Simple harmonic motion interpretation problem

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the interpretation of the equation t = (1/ω) cos^(-1)(x/A) derived from x = A cos(ωt) in simple harmonic motion (SHM). The confusion arises when considering the value of t when x = 0, as the expectation is that t should also be 0, indicating no movement. It is clarified that the equation assumes t = 0 corresponds to the maximum displacement, not the equilibrium position. To achieve x = 0 at t = 0, the sine function should be used instead of cosine. The participants agree on the importance of understanding that x represents displacement from equilibrium, not from the initial time.
Celso
Messages
33
Reaction score
1
I'm in trouble trying to understand the expression ##t= \frac{1}{\omega} cos^{-1}(x/A)## that comes from ##x = Acos(\omega t)##, in which ##A## is the amplitude, ##t## is time and ##x## is displacement.
When ##x = 0##, ##t = \frac{\pi}{2\omega} ##, shouldn't it be 0 since there was no movement?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
##\cos^{-1}## has multiple roots.
 
  • Like
Likes Celso
Dale said:
##\cos^{-1}## has multiple roots.
It has a root in ##x/A = 1##, but in that case the distance would be equal to the amplitude, not zero
 
You seem to be using a form of the SHM equation that treats ##t=0## as a time when ##x## is a maximum. If you want ##x=0## at ##t=0## you need to use ##\sin##, not ##\cos##.
 
  • Like
Likes Celso
Yes, @Ibix is right. In this equation x is the displacement from equilibrium, not the displacement from t=0. It starts at the peak.
 
ah that's my mistake, thank you guys
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top