Why Do Different Methods Yield Different Results for Simple Harmonic Motion?

AI Thread Summary
Different methods for calculating the period of simple harmonic motion yield varying results due to the nature of acceleration in a spring-mass system. The conventional approach assumes uniform acceleration, leading to a quarter-cycle time of T/4, while an alternative method considers average acceleration, resulting in a different time calculation. The key distinction lies in the fact that acceleration in this system is not constant; it varies sinusoidally with position rather than linearly with time. This non-linear relationship means that average acceleration cannot be treated as constant, which affects the overall calculations. Understanding these differences is crucial for accurately analyzing harmonic motion.
Zolo
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
There is a horizontal spring-mass system lie on top of a frictionless table.
let m=mass
k=spring constant
x=displacement from equilibrium position
A=amplitude
T=period

By using conventional way, time taken to complete a quarter of cycle=T/4=(∏/2)√(m/k)

consider another way of doing, F=-kx
a=-(k/m)x
then we can consider the average acceleration of first quarter of motion a=(1/2)(k/m)A
since s=ut+1/2at^2
then, A=(1/2)*(1/2)(k/m)A*t^2
finally, we get t=2√(m/k)

why is the ans from both way diffrent...Both ways seem to be equivalent...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you simply assuming that's the average acceleration? ... or can you show it?

The acceleration due to the spring, is not uniform.
 
If u consider a body moving with constant acceleration(constant rate of change of velocity with time), then we know that average velocity across any time interval=(V2-V1)/2
Thus, the motion can be regarded as constant velocity with the average velocity

In this system, rate of change of acceleration with respect to x is constant, so when can conclude that average acceleration across any interval of x=(a2-a1)/2
For this case,
a2= acceleration at maximum displacement=(k/m)A
a1=acceleration at equilibrium position=0

isn't this show that the motion can be regarded as a constant acceleration with the average acceleration?
 
Its true that if velocity is linear with respect to time, then the average velocity can be treated as a constant velocity. Its also true that if acceleration is linear with respect to time, then the average acceleration can be treated as a constant acceleration. But in the case of the spring, the acceleration is not linear with respect to time, its linear with respect to position. Your method would be fine if acceleration were linearly related to time, but its not; its sinusoidaly related.
 
Last edited:
In fact, over one complete cycle of the harmonic oscillator, the average acceleration is zero !
 
Its true that if velocity is linear with respect to time, then the average velocity can be treated as a constant velocity. Its also true that if acceleration is linear with respect to time, then the average acceleration can be treated as a constant acceleration. But in the case of the spring, the acceleration is not linear with respect to time, its linear with respect to position. Your method would be fine if acceleration were linearly related to time, but its not; its sinusoidaly related.

Can you explain or show why it so when it is linearly related to time?
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top