Checking my work on a conservation of energy problem

Emspak
Messages
240
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



Given: \frac{1}{2}m (\dot x)^2 + mg x = E

Gravitational force is mg.

We need to show that by solving this DE that we can confirm that the conservation of energy correctly describes one-dimensional motion (the motion in a uniform field). That is, that the same motion is obtained as predicted by Newton' equation of motion. I had this up as a thread before -- (thanks to tiny-tim!) but I discovered that there might have been some bad errors in my original set-up. So I wanted to see if I corrected those.

The Attempt at a Solution



My attempt was as follows:

\frac{1}{2}m\dot x + mg x = E so by moving things around a bit I can reduce this to

(\dot x)^2 = \frac{2(E - mgx)}{m}

and from there I can solve the DE:

\dot x = \sqrt{\frac{2(E - mgx)}{m}} \Rightarrow \int dx =\int \sqrt{\frac{2(E - mgx)}{m}}dt

from there I can move some variables some more, in my initial attempt I left the \sqrt{2} on the right but this time I will move it over:

\frac{\sqrt{m}}{\sqrt{2(E-mgx)}} \int dx = \int dt \Rightarrow \frac{\sqrt{m}}{\sqrt{2}} \int \frac{dx}{{\sqrt{E-mgx}}} = \int dt

trying a u substitution where u=\sqrt{E-mgx} and du = -mgdx I should have \frac{\sqrt{m}}{-mg \sqrt{2}} \int \frac{du}{{\sqrt{u}}} = \int dt which gets me to \frac{2\sqrt{m}}{mg\sqrt{2}} \sqrt{u} + c = t

going back to what I substituted for u I have:
\frac{2 \sqrt{m}}{mg \sqrt{2}} \sqrt{E-mgx} + c = t

and when I do the algebra I get (after moving the c over and squaring both sides):

\frac{4m}{2m^2g^2}({E-mgx}) = t^2 - 2ct+ c^2
\frac{2E}{mg^2}-\frac{2x}{g} = {2}t^2 - 2ct+ c^2
-\frac{2x}{g} =-\frac{2E}{mg^2}+ {2}t^2 - 2ct+ c^2
x(t) =\frac{E}{mg}- gt^2 + cgt- \frac{c^2g}{2}

From here I plug in the equation for kinetic energy. E = (1/2) mv^2 which in this case would be \frac{E}{mg} = \frac{(1/2) mg^2t^2}{mg} = \frac{1}{2}gt^2

which changes my x(t) expression to:

x(t) =-\frac{1}{2}gt^2 + cgt- \frac{c^2g}{2}

That looks like an equation of motion to me. And if we take a derivative of the original expression we get:

\frac{1}{2}m \dot x \ddot x + \frac{1}{2}m \dot x \ddot x + mg \dot x = 0 \Rightarrow m \dot x \ddot x + mg \dot x = 0

and that shows that g=\ddot x. Maybe that's what we were shooting for in the first place.

and looking at the x(t) expression I got, we can replace g with \ddot x and that makes x(t) into:
x(t) =-\frac{1}{2}x + c\dot x- \frac{c^2}{2}\ddot x

I feel like I am close here, but not quite there. So I am hoping someone can tell me where I messed up.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You have complexified this too much!
Take the energy equation, which holds for ALL times, and differentiate it.
That is allowed, because it holds for ALL t's.
We then get:
m\ddot{x}\dot{x}+mg\dot{x}=0
That is:
\dot{x}(m\ddot{x}+mg)=0
meaning that Newton's 2.law of motion is contained as one of two possible solutions.
If the velocity is zero, then position is also unchanging, and the energy equation holds trivially. The other solution, Newton's 2.law, is the one governing a system in motion, and consistent with the energy law of conservation.
 
OK, so it was enough to differentiate and have done with it? That seems too simple. (I thought I had to do the other stuff b/c the question said to solve the DE)
 
Emspak said:
OK, so it was enough to differentiate and have done with it? That seems too simple. (I thought I had to do the other stuff b/c the question said to solve the DE)

Simplicity is what is called for!
:smile:
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top