Separate the variables by using kinetic energy and potential energy

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around solving the differential equation x^2\ddot{x}=\frac{q_{1}q_{2}}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}m} to find x(t). Participants suggest separating variables using kinetic and potential energy, along with conservation of angular momentum, and mention converting to polar coordinates for integration. One contributor notes that simplifying the problem by assuming no angular momentum makes it easier to analyze the proton's motion. There is also a consideration of whether to account for both particle masses in the equation, leading to a discussion about the one-body and two-body problems in physics. The conversation highlights the complexities of integrating the equation and the potential for exploring relativistic effects.
Tomsk
Messages
227
Reaction score
0
Is it possible to solve x^2\ddot{x}=\frac{q_{1}q_{2}}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}m} to get x(t)? I can't see how! Maybe I'm just missing something...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Tomsk said:
Is it possible to solve x^2\ddot{x}=\frac{q_{1}q_{2}}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}m} to get x(t)? I can't see how! Maybe I'm just missing something...

You can separate the variables by using kinetic energy and potential energy, and conservation of angular momentum. I did that. I put
it all into polar coordinates - and I came with an integral of a function
of r (radius) that there's probably a formula for somewhere. It's not
an easy integral though.

It's simpler if you assume the particles don't have any angular momentum relative to each other. That's how I got curious about it - I did an exercise about the enormous acceleration a proton would have, jetting out of the nucleus, if there weren't any strong nuclear forces holding it
in. So I wondered, what's its equation of motion?

You could figure out the proton's final velocity without doing any
complicated integrals - that would be (sort of) interesting too.

Laura
 
Certainly.
Let the squared position stand in the denominator on the right-hand side, and multiply your diff. eq. with the velocity.
You now will get a first integral (take note of the sign of the square root used!), this can be integrated one more time.
 
Spooky...

Well, I got
x^3=-\frac{9}{2}\frac{q_{1}q_{2}}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}m}t^2

The sign threw me though, so I'm not sure of it.

Thanks! I might try it relativistically, to stop my brain from rotting before I go back to uni.
 
One thing, there's only one m taken into account, which must be the mass of the particle which moves a distance x, or is x the distance between the two particles? I'm assuming they're both free to move, so wouldn't you need to take both masses into account? Hmmm
 
in two dimension this is known as the one body problem (using a equilvalent equation in 2D)... you might want to try to solve that (it is impossible to get r(t) explicitly, but you can find out the shape of the orbit) its a lot of "fun". after that go to two body problem... more fun awaits...
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top