- #1

- 140

- 19

##\frac{d^{2} u}{d \theta^{2}}+u=-\frac{m}{l^{2}} \frac{d}{d u} V\left(\frac{1}{u}\right)##

I can't understand this how this is so. It's supposed to be obvious but I can't see it.

Please help. Thank you

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- I
- Thread starter Kashmir
- Start date

- #1

- 140

- 19

##\frac{d^{2} u}{d \theta^{2}}+u=-\frac{m}{l^{2}} \frac{d}{d u} V\left(\frac{1}{u}\right)##

I can't understand this how this is so. It's supposed to be obvious but I can't see it.

Please help. Thank you

- #2

- 19,126

- 10,674

You have to ask yourself what does "the equation is invariant under a substitution of ##-\theta## for ##\theta##" actually mean? Unless you know what that means, how can you see it?

##\frac{d^{2} u}{d \theta^{2}}+u=-\frac{m}{l^{2}} \frac{d}{d u} V\left(\frac{1}{u}\right)##

I can't understand this how this is so. It's supposed to be obvious but I can't see it.

Please help. Thank you

- #3

- 140

- 19

I don't know. I tried searching on the internet but didn't find it. Can you tell me what that means?You have to ask yourself what does "the equation is invariant under a substitution of ##-\theta## for ##\theta##" actually mean? Unless you know what that means, how can you see it?

- #4

- 19,126

- 10,674

Let's look at the general case. We have a function ##u(\theta)## which satisfies a differential equation. We then look at a substitution, which in general is of the form ##\theta = f(\alpha)## or ##\alpha = g(\theta)##. Typical examples might be ##\theta = a\alpha + b## or ##\alpha = \cos(\theta)##. In this case we have the substitution ##\alpha = -\theta##.I don't know. I tried searching on the internet but didn't find it. Can you tell me what that means?

Note that if you don't "see" what's happening, then it can be confusing to try to work with variables ##\theta## and ##-\theta##, so it's conceptually clearer to let ##\alpha = -\theta##.

A second point is that physicists especially tend to use the same function for both the original ##u(\theta)## and the new ##u(\alpha)##. This is a notational shortcut, but in fact we really want to look at a new function, which we'll call ##v##, where: $$v(\alpha) = u(\theta) = u(f(\alpha))$$ This shows that ##v## is not the same mathematically defined function as ##u##, but the composition of ##u \circ f##. That said, it's seen by physicists as the same "physical" function, so usually they don't bother with this subtlety.

Then, we have to look for the equation that is satisfied by the function ##v(\alpha)## - and it may or may not take the same form as the original equation. Often these substitutions are used to try to change the equation to one that is easier to solve. In this case, however, it is to show that the system has some sort of symmetry in the variable ##\theta##.

The full, rigorous way to tackle this, therefore, is to use the substitution ##\alpha = -\theta## and see what becomes of the original equation. We can start with the first term and look at the second derivative:

$$\frac{dv}{d\alpha} = \frac{dv(\alpha)}{d\alpha} = \frac{dv(\alpha)}{d\theta}\frac{d\theta}{d\alpha} = \frac{du(\theta)}{d\theta}(-1) = -\frac{du}{d\theta} $$

And, if we take the second derivative, we get another factor of ##-1##, which cancels out and we find that:

$$\frac{d^2v}{d\alpha^2} = \frac{d^2u}{d\theta^2} $$

I'll leave you to work on the terms on the RHS.

As I said, this is the full rigorous way to see what's happening. It's certainly quicker just to say that it's obvious!

- #5

- 140

- 19

Thank you so much. I'll work out all the terms and see what I end up with.Let's look at the general case. We have a function ##u(\theta)## which satisfies a differential equation. We then look at a substitution, which in general is of the form ##\theta = f(\alpha)## or ##\alpha = g(\theta)##. Typical examples might be ##\theta = a\alpha + b## or ##\alpha = \cos(\theta)##. In this case we have the substitution ##\alpha = -\theta##.

Note that if you don't "see" what's happening, then it can be confusing to try to work with variables ##\theta## and ##-\theta##, so it's conceptually clearer to let ##\alpha = -\theta##.

A second point is that physicists especially tend to use the same function for both the original ##u(\theta)## and the new ##u(\alpha)##. This is a notational shortcut, but in fact we really want to look at a new function, which we'll call ##v##, where: $$v(\alpha) = u(\theta) = u(f(\alpha))$$ This shows that ##v## is not the same mathematically defined function as ##u##, but the composition of ##u \circ f##. That said, it's seen by physicists as the same "physical" function, so usually they don't bother with this subtlety.

Then, we have to look for the equation that is satisfied by the function ##v(\alpha)## - and it may or may not take the same form as the original equation. Often these substitutions are used to try to change the equation to one that is easier to solve. In this case, however, it is to show that the system has some sort of symmetry in the variable ##\theta##.

