 GR 8677927796770177 | # Login | Register

GR9677 #4
Problem
 GREPhysics.NET Official Solution Alternate Solutions
This problem is still being typed.
Electromagnetism}Small Oscillations

The potential is determined in the previous problem to be . The field is given by . Before taking derivatives, one can simplify the potential since it is given that .

Binomial expand it (, for small) to get

Taking the derivative, using the equations , and , one gets,

Small oscillations have the same form as simple harmonic oscillations, i.e., . The angular frequency is , as in choice (A).  Alternate Solutions
 djh1012014-09-19 21:38:40 To expand a little bit on the quick and dirty method (point 2, specifically): 1. Small oscillations aren't going to depend on displacement. Eliminate BDE. 2. Experience with small oscillations should tell you that from the potential you are going to get a Hooke's-Law-esgue force, which will give you k. To get the frequency, take the square root of k and divide by the square root of m. Only A has root m in the denominator.Reply to this comment archard2010-05-14 10:06:55 The way I did it is to remember from freshman physics that the period of an oscillation (and thus the frequency) is independent of displacement. That eliminates B, D and E. A and C are the same save for a square root, so one of them has incorrect dimensions. Choose the one with dimensions of frequency, A.Reply to this comment chri5tina2006-11-27 05:11:24 It is possible to do this problem w/o the binomial expansion. Take F = -k*x, plug in -dV/dx for F and solve for k. Plug k into w = (k/m)^1/2 and you'll have an expression with (R^2 + x^2)^3/2 in the denominator. At this point you can remember that R >> x and simply cancel out x as negligible, which leaves R^3 in the denominator and the correct solution.Reply to this comment Comments
djh101
2014-09-19 21:38:40
To expand a little bit on the quick and dirty method (point 2, specifically):
1. Small oscillations aren't going to depend on displacement. Eliminate BDE.
2. Experience with small oscillations should tell you that from the potential you are going to get a Hooke's-Law-esgue force, which will give you k. To get the frequency, take the square root of k and divide by the square root of m. Only A has root m in the denominator. maxdp
2013-09-24 13:55:12
It seems stiner905's comment hasn't been noted since s/he didn't mark it correctly, so I'll repost it.

"After the binomial expansion, the potential should have a "-" instead of a "+" in the expansion term. However, a minus exists in the force equation because the test charge has charge -q."

In other words, there are two sign errors in the current solution that cancel out. shak
2010-08-13 15:02:04
The best and easiest way to solve this problem is using Lagrangian equation of motion.. it is one dimensional system.. so small charge -q is moving only along the x-axis.
Lagrangian is
L=E- V (1)
and
E=m*x(dot)^2/2 (2)
V= same potential in problem 3. archard
2010-05-14 10:06:55
The way I did it is to remember from freshman physics that the period of an oscillation (and thus the frequency) is independent of displacement. That eliminates B, D and E. A and C are the same save for a square root, so one of them has incorrect dimensions. Choose the one with dimensions of frequency, A.
 nkqed2011-10-24 17:01:10 I'm sorry but this is the wrong way to think about it. x is not the displacement. We are displacing the particle perpendicular to x. And if you consider the situation where R is not >> x then we will have some dependence on x.
 ian2012-10-05 09:56:53 nkqed: x is the displacement - look at the diagram. Also, the problem only asks us to consider the case where R >> x. I don't see anything wrong with archard's approach.
 Prufrock2013-09-16 14:44:53 This is a good way to approach it. Barring possible pathological cases, the frequency in a SHO "obviously" doesn't depend on the displacement. Muphrid
2009-10-08 14:06:53
It may be faster to keep working with electrical potential to find the spring constant. Simple harmonic oscillators satisfy , as has been said, but they also satisfy

and have angular frequency

It's important to remember that what you know from problem (3) is , potential energy per unit charge, not , which is real potential energy. This is what alleviates the sign confusion later on.

As in the base solution, you can binomial expand and approximate it as

Note that the 1 can be dropped; this just gives a constant overall potential that we're not interested in. This leaves us with

And now multiply through by , the charge of the test charge, to get real potential energy:

Recognize this as a simple harmonic potential, where

And thus tinytoon
2008-11-07 14:48:10
Also, you could derive the electric field from first principles to get the answer (although very inefficient). This is, nonetheless, a valid alternative:

We only care about the horizontal component because the force in the vertical component is zero:

.

Using and , we get:

and

We can clearly see now that:

.

We know that:

In the limit that >> , this reduces to:

. gn0m0n
2008-10-19 17:49:35
What are we expanding, exactly? dcan
2008-04-09 16:32:33
Can someone tell me why it doesn't work to use conservation of energy? Supposedly the potential energy is qV, but when I solve for I'm off by a factor of 1/. Gaffer
2007-10-26 14:12:55
This problem has some particularly generous writers.

For small oscillations, I believe it is safe to say must be a constant, that is not dependent upon x. This knocks off BDE. Then all you need to remember is that will most likely involve a square root due to the diffEQ yosun mentioned and you have choice A, no dimensional analysis or calculation necessary.

Though of course it is always better to know why a particular formula is correct, sometimes quick and dirty is the way to go.

Oh that they were all this easy!
 jmason862009-09-29 16:40:35 This is exactly how I did the problem too. Definitely the right strategy under time pressure. rmyers
2006-11-29 16:16:57
This can also be done just by dimensional analysis. Qq/(4pi(e0)R^2) has units of force = kg * m/s^2 and angular frequency is just 1/s. Only A & B are possible answers after this. From there I suppose you can just use the idea that the angular frequency usually doesn't depend on initial displacement in cases like these.
 eliasds2008-08-18 00:58:43 I believe that choice E has the same dimensions as A&B.
 eliasds2008-08-18 01:43:44 I believe that choice E has the same dimensions as A&B.
 wangjj01202008-10-11 01:12:02 rmyers: your comment "you can just use the idea that the angular frequency usually doesn't depend on initial displacement" is not always true. You can find the x dependence from the exact solution. chri5tina
2006-11-27 05:11:24
It is possible to do this problem w/o the binomial expansion.

Take F = -k*x, plug in -dV/dx for F and solve for k.

Plug k into w = (k/m)^1/2 and you'll have an expression with (R^2 + x^2)^3/2 in the denominator.

At this point you can remember that R >> x and simply cancel out x as negligible, which leaves R^3 in the denominator and the correct solution. stiner905
2006-10-29 12:26:06
After the binomial expansion, the potential should have a "-" instead of a "+" in the expansion term. However, a minus exists in the force equation because the test charge has charge -q. Post A Comment!
 Username: Password:
Click here to register.
This comment is best classified as a: (mouseover)     Mouseover the respective type above for an explanation of each type.

## Bare Basic LaTeX Rosetta Stone

LaTeX syntax supported through dollar sign wrappers $, ex.,$\alpha^2_0$produces . type this... to get...$\int_0^\infty\partial\Rightarrow\ddot{x},\dot{x}\sqrt{z}\langle my \rangle\left( abacadabra \right)_{me}\vec{E}\frac{a}{b}\$

The Sidebar Chatbox...
Scroll to see it, or resize your browser to ignore it...