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.
 
Hi, I had an exam and I completely messed up a problem. Especially one part which was necessary for the rest of the problem. Basically, I have a wormhole metric: $$(ds)^2 = -(dt)^2 + (dr)^2 + (r^2 + b^2)( (d\theta)^2 + sin^2 \theta (d\phi)^2 )$$ Where ##b=1## with an orbit only in the equatorial plane. We also know from the question that the orbit must satisfy this relationship: $$\varepsilon = \frac{1}{2} (\frac{dr}{d\tau})^2 + V_{eff}(r)$$ Ultimately, I was tasked to find the initial...
The value of H equals ## 10^{3}## in natural units, According to : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units, ## t \sim 10^{-21} sec = 10^{21} Hz ##, and since ## \text{GeV} \sim 10^{24} \text{Hz } ##, ## GeV \sim 10^{24} \times 10^{-21} = 10^3 ## in natural units. So is this conversion correct? Also in the above formula, can I convert H to that natural units , since it’s a constant, while keeping k in Hz ?
Back
Top