The full, rigorous way to tackle this, therefore, is to use the substitution ##\alpha = -\theta## and see what becomes of the original equation. We can start with the first term and look at the second derivative:

$$\frac{dv}{d\alpha} = \frac{dv(\alpha)}{d\alpha} = \frac{dv(\alpha)}{d\theta}\frac{d\theta}{d\alpha} = \frac{du(\theta)}{d\theta}(-1) = -\frac{du}{d\theta} $$

And, if we take the second derivative, we get another factor of ##-1##, which cancels out and we find that:

$$\frac{d^2v}{d\alpha^2} = \frac{d^2u}{d\theta^2} $$

I'll leave you to work on the terms on the RHS.

As I said, this is the full rigorous way to see what's happening. It's certainly quicker just to say that it's obvious!

Thank you again. :)

- #6

- 140

- 19

The rhs converts to :Let's look at the general case. We have a function ##u(\theta)## which satisfies a differential equation. We then look at a substitution, which in general is of the form ##\theta = f(\alpha)## or ##\alpha = g(\theta)##. Typical examples might be ##\theta = a\alpha + b## or ##\alpha = \cos(\theta)##. In this case we have the substitution ##\alpha = -\theta##.

Note that if you don't "see" what's happening, then it can be confusing to try to work with variables ##\theta## and ##-\theta##, so it's conceptually clearer to let ##\alpha = -\theta##.

A second point is that physicists especially tend to use the same function for both the original ##u(\theta)## and the new ##u(\alpha)##. This is a notational shortcut, but in fact we really want to look at a new function, which we'll call ##v##, where: $$v(\alpha) = u(\theta) = u(f(\alpha))$$ This shows that ##v## is not the same mathematically defined function as ##u##, but the composition of ##u \circ f##. That said, it's seen by physicists as the same "physical" function, so usually they don't bother with this subtlety.

Then, we have to look for the equation that is satisfied by the function ##v(\alpha)## - and it may or may not take the same form as the original equation. Often these substitutions are used to try to change the equation to one that is easier to solve. In this case, however, it is to show that the system has some sort of symmetry in the variable ##\theta##.

The full, rigorous way to tackle this, therefore, is to use the substitution ##\alpha = -\theta## and see what becomes of the original equation. We can start with the first term and look at the second derivative:

$$\frac{dv}{d\alpha} = \frac{dv(\alpha)}{d\alpha} = \frac{dv(\alpha)}{d\theta}\frac{d\theta}{d\alpha} = \frac{du(\theta)}{d\theta}(-1) = -\frac{du}{d\theta} $$

And, if we take the second derivative, we get another factor of ##-1##, which cancels out and we find that:

$$\frac{d^2v}{d\alpha^2} = \frac{d^2u}{d\theta^2} $$

I'll leave you to work on the terms on the RHS.

As I said, this is the full rigorous way to see what's happening. It's certainly quicker just to say that it's obvious!

##\frac{m}{l^{2}} \frac{d}{d v(-\theta)} V\left(\frac{1}{v(-\theta)}\right)##

And the total equation can be written as ##\frac{d^{2}v(-\theta) }{d(-\theta)^{2}}+v(-\theta)=-\frac{m}{l^{2}} \frac{d}{d v(-\theta)} V\left(\frac{1}{v(-\theta)}\right)## And noting that ##u(\theta)=v(-\theta)## we Finally have

##\frac{d^{2}}{d(-\theta)^{2}} u(\theta)+u(\theta)=-\frac{m}{l^{2}} \frac{d}{d u} V\left(\frac{1}{u}\right)##

Is this correct then?

- #7

- 19,126

- 10,674

It's true that if you replace ##\theta## by ##-\theta## in the first term that the equation still holds. But, you were supposed to check that the whole equation was still valid with ##\theta## replaced by ##-\theta##.we Finally have

##\frac{d^{2}}{d(-\theta)^{2}} u(\theta)+u(\theta)=-\frac{m}{l^{2}} \frac{d}{d u} V\left(\frac{1}{u}\right)##

Is this correct then?

Whether you use ##u(-\theta)## or ##v(-\theta)##, you need to end up with ##-\theta## everywhere.

That's why I said to be careful not to confuse ##\theta## with ##-\theta##. If the substitution was ##\alpha = \cos \theta##, you clearly need to end up with ##\alpha## or ##\cos \theta## in the equation. You couldn't just leave it as ##\theta## in that case. Do you see that?

- #8

- 140

- 19

I'm sorry for taking up your time but I did not simply replace ##\theta## by ##-\theta##. I used the equations you proved and the one I proved as the RHS then I proceeded on. Should I add all of my steps if that makes it clear?It's true that if you replace ##\theta## by ##-\theta## in the first term that the equation still holds. But, you were supposed to check that the whole equation was still valid with ##\theta## replaced by ##-\theta##.

Whether you use ##u(-\theta)## or ##v(-\theta)##, you need to end up with ##-\theta## everywhere.

That's why I said to be careful not to confuse ##\theta## with ##-\theta##. If the substitution was ##\alpha = \cos \theta##, you clearly need to end up with ##\alpha## or ##\cos \theta## in the equation. You couldn't just leave it as ##\theta## in that case. Do you see that?

