Textbook 'The Physics of Waves': Linearity of Forced Oscillator

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem from the textbook "The Physics of Waves," specifically focusing on the linearity of a forced oscillator as described in Problem 2.2. Participants are examining the relationship between the amplitude of complex displacement and the driving force, questioning the implications of linearity in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to clarify what is meant by the linearity mentioned in the textbook, suggesting it may relate to the linearity of the solution. Others discuss the linearity of the operator involved and explore logical flows regarding the relationship between the driving force and the steady-state solution.

Discussion Status

Participants have engaged in a detailed exploration of the problem, with some providing insights into dimensional analysis and linear operators. There is an ongoing dialogue about the logical connections between the various elements of the problem, though no explicit consensus has been reached.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express the need for hints rather than complete solutions, adhering to the forum's guidelines on homework help. The discussion includes references to specific equations and the implications of multiplying constants in the context of the problem.

brettng
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Prove, just using linearity, without using the explicit solution, that the steady state solution to the complex equation of motion for forced oscillator must be proportional to the real force ##F_0##.
Relevant Equations
##\frac {d^2z\left( t \right)} {dt^2} + \Gamma \frac {dz\left( t \right)} {dt} + \omega^2_0 z\left( t \right) = \frac{\mathcal {F}\left( t \right)}{m}##

##\mathcal {F}\left( t \right)=F_0 e^{-i \omega_d t}##
Reference textbook “The Physics of Waves” in MIT website:
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/8-03sc-...es-fall-2016/resources/mit8_03scf16_textbook/

Chapter 2 - Problem 2.2 [Page 51] (see attached file)
1.JPG

2.JPG

Question: In the content of Page 43 (see attached file), it also states that the amplitude of complex displacement is proportional to the amplitude of the driving force, and this is expected from linearity.
3.JPG


However, it means the linearity of what? I guess it is linearity of solution ##x_1(t)+x_2(t)##. Do I misunderstand it?

Also, grateful if you could give me some hints on Problem 2.2 please.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The left hand side of (2.16) is an operator <br /> L(z) = z&#039;&#039; + \Gamma z&#039; + \omega_0^2 z. This operator is linear, in that L(kz) = kL(z) for any constant k and any function z. I can't comment further on 2.2 without essentially answering it for you.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: brettng
pasmith said:
The left hand side of (2.16) is an operator <br /> L(z) = z&#039;&#039; + \Gamma z&#039; + \omega_0^2 z. This operator is linear, in that L(kz) = kL(z) for any constant k and any function z. I can't comment further on 2.2 without essentially answering it for you.

May I confirm if I can have the logical flow as follows:

1) Set ##z(t) = F_0 u(t)##

2) The equation of motion becomes $$F_0 \left( u'' + \Gamma u’ + \omega_0^2 u\right) = \frac {F_0 e^{-i \omega_d t}} {m}$$

$$\left( u'' + \Gamma u’ + \omega_0^2 u\right) = \frac {e^{-i \omega_d t}} {m}$$

3) Now, we can conclude that any constant ##C## multiplies the ##e^{-i \omega_d t}## on the R.H.S. of the 2nd equation in 2) above, the solution ##z(t)## would be proportional to the constant ##C##.

4) Therefore, the steady state solution ##z(t)## must be proportional to ##F_0## in this case (i.e. answer of Problem 2.2).

5) A step more: I can also conclude that the steady state solution must be proportional to ##\frac 1 {m}##.

Does my logic correct?
 
Yes. In fact dimensional analysis requires that <br /> z(t) = \frac{F_0}{m\omega_0^2} Z\left( \omega_0 t, \frac{\omega_d}{\omega_0}, \frac{\Gamma}{\omega_0} \right) where we find <br /> Z(\tau, \alpha, \beta) = \frac{e^{-i\alpha \tau}}{1 - i\alpha\beta - \alpha^2 }.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: brettng
pasmith said:
Yes. In fact dimensional analysis requires that <br /> z(t) = \frac{F_0}{m\omega_0^2} Z\left( \omega_0 t, \frac{\omega_d}{\omega_0}, \frac{\Gamma}{\omega_0} \right) where we find <br /> Z(\tau, \alpha, \beta) = \frac{e^{-i\alpha \tau}}{1 - i\alpha\beta - \alpha^2 }.
So, your demonstration is based on dimensional analysis; while my logical flow follows linearity.

Am I understand correctly?
 
Since the question has essentially already been answered, here's what looks like (IMO) a simple/direct approach.

You are being asked to show that the steady-state solution of equation 2.16 is proportional to ##F_0##. That means if ##F_0## is multiplied by some constant, say ##k##, then the new solution is ##k z(t)##.

And to do this, you are being asked to use the fact that ##\frac d{dt}## and ##\frac {d^2}{dt^2}## are linear operators.

Start by multiplying both sides of equation 2.16 by ##k##.

Then use the fact that since ##\frac d{dt}## is a linear operator, ##k\frac d{dt} z(t) = \frac d{dt} (k z(t))##. Similarly for ##\frac {d^2}{dt^2}##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: brettng
Thank you so much for your help!!
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
936
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
833
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K