Why are the numbers switched around in this partial differential problem?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Kajan thana
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Differentials Partial
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the solution to the damped oscillation equation represented by the partial differential equation m\ddot x + 2c \dot x + m\omega^2 x = 0. The correct solutions are x(t) = Ae^{\lambda_{+}t} + Be^{\lambda_{-}t}, where λ± = -c/m ± √(c²/m² - ω²). A critical point raised is the necessity of including the imaginary unit i when c² < m²ω², which was missing in the original post. This oversight leads to confusion regarding the nature of the roots of the characteristic equation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of partial differential equations
  • Familiarity with damped oscillation concepts
  • Knowledge of complex numbers and their properties
  • Ability to manipulate mathematical expressions involving square roots
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of solutions for second-order linear differential equations
  • Learn about the implications of damping ratios in oscillatory systems
  • Explore the role of complex roots in the analysis of differential equations
  • Investigate the physical interpretations of damping in mechanical systems
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, engineering, and applied mathematics who are dealing with damped oscillations and partial differential equations will benefit from this discussion.

Kajan thana
Messages
149
Reaction score
18
TL;DR
changing signs with given equality.
I am going through some proofs for Damping oscillations in relation to partial differentials. Can someone help on why the numbers are switched around after giving inequality condition? Please see the images for better clarity. The highlighted characters that gets switched around.

Thank you in advance.
 

Attachments

  • Maths1.jpeg
    Maths1.jpeg
    33.1 KB · Views: 227
Physics news on Phys.org
I feel there's some missing context.

It looks like you're triny to solve [tex] m\ddot x + 2c \dot x + m\omega^2 x = 0.[/tex] The solution to this is [tex] x(t) = Ae^{\lambda_{+}t} + Be^{\lambda_{-}t}[/tex] where [tex] \lambda_{\pm} = - \frac cm \pm \sqrt{\frac{c^2}{m^2} - \omega^2}.[/tex] Now iif [itex]c^2 \geq m^2 \omega^2[/itex] then that's fine as it stands, because the quantity under the square root is positive and you'll get a real result.

Otherwise, the quantity under the square root is negative and you get a complex result, which you can write as [tex] \pm\sqrt{ \frac{c^2}{m^2} - \omega^2} = \pm\sqrt{-\left(\omega^2 - \frac{c^2}{m^2}\right)} = \pm i \sqrt{\omega^2 - \frac{c^2}{m^2}}[/tex] where [itex]i^2 = -1[/itex]. Thus if [itex]c^2 < m^2 \omega^2[/itex] you have [tex] \lambda_{\pm} = -\frac{c}{m} \pm i \sqrt{ \omega^2 - \frac{c^2}{m^2}}.[/tex] For some reason the factor of [itex]i[/itex] in front of the square root is missing from what you have posted.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2 and Kajan thana
pasmith said:
I feel there's some missing context.

It looks like you're triny to solve [tex] m\ddot x + 2c \dot x + m\omega^2 x = 0.[/tex] The solution to this is [tex] x(t) = Ae^{\lambda_{+}t) + Be^{\lambda_{-}t[/tex] where [tex] \lambda_{\pm} = - \frac cm \pm \sqrt{\frac{c^2}{m^2} - \omega^2}.[/tex] Now iif [itex]c^2 \geq m^2 \omega^2[/itex] then that's fine as it stands, because the quantity under the square root is positive and you'll get a real result.

Otherwise, the quantity under the square root is negative and you get a complex result, which you can write as [tex] \pm\sqrt{ \frac{c^2}{m^2} - \omega^2} = \pm\sqrt{-\left(\omega^2 - \frac{c^2}{m^2}\right)} = \pm i \sqrt{\omega^2 - \frac{c^2}{m^2}}[/tex] where [itex]i^2 = -1[/itex]. Thus if [itex]c^2 < m^2 \omega^2[/itex] you have [tex] \lambda_{\pm} = -\frac{c}{m} \pm i \sqrt{ \omega^2 - \frac{c^2}{m^2}}.[/tex] For some reason the factor of [itex]i[/itex] in front of the square root is missing from what you have posted.
Thank you Pasmith, a small copying error that led to this misunderstanding. Thank you again for taking the time to point this out to me and explaining it clearly. You are a superstar.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
13K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
9K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
945