What Went Wrong in My SHM Proof Using Calculus?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on proving the angular velocity ω of a block in a block-spring system using calculus. The initial proof using Newton's law and Hooke's law correctly derives ω = (k/m)^(1/2). However, the user encounters an error while integrating the equations of motion for simple harmonic motion (SHM), mistakenly deriving ω = (m/k)^(1/2). The error is identified as a mistake in the integration process, specifically neglecting the negative sign during differentiation. The user acknowledges the need to apply integration by substitution to correct the proof.
Silimay
In a block-spring system with a block of mass m and a spring of spring constant k, prove that the angular velocity ω of the block = (k/m)^(1/2).

I can prove this easily in the following manner:

F = ma Newton's law
F = -kx Hooke's law
a = -ω^2x
ma = -kx = -mω^2x
k = mω^2
ω^2 = (k/m)
ω = (k/m)^(1/2)

But when I try to prove it using calculus (as my teacher instructed me to do) something goes wrong:

F = ma
F = -kx
X = Acos(ωt + φ) SHM
F = ma = -kx = -kAcos(ωt + φ)

I integrated to get:

mv = -kωAsin(ωt + φ)

Did I do something wrong here? I kept integrating (so that there was a ω^2 term on the right side) and substitued for x = Acos(ωt + φ) and canceled out x; but then I got ω = (m/k)^1/2. I don't understand why---is there a flaw in the math somewhere? I think I can probably do the proof by simply integrating the SHM equation and substituting it for acceleration, but I'd like to know what I did wrong above.

Thanks for any help :-)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You messed up your integral. What you've found is the derivative without the negative sign.

What's easier is to realize that a = \Ddot{x}, and then just differentiate x twice with respect to time and plug it in for a, then compare terms.

--J
 
Thanks! I didn't realize I was integrating with the chain rule :-) I have to do integration by substitution.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...

Similar threads

Back
Top