- #9

- 19,126

- 10,674

I know, but in the end you quoted an equation with mostly ##\theta## as the variable and not ##-\theta##. If you stick with ##\alpha## and put a note after the equation that says "where ##\alpha = -\theta##" you can't go wrong. Note that ##-\theta \neq \theta##.I'm sorry for taking up your time but I did not simply replace ##\theta## by ##-\theta##. I used the equations you proved and the one I proved as the RHS then I proceeded on. Should I add all of my steps if that makes it clear?

- #10

- 140

- 19

So have i ended up wrong with the final result?I know, but in the end you quoted an equation with mostly ##\theta## as the variable and not ##-\theta##. If you stick with ##\alpha## and put a note after the equation that says "where ##\alpha = -\theta##" you can't go wrong. Note that ##-\theta \neq \theta##.

- #11

- 19,126

- 10,674

Yes. For example:So have i ended up wrong with the final result?

$$\frac{d\sin(-\theta)}{d(-\theta)} \neq \frac{d\sin(\theta)}{d(-\theta)}$$

- #12

- 140

- 19

I'll Redo it.Yes. For example:

$$\frac{d\sin(-\theta)}{d(-\theta)} \neq \frac{d\sin(\theta)}{d(-\theta)}$$

- #13

- 19,126

- 10,674

You don't have to. This was correct:I'll Redo it.

A physicist would simply replace ##v## by ##u## there, but you have to leave the ##-\theta## everywhere, because that was the substitution after all!And the total equation can be written as ##\frac{d^{2}v(-\theta) }{d(-\theta)^{2}}+v(-\theta)=-\frac{m}{l^{2}} \frac{d}{d v(-\theta)} V\left(\frac{1}{v(-\theta)}\right)##

- #14

- 140

- 19

So My final result is ok?You don't have to. This was correct:

A physicist would simply replace ##v## by ##u## there, but you have to leave the ##-\theta## everywhere, because that was the substitution after all!

- #15

- 19,126

- 10,674

No. Your final result is wrong. Your intermediate result was correct.So My final result is ok?

- #16

- 140

- 19

- #17

- 19,126

- 10,674

Yes.

- #18

- 140

- 19

isn't that what I did in the final equation? Just replaced u by v everywhere and got ##\frac{d^{2}}{d(-\theta)^{2}} u(\theta)+u(\theta)=-\frac{m}{l^{2}} \frac{d}{d u} V\left(\frac{1}{u}\right)## ?You don't have to. This was correct:

A physicist would simply replace ##v## by ##u## there, but you have to leave the ##-\theta## everywhere, because that was the substitution after all!

- #19

- 19,126

- 10,674

No, because you also replaced ##-\theta## with ##\theta##. A physicist wouldn't use ##v## at all, but just use ##u## for both functions - it saves having to think of a new letter!isn't that what I did in the final equation? Just replaced u by v everywhere and got ##\frac{d^{2}}{d(-\theta)^{2}} u(\theta)+u(\theta)=-\frac{m}{l^{2}} \frac{d}{d u} V\left(\frac{1}{u}\right)## ?

And, as long as you are careful it works out. It just doesn't quite stand up to mathematical scutiny. Some physics books mention it and say "technically we should introduce a new function here, but ..." and other books don't say anything.

It's useful to know that there are two functions involved, even if you choose to use the same letter for both.

- #20

- 140

- 19

I'll study all your replies once again. Thank you so much :)No, because you also replaced ##-\theta## with ##\theta##. A physicist wouldn't use ##v## at all, but just use ##u## for both functions - it saves having to think of a new letter!

And, as long as you are careful it works out. It just doesn't quite stand up to mathematical scutiny. Some physics books mention it and say "technically we should introduce a new function here, but ..." and other books don't say anything.

It's useful to know that there are two functions involved, even if you choose to use the same letter for both.

- #21

- 140

- 19

And also we started as ##u(\theta)=v(-\theta)##

Then if I just use it in the first equation I will get ##\frac{d^{2}}{d(-\theta)^{2}} u(\theta)+u(\theta)=-\frac{m}{l^{2}} \frac{d}{d u} V\left(\frac{1}{u}\right)## but you said its wrong.

I can't see what went wrong?

- #22

- 19,126

- 10,674

It's not wrong, but it's not what you were asked to show. You were asked to carry out the substitution ##\theta \rightarrow -\theta##.Then if I just use it in the first equation I will get ##\frac{d^{2}}{d(-\theta)^{2}} u(\theta)+u(\theta)=-\frac{m}{l^{2}} \frac{d}{d u} V\left(\frac{1}{u}\right)## but you said its wrong.

I can't see what went wrong?

I cannot stress enough (and this is the third time I've told you) that you must use a different variable ##\alpha = -\theta## to resolve these sort of conceptual problems.

The question then asks you to carry out the substitition ##\alpha = -\theta##. Your final answer must involve ##\alpha## and only ##\alpha##. It can no longer have ##\theta## in it.

If someone asked you to translate "I don't know" into French, then a correct answer is "je ne sais pas". If you translate it back and give your answer as "I don't know", then of course that means the same thing, but it's no longer in French - it's back into English again - and you were asked to give an answer in French.

Share: