This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wave article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mathematics High‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics High This article has been rated as High-priority on the project's priority scale. Physics: Fluid Dynamics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

This is a broad-concept article, an article that addresses a concept that may be difficult to write about because it is abstract, or because it covers the sometimes-amorphous relationship between a wide range of related concepts.

The content of Wave propagation was merged into Wave on 24 February 2023. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 10.

I really can't see how gravitational waves are important enough, uncontroversial enough or explanatory enough to be right up at the top. Especially not with the qualyfier "Researchers believe..." If somebody feels the need for advanced physics in the introduction of the concept of waves, why not bring up the central concept of quantum mechanic wave functions instead of the peripheral and hypothetical gravitational wave idea? Niffe (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... since no one seems to disagree, I'll take the gravitational wave part out, or rather move it to its appropriate place. Niffe (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gravitational waves have now been observed 71.29.185.235 (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC) Wave From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search This article is about waves in the scientific sense. For waves on seas and lakes, see Wind wave. For other uses, see Wave (disambiguation).[reply]

Surface waves in water showing water ripples In physics, mathematics, and related fields, a wave is a propagating dynamic disturbance (change from equilibrium) of one or more quantities, sometimes as described by a wave equation. In physical waves, at least two field quantities in the wave medium are involved. Waves can be periodic, in which case those quantities oscillate repeatedly about an equilibrium (resting) value at some frequency. When the entire waveform moves in one direction it is said to be a traveling wave; by contrast, a pair of superimposed periodic waves traveling in opposite directions makes a standing wave. In a standing wave, the amplitude of vibration has nulls at some positions where the wave amplitude appears smaller or even zero.

The types of waves most commonly studied in classical physics are mechanical and electromagnetic. In a mechanical wave, stress and strain fields oscillate about a mechanical equilibrium. A mechanical wave is a local deformation (strain) in some physical medium that propagates from particle to particle by creating local stresses that cause strain in neighboring particles too. For example, sound waves are variations of the local pressure and particle motion that propagate through the medium. Other examples of mechanical waves are seismic waves, gravity waves, surface waves, string vibrations (standing waves), and vortices. In an electromagnetic wave (such as light), coupling between the electric and magnetic fields which sustains propagation of a wave involving these fields according to Maxwell's equations. Electromagnetic waves can travel through a vacuum and through some dielectric media (at wavelengths where they are considered transparent). Electromagnetic waves, according to their frequencies (or wavelengths) have more specific designations including radio waves, infrared radiation, terahertz waves, visible light, ultraviolet radiation, X-rays and gamma rays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahana K29 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the first paragraph, the definition for 'wave motion' is said to be " Wave motion transfers energy from one point to another, which displace particles of the transmission medium — that is, with little or no associated mass transport." But this makes it look like wave motion can only occur when there is a transmission medium. Should be changed. I changed the main definition for a wave from " a wave is an oscillation accompanied by a transfer of energy that travels through a medium (space or mass)." to "In physics, a wave is an oscillation accompanied by a transfer of energy from one point in space to another." as a wave can travel even without a medium

Someone can still frame the main definition for a wave better than I did and change the definition of wave motion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.208.214 (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 1st 2 sentences:

"In physics, a wave is an oscillation accompanied by a transfer of energy. Frequency refers to the addition of time."

These 2 sentences, especially the 2nd one, can only be understood by people who already know most of what is in this article. Hence they are useless to 90% of readers. Something like "Disturbance/oscillation that moves/propagates through elastic matter or in case of electromagnetic waves even through vacuum." would be more useful, even if not so rigorous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.146.157.136 (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, I hope [1]. No such user (talk) 11:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This does not merit it's own section--it is a mechanical wave. In fact, the most common form of gravity waves are water waves, a subsection of above. 71.29.185.235 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

