Rarefaction occurs only in a______wave.?
101454
Rarefaction is the reduction of a medium's density, or the opposite of compression.\n\nA natural example of this is as a phase in a sound wave or phonon. Half of a sound wave is made up of the compression of the medium, and the other half is the decompression or rarefaction of the medium.\n\nAnother natural example of rarefaction is in the layers of our atmosphere. Because what constitutes our atmosphere has mass, it is definite that most of the atmospheric matter will be nearer to the Earth. Therefore, air at higher layers of the atmosphere is considered to have less pressure, or is rarefied in relation to air at lower layers.\n\nRarefaction can be easily observed by compressing a spring and releasing it.\n\nRarefaction waves expand with time; for most gases the rarefaction wave keeps the same overall profile at all times (it is a 'self-similar expansion'). Each part of the wave travels at the local speed of sound, in the local medium. This expansion behaviour is in contrast to the behaviour of pressure increases, which get narrower with time, until they steepen into shock waves.\n\nRarefaction can refer to an area of low relative pressure following a shockwave.\n\nThe term rarefaction in ecology refers to a technique to standardize and compare species richness computed from samples of different sizes. Rarefaction allows the calculation of the species richness for a given number of sampled individuals and allows the construction of so called rarefaction curves. This curve is a plot of the number of species as a function of the number of individuals sampled. In case of a steep slope a large fraction of the species diversity is not sampled, if the part of the curve is already becoming flat, a reasonable number of individuals is sampled and more intensive sampling will probably only yield a small number of additional species (if any). [1]
425519
there are basically 2 parallel mediums of propagation. air and the outer liquid hemisphere. i expect to see interference also as there will be addition of waveforms.
493116
Particle and Wave.\n\nGood Luck\n\nJimmy
945352
Then defend it... I say that there is no way that a random chance process could have formed life forming proteins and DNA with their unique chirality. If proteins and DNA were formed by chance  each and every one of the components would be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. This is not what we see in natural proteins or in natural DNA. How can a random chance natural process create proteins with thousands of "L" molecules, and then also create DNA with billions of "R" molecules? Does this sound like random chance or a product of design? Even if \nthere were a magic process to introduce chirality, it would only create one isomer. If such a process existed, we do not know anything about it or how it would work. If it did exist, how were compounds with the other chirality ever formed? Even if there were two magical processes, one for each isomer, what determined which process  was used and when it was used, if this was a random chance natural process? The idea of two processes requires a controlling mechanism, and this kind of control is not possible in a random chance natural process.\nYou are an intelligent man alot smarter than a mere theist so I don't think I need to explain chirality more thoroughly. You just need to defend your statement... Too bad you can't now that you have this informant ion.....   Jim
328
An equally valid question would be "what is the mechanism that causes WF_A to collapse when it is measured?"  The schroedinger equation does not predict collapse as a result of any interaction, so it is outside the theory taught in undergraduate classes.  There is no accepted theory (or in my opinion, any reasonable theory at all) as to why measurement causes a selection of a single eigenvalue out some non-eigenstate.  The idea that measurement on one object has ramifications on another object seems more mysterious, but it's not fundamentally different than the idea that measurement causes collapse in the first place.  You won't find a satisfying answer.
277032
I assume you are talking about any wave equation, not just a QM probability density function.\n\nIn any case, what do you mean that you have a "different x for every instant t"?  That is not the case.  I suspect you are thinking of travelling along with the crest or trough of a wave.  As t changes, the location of the crest and trough changes, but that is not the only location on the wave.\n\nWhat the wave equation specifies is the magnitude of the wave at *any* location x, at any time t.  So, if you are at a constant location x', the magnitude of the wave will vary periodically in time at that location. If you were a cork on the water, you would bob up and down at your location as the waves passed you. But similarly, if we were to somehow freeze time, and travel up and down our x axis, the magnitude of the wave would vary periodically in space as well.  So now, rather than a cork bobbing on the water, imagine you're on a jet ski that is going across the water so fast, compared to the speed of the waves, that it's almost like the waves aren't moving.  Yet you bob up and down as you cross the waves that lie in your path in space.\n\nHence, the wave varies both in x and t, independently.
