Why Does Sound Propagate?

killivolt said:

Will they or can they transfer energy of unknown quanta not measurable.

Click to expand...

This was leading and I have more to say.


That is atoms are at a state of rest (True but not True ) until exacted upon with energy.

Then they become exited.



If motion of waves produced then align themselves on the same plan moving forward.



I would then say that there is a third dimensional conclusion. Which resides in ∞. A Law of replacement.

The result would then be a colliding waves propagate to the point of absence of a lessor value. Therefor, their must be energy left on one plane and not in another over all yet all are disturbed by the collision those somewhat unhappy electron or tron's leave orbit outward yet following the same path outside our known observance and then fall back in on an atom replacing the absence of equal energy and motion not seen to us yet must be filled.


Bringing it to equality. Satisfying our known laws.


If I divide the number 1 by 3 I get and infinitesimal amount of product of different quantity and as some have described groups of color. Those are then replaced later.

But, saved in a another location of unknown origin.


Now, I apply that in a simple example.


If a bees nest is an atom. And the victim is the wave when energy is exacted upon the nest by the victim the bees move upward into a 3 dimension. Meanwhile, the victim runs along a path without divergence maybe back and forth. However, still not up or down. Henceforth, the victim is attacked from the 3 dimension as it follows him along his path.


Edit: Once attacked he runs faster. Waving them away and yet adding more motion to the attraction yet both will remain in a constant state of motion in addition to energy. Yet further along the 2 dimensional plane of effect.


kv

crashsite said:

Is that true? In electronics, high resistance has less effect since less current can flow (thus less power dissipated) but, in mechanical systems, higher resistance means that it has more effect.

Click to expand...

It's the same in both electronics and acoustics.

Water has a low resistance which saps energy from the tuning fork faster than air which has a higher resistance: think of a capacitor discharging through a resistor.

Hey.

Sound can be compared to many different things and each one illustrates a particular aspect of sound waves better than others. For example, the stone in a pond analogy demonstrates attenuation of sound wave (how its amplitude decreases with time) but not the longitudinal nature of them.

I think people are getting confused with multitude of descriptions and models of the nature of sound.

crashsite said:

If the emitter is some sort of diaphragm that vibrates and moves the air back and forth just slightly, why doesn't the sound just stay there and become a more and more complex wveform with each cycle...with that cacaphony propagating,, by the interchange of energy between adjacent molecules, as basically a damped waveform as it loses energy with distance?
QUOTE]

However, as I understand it, you fundamentally want to know why and/or how atoms pass their energy to their neighbours?

Just a quick fact. The speed of sound DOES increase with higher densities. Otherwise all my past science teachers have been lying to me.

All the best

Click to expand...

Alice in Wonderland

killivolt said:

I would then say that there is a third dimensional conclusion. Which resides in ∞. A Law of replacement.

The result would then be a colliding waves propagate to the point of absence of a lessor value. Therefor, their must be energy left on one plane and not in another over all yet all are disturbed by the collision those somewhat unhappy electron or tron's leave orbit outward yet following the same path outside our known observance and then fall back in on an atom replacing the absence of equal energy and motion not seen to us yet must be filled.


Bringing it to equality. Satisfying our known laws.


If I divide the number 1 by 3 I get and infinitesimal amount of product of different quantity and as some have described groups of color. Those are then replaced later.

But, saved in a another location of unknown origin.


Now, I apply that in a simple example.


If a bees nest is an atom. And the victim is the wave when energy is exacted upon the nest by the victim the bees move upward into a 3 dimension. Meanwhile, the victim runs along a path without divergence maybe back and forth. However, still not up or down. Henceforth, the victim is attacked from the 3 dimension as it follows him along his path.

Click to expand...

Yikes, I think someone's been into those 'funny' mushrooms like the ones that hippies sell...

Yes, and Yes and Overzealous Editing

Pepsiiuk said:

However, as I understand it, you fundamentally want to know why and/or how atoms pass their energy to their neighbours?

Just a quick fact. The speed of sound DOES increase with higher densities. Otherwise all my past science teachers have been lying to me.

Click to expand...

Yes #1. Ultimately, I guess that's probably it since the propagation of sound is dependent on the transfer of energy from atom to atom.

Yes #2. Your science teachers have been lying to you.

You deleted the left bracket and slash in your quote so it appeared as regular text.

Having said all that, I agree with you that part of the problem is that everyone tries to think about the subject differently and most try to include cyclical wave action. Not surprising since that's a staple of "conventional" science class fare when the subject of sound comes up in the curriculum.

