Talk:Longitudinal wave

Magnetic Formula

As written, this is nonsense, and I have yet to find a singe peer reviewed article by this Robert Bass. So I believe this should be removed Salsb 8 July 2005 14:46 (UTC)

Not everything in wikipedia needs to be from a peer reviewed journal. I have a copy of Bass's work via the scientific and enginnering library I am at. -Anon

Can you point out the exact "nonsense"? Otherwise it should stay. It's referenced and I have a copy of the references right in front of me. This is the 1st half of Bass's work. He goes on to delineate the a multipole expansion (analogous to the laurent series). Salsb, just because you don't know about it and/or it's not in a "peer reviewed" article, doesn't meant it shouldn't be on wikipedia. -Anon

The equations are written here produce a magnetic field which is identically zero. Prehaps it would be better to write a separate article on Bass' theory, which can expound on it in more detail. As far as being referenced, I would say the credibilty of the references is important Salsb 8 July 2005 15:20 (UTC)

The equations produce a "force free" magnetic field. Bass' work bleiongs here, as it is about the longitudinal waves. The credibilty of the references? Go get Bass's paper. It's reputable. -Anon

Ah, I see, as for the equations, if you are trying to reproduce the equations which give rise to the force-free magnetic field -> which BTW is called that becase of the neglect of the force from the gas pressure -- these aren't quite right. It looks like you are mixing up the A's as the fourier coefficients with the vector potential A(r). I don't have time to write the equations out at present, but I do hope to add them to the force free magnetic field later. Salsb 8 July 2005 15:57 (UTC)

Your equations still make no sense as written, but I realized that your discussion around force free magnetic fields was in reference to plasma waves, as your first reference makes clear. So I clarified it. Although if you read the second reference, it is relevant for force-free magnetic fields, as possibly the first application of them to sunspots. There are no discussions of longitudinal waves in there. Though plasma waves are usually considered separately from electomagnetic waves, because it usually the fluid oscillations which give rise to waves. Salsb 8 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)

Since some of the sections under electromagnetic waves appear to be on plasma physics --plasma waves and force-free magnetic fields -- and the equations credited to Bass are erroneous; I am revising this section. I will add the appropriate equations, eventually, to the 'force-free' magnetic field entry. I also revised the references section to include some reputable textbooks, in which you can find the discussions of both maxwell's equations and basic plasma physics Salsb 8 July 2005 23:01 (UTC)

I'm going to have a go at cleaning the article up a bit as well - hope I don't step on your toes. SeventyThree 9 July 2005 14:13 (UTC)

No problem, please help! Salsb 9 July 2005 17:42 (UTC)

The waves in plasma link is nice. I was going to write an article on them. I'm glad to see that there alread is one Salsb 9 July 2005 17:03 (UTC)

It's sad to see that the staements by Heaviside have been removed. No wonder physics students I've talked to are messed up, because professors like Salsb disreguard information by the likes of Heaviside.

The information by Bass should be in here. I'll radd him as a further reading.

Dear Anon -- I removed your edits for the following reasons

1) While you did correctly extract several paragraphs from Heaviside's work, you neglected to note:

A) Heaviside's points out throughout his work that there is no reason to suspect that there are such longitudinal electromagnetic waves, and good reasons to think that there are no such waves

B) After developing mathematical formulas for longitudinal waves, he then spends several pages showing that these waves are physically impossible.

C) At the end, he says we are back to maxwell and his transerve waves.

So a full reading of Heaviside's work shows the opposite of what it was included for, and is only of interest for the history of the development of electromagnetic waves

2) your representation of Bass' work previously was mathematically incorrect before, and doesn't make much sense as written, as it appears to contradict your reference to Heaviside, as well as standard texts in electromagnetism, for which I provided two standard references: one at the basic undergrad level, and one at the introductory graduate level.

3) a reference to force-free magnetic fields is confusing plasma waves with electromagnetic waves.

