Why don't we use arc length formula to calculate wavelength?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies why the arc length formula is not used to calculate the wavelength of a sine wave. Wavelength, denoted as λ, is defined between points of the same phase, such as crests or troughs, and has significant physical meaning. Using arc length would not provide useful measurements, as the sine function typically represents quantities like electric field strength or pressure, not distance. Misinterpretations often arise from visual representations of electromagnetic waves in educational materials.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of sine wave properties and definitions
  • Familiarity with wave terminology, including wavelength (λ) and amplitude
  • Basic knowledge of electromagnetic waves and their representations
  • Mathematical concepts related to functions and their graphs
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the physical significance of wavelength in different contexts, such as sound and light
  • Study the mathematical representation of sine waves and their applications in physics
  • Explore the relationship between wavelength, frequency, and wave speed
  • Learn about common misconceptions in wave physics and how to address them
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in physics, musicians interested in wave properties, and anyone seeking to clarify the relationship between mathematical functions and physical wave phenomena.

LLT71
Messages
73
Reaction score
5
can you please explain me why don't we use arc length formula to calculate wavelength? seems a bit confusing...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Could you please be more specific?
 
Wavelength of a sine wave, λ, can be measured between any two points with the same phase, such as between crests, or troughs, or corresponding zero crossings as shown.
Why don't we treat that as length of sine function between that two points instead, cause that would give us full length of that function in that interval? This way it seems to me like "length of a line" between two points (crests etc.)=wavelength.
 
Well for one, that measurement wouldn't be useful. Wavelength as it is currently defined has a lot of physical meaning. Some sort of length along the curve does not.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: LLT71
LLT71 said:
Why don't we treat that as length of sine function between that two points instead, cause that would give us full length of that function in that interval?
If you have a sin function usually the vertical axis is something like E field strength or pressure, not distance. So it usually wouldn't make sense unit-wise to use the arc length formula.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: blue_leaf77 and LLT71
LLT71 said:
Wavelength of a sine wave, λ, can be measured between any two points with the same phase, such as between crests, or troughs, or corresponding zero crossings as shown.
Why don't we treat that as length of sine function between that two points instead, cause that would give us full length of that function in that interval? This way it seems to me like "length of a line" between two points (crests etc.)=wavelength.

It's an interesting idea. That would actually be a combination of the wavelength and the amplitude. If you think about music, and notes on a stringed instrument, you can see why the traditional definitions of wavelength and amplitude are important.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: LLT71
thank you all! I think seeing a wave just in a way of math function and not understanding what that function actually represents led me to misinterpret wavelength.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale
LLT71 said:
thank you all! I think seeing a wave just in a way of math function and not understanding what that function actually represents led me to misinterpret wavelength.
You are welcome! It is a pretty common misunderstanding for electromagnetic waves just because of the way books draw EM waves.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: LLT71
Dale said:
You are welcome! It is a pretty common misunderstanding for electromagnetic waves just because of the way books draw EM waves.
you are totally right! for ex. one can easily conclude from the way pictures represent them (particulary, basic wave function) that T[period]=lambda[wavelength], which at first seems very obvious and unit-wise not.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
779
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
688
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K