But, waves don't explain sound propagation (the why of what makes the sound zip off into whatever medium at Mach 1). The Wikipedia reference cited by 3v0 is very good and starts getting into it but, there seems to be more to the story.

For example, I think there's some evidence that molecules are always moving at Mach 1 (Due to thermal effects, they are moving at some speed, right? Why not Mach 1). But, the movement is very small and random, in all directions, so it cancels. But, if there's a disturbance in the medium (perhaps due to a finger snap), now there's a vector with energy and direction.

The molecules are already going as fast as they can so they don't go any faster due to the vectored force but, they do move in a specific direction. Now, instead of random collisions the collisions move along the axis of the vector and that determines the direction of the propagation of the disturbance (which, since it's traveling at the speed of sound is sonic energy).

I'll stop there and ask: Does that sound reasonable? Even if it's completely wrong, I think it helps to get some sort of theory out there for critical analysis.

Resistance

Hero999 said:

It's the same in both electronics and acoustics.

Water has a low resistance which saps energy from the tuning fork faster than air which has a higher resistance: think of a capacitor discharging through a resistor.

Click to expand...

I don't want to get too deep into semantics here but, if I swoosh my hand trhough the air, I feel very little resistance. If I'm in the swimming pool and swoosh my hand through the water, I feel a lot of resistance.

Warmer = Faster

dknguyen said:

Not sure why sound travels faster in warmer air than colder air. It could be that the kinetic energy in the warmer more than makes up for the lower density. It's probably a balance thing between two or more variables as is so often the case in physics.

Click to expand...

I'm conjecturing that the reason that sound travels faster in warmer air is that, due to thermal effects, the air molecules are traveling faster. And, since they are moving faster, they are propagating the sound faster as well.

Nut cracker sweet.

crashsite said:

Yikes, I think someone's been into those 'funny' mushrooms like the ones that hippies sell...

Click to expand...

He,he. I was wondering when someone was going to crack those nuts.


kv Tweedle de Tweedle dum.

while we're at it

A good wine glass rings after it struck because it's Q factor is > 1.
What is the Q of air?
How many times would an echo bounce off of parallel surfaces?
How viscous is air?

BTW, the speed of sound in water is >> than in air.

crashsite said:

I don't want to get too deep into semantics here but, if I swoosh my hand trhough the air, I feel very little resistance. If I'm in the swimming pool and swoosh my hand through the water, I feel a lot of resistance.

Click to expand...

You're looking at it all wrong.

Water has a much lower resistance to sound waves than air.

It's much easier to couple mechanical energy to water than it is to air which is why you find it much harder to move your arm through water. Look at the size of a ship's propeller and imagine how much larger it would need to be if it were placed on top of the ship and use the air to move it along.

Another way of looking at it is that your arm is harder to move through water than air because more of the mechanical energy is transferred to the water than the surrounding air.

Speed of sound (Hyperphysics)

Air / Water / Ice

Air: @ 374 c 559.54 m/s

Air : @ 0 c 331.4 m/s

Air : @ 27.7 c 348.34 m/s

Of Water 0 c 1402 m/s

Of Water 20 c 1482 m/s


As a mechanical model density is explainable so is Thermal expansion. Is also a mechanical but, thermal density.

But, the Variability of the elasticity of a Molecular Structure is retention held back by the Electrical Atomic Nature.

Bonding sub forms electromagnetically. Expansion or propagation held to the specific state by natural laws or attraction and repulsion which is the relationship between the mechanical and electrical connection irrupting in.

Energy Transference not excluding the need for Super positioning which is the quantum nature of structures which allows for Supersets.



kv

At least you didn't include relativistic effects...

killivolt said:

Air / Water / Ice

Air: @ 374 c 559.54 m/s............

Click to expand...

And, all that relates to the question of how sound propagates by.......?

In opposition to my effort to simplify and bring down the subject from what almost appears to be witchcraft, as taught in science classes, and the formula-laden explanations, by quantifying values, your supersets seem to be elevating the subject to an even higher and more cerebral plane.

I'm sure your mother must be very proud of her son's intellectual prowess but, I'm mostly confused as to what you are trying to say about sound propagation.

Down the rabbit hole.

crashsite said:

And, all that relates to the question of how sound propagates by.......?

In opposition to my effort to simplify and bring down the subject from what almost appears to be witchcraft, as taught in science classes, and the formula-laden explanations, by quantifying values, your supersets seem to be elevating the subject to an even higher and more cerebral plane.

