Did I Apply the Taylor Series Correctly to the Restoring Force?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NeedPhysHelp8
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Force Shm
NeedPhysHelp8
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
An atom of mass m is bonded to surface immobile body by electromagnetic forces. The force binding the atom to the surface has the expression:

F= exp\ (a\cos z + b\sin z) + d\tan(z)

where a,b, and d are constants and z is upwards. The equilibrium point is defined to be z=0. The system is subject to Earth's gravity

For small oscillations, give an approximate expression for the binding force on the atom.

The attempt at a solution
Ok so in class we were taught to do the Taylor Series expansion on F(x) and keep the linear term so you can get something that looks like F=-kx . So I got this after doing Taylor Series expansion:

where F' = (-a\sin z + b\cos z) exp\ (a\cos z + b\sin z) + d\sec^2 (z) then evaluate at z=0 then final result is :

F(z)= (b exp(a) + d )z

Since F(0) is always 0 at the equilibrium I took that out of Taylor series and ignored higher order terms.

Now I'm not sure if I'm going about this the right way? Can someone please tell me if I did this right or not? Much appreciated I love this forum!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You've got the right idea, but you seem to have computed F' incorrectly. Take another look at that calculation.
 
How is F' wrong?? :S please explain I just used the chain rule
 
It's wrong for the F that was in your post when I wrote mine. But after your edit, everything looks OK.
 
Thanks
 
Last edited:
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