waves do not have mass and propagate at a finite rate, but I do consider it part of my accumulated knowledge.

Baywax,
(please keep in mind i am by no means a big dog, actually I am still in high school, how bout that just a name?)
As far as current goes, i am not far enough along in my studies to give you a confident answer, however as far as EMR goes, no space is not distorted in any way by emr but gravity waves do distorted actual spacetime. Heres a good link to get you started:http://www.gothosenterprises.com/gravitational_waves/"

 

[baywax]

Baywax,
(please keep in mind i am by no means a big dog, actually I am still in high school, how bout that just a name?)
As far as current goes, i am not far enough along in my studies to give you a confident answer, however as far as EMR goes, no space is not distorted in any way by emr but gravity waves do distorted actual spacetime. Heres a good link to get you started:http://www.gothosenterprises.com/gravitational_waves/"

Thanks for the link.

Current will be next... but let's stick with waves... assuming current is different from waves.

I've found a very interesting site (french translated to english) with lots of animations concerning waves. The author goes about convincing us...

...how the superposition of ingoing and outgoing waves produce a well-known undulatory structure: standing waves.

<<link deleted>>

This guy has some bizarre ideas about waves and the waves that make up matter. His specialty is optics and physics.

Here's his challenge about his page on electrons (interesting because of the current question)

The next page on electrons especially has been entirely rewritten and translated into an acceptable English. I challenge anybody to examine it and find errors which are in conflict with fundamental physics.

Go for it robertm!

 

[castlegates]

Well I think I'm going to attempt to answer this question, because I think I actually know. :-)
What is a wave made of?
A wave (photon) is not made of anything at all ... It's a concept.
A wave (gravitational) is not made of anything at all ... It is also a concept.

What makes a wave go?
Waves move by way of self interaction, there is a front, back, and lateral component to a photon, and gravitational wave, and their self interaction is always in repel mode.

I've said enough ... lest you actually be curious. :-)

 

[baywax]

Well I think I'm going to attempt to answer this question, because I think I actually know. :-)
What is a wave made of?
A wave (photon) is not made of anything at all ... It's a concept.
A wave (gravitational) is not made of anything at all ... It is also a concept.

I'm curious.

What are concepts made of?

 

[baywax]

Here's what I think concepts are made of:

Waves.

Concepts are a result of electromagnetic waves that are emitted by the action of osmosis between sodium and potassium on either side of the membrane of a neuron's dendrites, axion and cell. What generates the pulse is a chemo-electric reaction caused by neurotransmitters in the synaptic gaps between neurons. What causes the chemical changes that cause the neurotransmitters to transverse the synaptic gap is related to two things. 1. Hormones. 2. Cell (neuronal) behaviour.

When a stimulus that resides either outside or inside the neuron generates a reaction from the nervous system, there is a translation process that takes place in the cerebral cortex. This process is similar to the general workings of other neurons but is specific in that it finds stored information that matches the external or internal stimulus.

The translation that takes place in the cerebral cortex is often called a "concept" or "idea".

So, when castlegates says that waves are a concept you are partially correct, because concepts are organically generated em waves. Theoretically speaking.

 

[boomerang]

All waves tend to suggest a medium though don't they.
How do we know empty space is not simply full of stuff we cannot detect?

 

[AzonicZeniths]

All waves tend to suggest a medium though don't they.
How do we know empty space is not simply full of stuff we cannot detect?

Because empty space cannot support waves, waves must have a medium to 'float' through, empty space is called 'empty' for a reason.

ex. You can scream in space. That scream will not be heard by anyone, or felt by anyone, no matter how close they are. They would only be able to feel it if they touched your neck.

 

[Gokul43201]

A wave is a description of a specific behavior. It is not a composite object made of more fundamental components.

A wave is merely an oscillation in any quantity, real or abstract.

What is sunrise made of? What is an exponential growth made of? What is evaporation made of? What is rising unemployment made of?

 

[baywax]

What is sunrise made of?
Its made of the rotation of the earth, a sun and observation

What is an exponential growth made of?
A bunch of greedy humans. A group of cancer cells dividing at an exponential rate. The observation of these and other growths.

