Trying to write falling rod energies as Hamiltonian

masterkenichi
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
"Consider an infinitely sharp pin of mass M and height H perfectly balanced on its tip. Assume that the mass of the pin is all at the ball on the top of the pin. Classically, we expect the pin to remain in this state forever. Quantum mechanics, however, predicts that the pin will fall over within a finite amount of time. This can be shown as follows:
Show that the total energy of the pin (aka. the Hamiltonian) can be expressed in the
form:
E = Ap^2 − Bx^2
if we assume that x << H. p is the momentum of the pin and x is the lateral displacement of the head of the pin. Find expressions for A and B."


My attempt:
When the pin head moves laterally a distance x, it will have lost some gravitational energy equal to E_g = mg\sqrt{H^2-x^2}.
My first shot at this is to write E = P^2/(2m) + mgy, where y= \sqrt{H^2-x^2}; however, I don't think this can be reduced to the form called for. Suggestions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You should do a Taylor approximation of the expression y= \sqrt{H^2-x^2}. For x/H << 1, sqrt{H^2-x^2} = H sqrt{1-(x/H)^2} = H (1 - (1/2)(x/H)^2 + ...). The first term is a constant, and the second is the one you need.
 
Thank you very much for your help, but I'm a little uncertain what you mean by
The first term is a constant, and the second is the one you need.


This approximation results in the term E = (1/2m)p^2 + mgy, where y = H-x^2/{2H}, which I can't write in the form Bx^2. Is the constant term is not relevant?
 
masterkenichi said:
Thank you very much for your help, but I'm a little uncertain what you mean by



This approximation results in the term E = (1/2m)p^2 + mgy, where y = H-x^2/{2H}, which I can't write in the form Bx^2. Is the constant term is not relevant?

Shouldn't you have:
\Delta E = \frac{p^2}{2m} + mgy
And assuming conservation of Energy:
\Delta E=0
 
masterkenichi said:
This approximation results in the term E = (1/2m)p^2 + mgy, where y = H-x^2/{2H}, which I can't write in the form Bx^2. Is the constant term is not relevant?

Hamiltonian is always uncertain up to an additive constant (it is because the equations of motion involve only the derivatives of Hamiltonian). Just remember that you are free to choose any point to be reference point and have energy E=0.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top