Open ericmazur opened 8 years ago
We agree that it's not good to abuse the word "amplitude".
Meanwhile, there are at least two additional, independent problems here:
A standing wave doesn't need to look like a sine wave. Counterexamples include:
I know this is a chapter on waves in 1D, but the term standing wave should be defined in a way that works in any dimension, from one on up. So additional examples include:
Also a standing wave doesn't need to be harmonic.
The term "standing wave" is (for once!) not an idiomatic expression. That is, you can figure out the meaning just by looking at the words. It is any wave that isn't a running wave.
Perhaps most importantly of all, it is not good practice to define "standing" in terms of "stationary". It would make just a much sense (i.e. no sense at all) to define "stationary" in terms of "standing".
In this case term "stationary" has not been defined in the book AFAICT. It is not mentioned in the index. It is a highly technical term, and students were not born knowing what it means.
My best effort at defining "standing wave" is at: https://www.av8n.com/physics/wave-intro.htm#sec-standing-wave
"A standing wave is a stationary harmonic wave with an aptitude that varies like a sine." muddles the concept of "amplitude" Better "A standing wave is a stationary sinusoidal wave."
Sears for amplitude and make sure that this problem doesn't crop up elsewhere