How does one get the solution to the differential equation for SHM?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the derivation of the solution to the simple harmonic motion equation, specifically why the solution is x = A cos(wt + ∅). It explains that the approach involves guessing an exponential form due to the nature of the differential equation, leading to the use of Euler's equation to relate complex exponentials to sine and cosine functions. The conversation highlights that while guessing can be an effective method for solving differential equations, understanding eigenvectors can provide a more systematic approach. Participants note that textbooks may simplify explanations, which can lead to confusion for learners. Ultimately, the solution emerges from a combination of intuition and mathematical principles.
mahrap
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
I understand the derivation for the simple harmonic motion equation:

F = -kx ( in a 1-D case)

acceleration = x''(t) = (-k/m)x

so x''(t) + (k/m)x = 0

But why is the solution to this equation

x = A cos (wt + ∅ )

How does one come up with this solution? I tried understanding this by reading my textbook however I get very confused. Any help is appreciated. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think initially

ei k θ

Is the real basis of the solution.

That's because e^x is its own derivative.

Euler's equation relates e^i theta to sin and cos functions hence the solution you see.
 
You basically guess that the solution is an exponential because of the form of the DE. So something along the lines of A_e^-wx+B_e^wx, and then you discover that w is complex and you rewrite those complex exponentials into sines and cosines with eulers equation.
 
mahrap said:
How does one come up with this solution?
Guess and check. Unfortunately, that is one of the most effective ways of coming up with solutions to differential equations. Computers can be helpful with that, they aren't as good at the guessing part, but they can do the checking part very quickly.
 
@mahrap: You don't have to guess. If you enjoy eigenvectors and all that stuff, then it follows naturally. But if you are learning this the first time, then maybe it is too long a detour. That is probably why your textbook is giving a weird explanation. They want to reassure you that there is a proper way to get the answer, but it would take up too much writing to actually explain it.
 
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