How did they reach this conclusion regarding the coefficients?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conditions for coefficients in a mathematical model involving an infinite number of coupled masses on springs. Participants explore the implications of boundary conditions and initial conditions on the coefficients of the system's equations, examining how these conditions affect the solutions derived from the model.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about reaching the condition that coefficients are zero, noting they only derived this when substituting n=0.
  • Another participant questions whether the problem specifies initial conditions, suggesting that if the system starts with ##\psi_n(0)=0##, then the sum of coefficients must also equal zero.
  • A participant speculates that if the displacement is zero at all times, it should also be zero at t=0, which could simplify the problem.
  • Another participant clarifies that at time t=0, all masses are at equilibrium, implying that the displacement should be zero at that moment.
  • One participant provides a detailed description of the problem setup, including the infinite number of masses and their coupling via springs, and how they assumed a solution involving time and frequency.
  • Another participant notes that boundary conditions were added for only two masses, leading to a different result than expected.
  • There is a request for clarification on the boundary conditions for mass 0 and mass N, which are stated to be zero for all times.
  • A participant reiterates that substituting n=0 into the general expression leads to a conclusion that the sum of coefficients must equal zero, aligning with the boundary condition.
  • One participant expresses relief at the simplicity of the conclusion reached regarding the coefficients.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit some agreement on the implications of the boundary conditions, particularly regarding the coefficients being zero. However, there remains uncertainty about the initial conditions and how they affect the overall solution, indicating that multiple views and interpretations are present.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the problem statement, particularly regarding the clarity of initial and boundary conditions, which may affect the derivation of results. There is also a dependence on the definitions of the variables involved, which could lead to different interpretations of the problem.

kirito_01
Messages
8
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
i am learning a course about waves we started by solving a problem of infinite num of masses on a spring then we moved to a finite number we so we got the same set solution space but with some conditions so we applied the conditions on the solution we found
the solution for the infinite num case
Screenshot 2024-12-14 at 15.14.18.png

Screenshot 2024-12-14 at 15.14.22.png

the problem is that i only could reach the condition that the coefficients are zero when i substituted n=0 , i am reaching two independent variables i am not sure what am i doing wrong that's preventing me from getting a similar result to them "that they are equal in value opposite in sign". , i am certain that they only used the condition n=0 for this , because i used the n=N condition elsewhere to write the solution in relation to modes
Screenshot 2024-12-14 at 15.14.27.png



here is what they have reached
Screenshot 2024-12-14 at 15.14.31.png
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2024-12-14 at 15.14.18.png
    Screenshot 2024-12-14 at 15.14.18.png
    4 KB · Views: 55
  • Screenshot 2024-12-14 at 15.14.22.png
    Screenshot 2024-12-14 at 15.14.22.png
    3.3 KB · Views: 61
  • Screenshot 2024-12-14 at 15.14.27.png
    Screenshot 2024-12-14 at 15.14.27.png
    2.5 KB · Views: 65
  • Screenshot 2024-12-14 at 15.14.31.png
    Screenshot 2024-12-14 at 15.14.31.png
    1.8 KB · Views: 66
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Did the problem specify the initial condition? Specifically, note that $$\psi_n(0)=\left[A_{\delta}^{+}+A_{\delta}^{-}\right]e^{i\delta_n}.$$If the system starts so that ##\psi_n(0)=0##, then ##\left[A_{\delta}^{+}+A_{\delta}^{-}\right]=0## because the phase ##e^{i\delta n}\neq 0## for any ##n.##
 
  • Care
Likes   Reactions: kirito_01
kuruman said:
Did the problem specify the initial condition? Specifically, note that $$\psi_n(0)=\left[A_{\delta}^{+}+A_{\delta}^{-}\right]e^{i\delta_n}.$$If the system starts so that ##\psi_n(0)=0##, then ##\left[A_{\delta}^{+}+A_{\delta}^{-}\right]=0## because the phase ##e^{i\delta n}\neq 0## for any ##n.##
oh do you mean since it is zero at all times it is also zero at t=0 so i can deal with a nicer version of the problem and reach the result ?
 