wide overlap fgnievinski (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – the two articles should combine nicely. They won't go over 100K even if all text is kept. A thorough look at all the images and some reduction in them will probably be needed though. Dawnseeker2000 00:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Constant314 (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Constant314 and Dawnseeker2000: After nine months with no opposition, I think you are clear if you want to complete the merge. Joyous! | Talk 05:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Dawnseeker2000 04:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are several animations in this article that don't adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines for accessibility. Specifically this guideline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Animations The animation at the beginning of the section Waves in elastic medium, the one in Amplitude and Modulation and two in Phase Velocity and Group Velocity. The guidelines state: "To be accessible, an animation (GIF – Graphics Interchange Format) should either: Not exceed a duration of five seconds (which results in making it a purely decorative element) or Be equipped with control functions (stop, pause, play)" There are people with various learning or cognitive disabilities (e.g., me) that find these types of never ending animations extremely distracting and they almost make it impossible for such people to read the text. I don't know how to edit graphics or I would be bold and change these, but I encourage someone who knows how to change all the graphics in this article to adhere to the accessibility guidelines. I realize this is very different for different users and many people don't find such animations distracting but a non-trivial number of Wikipedia users do find them extremely distracting which is why the guidelines say that if you have an animation it either should only last 5 seconds or it should have a control where the user can stop the animation if they so desire. 18:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC) MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I completely support that. I find animations to be exceedingly distracting. A lot of them run faster than my brain. Constant314 (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are vortices classified here as part of the mechanical waves in the lead of the article? In most mechanical waves the particles of the medium oscillate about an equilibrium position, more or less. There is dominantly a transport of energy associated with the mechanical wave, not mass. A vortex has a lot of mass transport associated, and particles do not return to -- or oscillate about -- en equilibrium position. A vortex may or may not propagate, but a spinning top also may propagate and is not classified as a wave phenomenon. Are there relevant secondary sources qualifying vortices as waves? -- Crowsnest (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia article seems to make the mistake of equating and/or over-relating waves with oscillations, as is generally quite frequent in physics education. It's correct that there's a profound connection between waves and oscillations, such as in how periodic waves cause oscillations or how wave superposition can form standing waves (which are a special case of oscillations), but ultimately they are still distinct concepts that have been misleadingly over-associated with each other. To exemplify my point, below is a line (from this article) which incorrectly describes (periodic) waves as oscillating rather than more precisely describing them as causing oscillations:

Periodic waves oscillate repeatedly about an equilibrium (resting) value at some frequency.

Taking into consideration my point, I'd therefore strongly suggest refining the article so as to avoid such confusion by "sharpening the line" between waves and oscillations. Not to say I'd argue for removing well-established stuff like standing & progressive waves but instead to just at least add a brief note regarding this misconception or something like that.

No (destructive) criticism nor arguing is intended, I'm just raising a point for potential improvement. If there's anything I haven't acknowledged or that I have misreasoned, please inform/correct me. Xyqorophibian (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this difference is apparent to typical readers. A source that discusses the difference or at least comments on "oscillate" would be helpful.

I do agree that "Periodic waves oscillate repeatly..." is redundant. The whole first paragraph seems to mix up time and space aspects of "wave" as well as making assumptions about linearity and generality not inherent in the topic. As usual the problem is folks just made this up: the sourcing is bad. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Johnjbarton.

I agree with your first statement about how the distinction between oscillations and waves may not be immediately noticeable for most readers nor that it'd be very obvious from the surface in general (and that a source or comment regarding the matter would be beneficial), but for those engaging in deeper thought it may be of importance (e.g. I find it crucial in understanding that standing "waves" are more so oscillations than they are waves).

As you'd be able to see from the version history of this article, I actually edited it a few hours ago to eliminate these misconceptions (as well as for other reasons) but my edits got reverted for being "redundant, ambiguous and subjective" which is why I have resorted to using the talk page. Admittedly, I write quite stylistically and in no way at all would I say that I rewrote that stuff as optimally as possible. Though, any thoughts (wether positive or negative) regarding my edits (my last version was at 5:26 PM 30th of September 2025) would be appreciated.

As for the second paragraph, I am also in entire accord. That line wasn't the only one I found on this Wikipedia article (or even many other wikipedia articles) that conflated waves and oscillations. Hopefully (and I'd be willing to help) this article will develop out of its inaccuracies, assumptions and misconceptions (not to sound overly harsh) into a more precise and conceptually on-point version. Xyqorophibian (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just throwing in my two-cents. Not disagreeing or advocating anything, at the moment. There is some disagreement over many technical publications of the exact meaning of a wave.

