Forced oscillations and resonance (bis)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on clarifying the transition from equations 22.4 to 22.5 in Landau and Lifshitz's "Mechanics," specifically regarding forced oscillations. The general solution is presented as a combination of a homogeneous solution and a particular solution, with emphasis on the confusion surrounding the notation of constants like "a" and "a'." The limit as gamma approaches omega is highlighted, leading to a special solution that is derived from the forced oscillation equation. The author aims to provide clarity for others who may struggle with this section, correcting a previous error in their explanation. This insight is intended to assist future readers in understanding the concepts of forced oscillations and resonance more effectively.
giulioo
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
I'm studying from landau lifšits "mechanics". I had some troubles in section small oscillations-->forced oscillations, especially from eq 22.4 to eq 22.5

i searched the web and came across this:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/forced-oscillations-and-ressonance.488538/#post-3236442

this thread does not answer the questions i had. Now I know the answer but the thread is closed and I cannot reply. Therefore i write it here (hoping this is the correct place and that it will be helpful to someone). I'm answering question n 2) since the physical meaning of beta is (as any initial phase) just a traslation in time (question n 1) ).

first of all the general solution to equation 22.2 and 22.3 is 22.4:

$$ x=a \cos(\omega t+ \alpha) + \frac{f}{m (\omega^2-\gamma^2)} \cos (\gamma t +\beta)$$

L&L rewrites this in the form

$$ x= a' cos(\omega t + \alpha) + \frac{f}{m(\omega^2-\gamma^2)} [\cos (\gamma t +\beta)-\cos(\omega t+\beta)]$$
where
$$ a'=\frac{f}{m (\omega^2-\gamma^2)} \frac{\cos \beta}{\cos \alpha} + a $$

(note that a' is a function of ##\gamma##)
L&L does not write ##a'## but writes again ##a## (which is confusing). Now from this general solution he takes only the second addend as a particolar solution. then he takes the limit for ##\gamma \rightarrow \omega ##:
$$ \lim_{\gamma \rightarrow \omega} \frac{f}{m(\omega^2-\gamma^2)} [\cos (\gamma t +\beta)-\cos(\omega t+\beta)] = \frac{f}{2m\omega}t \sin(\omega t + \beta) $$

This is a special solution of ##\ddot{x}+\omega^2 x = f/m \cos(\omega t+\beta)## (in the limit ##\gamma \rightarrow \omega##). The general solution is the sum of a special solution plus the general solution of the homogeneus equation associated, which is just formula 22.5 :

$$x(t)= a \cos(\omega t+ \alpha) + \frac{f}{2m\omega}t \sin(\omega t + \beta) $$

remark: in this formula ##a## is the same as eq 22.4 (is a constant and is not ##a'##).

Hope someone will get benefit from this as i would have had yesterday ;)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
sorry my bad, at line "This is a special solution..." i meant ##\ddot x+ \omega ^2 x =f/m \cos(\gamma t+\beta)## instead of ##\ddot x+ \omega ^2 x =f/m \cos(\omega t+\beta)##.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top