I What is the origin of x=e^(rt) in Simple Harmonic Motion?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the origin of the equation x = e^(rt) in the context of Simple Harmonic Motion (SHM). It explains that this form is derived from solving the second-order linear differential equation d²x/dt² + (k/m)x = 0, where the solution is guessed to be of the exponential form due to its mathematical properties. The use of Euler's formula allows for the conversion of the exponential solution into trigonometric functions, leading to the general solution x(t) = Acos(αt + δ). The conversation also touches on the concept of "ansatz," which refers to the initial educated guess for the solution form in differential equations. Overall, the exponential function is highlighted as a useful tool in analyzing oscillatory motion.
velvetmist
Messages
15
Reaction score
1
This may be a fool question, but i can't figure where does this come from. I would really appreciate if someone can help me. Thanks.
 

Attachments

  • 4668465.JPG
    4668465.JPG
    15.3 KB · Views: 525
Physics news on Phys.org
The answer should have been X= ei√(k/m)t note the i
 
Hello!
First, Newton's second law. (mass m)
F = ma
-kx = ma
ma + kx = 0
You can divide all by mass.
a + kx/m = 0
We have a differential equation.
d2x/dt2 + kx/m = 0 (Homogeneous)

It was considered that the solution is of the type: x = ert
This is a strategy to solve this kind of second order linear equation.
Then the expression is:(Just by putting ert in place of x.)

d2(ert)/dt2 + ertk/m = 0

Deriving: x = ert ; dx/dt = rert ; d2x/dt2 = r2ert

r2 . ert + ertk/m = 0

We have ert in both parts. Therefore, it is one of the advantages of using exponential because you will always retain this expression when deriving or integrating.

ert . (r2 + k/m) = 0

Another advantage: e^rt≠0. This means that our expression r2 + k / m = 0

r = sqrt(-k/m)

in this case, k / m is constant. For simplicity, I will say that: sqrt (k / m) = α

r = ± i α
i = sqrt(-1) = imaginary number
So we have two expressions: (using x = ert; r = ± i α)

x1 = e+i αt
x2 = e- i αt

Using Euler's formula: Another advantage of e

x1 = cos(αt) + i sin(αt)
x2 = cos(-αt) + i sin(-αt)

Putting in the general solution of this type of equation:

x = c1 x1 + c2 x2
c1 and c2 are constants.

x = c1 ( cos(αt) + i sin(αt) ) + c2 ( cos(-αt) + i sin(-αt) )
x = c1 ( cos(αt) + i sin(αt) ) + c2 ( cos(αt) - i sin(αt) )
x = c1 cos(αt) + c1 i sin(αt) + c2 cos(αt) - c2 i sin(αt)
x = (c1 + c2) cos(αt) + (c1 - c2) i sin(αt)

Only the real part matters here.

x(t) = (c1+c2) cos(αt + δ)
x(t) = Acos(αt + δ)

δ is used to indicate the initial phase. Example: When δ = 0,it means that at time 0 its x is the farthest from the equilibrium position.

x (t) = Acos (αt + δ)
x (0) = Acos (α.0 + 0) = A.The e is very useful for this type of calculation. you may notice some characteristics through it. Example: When the e is accompanied by an imaginary number, wait for an oscillation.

Another situation
In a more "manual" way, you can see the math mechanics that do this e appears.
For example in the drag force. Imagine a body in horizontal motion in which only drag force acts on it.
Drag Force = -kv ; k = constant ; v = speed

F = ma
-kv = ma

m . d2x/dt2 = -kv

dv/dt . 1/v = -k/m

dv . 1/v = -k/m . dt

∫1/v . dv = -∫k/m . dt
limits of integration: initial speed (vi) to final speed (vf).
limits of integration: Initial time(I will consider equal to 0) to final time(T)

ln(vf) - ln (vi) = -k/m T

ln(vf/vi) = -k/m . T

vf/vi = e -k/m . T

vf = vi e-k/m . T

But this way of solving, in more complex problems, can be very laborious.
I hope I've helped. If I made a mistake, please correct me.
 
Last edited:
Freaky Fred said:
It was considered that the solution is of the type: x = ert
This is a strategy to solve this kind of second order linear equation.
I understand the rest of your argument, but this was my original question and i still not getting why this is a possible solution, i mean, i can´t made a proper demostration or something. Is like I'm not taking into account the constants that integrals implies.
 
velvetmist said:
I understand the rest of your argument, but this was my original question and i still not getting why this is a possible solution, i mean, i can´t made a proper demostration or something. Is like I'm not taking into account the constants that integrals implies.
Are you asking where ##x=e^{rt}## came from?

It's an educated guess as to the form of the solution. You look at ##\frac{d^2x}{dx^2}+\frac{k}{m}x=0##, you see that this can only work if the second time derivative of ##x## is a multiple of ##x##, you remember that ##x=e^{rt}## has this property so you try substituting that into the equation and see if it works. Differential equations are solved this way so often that there's even a word for the initial educated guess as to the form of the solution: "ansatz".
 
  • Like
Likes velvetmist
Nugatory said:
Are you asking where ##x=e^{rt}## came from?

It's an educated guess as to the form of the solution. You look at ##\frac{d^2x}{dx^2}+\frac{k}{m}x=0##, you see that this can only work if the second time derivative of ##x## is a multiple of ##x##, you remember that ##x=e^{rt}## has this property so you try substituting that into the equation and see if it works. Differential equations are solved this way so often that there's even a word for the initial educated guess as to the form of the solution: "ansatz".
Thank you so much! I feel pretty silly now tbqh.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...

Similar threads

Back
Top