For mathematics, I would suggest that the solution of any wave equation is a wave. In electromagnetics, just about any physical value for the fields, whether oscillating or not, is the solution of a wave equation. I don't no about matter waves. E=0 and E=constant are both waves, although nothing is waving. Constant314 (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Constant314.

You've raised a valid point about how the various definitions of a wave may be a major source of confusion, as is often the case with many other things (excellent example would be bases and acids in chemistry).

About the wave equation, yeah I suppose one could consider a solution to a form of it a wave (which I personally have some technical and conceptual issues with) but really the wave equation is just a handy mathematical descriptor for waves, oscillations, signals, etc.

For waves in electromagnetics/electromagnetism, they should still be encompassed under the physics definition of waves as electromagnetism is a subfield of physics. Not 100 % sure of what you meant with your brief description of an electromagnetic wave though.

Same story with matter waves (i.e. de Broglie waves are, vaguely speaking, just waves whose disturbance is probability after all), they fall under physics and therefore should be compatible with the physics definition of waves.

Also what's "waving"? Xyqorophibian (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Waving: dynamic action. Constant314 (talk) 02:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right, not to be confused with action. Xyqorophibian (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me elaborate on why I've reverted the edits:

• aperiodic waves are waves which don't exhibit this aspect but are still composed of constituent periodic waves

Really? How about nonlinear waves?

• Although waves and oscillations are related, they are distinct phenomena which are often misconceived as being equivalent.

It is the first time I hear of this being a problem. To me the discussion whether "a wave oscillates" or "a wave causes oscillation" is purely semantic. But if this is as big of a problem as you suggest, you must have a reference to back it up.

• When a disturbance's entire waveform travels, it is said to be a travelling wave

This is a rather uninformative definition: "A travelling wave is a wave that travels". Not an improvement over the original statement.

• There are two predominant categories of waves that are most commonly studied in physics: mechanical waves and non-mechanical waces.

Changing the categorization to "A" and "not-A" (as opposed to "A" and "B") is arbitrary and, again, not an improvement. The subsequent elaboration on what a "non-mechanical wave" is, is subjective/unreferenced.

This article is about waves in the context of physics, mathematics and engineering, which necessitates introducing the concept on a more abstract level than your edits seem to suggest; a "wave" does not need to refer to something physical (as @Constant314 already pointed out).

Kind regards, Roffaduft (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Roffaduft,

Thank you for your response and explanations.

• aperiodic waves are waves which don't exhibit this aspect but are still composed of constituent periodic waves

Yes, I agree that I was wrong to have not acknowledged nonlinearity. I suppose one could argue that the statement is still true for nonlinear waves in that at a certain instant in time (rather than some duration in which the waveform could change) the waveform can be decomposed into component periodic waves, however this is overly abstract and mostly irrelevant to the physics of waves anyway. Perhaps this point regarding nonlinearity could be a reason to further elaborate on linearity vs nonlinearity of waves in this article? I couldn't find much on it here and it seems like a considerably significant aspect.

• Although waves and oscillations are related, they are distinct phenomena which are often misconceived as being equivalent.

It's not as commonly discussed of a problem as it should be (probably because the two concepts of oscillations and waves have, over many years of physics education, been muddled so much that this has become a de facto convention that is difficult to argue against and reverse), which is why it's difficult to find and reference solid sources which argue so. I understand that the difference between "a wave oscillates" and "a wave causes oscillations" may seem subtle and mostly semantic, however, from a more precise standpoint, it does indeed matter enough to be addressed (e.g. a radio wave, ideally being a linear wave, doesn't oscillate itself because it has a fixed waveform but its electric field vectors can cause AC oscillations in an antenna that it encounters).

