Using Matrices to Solve Systems of Masses and Springs

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the use of matrices to solve systems involving masses and springs, specifically focusing on an equation presented in Mary Boas' "Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences." Participants are exploring the relationship between kinetic and potential energy represented in matrix form and the derivation of a specific equation.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Chris Maness expresses confusion regarding the equivalence of the equation $$\lambda Tr=Vr$$, where T and V are matrices representing kinetic and potential energy, respectively.
  • One participant notes that ideal springs transform potential to kinetic energy, suggesting that both energies equal half of the total energy when averaged over a full cycle.
  • Chris proposes an alternative equation involving inner products and questions its validity, indicating that it does not seem to work as expected.
  • Another participant corrects Chris's equation, providing the correct forms for potential and kinetic energy in matrix notation and explaining the role of the mass in the T matrix.
  • This participant also discusses the assumption of harmonic motion and the implications for the energy conservation equation, leading to the original equation Chris is questioning.
  • Chris acknowledges a misunderstanding regarding the presence of terms in his proposed equation, specifically mentioning the appearance of omega squared.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion contains multiple competing views regarding the interpretation and derivation of the equations involved. There is no consensus on the equivalence of the proposed equations, and participants are refining their understanding through dialogue.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific mathematical forms and assumptions related to harmonic motion and energy conservation without resolving all underlying assumptions or mathematical steps.

kq6up
Messages
366
Reaction score
13
I am going through Mary Boas' "Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences 3rd Ed". I finished the chapter 3 section 12 problem set, but I do not understand how she gets eq. 12.39. These don't seem obviously equal to each other. Here is the equation:

$$\lambda Tr=Vr$$ Where T is a matrix representing the kinetic energy, and V is a matrix representing the stiffness of the springs (potential energy).

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Chris Maness
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ideal springs transform potential to kinetic energy, and back again.

When averaged over a full cycle the kinetic & potential energy each equal 1/2 of the total energy.

The problem description will provide further detail for the details of the expression.
 
Ironically, I only see the equation pop into the text ex nihilo. Would this be an equivalent expression?:

$$k\left< { r }|{ V }|{ r } \right> =m\left< { \dot { r } }|{ T }|{ \dot { r } } \right> \quad if\quad r={ e }^{ i\omega t } $$

This seems to be equivalent to the original equation in my mind. I used the BRA/KET just to reflect the transpose since it seems to be an inner product with a the matrices sandwiched in between. The equation above does not seem to work. That is why I am scratching my head.

Thanks,
Chris Maness
 
Last edited:
Your equation isn't quite right. Using matrix notation (I'm an engineer not a physicist!) the potential energy is ##\frac 1 2 r^T V r## and the kinetic energy is ##\frac 1 2 \dot r^T T \dot r##. The T matrix includes the mass so you don't need another ##m## term.

If you assume harmonic motion ##r = e^{i\omega t}##, then ##\dot r = i\omega r## so ## T = -\omega^2 \frac 1 2 r^T T r##, or ## T = -\lambda \frac 1 2 r^T T r##.

By conservation of energy, ##-\lambda \frac 1 2 r^T T r + \frac 1 2 r^T V r## is constant.

If you consider this as a function of ##r##, the physical solutions are when the energy does not change for small perturbations of ##r##, i.e. when ##\frac {\partial}{\partial r}(-\lambda \frac 1 2 r^T T r + \frac 1 2 r^T V r) = 0## which gives your equation ##\lambda Tr = Vr##.

You probably want a longer explanation of the last step of taking ##\frac {\partial}{\partial r}##, but you should be able to find that in a textbook. I don't have Boas so I can't give you a page reference.
 
Ah, I now see where I get my omega squared. There are two r dots there.

Chris
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
7K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
9K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K