Phase portrait for a conservative negative potential

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the phase portrait of a simple harmonic oscillator with a negative potential, as introduced by Prof. V. Balakrishnan. The total energy equation is modified to E=\frac{1}{2}m\dot{q}^{2}-\frac{1}{2}mω^{2}q^{2}, resulting in non-harmonic motion and an inverted potential well. The challenge lies in understanding why the phase trajectories, represented by hyperbolas, become symmetric around the x-axis to avoid intersection, which is impossible in a physical system. A solution is provided in a linked lecture document.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Classical Mechanics principles
  • Familiarity with phase portraits and their significance
  • Knowledge of harmonic oscillators and potential energy concepts
  • Ability to interpret mathematical equations related to motion
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of negative potential in classical mechanics
  • Explore the mathematical derivation of phase portraits for non-harmonic systems
  • Investigate the concept of trajectory intersections in dynamical systems
  • Review advanced topics in oscillatory motion and stability analysis
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, particularly those studying Classical Mechanics, educators teaching oscillatory motion, and researchers interested in dynamical systems and phase space analysis.

IWantToLearn
Messages
95
Reaction score
0
Hi,
i was studying Classical Mechanics course introduced by the brilliant Prof. V. Balakrishnan

he was studying the phase portrait of a simple harmonic oscillator in one dimension , where the total enegry of the system is E=\frac{1}{2}m\dot{q}^{2}+\frac{1}{2}mω^{2}q^{2} where E is constant.
in minute 54 he suggested to change the sign of the potential to be negative:
E=\frac{1}{2}m\dot{q}^{2}-\frac{1}{2}mω^{2}q^{2}
the motion is not harmonic any more and the potential well is inverted to be opened in the negative y-direction, he asked to complete the phase portrait for this new motion,
i tried to think of it physically and i was half way to get it, but i failed,
here is the solution http://www-physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/fall2010/physics200a/LECTURES/200_COURSE.pdf page 32

the reason that i failed is that i couldn't able to know why the parabola was rotated to be symmetric around the x-axis?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I found one thing that convinced me somehow, the reason that the family of hyperbolas changed to be symmetric about the x-axis is that, if they will continue to be symmetric around the y-axis, phase trajectories will soon come to intersect each other, which can't be true.
 
it was like drawing the hyperbola as y=f(x) so it becomes symmetric around the y-axis for the first group of hyperbolas, then drawing it as x=f(y) so it is symmetric around the x-axis for the second group of hyperbolas.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K