could someone explain the principle of superposition to me (sound) in very simple language.?
550269
First let me answer formally, we will simplify later on: superposition is a mathematical property that holds when a certain quantity is described by a function that is linear with respect to a given parameter of interest. The consequence is that if you add up different contributes to the parameter, you add up proportional contributes to the function result.\n\nIn simpler words, a linear system is affected by its inputs independently.\n\nFor instance, mass superposition holds in the gravitational field (because the gravitational field equation is linear with respect to the mass): suppose you have a reference mass M and another mass M1. M will measure an attraction force that depends on M1 (and vice-versa). Then add a third mass M2. Now M measures a force that is the (vectorial) sum of the two independent forces from M1 and from M2. Mathematically: f(M1, M2) = f(M1)+ f(M2).
328163
can u a little explain?
422440
the wavelength is half...\n\nvavelength and frequency are inversely proportional
344970
your right...perhaps your teacher miss understood what you meant, or maybe he/she just has no idea. it makes perfect sense. the body would be confused in the gravity free environment, so these are the signals it'd send to the brain. if the signals themselves were confusing, how is your body going to respond to it at all?
628621
It is also called as "Directional Sound".\n\nYes, I've heard about it... Had even done a little study paper on it. If you need more info, send me an email.
471895
This is the kind of question I like ... :-)\n\nNo, this is not information transfer. I will try to enlighten the problem by formulating it more precisely.\n\nBut first, I'd like to show that if you could tranfer information faster than light, you'd get a contradiction with special relativity.\n\nSuppose A can communicate some information faster than light to B. Let A sending the information be event 1, B receiving it event 2. If the message is travelling faster than light, it can be shown that in the reference frame of A, event 1 happens _before_ event 2, while in the reference frame of B event 1 happens _after_ event 2, which is a contradiction because Bob cannot receive the message before Alice sends it. If a light-signal cannot travel between events 1 and 2, we call them spacelike separated (at least in some other languages than English we do :-) ). Spacelike separated events don't have a definite temporal order (the order depends on the reference frame).\n\nOf course, in your example there is a correlation between the outcome of Alice's and Bob's measurement, but it cannot be considered information transfer. They always knew that they would get opposite results, but they didn't know who would get |up> and who would get |down>. Information transfer would mean that Alice already has a piece of data she knows, eg. a bit of 1, and she would like to transfer it to Bob. Bob's gaining knowledge of this information is the result of Alice's sending it. So there is a definite temporal order (and causal relationship) between these events. In the entagled particle-pair example she doesn't have this piece of information before she does a measurement.\n\nHowever, you could say that A can transfer information like this: she does a measurement, and as the result of the measurement the wave function of both particles collapses, and B can measure to see if his particle is in a collapsed (|up> OR |down>) or superposed (|up> + phase_factor*|down>) state. So B will know if A has already measured or not! But B cannot decide which state the particle was in with only one measurement! And he can make only ONE measurement, because the measurement collapses the state. As a result he will always get either UP or DOWN, so he cannot tell if the original state was |up>+|down> or one of |up> or |down>.\n\nOf course if B could copy the state of his particle, he would be able to make multiple measurement on the same quantum-spin-state, but he cannot copy the state because of the no-cloning theorem (Zurek-Wootters, Nature, 1983 if I remember well, but anyway, see it on Wikipedia). Of course, if he would be able to copy the state, we would get a contradiction with special relativity.\n\nAs satanorsanta pointed out there are still problems with the _interpretation_ of quantum mechanics (especially with the measurement postulate), but I wouldn't consider this specific question unsolved.\n\nI know my English is not the best ... I hope you will understand my reasoning. If you's like to chat about these thing, send me a mail.
730275
It's called 'impulse' and any good, lower division, physics book will have an explanation of what it is and how it works.\n\n\nDoug
654732
Sound is a form of energy which is audible that is it can be registered by the ear. It travels in a medium and cannot travel in vaccuum. It is propagated in air as a series of compression and rarefaction (or expansion zones) these zones exist along the line joining the source and observer.\n\nIt is hard to localise sound unlike light because sound travels due to the disturbance of the material particles themselves.\n\nSound travels faster in a denser medium.
129024
ohm, or om is correct. om is supposedly the sound vibration when the universe was created
773766
From a software developer point of view. This will be really hard to do and come up with a algorithm for seperating human voices from the regular music. They are sampled in digital files and to find which wave is the vioice is too hard for a computer to tell apart.
