Damped Electric Oscillator: Blackbody Radiation & Energy Conservation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the energy conservation of a damped electric oscillator, particularly in relation to blackbody radiation and the introduction of a damping constant denoted as σ. Participants explore the mathematical formulation of energy conservation and the implications of damping on the oscillator's behavior.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the initial equations for energy conservation in a damped electric oscillator and expresses confusion about deriving a specific formula involving the damping constant σ.
  • Another participant questions the validity of the first equation and suggests that additional context regarding σ is necessary for understanding.
  • A participant acknowledges the oddity of the sudden introduction of σ in the text and speculates on its relationship to the damping constant.
  • Further discussion reveals that σ refers to the damping constant, but participants remain unclear about its implications for the derived formula.
  • One participant proposes a method for deriving the equation by manipulating the integral and differentiating terms, leading to a condition that suggests a relationship between the terms in the equation.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the approach taken should be heuristic rather than rigorous, noting potential issues with the derived equation in general applications.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express uncertainty and confusion regarding the relationship between the damping constant σ and the derived equations. There is no consensus on the correct interpretation or derivation of the final formula.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the introduction of σ and its implications may depend on earlier sections of the referenced book, which could lead to misunderstandings if not fully read. The discussion also highlights the limitations of the derived equation in accurately describing the behavior of damped oscillators.

sayebms
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
consider energy for a damped electric oscillator . ("[itex]f[/itex]" indicates the dipole moment of the oscillator)

in the absence of the damping force

[itex]U= \frac{1}{2}kx^2 +1/2 (\frac{d^2x}{dt^2}) ^2[/itex]

and the energy conservation tells us [itex]dU=0[/itex].
but if there is damping force we get the following using larmor formula and energy of a dipole in an electric field, for the conservation of energy:

[itex]\int_t^τ ( \frac{dU}{dt} + \frac{2}{3c^2} (\frac{d^2f}{dt^2})^2 -E \frac{df}{dt} )[/itex]

and here is i don't understand: using the fact that [itex]\frac{4π^2 v_0}{3c^3 L} = σ[/itex]

and the above conseravtion of energy formula we get to

[itex]Kf+L \frac{d^2f}{dt^2} -2/(3c^3) \frac{d^3f}{dt^3}=E[/itex]

i don't really know how we got to this last formula using the above equations. any help is appreciated. and for those who have access to the book The question is from page 184 of the book "Planck's Columbia Lectures".
 
Science news on Phys.org
Check that first equation.

You can't do it with just those equations - you also need to know how that ##\sigma## comes in.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Thank you very much for your time.
actually that is the part i didn't understand. because i don't see any relation between the formula for the conseravation of energy and [itex]σ[/itex] , in the book it just appears suddenly and then the author concludes the final equation (the differential equation) by saying that the constant [itex]σ[/itex] is small.
 
That sounds... odd.
Either the author has introduced it someplace else that he expects you to have read (maybe quite early in the book) or you are expected to crunch your way through the math and notice a bunch of constants making a mess ... rearrange them into the ratio that he labels with a sigma, realize that it is small...
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
It is indeed odd. But even more surprisingly i found what it refers to after reading the next chapter.
After some pages it is indicated that the constant sigma actually refers to the damping constant (as the system is considered as damped oscillator since it emits radiation) but still i don't get the relation between this constant beeing small and the last formula which is given:
[itex]Kf+L \frac{d^2f}{dt^2}−2/(3c^3)\frac{d^3f}{dt^3}=E[/itex]

but i suspect that it is somehow used to approximate the following:

[itex]2/(3c^3)\frac{d^2f}{dt^2}= −2/(3c^3)\frac{d^3f}{dt^3}[/itex]

could it be right??
 
The approach to take is to consider what the author wants to calculate and where the author starts from.
If this is unclear, then use a different textbook.
 
To derive the equation, we may argue this way. Plug-in the expression for ##U## into the integral, differentiate term by term and express ##\ddot{f}^2## as

$$
\frac{d}{dt}\left(\ddot{f}\dot{f}\right) - \dddot{f} \dot{f}.
$$

Collect the terms containing ##\dot{f}##. We arrive at

$$
\int_t^{t+\tau} \left( Kf + L\ddot{f} - \frac{2}{3c^3}\dddot{f} - E_z \right)\dot{f} + \frac{2}{3c^3}\frac{d}{dt}\left(\ddot{f} \dot{f}\right) \,dt.
$$

Now since the last terms is total time derivative, its integral is easy to do. It is equal to

$$
\ddot{f} \dot{f} (t + \tau) - \ddot{f} \dot{f} (t).
$$

If we assume that the system oscillates with low damping (low ##\sigma##), the values of its amplitude, velocity and acceleration are almost the same as in the previous period, hence this term is small (with respect to ##\ddot{f} \dot{f}##.

If we neglect it, we have the condition

$$
\int_t^{t+\tau} \left( Kf + L\ddot{f} - \frac{2}{3c^3}\dddot{f} - E_z \right)\dot{f}\,dt = 0.
$$

One possible way to satisfy this condition is to postulate
$$
Kf + L\ddot{f} - \frac{2}{3c^3}\dddot{f} - E_z = 0.
$$

I think this should be regarded as an heuristic procedure to arrive at some new interesting equation. It should not be regarded as rigorous derivation, since there are those two arbitrary steps.

The equation works approximately (to first approximation) for periodic motions. However, nowadays we know that this equation is not very satisfactory in general, because it leads to all sorts of problems (runaways, acceleration before force is applied, and alike).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K