What is evaporation made of?
Heat and liquid. Observation

What is rising unemployment made of?
A bunch of greedy humans, high finance and low income. The observation of these things.

 

[baywax]

A wave is a description of a specific behavior. It is not a composite object made of more fundamental components.

Hi Gokul,

are you saying that waves are a convenient way to explain something that is only quantifiable by way of instrumentation?

Does this mean the waves we observe in water are simply water behaving in a way that is due to high and low pressures that cannot be measured?

I would think that if you can measure the speed of the wind then and you can measure the frequency of a wave then you are measuring the actual cause of the wave. Or is this too much of an assumption?

 

[baywax]

Because empty space cannot support waves, waves must have a medium to 'float' through, empty space is called 'empty' for a reason.

ex. You can scream in space. That scream will not be heard by anyone, or felt by anyone, no matter how close they are. They would only be able to feel it if they touched your neck.

Have you tried screaming in space?

 

[Gokul43201]

Hi Gokul,

are you saying that waves are a convenient way to explain something that is only quantifiable by way of instrumentation?

Does this mean the waves we observe in water are simply water behaving in a way that is due to high and low pressures that cannot be measured?

A wave in the surface of water is short-form for saying the surface exhibits oscillations in height. A pressure wave traveling through the water body is again short-form for saying there are oscillations in pressure (with space and time) underwater. This is no different than the term waterfall being a short-form for describing a particular motion of water.

I would think that if you can measure the speed of the wind then and you can measure the frequency of a wave then you are measuring the actual cause of the wave. Or is this too much of an assumption?

I don't know what the wind has to do with anything, but measuring the frequency of a wave tells you nothing about the causation. A particular frequency of light may be produced by a vibrational transition in one system, or a rotational transition in another or an electronic transition in yet another, and you won't know which it is, unless you have additional knowledge.

 

[Gokul43201]

Because empty space cannot support waves, waves must have a medium to 'float' through, empty space is called 'empty' for a reason.

ex. You can scream in space. That scream will not be heard by anyone, or felt by anyone, no matter how close they are. They would only be able to feel it if they touched your neck.

This is incorrect. EM waves travel most happily though "empty space" (if I correctly understand what you mean by that from your example).

 

[robertm]

ex. You can scream in space. That scream will not be heard by anyone, or felt by anyone, no matter how close they are. They would only be able to feel it if they touched your neck.

I see what you are trying to get across here, but you could not even feel any vibrations if you tried to scream in space because the vibrations depend upon AIR moving trough your vocal chords

baywax,

Don't get caught comparing physical waves made by matter with the EM waves of light. There only similarities are on paper. Think about it this way: All EM radiation travels at c. Matter in any way shape or form cannot ever travel at c, if it tries it will be converted to energy. So, what are EM waves made of? Energy (roughly). What is energy made of?

This is were we hit a human snag. I think what and made of isn't the proper question to ask. Maybe try why? I don't know to tell you the truth. But what i do know is that some aspects of the physical world cannot be grasped in a regular humanly manner. We are bond by our own biology in a sense. So we say that light is an EM wave. What is an EM wave?

A clever mathematical description of the properties of something that you cannot apply normal human logic to so as to physically describe. Think about it. What do i mean by saying physical? Something that physically exist, and that I can personally see, touch, taste, smell, and whatnot. But if the actual make up of light contains no matter what so ever, then how can i expect it to be described by normal logic. And this is where mathematics comes trumpeting into save the day.

I cannot offer you a straight up answer to many of your questions because i simply do not know, and really maybe no one can as of yet. All I will do is give you my take on the subject in hopes that you and i both may come closer to our own understandings of the world.

Justaname,

I was greatly looking forward to a counter-critique to my statements. Don't give up the preaching so easily!

 

[baywax]

A wave in the surface of water is short-form for saying the surface exhibits oscillations in height. A pressure wave traveling through the water body is again short-form for saying there are oscillations in pressure (with space and time) underwater. This is no different than the term waterfall being a short-form for describing a particular motion of water.

