Understanding SHM in a Potential Well: F(x+xo) and dU/dx Link Explained

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the relationship between force (F) and potential energy (U) in the context of simple harmonic motion (SHM) within a potential well. It highlights the equation F = -dU/dx and seeks clarification on the derivation that shows the force constant is equivalent to the second derivative of potential energy. The initial differentiation of U = 1/2 kx^2 yields the linear force law, while a second differentiation is necessary to establish the connection to the force constant. Understanding these derivations is crucial for grasping the underlying principles of SHM in potential wells. The conversation emphasizes the mathematical foundation linking force and potential energy in this context.
elemis
Messages
162
Reaction score
1
In the attachment below some form of link is made between F(x+xo) and dU/dx

I understand F=-dU/dx but I do not understand the derivation shown to prove that the force constant is equal to the second derivative in the last line.

How do they go about this proof ?
ImageUploadedByPhysics Forums1365065923.973605.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
As you saw, if you start with U = 1/2 kx^2 and differentiate once, you get the linear force law you want.
Differentiate it a second time.
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

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?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Principle of Physics: Derivation of -dU/dx=F
Replies
24
Views
2K
Relationship between Potential Energy and Force
Replies
6
Views
57K
B Kinematic equations ##\textbf{purely}## from graphs
Replies
49
Views
3K
I Closed implies exact (differential 1-forms on R^2)
Replies
6
Views
3K
Infinite time for an object to get K=0 conservative Force
Replies
10
Views
2K
Applicability of potential flow theory (fluid dynamics)
Replies
3
Views
3K
Understanding the generic nature of linearity in Physics
Replies
2
Views
940
Using Conservation of Energy to Analyze a Potential Energy Graph
Replies
1
Views
2K
Misunderstanding of Gravitational Potential Energy
Replies
7
Views
3K
I Why Does the Negative Sign Appear in the Vector Potential Equation?
Replies
3
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top