Concept

Resonance — where it appears

The large response a system gives when driven near its own natural frequency, with a height and width set by how lightly it is damped. The peak amplitude is the quality factor times the static response, and the width is the centre frequency divided by that same factor.

Named by 17 essays across 7 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Response against driving frequency. The steady-state amplitude of a driven oscillator against driving frequency, at three damping ratios. Lighter damping gives a taller and narrower peak, and the peak sits slightly below the natural frequency.

The frequency that gets an answer, and the quarter cycle nobody mentions

Push an oscillator at its own frequency and the response grows enormously. The reason is not that the push is in step with the motion — at resonance it is a quarter cycle out, and that is precisely why it works.

waves · Resonance

Where modulating a system sets it going. The regions of the modulation plane in which an oscillator with a damping ratio of 0.02 will not stay still. The horizontal axis is the modulation frequency in units of the oscillator's own; the vertical is how deeply the stiffness is modulated. Inside a shaded wedge the state of rest is unstable and any disturbance grows exponentially; outside it, nothing happens at all. The wedges sit at modulation frequencies of twice, once and two-thirds of the natural frequency, and the first is much the widest — it opens at a depth of 8.0%, against 40.0% for the second. Each boundary is found by integrating one period of the modulation from two independent starts and asking whether the resulting map has a multiplier outside the unit circle, then bisecting on the depth; none of the shape is drawn by hand. Without damping every wedge would come to a point on the axis and there would be no threshold at all — the flat bottom of each is damping, and it is why a swing has to be pumped hard enough before it does anything.

The swing that is pumped, not pushed

Nobody pushes a swing they are sitting on. They stand up at the bottom and sit down at the ends, which changes the pendulum rather than forcing it — and does so twice per period. The equation that describes it has no forcing term at all, so standing still is always a solution, and what the pumping changes is whether standing still is stable.

waves · Resonance

One equation, and the number that decides what it does. The same oscillator released from rest at one unit of displacement, with 4 different amounts of velocity-proportional loss. Every curve is a numerical integration of a single equation with no case analysis in it; what changes between them is one dimensionless number, the damping ratio. Below one, the two exponents are a complex conjugate pair and the motion crosses zero over and over inside a decaying envelope. At one they collide into a real double root and the trace reaches the axis and stops. Above one they are two distinct real numbers, the slower of them dominates, and the return is sluggish — an overdamped system takes longer to come back than a critically damped one, which is the thing the word 'over' is doing in its name. The ratios drawn are 0.15, 0.5, 1, 2, and the first zero crossing happens at 1.75 s for ζ = 0.15, 2.42 s for ζ = 0.5, never for ζ = 1, never for ζ = 2.

The three ways of coming to rest

An oscillator with friction in it can swing and fade, arrive and stop, or crawl back so slowly it looks stuck. One equation and one number decide which. The number is not what most people would guess, and neither is the value that returns fastest.

mechanics · Pendulum

The response of a machine with a 10% absorber bolted to it. The amplitude of the driven mass, in units of the deflection the same force would cause if applied slowly, against drive frequency in units of the machine's own natural frequency. Dashed: the machine alone, with its single resonance. Solid: the same machine with a second mass and spring attached, weighing 10 per cent of it and tuned to the same frequency. At that frequency the driven mass does not move at all — the amplitude is zero rather than small, and the absorber is moving 10.0 static deflections to make it so. What the device costs is the two new resonances it creates, at 0.854 and 1.171 times the original frequency, which are infinite in this undamped calculation and straddle the frequency the machine was protected at.

The mass that makes another stand still

Bolt a small mass on a spring to a machine that is shaking itself apart, tune it to the frequency that is doing the damage, and the machine stops moving. Not moves less — stops, exactly, at that one frequency. The price is two new resonances either side of it, and the whole device is a bet that the drive stays where it was put.

waves · Resonance

The same steady pull, twice. Spring force divided by the normal load, against time, with the far end drawn away at 100 µm/s in both traces and every property of the contact the same. The soft holder at 0.4 k_c produces events every 3.75 s, each of which reaches 0.94 m/s — 9.4e+3 times the speed it is being pulled at. The stiff one at 1.6 k_c settles to a straight line and stays on it.

