3
$\begingroup$

I was solving a normal-mode problem and got a different result for the quadratic equation. The book provides a simpler solution than mine so I suspect I am the one who's wrong. Let's check it out.

Let us start from the following determinant

$$ \begin{vmatrix} \omega_o^2-\omega^2 & \frac{-ieB\omega}{m} \\ \frac{ieB\omega}{m} & \omega_o^2-\omega^2 \\ \end{vmatrix}= (\omega_o^2-\omega^2)^2-\Big(\frac{eB\omega}{m}\Big)^2=\omega^4-\Big[\Big(\frac{eB}{m}\Big)^2+2\omega_0^2\Big]\omega^2+\omega_0^4 $$

OK so far.

From here on I proceeded as follows; I looked for the roots, i.e. $\omega^4-\Big[\Big(\frac{eB}{m}\Big)^2+2\omega_0^2\Big]\omega^2+\omega_0^4=0$

$$\omega^2= \frac 1 2 \Big[\Big(\frac{eB}{m}\Big)^2+2\omega_0^2 \pm\ \sqrt{\Big[\Big(\frac{eB}{m}\Big)^2+2\omega_0^2\Big]^2-4\omega_0^4}\Big]$$

This leads to pretty ugly roots for $\omega$.

However, the book states that $(\omega_o^2-\omega^2)^2-\Big(\frac{eB\omega}{m}\Big)^2$ leads to $\omega^2 \pm \frac{eB\omega}{m} - \omega_o^2$. This leads to good looking roots for $\omega$.

My struggle is that I do not see how to show that's indeed the case.

| cite | improve this question | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Is there anything on RHS of these equations? $\endgroup$ – Paras Jul 7 at 12:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Paras note that firstly we compute the determinant and then we look for the roots of such computation (i.e. we equate such computation to zero). $\endgroup$ – JD_PM Jul 7 at 12:21
  • $\begingroup$ You appear to have made a mistake by absorbing the constant $\left(\tfrac{eB\omega}{m}\right)^2$ into the $\omega^2$ term. $\endgroup$ – J.G. Jul 8 at 6:49
7
$\begingroup$

Factorise $(\omega_0^2 - \omega^2)^2 - \left({\dfrac {eBw} m}\right)^2$ by difference of two squares and you get:

$\left({\omega_0^2 - \omega^2 - \left({\dfrac {eBw} m}\right) }\right) \left({\omega_0^2 - \omega^2 + \left({\dfrac {eBw} m}\right) }\right)$

which gets you practically there.

Note that the equation you are left with is itself a quadratic which has not yet been solved.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ahhh so the key was to use $(a^2-b^2)=(a+b)(a-b)$; neat! $\endgroup$ – JD_PM Jul 7 at 12:39
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ @JD_PM: One of the keys to success in physics is not to forget the mathematical tools you learned in high school, even after you've acquired a bunch of shiny new university-level mathematical tools to play with. $\endgroup$ – Michael Seifert Jul 7 at 21:53
7
$\begingroup$

The book simply use the well-known equivalence $\:A^2=B^2\iff A=\pm B$.

Namely, in the present case: $$(\omega_o^2-\omega^2)^2=\Bigl(\frac{eB\omega}{m}\Bigr)^{\!2}\iff \omega_o^2-\omega^2=\pm\frac{eB\omega}{m}\iff \omega^2 \pm\frac{eB\omega}{m}-\omega_o^2=0$$

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Neater than my analysis. Nice one. $\endgroup$ – Prime Mover Jul 7 at 16:36
  • $\begingroup$ @PrimeMover: Thank you for your kind appreciation! $\endgroup$ – Bernard Jul 7 at 18:11
6
$\begingroup$

$$ 4\omega^2 = 2\Big(\frac{eB}{m}\Big)^2+4\omega_0^2 \pm\ 2\sqrt{\Big[\Big(\frac{eB}{m}\Big)^2+2\omega_0^2\Big]^2-4\omega_0^4}\\ = 2\Big(\frac{eB}{m}\Big)^2+4\omega_0^2 \pm\ 2\sqrt{\Big(\frac{eB}{m}\Big)^4+ 4\Big(\frac{eB}{m}\Big)^2 \omega_0^2}\\ = 2\Big(\frac{eB}{m}\Big)^2+4\omega_0^2 \pm\ 2\Big(\frac{eB}{m}\Big)\sqrt{\Big(\frac{eB}{m}\Big)^2+ 4 \omega_0^2}\\ = \left[ \frac{eB}{m} \pm \sqrt{\Big(\frac{eB}{m}\Big)^2+ 4 \omega_0^2} \right]^2\\ $$ so it gives you the "nice" formula for the roots of $\omega^2 \pm \frac{eB\omega}{m} - \omega_0^2$

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ How much simpler would it be to factorise that quartic using difference of two squares first, though? $\endgroup$ – Prime Mover Jul 7 at 12:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ it is simpler, but I wanted to prove directly that the even using the other way, you could obtain the nicer formula for the roots anyway, since the OP couldn't see it $\endgroup$ – Exodd Jul 7 at 12:36
  • $\begingroup$ Fair comment. Fair play for multiplying through by 4 first, by the way, I didn't actually think of that. It does make it easier to handle. $\endgroup$ – Prime Mover Jul 7 at 12:38
  • $\begingroup$ @Exodd Your answer taught me how to get the desired answer out of mine; +1 $\endgroup$ – JD_PM Jul 7 at 12:41
  • $\begingroup$ In many cases I find that when a question asks "how does X lead to Y", people will often answer "here is how you find Y without using X" which might solve the broader problem but is not very useful to explaining what the question actually asked. So thank you for posting this Exodd. $\endgroup$ – David Z Jul 7 at 20:59

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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