Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am trying to look a bit deeper into the mathematics the equation of motion used in physics and engineering. I have some specific questions at the end, but please correct me if I make a mistake in my statement.

I have an ordinary, second-order, linear, homogeneous differential equation:

$$ M \ddot{y} + C \dot{y} + K y = 0 $$

where $M$, $C$ and $K$ are real valued.

I am familiar with an Ad-hoc method of solving this equation. Namely, I assume a solution takes form of

$$ y_k(t) = Y_k e^{\omega_k t} $$

substitute the form into the ODE,

$$ \left( M \omega_k^2 + C \omega_k + K\right) y_k = 0, $$

and solve for $\omega_k$ such that $y_k \neq 0$.

If $y$ is in dimension $N$, we generally have $2N$ solutions, where for each $k$, $\omega_k$ and its complex conjugate $\tilde{\omega}_k$ are solutions. Since our ODE is linear, the general solution is a combination of the individual solutions

$$ y(t) = \sum_{k = 1}^N Y_k e^{\omega_k t} + \tilde{Y}_k e^{\tilde{\omega}_k t} $$

The values of $Y_k$ and $\tilde{Y}_k$ are determined from initial values, i.e. $y(0) = y_0$, and further restrictions common in physics, such as $y(t)$ must be real for all $t \geq 0$.

Now here are my questions:

1 - If we select the form $y_k(t) = Y_k e^{ \mathbf{i}\omega_k t}$, am I correct to say that the roots $\omega_k$ and $\tilde{\omega}_k$ are no longer complex conjugates, but $-1$ times their complex conjugates?

2 - How do we know that the general solution cannot contain terms which are not representable by the exponential form? In other words, is our general solution truly general?

share|improve this question
    
Just a remark: when you write "$M$, $C$ and $K$ are real valued", you probably mean "$M$, $C$ and $K$ are real constants". Am I right? –  Siminore Aug 11 '12 at 13:20
    
Yes, you are correct. –  Indrid Cold Aug 11 '12 at 13:27

3 Answers 3

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Here is another approach to the second part of your question:

Let $x_1 = \dot{y}, x_2 = y$. Assuming $M \neq 0$, you can write your equation as a pair of first order equations: $$ \dot{x_1} = -M^{-1} (C x_1 + K x_2), \ \ \ \dot{x_2} = x_1, \ \ \ x_1(0) = \dot{y}(0), \ \ \ x_2(0) = y(0). $$ This is a time-invariant linear system, so if we let $x = (x_1,x_2)^T \in \mathbb{R}^{2 }$, then the equation can be written as: $$\dot{x} = A x = M^{-1}\begin{bmatrix} -C & -K \\ 1 & 0 \end{bmatrix} x, \ \ \ x(0) = x^0 = (\dot{y}(0), y(0))^T.$$ By the existence and uniqueness theorem for ODEs (this is a classical result, for example see Marsden, "Elementary Classical Analysis", Theorem 7.6), the system has a unique solution passing through the point $x^0 \in \mathbb{R}^{2}$.

Hence the initial condition $x^0$ completely defines the solution. Since this system is linear, the solutions are linear functions of the initial state, which simplifies matters considerably. We need only consider solutions starting from a basis of $\mathbb{R}^2$. In particular, all solutions are linear combinations of these two solutions (because of linearity).

To see why these two solutions have exponentials, you need to consider two cases:

(1) If $A$ is diagonalizable, then the eigenvectors of $A$ can form a basis of $\mathbb{R}^2$, and it is straightforward to check that $t \mapsto e^{\lambda_i t} v_i$ are solutions, where $v_i$ are the eigenvectors corresponding to the eigenvalues $\lambda_i$.

(2) If $A$ is not diagonalizable, then it has only one eigenvalue, say $\lambda$, and we can find a basis $u,v$ of $\mathbb{R}^2$ that satisfies $A v = \lambda v$ and $A u = \lambda u +v$ (cf. the Jordan form). Then it is straightforward to check that $t \mapsto e^{\lambda t}v$ and $t \mapsto e^{\lambda t} (u + tv)$ are solutions.

Hence all solutions are of exponential form (including, of course, multiplying by $t$ as well).

share|improve this answer

About your second question, the solutions of a homogeneous linear ODE is a vector space of precise dimension, so you should discover a precise number of linearly independent solutions. No matter how you construct them, if you find the correct number of linearly independent solutions, the general solution is a linear combinations of these generators. This is the most important result about linear ODEs with constant coefficients.

Edit. Just a sketch of the proof for a second order equation. Consider the differential operator $$Lu=au''+bu'+cu,$$ $a$, $b$ and $c$ being fixed constants. Pick a point $t_0 \in \mathbb{R}$ and consider the two Cauchy problems $$ \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} Lu=0 \\ u(t_0)=0 \\ u'(t_0)=1 \end{array} \right. \qquad \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} Lu=0 \\ u(t_0)=1 \\ u'(t_0)=0 \end{array} \right. $$ Both problems have a unique, globally defined solution, by a fundamental resultin the theory of ODEs. Call them $u_1$ and $u_2$. It is now a simple exercise to check that any function $w$ such that $Lw=0$ can be written in the form $w=c_1u_1+ c_2 u_2$ for suitable values of $c_1$ and $c_2$. Hence $\{u_1,u_2\}$ generates the set of solutions to $Lu=0$. Since $u_1$ and $u_2$ are linearly independent (another simple exercise), $\{u_1,u_2\}$ is a basis of the kernel of $L$.

share|improve this answer
    
Siminore, intuitively I agree with your statement, but how do I show that the solution of the ODE is a vector-space of 2N dimensions? I understand this is probably a fundamental theorem, can you suggest a reference? –  Indrid Cold Aug 11 '12 at 13:35
    
@IndridCold The most important tool is the existence and uniqueness theorem for the Cauchy problem. I'll add an edit to my answer. –  Siminore Aug 11 '12 at 14:10

The second question has been already answered by @Siminore.

Regarding the first question, if you have solutions $\alpha\pm i\beta$ when using $e^{\omega t}$, then when using $e^{i\lambda t}$ you have $$\lambda=-i\omega=-i(\alpha\pm i\beta)=-i\alpha\pm\beta$$ so it is the real part that changes sign.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you enzotib. I have seen this detail missed in a number of engineering references. Physically, this detail makes a huge difference. –  Indrid Cold Aug 11 '12 at 13:38

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.