The chatter a stiffer holder removes

A brake squeals, a bow sounds a string, a fault slips in jerks. The usual explanation is that static friction exceeds kinetic friction — and that explanation, taken seriously, predicts the jerking would happen no matter how the thing were held. It does not, and what decides is a length nobody mentions.

mechanics · Friction $Water's permittivity across six decades of frequency. The real and imaginary parts of water's permittivity against frequency, on logarithmic axes, from 10 to 16 in powers of ten hertz. ε′ begins at 80.1 — the number a textbook prints — falls through the Debye relaxation near twenty gigahertz, is dragged down again by the librational, bending and stretching bands of the molecule, and settles at 1.777 in the visible, whose square root is 1.3330: water's refractive index. The identity n = √ε_r is exact and is an identity between two numbers taken at the same frequency; using the static permittivity in it predicts an index of 8.9 and is the most instructive wrong answer in the subject. The curve is a Debye term and four Lorentz oscillators, with two parameters solved so that the two plateaus are the measured ones rather than fitted by eye.$

The constant that depends on how fast it is asked

Water's relative permittivity is 80.1. Its refractive index is 1.333, and the square of 1.333 is 1.777. The identity n = √ε_r is exact, the two numbers differ by a factor of forty-five, and nothing is wrong with either — because a permittivity is a function of frequency and the two measurements were made eight orders of magnitude apart.

electromagnetism · Dielectrics

The one frequency a broken repeat lets through. Transmission through a quarter-wave stack whose repeat is broken once, on a logarithmic scale, against frequency in units of the quarter-wave design frequency. The perfect stack forbids this whole band; adding a single half-wave layer at the centre opens one line inside it, at exactly the middle of the gap, through which the stack transmits everything. With 4 pairs either side the line is 2.50e-3 wide, a quality factor of 400, on a background of 4.5e-4; With 6 pairs either side the line is 1.56e-4 wide, a quality factor of 6410, on a background of 6.3e-6; With 8 pairs either side the line is 1.00e-5 wide, a quality factor of 100000, on a background of 9.2e-8. The line narrows geometrically as the mirrors are made thicker, because the field inside the defect leaks out through a barrier whose transmission falls exponentially with its thickness — so the useful quantity of a band gap turns out to be not what it excludes but how well it can trap what a single flaw is allowed to hold.

The mode that lives in the mistake

A perfect stack of alternating layers refuses a whole band of frequencies — not weakly, not with loss, but not at all. Break the repeat once, by inserting a single layer of the wrong thickness, and exactly one frequency inside that band passes through the whole stack with a transmittance of one. The useful thing about a forbidden band turns out to be not what it excludes but what a single flaw is thereby allowed to hold.

waves · Periodic media

Flat, then exponential, then a power law. Survival probability against time in lifetimes, both logarithmic, for a resonance 20 linewidths above the bottom of its band and 400 below the top. The straight dashed line is exp(−Γt), and the computed curve sits on it through the middle — a fitted rate of 0.9998 per lifetime between one and eight — and leaves it at both ends. Below 1.57e-2 lifetimes the curve is flat, falling as (t/τ_z)² with τ_z = 0.1253 lifetimes; beyond 22.6 lifetimes it is an inverse square, which any exponential eventually loses to. Both departures are forced: the head by the state being normalisable and the tail by the band having a bottom.

The exponential that is only true in the middle

A decay law is not an assumption about nuclei; it is the Fourier transform of an energy distribution. Do that transform honestly and the exponential fails at both ends — flat at the start, because the state is normalisable, and an inverse square at the end, because no system has states of arbitrarily negative energy. Neither departure is a correction that could be made small.

quantum · Decay

The same number read off a decay and off a linewidth. A lightly damped oscillator released and left alone, above, and the power spectrum of exactly those samples, below. The decay falls to 1/e of its starting amplitude after 8.0 cycles, which makes the quality factor π times that, or 25.0. The spectrum peaks at 1.0000 radians per second and falls to half its power 0.04001 radians per second wide, which makes the quality factor the peak divided by the width, or 25.0. The two disagree by 0.02 per cent, which is the resolution of the frequency grid rather than a difference in the physics. They cannot disagree by more, because they are the same statement: a resonance is narrow because its ringing is long, and the transform that turns one into the other is not an approximation but an identity. A measurement of either is a measurement of both — which is why a bell can be characterised by hitting it and listening, or by driving it and sweeping, and why the two instruments never argue.