I did, however, include a mention of guided waves, and another editor helpfully included a link to waves to plasma, as you might be thinking of them Salsb 19:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant portions of Heaviside's work was cited. Though Heaviside's doubted that longitudinal electromagnetic waves existed, there are such waves in nature. It should be noted that Heaviside thought that these were physically impossible, but they do exist.

Bass' work isn't mathematically incorrect. The portion included was only the first half of the paper. It was, though, an alternative to the references of Heaviside.

longitudinal plasma waves and longitudinal electromagnetic waves are similar and should be discussedc here. A plasma wave basically is a medium saturated by electromagnetic waves.

I won't readd the information though. I will readd the reference you removed and NPOV the further reading. -Anon

A few things to note:

It appeared to me that your straight inclusion of Heaviside's work missed his point, in which he was attempting to generalize Maxwell's equations -- in an attempt to reconcile Helmholz's and Maxwell's work -- and he showed that one could not have longitudinal waves in a vacuum or a homogenous medium. Also he was not considering either plasmas or guided waves; as an expert in guided waves he would have known better. Note also, the appearace of longitudinal waves in such a case does not in anyway contradict maxwell's equation. In fact to obtain the waves, you use maxwell's equations -- see either the texts I referred you to.

Note I said Your presentation of Bass' work was incorrect. I suspect you were trying to write down equations for force-free magnetic fields, and making a mistake as noted above. Incidently, this would not be Bass' work as such, rather a conventional approximation.

Given the differences in reputation between the sources: standard texts, journal articles vs an unpeer-reviewed paper, it would be important to follow the anti-gravity article and indicate that Bass' work is not considered main-stream {which in of itself does not make it wrong, but we can lead it to the reader to decided whether to trust a non-peer-reviewed paper}

I still do not believe it is neccesary to include force-free magnetic fields, as they are the static magnetic fields resulting from a specific approximation. They also can vary spatially in a transverse or longitudinal manner , or neither.

I wrote what I hope is a compromise text, although I did not change the Bass reference.Salsb 20:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patent

The patent here is using longitudinal in a much difference sense than the rest of the article. Longitudinal is refering solely to the direction of propagation relative to the bore axis in a putative oil well. So longitudinal means that the wave is moving in the direction of the well axis; not that the electromagnetic waves have vibrations along the axis of propagation. Salsb 21:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The whole patent section in this article is worthless. Special:Contributions/172.146.167.95 added all of them. It seems like 172.146.167.95 did a patent search for the term "longitudinal wave" and added all the hits in Wikipedia. The patent section is not appropriate in this article and I am deleting it. - Ornisong 23:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum velocity of longitudinal waves.

A I correct that (in contrast to transverse waves) the maximum velocity of propagation cannot exceed the individual maximum velocities of the particles transmitting the wave. If this is correct, them em waves in plasma must travel very slowly cf the speed of light. Is that true?--Light current 16:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is correct, the information between two particles travels at the light speed, and the particle only reacts because of the field it feels. Imagine a wave of cars in a jam, they never go fast, but the wave can go very very fast.Klinfran (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The video that is listed here is listed as a "wave" when in fact it is a "pulse." The data is misleading and should be rectified. 67.164.78.110 (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Chris DellaValle[reply]

Sound vs pressure waves

Sound waves are simply pressure waves in a fluid and at the correct frequencies so that we can hear them so splitting mechanical longitudinal waves into sound waves and pressure waves is a bit silly. This is shown by the fact that essentially the same equation is included twice. I think those two sections should be merged into a single mechanical longitudinal waves section. anyone object? 137.205.78.240 (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

retarded potential

With the use of retarded potential, we can easily see there exists a coulombian retarded electric field, and hence a longitudinal electric "wave" but that decays really fast with the distance.Klinfran (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Longitudinal wave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060303195103/http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/sound/u11l1b.html to http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/sound/u11l1b.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Soundwaves" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Soundwaves. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 11#Soundwaves until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]