Why Does a Particle Not Remain at x(t)=0 in a Negative Quartic Potential?

deuteron
Messages
64
Reaction score
14
Homework Statement
.
Relevant Equations
.
1695664884703.png

This question is from Collection of Problems in Classical Mechanics by Kotkin & Serbo, here, the answer is given as the following:

1695664930821.png


However, the graph of ##-Ax^4## looks like:

1695664966933.png


so shouldn't the trajectory be just ##x(t)=0##?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
deuteron said:
so shouldn't the trajectory be just ##x(t)=0##?
How do you arrive at this conclusion? Wouldn't ##x(t) = 0## contradict the assumption that the initial value ##x_0## is greater than zero?
 
b
TSny said:
How do you arrive at this conclusion? Wouldn't ##x(t) = 0## contradict the assumption that the initial value ##x_0## is greater than zero?
but there is no such assumption in the question, the second picture is from the solution, the first one is the question

My thought process was the following:
1. Total energy is ##0##
2. The potential has a minimum at ##U(x)=0##
3. Therefore the particle would require either a force (which is not present at ##x=0## since ##U(0)=0##) or kinetic energy (which is also not present since ##E=0## and ##U(0)=0## thererfore ##U(0)=E##, therefore ##E-U(0)=T(0)=0##)
4. That's why particle would continue to stay there since that is a stable equilibrium if ##-A>0##, and an unstable equilibrium if ##-A<0##
 
deuteron said:
b

but there is no such assumption in the question, the second picture is from the solution, the first one is the question

My thought process was the following:
1. Total energy is ##0##
2. The potential has a minimum at ##U(x)=0##
3. Therefore the particle would require either a force (which is not present at ##x=0## since ##U(0)=0##) or kinetic energy (which is also not present since ##E=0## and ##U(0)=0## thererfore ##U(0)=E##, therefore ##E-U(0)=T(0)=0##)
4. That's why particle would continue to stay there since that is a stable equilibrium if ##-A>0##, and an unstable equilibrium if ##-A<0##
You are correct that if the particle is initially placed at x = 0 with zero initial velocity, then the particle would remain at x = 0. But I think the problem was asking for discussion of the general case where the particle could start at any initial position with an initial velocity such that the total energy is zero. The answer assumes that ##A## is positive. However, this is not specified in the problem statement.

If ##A## is negative, then the only solution for zero total energy is your answer ##x(t) = 0## for all ##t##.
 
TSny said:
You are correct that if the particle is initially placed at x = 0 with zero initial velocity, then the particle would remain at x = 0. But I think the problem was asking for discussion of the general case where the particle could start at any initial position with an initial velocity such that the total energy is zero. The answer assumes that ##A## is positive. However, this is not specified in the problem statement.

If ##A## is negative, then the only solution for zero total energy is your answer ##x(t) = 0## for all ##t##.
Thanks!
 
To add to what @TSny has already said...

You are told that the potential energy ##U(x) = -Ax^4## and that the total energy is zero. So the kinetic energy is ##Ax^4##. (Hint: this is the first step in deriving the equation for ##x(t)##.)

We need to assume that ##x(0) \ne 0## otherwise the question is trivial (and would, give ## x(t) = 0##).

For illustration purposes the model answer explains what happens when ##x_0>0## in 2 cases:
- when initial velocity > 0 (particle moves to ##x=\infty##)
- when initial velocity < 0 (particle asymptotically moves to ##x=0##)
A similar argument would apply for ##x_0<0##.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top