I don't know what the wind has to do with anything, but measuring the frequency of a wave tells you nothing about the causation. A particular frequency of light may be produced by a vibrational transition in one system, or a rotational transition in another or an electronic transition in yet another, and you won't know which it is, unless you have additional knowledge.

Thank you Gokul43201...

I mention the wind because the only way to know if its blowing is to feel the behaviour of our skin, hair etc... as a result of the wind or to see the behaviour of plants, flour or dust and the results of the wind stirring them. This seems to metaphorically describe what you are saying about the effects of a wave. It is only detectable and measurable because of the behaviours it induces.

Can a rotational transition or vibrational transition of a system mimic the frequency of the waves of a red shift? Or is a red shift recognizable right away by its particular frequency?

In terms of radio waves, cannot these signals can be distinguished from TV, Microwaves by there frequency rates?

 

[AzonicZeniths]

This is incorrect. EM waves travel most happily though "empty space" (if I correctly understand what you mean by that from your example).

Yes, EM waves move fine through empty space, but sound waves do not. I was meaning sound waves, and @Baywax, No, I have not tried screaming in space but space is a vacuum and if you were to put something that made sound in a vacuum, you would not hear it any more.

 

[baywax]

baywax,

Don't get caught comparing physical waves made by matter with the EM waves of light. There only similarities are on paper. Think about it this way: All EM radiation travels at c. Matter in any way shape or form cannot ever travel at c, if it tries it will be converted to energy. So, what are EM waves made of? Energy (roughly). What is energy made of?

This is were we hit a human snag. I think what and made of isn't the proper question to ask. Maybe try why? I don't know to tell you the truth. But what i do know is that some aspects of the physical world cannot be grasped in a regular humanly manner. We are bond by our own biology in a sense. So we say that light is an EM wave. What is an EM wave?

A clever mathematical description of the properties of something that you cannot apply normal human logic to so as to physically describe. Think about it. What do i mean by saying physical? Something that physically exist, and that I can personally see, touch, taste, smell, and whatnot. But if the actual make up of light contains no matter what so ever, then how can i expect it to be described by normal logic. And this is where mathematics comes trumpeting into save the day.

I cannot offer you a straight up answer to many of your questions because i simply do not know, and really maybe no one can as of yet. All I will do is give you my take on the subject in hopes that you and i both may come closer to our own understandings of the world.

robertm

Math is a language like any other language in that it we use it to describe nature. I personally feel it does a poor job of it in that it is stinted. Decimals seem to have helped but even these increments leave large gaps in their translations. So, we could say all language is a human attempt to describe nature and part of nature, if not all of it, is the phenomenon of the wave.

That's a good point about em waves traveling at c where matter would convert to raw energy at c. It could be that, if waves do generate matter, the waves are not propagating the same distance or are reflecting back and forth as a wave and so appear as and feel as a solid.

I think the link I gave you goes into "standing waves" to try and explain matter as a wave. Thank you!

PS. What is energy made of you have asked. Waves.

What makes waves... energy or... motion.

 

[baywax]

Apparently love comes in waves... (actually, waves discovered by someone named Love)

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=231769

 

[baywax]

All this aside, its looking like waves are made of motion which is a tell tale sign that there is energy at play.

 

[RocketSurgery]

What is sunrise made of?
Its made of the rotation of the earth, a sun and observation

What is an exponential growth made of?
A bunch of greedy humans. A group of cancer cells dividing at an exponential rate. The observation of these and other growths.

What is evaporation made of?
Heat and liquid. Observation

What is rising unemployment made of?
A bunch of greedy humans, high finance and low income. The observation of these things.

This is probably the most optimistic thing I've ever read.

Seriously though are people that bad? I mean maybe some, maybe a lot... But not all.

 

[Giles]

Baywax, I read Gabriel Lafreniere's site you posted on pg 2, and also others who share similar theories regarding spherical standing waves, such as Milo Wolff, Geoff Hasselhurst and the late Caroline H. Thompson.