kirito_01 said:
oh do you mean since it is zero at all times it is also zero at t=0 so i can deal with a nicer version of the problem and reach the result ?
since then i can understand but dealing with t as a variable i am not reaching anywhere
 
kirito_01 said:
oh do you mean since it is zero at all times it is also zero at t=0 so i can deal with a nicer version of the problem and reach the result ?
No. I mean that if ##\psi_n(t)## represents the displacement of the ##n##th mass from equilibrium at any time ##t##, at time ##t=0## all masses are instantaneously at the equilibrium position.

I am guessing here. It would help if you provided a full statement of the problem that you are solving instead of part of the solution.
 
kuruman said:
No. I mean that if ##\psi_n(t)## represents the displacement of the ##n##th mass from equilibrium at any time ##t##, at time ##t=0## all masses are instantaneously at the equilibrium position.

I am guessing here. It would help if you provided a full statement of the problem that you are solving instead of part of the solution.
i will try to phrase the problem the ##\psi_n(t)## indeed represent the displacement of the ##n##th mass from equilibrium at any time ##t##, the full problem is as follows we had a set of masses n masses (an infinite number ) that are coupled on a spring with spring constant k for all and they are only allowed to move upwards and downwards where the displacement of the vertically is represented by ##\psi## after since we have infinite number of masses for each mass there is a mass before it and a mass after it we assumed a solution that looks like a function of time multipied by an exponential that has a frequency delta and n representing the place of the mass n after solving this i got the first and second equations up
 
then we where asked to move to finite number of masses we already the space of the solutions without conditions upon the system we added conditions on mass 0 and N not small n it was a problem on my part so the condition up are on 2 masses only the one at the start of the spring and at the end on all times
 
kirito_01 said:
then we where asked to move to finite number of masses we already the space of the solutions without conditions upon the system we added conditions on mass 0 and N not small n it was a problem on my part so the condition up are on 2 masses only the one at the start of the spring and at the end on all times
then my book provided a result from the boundary conditions and this is where i reached a different result from them
 
You have not told us what the boundary conditions on mass 0 and mass N are.
 
  • #10
kuruman said:
You have not told us what the boundary conditions on mass 0 and mass N are.
they are the ones written in the equation i provided 0 for mass zero and N for mass N thats all what was provided
Screenshot 2024-12-14 at 15.14.27.png
 
  • #11
OK, so as we have seen in post #2 that at ##t=0## the general expression reduces to $$\psi_n(0)=\left[A_{\delta}^{+}+A_{\delta}^{-}\right]e^{i\delta n}.$$ This is true for any value of ##n## at ##t=0##. If you substitute ##n=0## in the above equation, you get $$\psi_0(0)=\left[A_{\delta}^{+}+A_{\delta}^{-}\right]e^{0}=A_{\delta}^{+}+A_{\delta}^{-}.$$ But the boundary condition says that ##\psi_0(t)=0## for all times ##t## and that includes ##t=0.## Therefore, $$0=\psi_0(0)=A_{\delta}^{+}+A_{\delta}^{-}.$$It's that simple.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: kirito_01
  • #12
kuruman said:
OK, so as we have seen in post #2 that at ##t=0## the general expression reduces to $$\psi_n(0)=\left[A_{\delta}^{+}+A_{\delta}^{-}\right]e^{i\delta n}.$$ This is true for any value of ##n## at ##t=0##. If you substitute ##n=0## in the above equation, you get $$\psi_0(0)=\left[A_{\delta}^{+}+A_{\delta}^{-}\right]e^{0}=A_{\delta}^{+}+A_{\delta}^{-}.$$ But the boundary condition says that ##\psi_0(t)=0## for all times ##t## and that includes ##t=0.## Therefore, $$0=\psi_0(0)=A_{\delta}^{+}+A_{\delta}^{-}.$$It's that simple.
thank you it is much simpler than i expected
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: kuruman

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K