• When a disturbance's entire waveform travels, it is said to be a travelling wave

Here it's important to note that "disturbance" and "wave" aren't synonymous nor semi-synonymous (as it sounds in "A travelling wave is a wave that travels"), a wave is just a special case of a disturbance but disturbances can be other things such as oscillations, signals or any perturbations in general. And, even aside from that, this is linking back to my previous point of conflation between waves and oscillations, the practice of using the terms "progressive/travelling waves" and "standing/stationary waves" to distinguish between actual waves and oscillations formed by wave superposition respectively is just logically inconsistent and misleading but unfortunately common and standardised. Also I would say it was sort of an improvement compared to the previous version, as the previous version was "When the entire waveform moves in one direction, it is said to be a travelling wave" in which there's a lack of both context (i.e. waveform of?) and accuracy (i.e. doesn't have to be only one direction [e.g. progressive waves with spherical wavefronts in a 3-dimensional space technically travel in all directions]).

• There are two predominant categories of waves that are most commonly studied in physics: mechanical waves and non-mechanical waves.

Well this version is technically better as it is of the more general form "X" and "non-X", which acknowledges that there are more than just one kind of non-mechanical waves, rather than the previous version (and also current version, I suppose) which was of the form "X" and "element of non-X but not the only non-X element". And although it was narrowing in on the context of classical physics which kinda makes it fair enough to only bring up electromagnetic waves (as it wasn't till relatively recently that non-mechanical waves [that aren't electromagnetic] became a sufficiently major and well-established matter in physics), wouldn't it make more sense to look at the entirety of physics and all of the recent developments (e.g. discovery of gravitational waves)? About my subsequent definition of what a non-mechanical wave is, well yes I honestly have to agree with you that it wasn't as descriptive or as precise as it could have been but it's difficult to define what makes a wave non-mechanical considering that a non-mechanical wave can still involve or be related to matter in some way (e.g. any particle of matter is in some sense a non-mechanical de Broglie wave [hence the synonym and near oxymoron "matter wave"]).

Once again, I apologise if I've made any mistakes and please correct me if I have. I admit that there were points in which I should have written better, that my citation/referencing skills could do some work and that my descriptions of abstractions weren't optimal but all I intend on doing is helping out. This discussion, which I hope to continue, has been a pleasure and quite insightful (e.g. for a while I've had thoughts that resonate [no oscillatory pun intended] with the idea of wave nonlinearity but didn't know the proper term till now), I think we (as well as the other science-specialising Wikipedians here and of other articles) could have a meaningful discussion about standing waves on the talk page of the wikipedia article for standing waves where I questioned the definition and proposed some refinements but have received no follow up yet.

Best regards,

Xyqorophibian (talk) 08:57, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article starts with:

• In physics, mathematics, engineering, and related fields, a wave is a propagating dynamic disturbance (change from equilibrium) of one or more quantities.

However the separating aspect of "wave" is "continuous media". A particle rolling down a hill is a "propagating dynamic disturbance", but not a wave.

Ideally we should have a solid definition. Interestingly the several sources I consulted all discuss waves by example but not by definition. I suppose this is because no single definition exists. The medium needs to have finite restoring force, non-infinite damping, it needs a initiator and the displacement needs to be small enough to avoid destroying the continuity. These concepts are hard to compress into a definition. Most sources are focused on linear restoring force, zero damping, small displacements. Johnjbarton (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last week I've also looked into "the" definition of a wave. Given the multidisciplinary context of this article, I agree that there is most likely not a single satisfactory definition.

As discussed earlier, from a mathematical point of view a wave is nothing more that the solution of a wave equation (i.e. a hyperbolic partial differential equation). That definition does not require introducing concepts such as force or a medium. As a mathematical abstraction it is limited to a type of dynamic behavior.

On the other hand, one could argue that the reason the wave equation is called the wave equation, is because it is a model approximation of a natural phenomenon which we call waves. If defining the natural phenomenon is the main point of concern, then it would make sense to introduce concepts such as force. However, I don't think that is the best approach here.

I believe the definition should be kept as abstract as possible, introducing concepts from physics and engineering along the way (effectively in line with how the article is structured already).

Kind regards, Roffaduft (talk) 06:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just exploring the possibilities: is the wave in a wave-soldering machine a wave? For those unfamiliar with wave soldering, it is like a waterfall. There is continuous movement of material over a barrier, but the profile of the wave does not propagte. Constant314 (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you’re overestimating the thought process behind the naming of such a machine.