I'm sure your mother must be very proud of her son's intellectual prowess but, I'm mostly confused as to what you are trying to say about sound propagation.

Click to expand...

Papabravo, Stated earlier that sound is in it's simplest form was easily explained and modeled. But, the conclusion is far from it's point. Because it was you began to reach for the holy grail. And once you had open the second book of Thermodynamics now you must include relativity and wave mechanics and and and. And it was you who went into that rabbit hole.

Our ability simplify only takes us further down that rocky road that tends to muddy the water. Without those energy induction methods i.e. examples of sound propagating in other mediums. We cannot continue without addressing them.

It's the same water at x temp and y condition. Yet the lack thereof the mediums ability to stretch evenly or absorb or store the energy changes the sounds distance and time.

The question was how does it propagate.

Held to a state by which is governed by thermal expansion or contraction.

Held to a state by which is electromagnetically bound or electromagnetically fixed by attraction or repulsion.

Elasticity of a medium will conclude to either bring it down to it's lowest order or up to the higher order.

Once molecules and particles are within a change of state and have been so ordained to behave the way they will behave suddenly when enacted upon by motion they then will follow that path without deviation x time and y distance.

Bound by the unseen and unobserved classification and order that is mostly not understood yet is still speculated on.

It'm bad at math too. I used the online calculator.

My Mom is proud of me I survived after the doctors said he has 24 hours.

kv

The dangers of unbridled intellect

killivolt said:

Papabravo, Stated earlier that sound is in it's simplest form was easily explained and modeled. But, the conclusion is far from it's point. Because it was you began to reach for the holy grail. And once you had open the second book of Thermodynamics now you must include relativity and wave mechanics and and and. And it was you who went into that rabbit hole.

My Mom is proud of me I survived after the doctors said he has 24 hours.

Click to expand...

The second point first. That's no big feat. I also survived after the doctors said he has 24 hours. I survived just fine but the doctor was dead within the 24 hours he said he had...

It's true that I did bring the change in the speed of sound vs. temperature into the discussion (a well known factor in aviation) but, I don't know that I brought the laws of thermodynamics into it.

The 4th grade can learn a lot about dinosaurs without a detailed discussion of the skeletal differences between a T-Rex and a Pteredactyl, even though a comment might be made that one was a large lumbering beast and the other capable of flight and how that relates to the bones.

I'm the 4th grader, trying to work through the 'glosses' that seem to be rampant in early science classes when it comes to sound. Invoking the laws of thermodynamics and relativity (while they are admittedly there and important when you get to some level of analysis and the formlas and equations, when you get into practical design work), do muddy up the waters when trying to get to the very elemetary concepts. My goal (grail) at this point is to make sure that I at least understand those elementary concepts accurately.

Now, see. This post is a prime example of the abusees possible. It does absolutely nothing to advance anyone's understanding of the nature of the propagation of sound either by making a statement or posing a question.

Let me correct that:

Does the natural thermal activity of the air (air being the most common medium in which we encounter sounds), put the speed of the molecules at Mach 1? If so, is that the factor that defines Mach 1?

Time for breakfeast.

crashsite said:

Does the natural thermal activity of the air (air being the most common medium in which we encounter sounds), put the speed of the molecules at Mach 1? If so, is that the factor that defines Mach 1?

Click to expand...

If I have offended you have my apology. I am no one to be condescending.

But, my earlier attempt at an explanation were largely not understood and so, then I wanted to give reference to the states of matter or molecules and partials which unfortunately are made up of these smaller regions.

If ignored and applied just as a reference may have not resulted in brushing aside your reach for the simplest form of understanding.

But things are tightly knitted together by unseen forces and all I wanted was to implement not the argument but rather inject some reasoning there is a glue sometimes stretchy sometimes ridged that keeps things in check.

This unseen force has 2 boundary's here and there where ever that is and your answer may soon be discovered. So I look to nature to find answer's examples.

Wind across the water driving the wave pushing it atop (first) there was the force creating it afterward it was the wind to drive it along. In a body of water there is the resistance of the kelp which is waving along underneath. The wave (water) in motion lunges forward and pushed along but resisted underneath. If for some reason the kelp and the wind are at the same frequency it will add energy to the existing wave not so with the next Ir-rhythmic motion leaving gaps voids of differing energy but once they get to their destination. All arrive on the opposite shore sensing device or ear drum. (Mechanical)


The same can happen at a lower state on Molecules and particles are held together tight or loose depending on the thermal expansion or lack thereof in the case of the air.