The width that is a lifetime

Hit a bell and time how long it rings; drive it and measure how narrow its response is. The two numbers are the same number, and they cannot disagree — not because the physics conspires but because a decay and a linewidth are one function seen in two coordinate systems.

waves · Resonance

Two barriers, and the energies at which they stop being barriers. Transmission against energy on a logarithmic scale, for one barrier of width 0.9 and height 20, and for two of them separated by a well of width 2. Below the top of the barrier the single one transmits an exponentially small amount and does so smoothly. The pair does not: at particular energies the transmission climbs by orders of magnitude and reaches 1.000000 — one, to every digit the arithmetic has — even though each barrier on its own passes 3.9e-2 of what arrives. Multiplying the two single-barrier transmissions would give 1.5e-3, which is wrong by 6e+2: amplitudes are what compose, not probabilities, and the region between the barriers is a box whose quasi-bound levels are where the amplitudes reinforce. The resonances sit at 6.438, 13.915 and the levels of an infinite well of the same width are at 2.467, 9.870 — near, and not equal, because a well with leaky walls has states that are not quite bound.

Two walls that let more through than one

Put a second barrier behind the first and the transmission does not fall — at particular energies it rises to exactly one, through a pair of walls each of which stops all but a few per cent. Probabilities cannot do that. Amplitudes can, and the region between the barriers is a box whose levels say where.

quantum · Tunnelling

A drive at one frequency, and what comes back at three times it. The Fourier components of the steady motion of an oscillator driven at a single frequency ω = 1.35, for drive strengths of 0.02, 0.05, 0.1. The equation is a harmonic oscillator with a cubic term added, and the components are projected out of the integrated motion rather than assumed. A linear oscillator answers only in the first column. This one answers in the third as well, because x³ of a cosine contains a cosine of three times the angle. The third harmonic grows as the drive to the power 3.00 where the fundamental grows as the power 1.00, so it is negligible at small drive and not at large — which is why nonlinearity in an instrument is a specification rather than a yes or no.

The oscillator that answers at three times the question

Push a spring hard enough that the parabola stops being the whole story, and three things happen that a linear oscillator cannot do: it emits frequencies nobody supplied, its resonance leans over, and its amplitude at one drive frequency depends on where the drive has been.

mechanics · Harmonic approximation

The resonance with a zero in it

Where a resonance is the only way through a system, the response is a symmetric peak. Where there is also a smooth path that does not care about the frequency, the two add before anything is squared — and the result is lopsided, with a frequency at which nothing gets through at all.

waves · Resonance

The month a binding energy would bend. The Moon's orbit seen with the Sun held off to the right, drawn as it would be if the Earth's binding energy fell towards the Sun more weakly than the rest of it. The Earth is bound by 4.5 × 10⁻¹⁰ of its mass-energy and the Moon by 1.9 × 10⁻¹¹, so with the Sun pulling at 5.93 mm/s² the Moon is pushed sunward relative to the Earth by 2.6 × 10⁻¹² m/s² for every unit of η. That push turns once a synodic month relative to the orbit, 29.53 days, and Hill's equations about a circular orbit — integrated from the forced solution and held on it to 4 × 10⁻¹¹ over twelve months — give a radial displacement of 8.0 m times η times the cosine of the lunar phase: outward at new moon, inward at full. The complete lunar theory, with the Sun's tide on the orbit included, gives 13.1 m. The displacement is drawn about 7 × 10⁶ times larger than it would be at η = 1.