Kind regards, Roffaduft (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok opening bid for a replacement:

• In physics, mathematics, engineering, and related fields, a wave is a periodic change in some property of a continuous medium as a function of space or time. Changes in many different properties of many different media are viewed as waves and studied with common mathematical frameworks known as wave equations. Idealized systems based on wave models are widely applicable and yet realistic systems display a wide variety of behavior beyond the simple models.

Here I am trying to get across the idea of "well the sources have a lot of examples". The first sentence can be sourced to

• McPherson, A. (2011). Introduction to macromolecular crystallography. John Wiley & Sons. Pg 77

but I would like to find a physics textbook to cite. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You lost me at periodic. How about a pulse? Constant314 (talk) 23:02, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, and now it begins ;-). In linear media a pulse is a sum of periodic waves so from that standpoint a pulse is also "periodic": the underlying physical mechanism is periodic waves but when combined we observe a pulse. That story needs to be included in this article. Similarly in non-linear media solitons are analyzed as a consequence of dispersion. But I agree this is a common everyday "wave" phenomena that we should try to squeeze in. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is all a high level of understanding. Whatever definition is used, it should not exclude things like speech, gunshots, water waves, data, EMPs. On the other hand, the article could be changed to periodic waves. Constant314 (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we could include anything which reliable sources claim are waves. The decomposition of complex wave phenomena in a series of periodic waves is fundamental to waves in the scientific sense and the article should emphasize this aspect accordingly.

Except for "data", the examples you list could all be understood in terms of periodic waves. That much is just side effect of Fourier transform math. (Such analysis is not that useful for all aspects of all things called waves.) If it seems high level that's just the nature of the topic.

I need to find a suitable source before proposing a version that includes pulses. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here is a solid source available through the Wikipedia Library:

• Freegarde, T. (2013). Introduction to the Physics of Waves. Cambridge University Press.

As per our discussion, the chapter "The essence of wave motion" says

• We shall thus come to understand features of wave motion both in an abstract, generic sense and through the specific manifestations in particular examples.

Then he follows up with three different definitions. Per the point by Constant314, he makes the point that waves need not be periodic. He does have an abstract definition:

• So, when we consider the physics of waves, we’re really addressing the general subject of time-dependent field theory.

He does not dwell on this point and neither should we. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one:

• Billingham, J. (2001) - Wave motion

https://www.cambridge.org/nl/universitypress/subjects/mathematics/mathematical-modelling-and-methods/wave-motion

A question that we might reasonably ask at this point is 'what is a wave?' Well, the first place you might look is a dictionary, where waves are usually defined as 'disturbances propagating in water at a finite speed'. However, this is not satisfactory since standing waves do not propagate and wave propagation is possible in media other than water. Another feature that makes definitions difficult is the interaction of the wave with the medium through which it is passing. A wave on the surface of a pond passes by and leaves the medium unchanged. In contrast, a chemical wave usually leaves the reacting species involved in a different chemical state after it has passed by. For these reasons we believe that there is no single definition of waves, and choose to view them as a generic set of phenomena with many similarities.

The first part of his argument is pretty clear, whereas I think the implication of the second part is that it's better to change "equilibrium" to "state" (of a dynamical system). It would better reflect the possible dependence between the medium and the wave.

What bothers me most about the current first paragraph, which @Johnjbarton's suggestion addressed quite well, is it's focus periodic, travelling and standing waves. I feel it's better to talk about these properties in mathematical context, which is currently the last paragraph of the introduction.

Kind regards, Roffaduft (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I started a section on Definition as a way of working out something thing in a longer, less demanding form which we can later summarize for the intro. I propose to add a paragraph of the three points of view suggested by Freegarde. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I'm not sure if I fully agree with the content or the need for a dedicated subsection, but at least it's a good starting.

Alternatively, instead of:

"a wave is [defined as]"

one could start the article with something along the lines of:

"a wave is most commonly regarded as [..] though no unifying definition exists because [..]"

"instead [..] choose to view them as a generic set of phenomena with many similarities"

and then follow the existing structure of the introduction (i.e. placing waves in context of physics and mathematics).

Kind regards, Roffaduft (talk) 06:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there's been quite a bit written in this topic, but here's my take on your first post here.