Although I'm personally open to the possibility that modern physics may have taken a wrong turn during its evolution (and am definitely intrigued as to why no one can directly disprove SSW theories!), I think you'll find great opposition from the scientific community as a whole.

Firstly, if electrons were proven to be waves, there would be no direct application of this knowledge in industry. In other words, no way to profit. Therefore, of little interest to those who are heavily invested in the current paradigm (or, perhaps more importantly, in direct conflict to them). Secondly, it would be incredibly embarrassing given the comparative degree of complexity in QM. Can you imagine the headlines? Modern physics would end up looking like a joke with its explanations of experimental observations being called fanciful and ridiculous in the extreme.

The only people the wave theory would benefit (if found to be true) are those interested in science purely as an avenue to understand the fundamental workings of this amazing universe.

 

[baywax]

The only people the wave theory would benefit (if found to be true) are those interested in science purely as an avenue to understand the fundamental workings of this amazing universe.

Its still a cool theory. I really thought the whole idea behind science was to understand the fundimental working of the universe... not necessarily to make a profit from it. I know Edison was fairly motivated by bucks... but he was an entrepreneur. I have many friends in high places with regard to science, and the only profit they chase after is free dinners and hotel rooms when on speaking engagements.

In fact I've constantly prodded one very popular scientist to write a book so she can fund her own research without having to go to the NRF or Congress or even MicroSoft etc... and live more comfortably. But all she's really interested in is making it easier for children to learn and how to facilitate the parents role in that endeavor. She says... "I'm a scientist, Jim, not a goddamn marketing puke.

 

[Giles]

There are a lot of scientists like your friend. Unfortunately, though, the majority are reliant on the current set of principles for their livelihoods, and have a tenancy to malign anyone who comes out with a solid theory to the contrary (such as those mentioned above). The word "crackpot" and others like it are often used to dismiss anyone that deviates from the accepted paradigm. Interestingly, particularly in the case of SSW, no one is able to demonstrate the reasons “why” it’s flawed… which is probably the most telling sign that their arguments are emotive rather than rational.

Of course, this has happened throughout history to anyone who’s ideas were truly revolutionary, so it is hardly surprising. Still, you’d think we’d have learned that lesson already...

The scientific progress made during the first part of last century couldn't be compared to any other time in history. What facilitated it was the fact that the scientific community was more accepting to new ideas, and could envision the technological potential they promised.

 

[baywax]

The scientific progress made during the first part of last century couldn't be compared to any other time in history. What facilitated it was the fact that the scientific community was more accepting to new ideas, and could envision the technological potential they promised.

True enough, and it was also the fact that old ideas were proven blatantly wrong because of better technology and better observations. With every old theory being blown out the window, one would be willing to entertain more alternatives in the name of science. Today we may have reached a plateau of tolerance for new ideas. It may be attributable to economics and peer pressure or it may be that the criteria for proof is more detailed and much higher in caliber. Perhaps obtaining solid evidence of wave states presents a challenge, under today's scrutinizing scientific standards.

I'd like to know more about the standing wave.

 

[robertm]

baywax,

You might be interested in this program premiering Tuesday (5/13/08) on the science channel Joao Magueijo's Big Bang:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/João_Magueijo

 

[baywax]

baywax,

You might be interested in this program premiering Tuesday (5/13/08) on the science channel Joao Magueijo's Big Bang:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/João_Magueijo

Thank you robertm... I'm glad to see the theory of "faster than light" was first proposed by John Mofat, a Canuck scientist. Maybe the Science Channel program will get here sooner than expected.

 

[baywax]

OK... I've been looking around a bit into standing waves... and found this

Standing Wave
(Explanation by Superposition with the Reflected Wave)

Is this what matter would look like if we could see it as a standing wave?
(Interactive animation)

http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph14e/stwaverefl.htm

Cool () site with lots of physics applets.

edit... there is also an applet illustrating Standing Longitudinal Waves

http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph14e/stlwaves.htm

You can change the dynamics of this demo as well.

 

[baywax]

Benjamin Franklin warns us to:

"Never confuse motion with action"