80877
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/pronounce;_ylt=AvgI3UakgM2lKkCQttnj296ugMMF?id=P0143400&path=prons/P0143400.wav
349135
it's actually very simple- it is in fact based on the removal of vowels to shorten the material being written.\n\n example:\nits actlly vry smpl- n fct bsd on rmvl o vwls 2 shrtn mtrl bng wrtn
1062427
The frequency of sound is the number of waves emitted by the source of sound.\n\nBut we judge the frequency of sound by the number waves falling in our ear drum.\n\nIf we were standing still, we will judge the actual frequency of the sound emitted by the speaker.\n\nIf we move toward the speaker, the number of waves that are falling in our ear drum is increased; the number is increased by a factor c+v/ c where c is the speed of sound and v is the speed of us toward the speaker.\n\nThe same thing happens if we are at rest and the speaker moves toward us. \n\nSuppose we move away from the speaker with the speed of sound, then we cannot hear the sound at all. If we move with a speed less than that of sound, it implies the speed of sound is more and as we are also moving we will hear only less number of waves. Thus the frequency is decreased.  This time the factor is c-v/v. \n\nThe same thing happens if we are at rest and the speaker moves away from us.\n\nThis effect is called Doppler effect.
13175
The sound will reach the car in front of you.  Although it may seem as though it would not, considering that you are already traveling at the speed of sound, therefore you may think the sound waves go as the same speed as your car therefore not traveling any faster than you are and not getting to the car in front of you.  However, this is not the case.  This can be explained using Einstein's theory of relativity.  Einstein describes "frames of reference" and in your frame of reference, you are not moving; everything else is moving.  Everything in your car is stationary relative to everything else, this is why you don't feel like you're moving, and if you throw a book sideways, it doesn't fly backwards with the speed your vehicle is moving, this is because the car, yourself, and the book are all moving with the same speed your car is moving. They are all stationary relative to each other. When the sound waves are created, they move in all directions at the speed of sound (331 m/s), so in your frame of reference, they would be moving at 331 m/s away from the car in all directions.  This means from the frame of reference of a person standing outside of your car, the sound waves would actually appear to be moving at twice the speed of sound.  This is just like if you threw a ball forward out from the car at 15 m/s, it would appear to an outsider to be moving at that speed plus the speed of sound(well in a vacuum anyway, or before air resistance took over) To use a better example of these frames of reference, you know that the earth is rotating.  It is rotating at 1070 mi/hr at the equator, yet it seems not to be moving at all, it is our frame of reference when we are standing 'still.' the speed of sound is no different traveling in different directions on the earth because of this rotation.\n\nand yes, he would probably give you the finger. I mean, he is going at the speed of sound, how impatient are you?
1018606
"SUPRASEGMENTALS: STRESS,\n                            RHYTHM, INTONATION\n        8.1 Stess and prominence. The phonemic (contrative) function of\n                stress\n        In the preceding chapter we conducted our analysis beyond the limit of\nphonological units and described syllables as sequences of sounds establishing a\ncollocation relationship between the elements they were made up of. With this we went\nbeyond the limit of mere segments and entered the domain of suprasegmental phonology.\nBy assuming syllables to be hierarchical structures, combinations of sounds in which\nsome elements (the nucleus) were more important than others, we departed from the\nstrictly linear representation of phonological combinations and adopted a non-linear\napproach.\n        The last chapter of this study is concerned with such notions as stress, rhythm and\nintonation. As we are soon going to see – a fact that is obvious even intuitively – such\nphonological realities are relevant at a level of a higher complexity than that of the mere\nsegment and are considered to be typical suprasegmentals. Another term used to refer to\nthem is prosodic elements. Prosody is a word coming from Greek and referring roughly\nto the musicality of phonetic sequences. Etymology is relevant in this case since, as we\nare going to see, we will be able to draw numerous parallels between tonality in human\nspeech and tonality in music. Such prosodic elements are often called metrical elements\nand we can speak of metrical phonology analyzing such suprasegmental phenomena. A\nparallel is drawn here with poetry where the metre is an essential element when we\ndiscuss the prosodic structure of verse. The scope of this book will again not allow us to go into very many details, but some elementary information in this field is essential for\nanyone wishing to have even a very general image of the sound structures of English."\n\n***********\n\nThere's more. See the link below.
930857
it's just a summary..dont be afraid. its basically the way you understand the concept.maybe you can throw in your own little example.
955029
In a nutshell?\n\nOh, that's kind of the idea. \n\nStrings are a mathematical construction that hold the promise of putting all the properties of subatomic particles into a nutshell - or actually a string. If it can be made to work it will be really "niffty" - just how valuable has yet to be determined.\n\ngiving much of the basics without knowing the level of math to provide is really tough.\n\nAn intuitive description suggests that a string will provide information by virtue of its vibrations. Different harmonics representing different particles.  All particles are strings, just vibrating in different ways.