I agree that "propagating dynamic disturbance" is a bit of a vague term that is potentially up to interpretation, but it is further specified in the definition as "a propagating dynamic disturbance of one or more quantities." which seems to refine it sufficiently. To demonstrate my point, I will use your example: a particle rolling down a hill is propagating (as rolling is a form of moving) as well as being some sort of a disturbance (i.e. the particle itself, as opposed to, say, a vacuum or anything else really [i.e. the equilibrium/"zero" value/state]) and dynamic (as is anything related to forces, energy, fields, etc) but the rolling particle still wouldn't be a wave as it isn't a propagating dynamic disturbance of any quantity/quantities in particular (except, perhaps from a quantum mechanics approach, the disturbance could be the particle's wavefunction [making the rolling particle a de Broglie wave] but that's besides the main point).

A single definition that unites all waves would be quite elegant and desirable, as anyone would feel, and I think the problem in physics education with exemplifying rather than simply defining stuff is concerningly prevalent (I have encountered this with many things other than waves too). I'm not entirely sure but I think it might be possible to formulate such a grandly-encompassing definition, and preventing conflation between waves and other concepts/phenomena would aid tremendously in doing so as well as clearing out a lot of misconceptions, confusion and misstatements (I have advocated for this, as for example by advising that we distinguish waves from oscillations instead of trying to be based on the problematic terms of "travelling/progressive waves" and "standing/stationary waves").

About your mention of those conditions for a wave's medium, I wouldn't disagree as far as I am aware about that stuff. It would indeed be difficult to compress into an alternative definition, however the current one is fine (at least according to my point of view) and it might be a good idea to write about these requirements somewhere after the main definition.

Thank you for starting up this topic, @Johnjbarton. I think it's gotten everyone contemplating deeply, which is excellent.

As per usual, anyone is welcome to inform me about, question me about, correct me, etc if I have made any misassumptions, misconceptions, missacknowledgements, misjudgements, etc.

Best regards, Xyqorophibian (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this article is about scientific waves and excludes wind waves, but wind waves ought to be included in scientific waves. Wave (disambiguation) has a pretty good definition: "A wave is a disturbance that transfers energy through matter or space." Pretty good, except is excludes a static EM field that supports DC current. And there is a waterfall where the static gravity field supports the flow of water. Unless disturbance is taken to mean a deviation from the source free situation. Maybe we are trying too hard to get it all into the first sentence. Constant314 (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That automatically leads to the question if direct current is truly direct (on an atomic level). Regardless, I think the discussion should focus on achieving consensus based on proper references rather than turning it into esoteric/philosophical sparring session.

Kind regards, Roffaduft (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way. My own intent is to first illuminate all the issues. Constant314 (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that there is most likely not a single, all-encompassing, scientific definition of a wave. It is also not up to us to come up with one ourselves. Instead, if it exists, it should be WP:V.

Kind regards, Roffaduft (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that is an indication that the article should be split. Constant314 (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone.

I'm not arguing that everything here is incorrect nor unnecessary, if anything it's actually positive that we're delving into further discussion about what waves precisely, pedagogically and conceptually are and that we are attempting to refine the article for accuracy and consistency.

But I think it may be worth briefly taking a step back, re evaluating the whole topic and ensuring that we aren't all overthinking nor overcomplicating anything.

Kind regards, Xyqorophibian (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the hatnote is incorrect. Wind waves are waves, a subtopic. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Constant314 (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I like the change of the short description to: "physical phenomenon in continuous media". It is too prejudiced toward the interpretation in classical physics.

I'd think: "A propagating disturbance in space and time" or "A dynamic pattern that propagates through fields" would be more appopriate.

Kind regards, Roffaduft (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this article is best viewed as an overview and introduction to the very large topic of physical waves and the physics of waves. With that in mind the article should be structured as a series of summaries of the many wave related articles on wikipedia. And Behold! that is already what has happened. The article is almost entirely a set of summaries. That is good and we should work to make the most of this.

This approach relates to our recent discussion about the introduction and the definition of the topic. Difficulties with these are a consequence of the breadth of the topic. Assuming we agree that this is a broad-concept article and that it should be a set of summaries, we might look for ways to express these aspects in the intro. Johnjbarton (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a reasonable approach, I think its the way to go. Xyqorophibian (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]