700830
I'll give you a little visual guide here.  \n\nOk lets think of a piece of string.  One guy stands on the end of it and he is moving it up and down and making the string look like a wave.  Now the particles in this string are only moving up and down..(there is no forward movement)  \n  The "wave" which is accually the energy that the person on one end is supplying IS moving.  The energy moves from one end of the string to the other .. and yes some reflects back.  The particles of this string don't move at all.
1021626
active only in the presence of a catalyst
649932
I posted a very similar question here not long ago (minus the farting bit)!!\nI asked if I was the only one that thought it was all 'tosh'\nI should have actually asked about ozone layers etc!\nHowever I did get a couple of very interesting answers that agreed with me, I hope you get the same response, I am sure it is all hogwash and I was very pleased to hear from others that were on the same wave length.
272342
<LOL> NO! The doppler effect is about compression and rarifaction of a wave generated by a source moving through space. Time can only change with a warping of spacetime itself. Apples and oranges.
284573
good link below\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory
69398
In some sense, it could be made up of individual particles.  But if you break down the particles far enough, they start to take on properties of waves as well as particles.  But the question is, if they are waves, what is there to do the waving?\n\nIf we observe the particles very closely, we can determine their exact positions - but the more precisely we determine their positions, the less we know about their momentum!  We can only draw a graph to represent the probability of a given particle's momentum _if_ it happened to be at a particular position, and there does not seem to be any way to exactly predict what its position or momentum might be at any given point in time, without measuring it.\n\nSo it could be that matter does not exist at all, unless it is being measured, or observed.  Could it be that what matter is made up of is...mind?
395513
Hiya\nWe don't see a wave for atrial repolarization as the repolarization wave flowing through the heart isn't in the form of 2 waves for ventricle and auricle and hence flows as a continous wave form the ventricle to the auricle and is seen on the electrocardiogram as a weak wave\nOn the other hand the polarization wave is different for auicale and venricle as is it is separately induced by the SA NODE AND THE AV NODE. \nThus as these 2 polarize separateley with different intensities the graph shows 2 diff waves\nSince the ventricle is longer than the auricle the wave required to polarize it has a higher potential and thus QRS complex is larger than the P complex\nThe same logic cannot be applied for repolarization as the potential required to repolarize the whole heart is weak and does not have much function in the form of closing or opening of valves or anything like that\nHope that answers your question\nGood question though\nHad to think twice before answering it (and I love Biology)\nBest of Luck\nLotza Love\nNick
181822
Sound travels in a wave.  Actually travels best through a solid.
196531
I beleive that the definition of a wave would be millions of particles moving through space/time. Thus the particle isn't the wave. The particle (+ millions more) make the wave. So you were correct in saying that the particle is traveling through space/time (+millions more) thus creating the waves as it moves.
546804
Diffusion Waves and their Uses \n\nDiffusion waves lack wave fronts, can't be beamed, and don't travel very far, yet they form the basis of several new and revolutionary measurement technologies. \n\nthis is the site Address \nhttp://www.aip.org/pt/vol-53/iss-8/p29.html\n\nyou  will get all the information you  need for your project  in this site
566388
Generally, small angular waves are an indication that something in the water is moving just below the surface and can be attributed to some form of water organism.  This can range from water bugs to minnows to fish or whales.  \n\nEven in very small puddles I have seen very small water beetles.  It usually takes about two to three days for them to begin to appear.\n\nIf you want to perform an experiment to see if the "currents" are created by water based organisms or not try filling a small wading pool with a few inches of water and covering it with a tarpaulin or some other cover for about two weeks.  At the same time fill a second small wading pool with water of a few inches depth and leave it uncovered for the same time period.  After two weeks have gone by you should begin to see the "currents" you asked about.  If you take the cover off the "control" pool and look you should not see these same "currents".  (Just be sure that there are no winds or breezes when you are performing your observations.)\n\nDave Cooke