Why does eg a falling stone crate many ripples on a water surface?

AI Thread Summary
When an object like a stone hits water, it creates multiple ripples due to the energy transfer over time, causing oscillations rather than a single wave. The initial disturbance generates a well, and as displaced water returns, it overshoots, forming peaks and valleys. This process continues as the energy dissipates, leading to multiple ripples instead of just one. The restoring forces acting on the water depend on the displacement, preventing it from returning to its original state instantaneously. Additionally, disturbances propagate from all points, creating a complex wave pattern rather than a single circular ripple.
Antti
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
So I've studied physics at the university quite a bit and was a bit surprised when I couldn't answer this simple question a friend asked me. When something lands in water why are several ripples created? Like why is the resulting water wave made up of several peaks and valleys and not just one peak, valley or peak/valley pair?

The only possible explanation I could come up with at the time was that an object does not cross the water surface instantaneously. It transfers energy to the water over some period of time and thus the water wave would have some spatial extension because of that. However I suspect that it's not the whole story.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Make a sudden movement at the end of a long rope, and you will see a wave propagate even though no part of the rope follows the wave. The rope won't oscillate because it loses its energy hitting the ground, but water will keep moving until friction stops it.

So the waves aren't water moving outwards, they are water oscillating back and forth, giving the illusion of something moving in one direction.
 
When the stone hits the water it creates a well. Displaced water flows back into the well, but the energy it has gained from the stone means it 'overshoots' and creates a peak, which then collapses, forming a well.. Each of these motions generates a ripple and saps some of the energy from the centre.
 
haruspex said:
When the stone hits the water it creates a well. Displaced water flows back into the well, but the energy it has gained from the stone means it 'overshoots' and creates a peak, which then collapses, forming a well.. Each of these motions generates a ripple and saps some of the energy from the centre.

Thanks, that sort of makes sense. But he might say "well why doesn't the center return to its original state just once and only create one ripple?". Somehow I suspect energy conservation has something to do with it.
 
Antti said:
But he might say "well why doesn't the center return to its original state just once and only create one ripple?
Because of inertia and the fact that the restoring forces (which try to bring it into the original state) depend on the displacement from the original state. When the water is moving back upwards it has some velocity, and cannot suddenly stop in the original state, especially since the restoring forces at the original state are zero.

Also note that the disturbance propagates in all directions, from every position that is disturbed. Not just from the the original position, where the disturbance was caused externally by the stone. So you cannot have a single circular ripple propagating just outwards, with calm water inside. Because every point on that ripple is a source of a circular wave front. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens–Fresnel_principle
 
Last edited:
Antti said:
"well why doesn't the center return to its original state just once and only create one ripple?". Somehow I suspect energy conservation has something to do with it.

tell him, "same as why a cork bobs up and down when you push it down" :wink:

(and yes, it's energy conservation … the restoring force is always in the same direction (on the way up), so that's lots of energy when it reaches the start position!)
 
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...
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