Air : @ 27.7 c 348.34 m/s

It was at the center for a reason because if you look at the composition and temp molecules are allowed to push against one another in an uneven pattern.

So, then I see it as pivot point. On one end gas and superheated gas but, on the other liquid and Ice.

So, at the middle state the (Air) energy is absorbed by displacement. Speed of sound reduction putting motion in check. (Elasticity) Still bound by unseen forces.

The transference is un-even pushing around the molecules and particles to dissipation. But in the unseen world the energy is absorbed to what? it is still there?

And where did it go.

In the gas less rigidity more fluidity in the solid as expected vastly dense. Both states differing transference of motion and energy.

As for the molecule and partical E=mc².

As for mach 1 = Time.

Reflective + Deflective. Both happening at the same time.

Reflection (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Deflection (engineering) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


kv

Gomer Pyle USMC

killivolt said:

If I have offended you have my apology. I am no one to be condescending.

Click to expand...

Oh, I'm not a bit offended...but, I can be mighty cantankerous.

It just seems like you've chosen a rather oblique approach to the question. For example: What would you like for supper?

Well, there is the question of caloric intake and the need for it opposed to the needs of the earth. If one were to grow, reap and grind a kilo of wheet flour in India, might one expect the net impact on the planet to be in balance if one were to eat a slice of bread in Poukeepsie NY? It may be an interesting statistic and possibly even true but, it just doesn't address the question of what do you want for supper....even though the dissertaion does pertain to foodstuffs.

What I'd really like to see is how the atomic or molecular nature acts to answer the specific question rather than postulating that these things are part of the natural world and somehow relate. But, probably I'm just too much of a rube to get the elegance of it.

Ok, I'm not getting your question. And should concede.

But humor me and other's with this conversation in that what is held in contention is the question and not the answer.

That is to say questions of obscure nature cannot be answerable. Rather they are variable will not be defined lending to conjecture which is the point of the question.

If I am close let me know. But, most likely I'll be far from a point of observation.

The answer is in your question.

Example :

1. If a tree falls in a forest with no one there to here does it make a sound?

2. You can lead a horse to water but can you make him drink ?

Does the pail hold water or does the water hold itself. Please explain why without the example of the pail.

So do we take the Blue pill or the Red one.

I made my choice already.

Maybe it's possible to take both.

kv

Edit: The premiss if your question is logical and the answer's given by other's are clear and defined.

I do concede without objection to the earlier things I said above.

And Ok, I took the blue one.Hawking Radiation and Super-Acoustic Diffusion

I said, "Mach 1" not to "mock one"

killivolt said:

Ok, I'm not getting your question. And should concede.

But humor me and other's with this conversation in that what is held in contention is the question and not the answer.

That is to say questions of obscure nature cannot be answerable. Rather they are variable will not be defined lending to conjecture which is the point of the question.

Click to expand...

I can see that this is going to take a bunch of baby steps since the larger concepts seem to elicit answers on varying topics (seemingly everything except the topic of the thread). The question I asked was a yes/no question. Do air molecules have a natural vibration that puts them at the velocity of Mach 1? Since Mach number changes with temperature, it's obviously allowable for the velocity to change and still be Mach 1.

If they do, then my analysis of sound propagation still has a chance. If they don't, then my analysis is completely off-base and I must go back and completely rethink it. But, if the air molecules don't move at Mach 1, for a given set of conditions (temp, pressure, etc.), at what speed do they move and why?

crashsite said:

I can see that this is going to take a bunch of baby steps since the larger concepts seem to elicit answers on varying topics (seemingly everything except the topic of the thread). The question I asked was a yes/no question. Do air molecules have a natural vibration that puts them at the velocity of Mach 1? Since Mach number changes with temperature, it's obviously allowable for the velocity to change and still be Mach 1.

If they do, then my analysis of sound propagation still has a chance. If they don't, then my analysis is completely off-base and I must go back and completely rethink it. But, if the air molecules don't move at Mach 1, for a given set of conditions (temp, pressure, etc.), at what speed do they move and why?

Click to expand...

crashsite, I truly enjoy your passion and cantankerousness.

Thanks for the journey.


kv

Well, the nature of harmonic motion is that there is no particular velocity, just a maximum, so even if a molecule had a resonant frequency that made the maximum velocity mach1, the condition would only exist for an instant, just like it would for any frequency that made the maximum speed > mach1.. Only difference is the phase angle where it would occur each period..