Simple harmonic motion interpretation problem

Click For 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
 
For fun I was trying to use energy considerations to determine the depth to which a solid object will sink in a fluid to reach equilibrium. The first approach that I tried was just to consider the change in potential energy of the block and the fluid as the block is lowered some unknown distance d into the fluid similar to what is shown in the answer to this post. Upon taking the limit as the vessel's cross sectional area approaches infinity I have an extra factor of 2 in the equilibrium...
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top