jackmell said:
Suppose I'm workin' on a real-life project, a dam, a rocket, a building, whatever with real stuf in it and I got this equation. Surely can't just use an imaginary solution for the length of a beam right? Suppose I have a IVP with real initial conditions, what's the (real) solution then? And that's just the homogeneuous part. Suppose the assignment was to derive an "expression" for the non-homogeneous equation, even if it's ugly, can he?
If one is working on a real-life project, a dam, a rocket, a building, whatever with real stuf in it and got this equation, he will probably use numerical methods. That is the common way in engeenering.
If he is more theoricien, he will analytically solve it and obtain awfull formulas with a lot of beautiful special functions (which is smart in a report). Then, in practice, he will have to compute those functions thanks to numerical means. Well, in any case all ends with numerical computation. Is there an advantage to appeal to special functions ?
They are several. A very important one is that, knowing the name of a convenient special function gives access to a large background well related to the problem.
For example, in the case of the non-homogeneous equation, if I say that a particular solution is related to the Struve functions (attachment), I bet that searching in the litterature related to the Struve functions will show that someone else already had worked on problems similar to the atomqwerty's problem and, may be, had already solved his problem.
Note : I suggest to make the same study in the case x<0. Then, sqrt(8x) is replaced by sqrt(-8x). With some other little changes in the equations. And why not real order sqrt(3) instead of complex order i*sqrt(3) ?

In all cases, x<0 or x>0, of course, the real solutions will be the same solutions than whose obtained by direct numerical solving of the ODE.