The binding energy that has to fall too

Every laboratory test of the equivalence principle compares bodies whose own gravity is a part in 10²⁵ of their mass, so none of them can ask whether gravitational binding energy falls like everything else. The Earth is bound by five parts in ten billion and the Moon by twenty times less, and if that difference fell differently the Moon's orbit would lean towards the Sun once a month — by a distance lasers have been measuring since 1969.

astrophysics · Equivalence principle $Resonances drawn as bands. 60,000 decays of a D⁰ decaying to K⁻π⁺π⁰, accepted from 1,287,365 flat ones in proportion to the square of an amplitude built from 3 short-lived intermediate states, each decaying to two of the three products. A ρ⁺(770) in m²(π⁺π⁰), 67.0 per cent of the rate on its own; a K⁻(892) in m²(K⁻π⁰), 25.5 per cent of the rate on its own; a K⁰(892) in m²(K⁻π⁺), 33.2 per cent of the rate on its own. Each appears as a band at its own mass squared — vertical, horizontal or diagonal according to which pair it decays to — holding 51 per cent, 19 per cent, 23 per cent of the decays within one width of its mass, where phase space alone would put 34, 10, 9. The separate fractions add to 126 per cent, not 100, because the amplitudes interfere where the bands overlap. The magnitudes and phases are a model chosen to make all three visible, not a fit to data.$

The plane in which three bodies are flat

A particle breaking into two gives each product a fixed energy; one breaking into three gives none of them one. What it gives instead is a plane of two invariant masses in which a decay with no forces spreads perfectly evenly inside a curved boundary — so every band, dark stripe and bright crossing a real decay draws there is a force, its spin, or a phase between two routes to the same three particles.

relativity · Relativistic dynamics

One width that falls to nothing. The decay rates of the two modes of a pair of resonances that leak into one shared channel at rates 0.1 and 0.05 and are coupled to each other with strength 0.2, against the detuning of the first from the second. The two rates always add to 0.15, the trace of the leak matrix, to 10⁻¹². Where the resonances are far apart each mode keeps roughly its own resonance's leak. Near them the leaks interfere, and at a detuning of 0.1414 — κ(γ₁ − γ₂)/√(γ₁γ₂) — the slower mode's decay rate is zero to within 10⁻¹², and the faster carries all 0.15. That mode sits at a frequency where the channel is open and does not leak into it: the two routes by which it could escape cancel.

The resonance that refuses to leak

A resonance that sits at a frequency where waves can escape has a width, because it leaks. Put two such resonances into the same channel and let them talk to each other, and at one precise detuning one of their combinations stops leaking altogether — a mode with no width, surrounded by a continuum it could escape into and does not. It cannot be seen from outside, it traps whatever energy lands in it, and if a symmetry is what forbids the leak, it survives any change that keeps the symmetry.

waves · Resonance

The condition three modes never meet

Whether two modes of a chain can hand energy to a third is arithmetic on the dispersion relation, and for a chain of masses the answer is never: a sine is concave, so the sum of two frequencies always exceeds the frequency of their sum. The smallest shortfall anywhere on a chain of N masses is π³/4(N+1)³ — never zero, and never far from it — and a shortfall turns a transfer into a beat.

thermodynamics · Equipartition

A few cycles, and everything about them is two numbers. The strain radiated by a remnant of 62 solar masses spinning at 0.68 of its maximum, as it settles down, with the decaying envelope of its fundamental mode drawn over it. The fundamental rings at 274 hertz and decays in 3.7 milliseconds, which is 1.0 cycles — this is not a bell and it does not sustain. Every frequency and every decay time in the sum is fixed by the mass and the spin alone; nothing about what made the remnant survives into them. What does depend on the collision is how loudly each mode is excited, and the relative amplitudes here are the rough values a merger of two comparable masses produces rather than a prediction.

A few cycles that are only mass and spin

After the orbit is gone there is one object left, distorted, and it settles down by radiating at frequencies that belong to it rather than to the collision. For a black hole those frequencies are fixed by the mass and the spin and by nothing else — so the first mode measured is a measurement and every mode after it is a test, and the test is that four curves in one plane pass through one point.

astrophysics · Gravitational waves

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Damping Quality factor Interference Simple harmonic motion Amplitude Decay Fourier transform Linewidth Measurement Normal modes Phase lag Transmission

All concepts