1302 Handout 8
1302 Handout 8
1
2 Coupled oscillations: A simple example
Now let us consider a simple situation with two degrees of freedom. Suppose we have
two particles, of masses m1 and m2 , respectively, connected as follows:
Let us assume for simplicity that all three springs have the same spring constant k, and that
the distance between the walls is exactly the sum of the equilibrium lengths of the three
springs. Then the equations of motion are
(You should check this carefully and make sure you understand the signs on all four forces.)
Let us now try a solution of the form
Extracting the common factor eiωt and moving everything to the right-hand side, we obtain
which can be solved by the quadratic formula. Then, for each of the two possible values
for
A 1
ω 2 , we can go back to the linear equation (11) and solve for the “eigenvector” .
A2
2
In particular, in the “symmetric case” m1 = m2 = m, the solutions are
p
ω1 = k/m (13a)
p
ω2 = 3k/m (13b)
The normal modes — that is, the solutions of (7) that are pure oscillations at a single
frequency — are therefore
x1 (t) 1 p
= C1 cos( k/m t + φ1 ) (15)
x2 (t) 1
and
x1 (t) 1 p
= C2 cos( 3k/m t + φ2 ) . (16)
x2 (t) −1
The general solution is a linear combination of these two normal modes. In the first (slower)
normal mode, the two particles are oscillating in phase, with thepsame amplitude; the middle
spring therefore exerts no force at all, and the frequency is k/m as it would be if the
middle spring were simply absent. In the second (faster) normal mode, the two particles are
oscillating 180◦ out of phase, with the same amplitude; therefore,peach particle feels a force
that is −3k times its displacement (why?), and the frequency is 3k/m.
This solution can be interpreted in another way. Let us build a matrix N whose columns
are the eigenvectors corresponding to the normal modes,
1 1
N = e1 e2 = , (17)
1 −1
or equivalently
Then a solution with x01 6= 0, x02 = 0 corresponds to the first normal mode, while a solution
with x01 = 0, x02 6= 0 corresponds to the second normal mode. The point is that the change
3
of variables (18)/(19) decouples the system (7) [when m1 = m2 = m]: after a bit of algebra
we obtain
mẍ01 = −kx01 (20a)
mẍ02 = −3kx02 (20b)
(You should check this!) In other words, by a linear change of variables corresponding to
passage to the normal modes, the system (7) of coupled harmonic oscillators turns into a
system (20) of decoupled simple harmonic oscillators, each of which may be solved separately
by the elementary method reviewed in Section 1.
4
and then the corresponding vectors e are the eigenvectors. The solution x(t) = e e iωt [or
x(t) = e cos ωt] corresponding to such an eigenpair (ω, e) is a normal mode.
A generalized eigenvalue problem with a pair of real symmetric matrices, at least one of
which is positive-definite, always has a basis of eigenvectors — that is, we can always find
eigenvalues λ1 , . . . , λn and corresponding eigenvectors e1 , . . . , en such that
Proof. Basic linear algebra tells us that any symmetric real matrix can be diagonalized by
an orthogonal transformation: that is, there exists a matrix R satisfying R T R = RRT = I
(that is the definition of “orthogonal matrix”) and RT M R = D, where D is a diagonal ma-
trix. In fact, D = diag(m1 , . . . , mn ), where m1 , . . . , mn are the eigenvalues of M . In our case,
the matrix M is positive-definite, so all the eigenvalues m1 , . . . , mn are > 0; in particular,
1/2 1/2
they have square roots. We can therefore define the matrix D 1/2 = diag(m1 , . . . , mn ),
which manifestly satisfies D 1/2 D 1/2 = D.
Now define M 1/2 = RD 1/2 RT . We have
where we used RT R = I, then D 1/2 D 1/2 = D, then D = RT M R, and finally RRT = I. (You
should check this carefully!)
I leave it to you to verify that M 1/2 = RD 1/2 RT is symmetric.
Finally, since M 1/2 = RD 1/2 RT with D 1/2 positive-definite and R nonsingular, it follows
that M 1/2 is positive-definite as well. (You should go back to the definition of “positive-
definite matrix” and verify this assertion too.)
Let us now show that a pair of real quadratic forms, one of which is positive-definite, can
be simultaneously diagonalized:
5
Proof. Let M 1/2 be the symmetric positive-definite square root of M whose existence
is guaranteed by the Lemma. Since M 1/2 is positive-definite, it is invertible. Then L =
(M 1/2 )−1 K(M 1/2 )−1 is a real symmetric matrix, so it can be diagonalized by an orthogonal
transformation: that is, there exists a matrix R satisfying R T R = RRT = I and RT LR = Λ,
where Λ is a diagonal matrix. Now define N = (M 1/2 )−1 R. We have N T = RT (M 1/2 )−1
(why?). Then N T KN = Λ by construction (why?), and
Proof. Let N be the matrix whose existence is guaranteed by the Proposition, and let
e1 , . . . , en be its columns. Since N is nonsingular, its columns are linearly independent,
hence form a basis of Rn . Obviously N T is also nonsingular, hence invertible, and the
Proposition tells us that
M N = (N T )−1
KN = (N T )−1 Λ
(why?). Here Λ is a diagonal matrix; let λ1 , . . . , λn be its diagonal entries. Now, the jth
column of M N is M ej (why?), so the jth column of (N T )−1 is M ej . It follows that the jth
column of (N T )−1 Λ is λj M ej (why?). Since the jth column of KN is Kej , this proves that
Kej = λj M ej .
