Hooke's Law on a microscopic level

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Hooke's Law at a microscopic level, particularly in the context of how forces between particles behave when a spring is stretched. Participants explore the interplay of attractive and repulsive forces among particles, questioning how these interactions lead to the observed behavior of springs despite the increasing distance between particles.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that Hooke's law states the force required to stretch a spring is proportional to the distance stretched, but questions how this aligns with the inverse-square law governing electromagnetic interactions between particles.
  • Another participant provides a mathematical perspective, suggesting that at small displacements, the potential energy behaves according to Hooke's law due to the second derivative of the potential energy being significant.
  • A different participant challenges the explanation by asserting that a larger force is required to maintain a spring's stretch, contrasting it with the behavior of two particles that are easier to separate when far apart.
  • One participant argues that in a spring, particles interact primarily with their immediate neighbors, which may account for the observed behavior.
  • Another participant emphasizes that attractive forces are not the sole interactions at play, introducing the concept of repulsive forces that arise when particles are too close, affecting the equilibrium distance.
  • Several participants discuss the balance between attractive and repulsive forces, noting that while both decrease with distance, repulsive forces diminish more rapidly, leading to a net attraction towards the equilibrium position.
  • One participant mentions the concept of particles sitting in a 'potential well' and how this contributes to the linear restoring force observed in bulk materials when stretched.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the mechanisms underlying the behavior of springs at a microscopic level. While there is some agreement on the roles of attractive and repulsive forces, the discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these forces on the application of Hooke's law.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference specific examples such as Van der Waals and ionic crystals to illustrate how forces depend on distance, but the discussion does not reach a consensus on the overall explanation of the phenomena described.

BrainSalad
Messages
53
Reaction score
1
Hooke's law states that the force required to stretch/compress a spring is proportional to the distance stretched. Meanwhile, electromagnetic interactions between particles obey an inverse-square law with respect to distance. So, if as a spring is stretched, it's composite particles get farther apart from each other, why does the force required to stretch it increase?

I know that Hooke's law is only an approximation, but it works quite well. What goes on at the microscopic level which keeps the increased distance between particles from reducing the attractive force between them? If there is a quantum mechanical answer which reveals something special about chemical bonds, I can accept that I am too ignorant of that field to understand the answer as of yet.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The deal is that in small distances, the hook's law appears.
If for examply you have two particles interacting in a distance a, and you make a small displacement r you'll get for the potential:
V(r+a)= V(a)+ r ( \frac{∂V}{∂r} )_{r=a} + \frac{r^{2}}{2} (\frac{∂^{2}V}{∂r^{2}})_{r=a}+O(r^{3})
Now if at your initial distance everything was stable, V(a) is just a constant, the (\frac{∂V}{∂r})_{r=a}=0 because it was a stable that point, and you only have the 2nd derivative term...

V(r+a)= V(a)+ \frac{r^{2}}{2} (\frac{∂^{2}V}{∂r^{2}})_{r=a}+O(r^{3})
So everything, no matter what kind of force you have, at small displacements works like the Hook's law (harmonic oscillator): the potential has the r^{2} dependence.
 
Last edited:
This doesn't explain the fact that a larger force is required to keep a spring stretched at greater length, does it? Two particles attracted to each other are still easier to pull apart when they are far away from each other, but a spring is opposite that.
 
But in the string the particle of the one edge does not interact with the particle on the other edge... each is interacting with their neighbors in the way I explained.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
The attractive force is not the only force acting on the particles.
You cannot have an equilibrium with attraction only.
If the atoms get too close to each other there is a repulsion force.
The equilibrium distance between particles is given by the balance of the attraction and repulsion.
If you stretch the crystal, the distance between particles increases and both attraction and repulsion force decreases. But the repulsion decreases much faster with distance so the net effect is an attraction towards the equilibrium position.

See. for example. Van der Waals or ionic crystals, for specific examples of how the forces depend on distance.
http://physics.unl.edu/tsymbal/teaching/SSP-927/Section 03_Crystal_Binding.pdf
 
Last edited:
nasu said:
The attractive force is not the only force acting on the particles.
You cannot have an equilibrium with attraction only.
If the atoms get too close to each other there is a repulsion force.
The equilibrium distance between particles is given by the balance of the attraction and repulsion.
If you stretch the crystal, the distance between particles increases and bot attraction an d repulsion forces decreases. But the repulsion decreases much faster with distance so the net effect is an attraction towards the equilibrium position.

See. for example. Van der Waals or ionic crystals, for specific examples of how the forces depend on distance.
http://physics.unl.edu/tsymbal/teaching/SSP-927/Section 03_Crystal_Binding.pdf

Yes. Each particles sits in a 'potential well' and the restoring force for small perturbations (together or apart) is proportional to the displacement. Billions of atoms (in line), each one moving by minute distances,means that the restoring force is linear with overall large distortion of the bulk metal.
 
nasu said:
The attractive force is not the only force acting on the particles.
You cannot have an equilibrium with attraction only.
If the atoms get too close to each other there is a repulsion force.
The equilibrium distance between particles is given by the balance of the attraction and repulsion.
If you stretch the crystal, the distance between particles increases and both attraction and repulsion force decreases. But the repulsion decreases much faster with distance so the net effect is an attraction towards the equilibrium position.

This makes good sense.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K