Bead sliding on a rigid straight wire

AI Thread Summary
A bead slides along a rotating wire tilted at angle α, governed by the equation of motion \ddot{q} - ω²sin²(α)q = -gcos(α). The proposed solution involves an ansatz q = Ae^{Bt}, leading to a simplified expression that lacks time dependence, indicating a mistake in the approach. A suggested linear substitution transforms the equation, allowing for a new variable p(t) that leads to a general solution involving exponential terms. To fully determine the specific solution for q(t), two initial conditions, including q(0) and \dot{q}(0), are necessary. The discussion emphasizes the importance of these conditions in solving the differential equation accurately.
Favicon
Messages
14
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A bead is free to slide along a rigid, straight wire, whilst the wire is rotating at angular velocity ω about the z-axis and is tilted away from the z-axis at angle α. I have the equation of motion (EOM) and need to find an explicit solution for the distance of the bead along the wire (q) as a function of time.

Homework Equations


EOM: \ddot{q} - ω^2sin^2(α)q = -gcos(α)

The Attempt at a Solution


I assume the ansatz

q = Ae^{Bt}

which differentiates twice to give

\ddot{q} = B^2q

and substitute the second expression into the EOM, which gives (after a little rearrangement):

q = -\frac{gcos(α)}{B^2 - ω^2sin^2(α)}

I don't know what I've done wrong, but I'm sure I must have made a mistake somewhere since the result is an expression for q which has no dependence on time, despite my ansatz that q is a function of time. Can anyone explain what I should do differently here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Favicon! :smile:
Favicon said:
EOM: \ddot{q} - ω^2sin^2(α)q = -gcos(α)

I assume the ansatz

q = Ae^{Bt}

which differentiates twice to give

\ddot{q} = B^2q

and substitute the second expression into the EOM, which gives (after a little rearrangement):

q = -\frac{gcos(α)}{B^2 - ω^2sin^2(α)}

no, it's AeBt = that

but wouldn't it be simpler to write \ddot{q} - ω^2sin^2(α)(q + gcos(α)/ω^2sin^2(α)), and make the obvious linear substitution? :wink:
 
tiny-tim said:
Hi Favicon! :smile:


no, it's AeBt = that

but wouldn't it be simpler to write \ddot{q} - ω^2sin^2(α)(q + gcos(α)/ω^2sin^2(α)), and make the obvious linear substitution? :wink:

Please bear with me as I'm quite rusty on my differential equation solving. By "the obvious linear substitution" I take it you mean p(t) = q(t) + \frac{gcos(\alpha)}{\omega^2sin^2(\alpha)}

Then, since \alpha and \omega are both constant, we have \ddot{p} = \ddot{q}

Substituting those into the EOM (in the form you suggested) gives

\ddot{p} - \omega^2sin^2(\alpha)p = 0

No I take the ansatz p = Ae^{Bt} and substitute into the previous equation to get

B^2Ae^{Bt} - \omega^2sin^2(\alpha)Ae^{Bt} = 0

B = ±\omega sin(\alpha)

If I remember rightly, this means a general solution takes the form

p(t) = A_1e^{\omega sin(\alpha)t} + A_2e^{-\omega sin(\alpha)t}

Substituting for q then yields

q(t) = A_1e^{\omega sin(\alpha)t} + A_2e^{-\omega sin(\alpha)t} - \frac{gcos(\alpha)}{\omega^2sin^2(\alpha)}

Am I right so far? I can see that to go any further would require knowledge of q(t) at some specific time, e.g q(0). However, the textbook from which I'm working suggests that to determine a specific solution for q(t) would require knowledge of \dot{q}(0) at some specific time also. Where does this requirement come from?
 
Favicon said:
If I remember rightly, this means a general solution takes the form

p(t) = A_1e^{\omega sin(\alpha)t} + A_2e^{-\omega sin(\alpha)t}

Substituting for q then yields

q(t) = A_1e^{\omega sin(\alpha)t} + A_2e^{-\omega sin(\alpha)t} - \frac{gcos(\alpha)}{\omega^2sin^2(\alpha)}

yes :smile:

now you have two constants of integration, A1 and A2, so you need two initial conditions to find both (which will usually be a condition on q and a condition on q')
 
Ah yes, that's a good point. Thanks very much for your help Tiny :)
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top