This manipulation of matrices is quick but perhaps a bit abstract. Here is a more direct
proof of the Corollary that analyzes directly the generalized eigenvalue problem:
Ke = λM e (26)
as
Ke = λM 1/2 M 1/2 e . (27)
6
Defining f = M 1/2 e, we have e = (M 1/2 )−1 f [note that M 1/2 is invertible because it is
positive-definite] and hence the equation can be rewritten as
K(M 1/2 )−1 f = λM 1/2 f . (28)
And we can left-multiply both sides by (M 1/2 )−1 to obtain
(M 1/2 )−1 K(M 1/2 )−1 f = λf (29)
[note that this operation is reversible because (M 1/2 )−1 is invertible]. So we now have an
ordinary eigenvalue problem for the symmetric real matrix (M 1/2 )−1 K(M 1/2 )−1 . This matrix
has eigenvalues λ1 , . . . , λn and a corresponding basis of linearly independent eigenvectors
f1 , . . . , fn . Defining ej = (M 1/2 )−1 fj , a simple calculation shows that
Kej = λj M ej for j = 1, . . . , n . (30)
And {e1 , . . . , en } is a basis of Rn because {f1 , . . . , fn } is a basis of Rn and the matrix (M 1/2 )−1
is nonsingular.
7
is called the one-dimensional discrete Laplace matrix (with Dirichlet boundary condi-
tions at the endpoints).2 The eigenvalues λ = ω 2 of our generalized eigenvalue problem are
simply k/m times the eigenvalues of the matrix L.
How can we find the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of L? This is not so obvious; it requires
a bitof cleverness.
Let us start by observing that the equation Lf = µf for the eigenvector
f1
f2
f = .. can be written in the simple form
.
fn
2 − 2 cos α = µ . (36)
(You should check this carefully!) In particular we must have 0 ≤ µ ≤ 4. Note that to each
allowed value of µ there corresponds a pair of allowed values of α — namely, a value α > 0
and its negative — because cos is an even function.3 So any linear combination of the two
solutions eiαs and e−iαs is also a solution for the given value of µ; in particular, any linear
combination of sin(αs) and cos(αs) is a solution.
But we are not done yet: we have solved the difference equation (34), but we have not
yet dealt with the “boundary conditions” f0 = 0 and fn+1 = 0. The condition f0 = 0 can be
satisfied simply by choosing the solution
fs = sin(αs) (37)
(why?). And the condition fn+1 = 0 can then be satisfied by making sure that (n + 1)α is a
multiple of π, i.e.
jπ
α = for some integer j . (38)
n+1
2
L is called the discrete Laplace matrix because it is the discrete analogue of the Laplacian operator
∂2 ∂2
−d2 /dx2 in one dimension or − 2 − · · · − in n dimensions. Indeed, if you were to try to solve on
∂x1 ∂x2n
the computer a differential equation involving the operator −d2 /dx2 , you would probably discretize space
(i.e. replace continuous space by a mesh of closely spaced points) and replace the operator −d 2 /dx2 by the
matrix L or something similar.
3
There are two exceptions: µ = 0 corresponds only to α = 0, and µ = 4 corresponds only to α = π.
8
We can’t take j = 0, because that would make f identically zero; but we can take any integer
j from 1 up to n. We have thus obtained eigenvectors f1 , . . . , fn for the matrix L, given by
πjs
(fj )s = sin , (39)
n+1
with corresponding eigenvalues
πj
µj = 2 − 2 cos (40a)
n+1
πj
2
= 4 sin . (40b)
2(n + 1)
Since there are n of these and they are linearly independent (they must be because the values
µj are all different!), we conclude that we have found a complete set of eigenvectors for the
matrix L.4
Physically, these eigenvectors are standing waves. To see this, let us make some plots
for n = 5 and j = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. For each value of j, we first plot the function
πjs
fj (s) = sin (41)
n+1
for real values of s in the interval 0 ≤ s ≤ n + 1 (this shows most clearly the “standing
wave”); then we indicate the points corresponding to s = 1, 2, . . . , n, which are the entries
in the eigenvector fj .
n=5, j=1
1.0
0.5
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6
-0.5
-1.0
n=5, j=2
1.0
0.5
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6
-0.5
-1.0
4
It follows, in particular, that nothing new is obtained by going outside the range 1 ≤ j ≤ n. For instance,
j = n + 1 again yields the zero function, j = n + 2 yields a multiple of what j = n yields, j = n + 3 yields a
multiple of what j = n − 1 yields, and so forth.
9
n=5, j=3
1.0
0.5
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6
-0.5
-1.0
n=5, j=4
1.0
0.5
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6
-0.5
-1.0
n=5, j=5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6
-0.5
-1.0
Next week we will look at the limit n → ∞ of this problem — namely, waves on a string
of length L — and we will find standing-wave solutions corresponding to the functions
πjs
fj (s) = sin (42)
L
where s is now a real number satisfying 0 ≤ s ≤ L, and j is now an arbitrarily large positive
integer.
10