this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2024
1210 points (98.4% liked)

memes

10190 readers
2433 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Let’s say you put like 1000 violinists all in a big, long row. Then, have the first violinist play a note, then the second plays the very same note, then the third, and so on. Let’s say you could also time it so that at the very moment the sound wave from one violinist hits the next is when that one plays the note. Brrrrrrump! All the way across. Let’s also say you could time it perfectly so that the waves don’t cancel each other out. What would happen?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think eventually you reach a point where previously played notes would lose all of their energy, meaning there's probably an upper limit on how loud it would get for an observer at the end. Something something Doppler effect.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Not the Doppler effect, as that only applies to moving objects, but instead the inverse square law, where the energy of the sound wave decreases by the square of the distance from the origin, since it spreads in a sphere with the energy being spread across the surface of the sphere, resulting in a very quick dropoff in the loudness.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

The sound source is moving in the above scenario relative to a stationary object. I'm not saying you're wrong but that was my thinking.

load more comments (2 replies)