Physics Problem Solving

Ravi Charan, Anu Sinha, David Xiao MIT ESP Splash 11/19/2010
All problems are taken from David Morins textbook Introduction to Classical Mechanics.
David Morin is a professor at Harvard and his website can be found at:
www.physics.harvard.edu/people/facpages/morin.html
For materials from this course, including a digital copy of this handout, the LATEXcode, the
template, help with solutions, or any other inquiries, contact Ravi Charan (rcharan@mit.edu),
David Xiao (dxiao@mit.edu), and/or Anu Sinha (anusinha@mit.edu).
As a preface to all of this: please dont be intimidated. If you find this way too hard and
dont think youd ever have to do this, dont worry, MIT students who are not physics majors (or
mechanical engineering) are never expected to know a lot of this material (you do need to know
the calculus and almost all majors require differential equations however). If you find this material
easy, we strongly suggest you do self study, do physics olympiad, and come to MIT and be beast
at physics (but feel free to major in whatever you want)
The textbook is a problem solving based approach to mechanics and covers Newtons laws,
oscillation, energy, the Lagrangian method, central forces, angular momentum, accelerating frames
of reference, and an intro to relativity, and is highly recommended for further study for those with
a strong mathematics background.
This handout is a brief selection of just a few interesting problems and topic, designed to
convince you that physics is really interesting and has a lot to learn that your high school physics
teacher may not ever mention exists. We almost certainly wont make it through this entire handout
today, but well try to get through the first four sections. The first is a quick introduction to a cool
idea, the second is by far the most difficult problem, so well cover it here. The third is a way to
calculate some wacky things, and if we can get to the fourth, well do a demo of the result, which
is moderately surprising. The fifth is a fun puzzle. The remainder of the sections are yours to look
at if you are interested, including three more technical sections (the last two being largely about
math). They should be approachable by yourself.
If you wish to do self study and are interested in using Morin, we highly recommend it. You will
certainly need differential calculus. All of the differential equations are explained in the textbook,
much as in the second section. Morin strenuously avoids linear algebra, so you wont need any of
it if you dont want it, but it certainly helps. Youll want to be good with integrals, and finally
vectors are extremely important in physics, though we dont use them much here, so cross products
are nice. The appendices in Morin contain a lot of information about the multi variable calculus.
In general though, Morin will introduce most of the math that youll need, and being forced to use
a lot of the math is a good way to make yourself learn that math really well. If youre interested in
self study, we are more than happy to provide a syllabus and good exercises. We recommend you
also be prepared to persevere through some pretty dense readings though.
Finally, we strongly recommend you try problems before reading the solutions (here, and in
general). Especially this first one. Its pretty easy:

1 of 18

Physics Problem Solving

Ravi Charan, Anu Sinha, David Xiao

Unit Analysis

Problem 1. (Unit Analysis) Suppose you are given two quantities: a, with units of kg, b, with
units of m/s2 , and c, with units of m. Find an expression in a, b, and c (not necessarily all need
appear however) with units of m/s

Solution
Clearly the only possible combination is something of the form k bc for k a scalar
constant. Note that a cannot appear in the equation, because nothing would be able to cancel its
units of kg. Likewise, we can deduce that b and c must appear in this combination.
Obviously this is as uninteresting as a problem can possibly get (and were more than happy to
prove ourselves wrong if you want us to)
Problem 2. (Unit Analysis) A satellite of mass m travels in a circular orbit at a height r above
the center of the earth. Find an expression for its speed
Solution
From an intuitive standpoint, the only thing the answer should depend on is m, r,
and g. It wouldnt make sense (at reasonable velocities) for the answer to depend on c, the speed
of light, or R, the gas constant. In fact, we can even guess that it wont depend on m, but that is
a less reasonable assumption that non-dependence on c or R, and we wont need it.
But then the units of these three quantities are exactly in the above problem. So the answer

must be k rg. In fact, k = 1, but even without knowing that, this is still a lot of information to
gain just from unit analysis.
The limerick below is courtesy David Morin, and illustrates the extensive humor available
throughout his textbook (and its actually funny) and on his website. We strongly recommend the
extensive litany of chicken-crossing-the-road jokes.
Always check your units!
Your units are wrong! cried the teacher.
Your church weighs six joules - what a feature!
And the people inside
Are four hours wide,
And eight gauss away from the preacher!
One of our goals today is going to be to convince you that, while physics is a lot of math, there
is more than math to physics. Hopefully unit analysis is a good start. Next were going to show
something really cool

The Quantum Pencil

Problem 3. (3.13a Balancing a Pencil) Idealize a pencil as a mass m at the end of massless rod
of length l. Consider a pencil standing upright on its tip. Assume it makes a small angle 0 > 0
with the vertical, and has initial angular speed 0 > 0. Let its angle from the vertical as a function
of time be (t). While is small, what is (t) explicitly?

MIT ESP Splash

11/19/2010

2 of 18

Physics Problem Solving

Ravi Charan, Anu Sinha, David Xiao
Solution
At the risk of throwing you in headfirst a bit too fast, this problem is going to require a little bit of basic calculus, some differential equations, some knowledge of torque, and use
of the most important mathematical concept in physics: The Small Angle Approximation
Torque is the force applied (mg) times the distance from the pivot to the point of application,
l, times the sin of the angle between the force vector and the pivot/radial vector. since the mass is
at the end only, it is not l/2. The torque on the pencil is
= mgl sin

(1)

I = ml2

(2)

The moment of inertia of the pencil is

(it would be ml2 /3 if we modeled the pencil as a continuous mass). Also, we know that:
= I

(3)

Where is the torque, I is the moment of inertia, and is the angular acceleration, which is the
derivative of the angular velocity , which is the derivative of the angle, :
=

d
d2
= 2
dt
dt

(4)

(If that equation is too easy for you, then the vector form is ~ = I~
, where I is a 3 3 matrix called
an inertia tensor, and and need not point in the same direction. If you know cross products
and linear algebra, you should find time to read about them). Also be aware that often physicists
will write = = where the dots represent time derivatives (one or two, I dont think they
bother with three), for convenience. Anyways, this application gives us that:
d2

mgl sin
== =
= g sin /l (g/l)
2
dt
I
ml2

(5)

Note the use in the last (approximate) equality of the small angle approximation, sin = . As a
rule, whenever a problem says small angle, you can make this approximation. However, if you
are serious about physics, its worth understanding when and why this is actually valid. See the
section on the binomial theorem for a justification. In the meantime, just do this.
This is a good time to perform the two most important sanity checks in physics:
1. Are the units correct? is unitless, so has units of 1/s2 . (g/l) also has units 1/s2 . Phew.
2. Is the sign correct? Well, as increases, we expect it to fall faster and faster, so yes the sign
is correct.
Please note: If the sign is wrong, dont just add a minus sign (like your physics teacher might
tell you to do). Go figure out where you missed the minus sign earlier. Did two things point
in opposite directions? Imagine if the force was applied so it caused to decrease. Then
should be negative instead.
At this point we are going to throw some differential equations at you. Most physics youll be
doing through early college (except for weird things like modeling turbulent drag flow) is linear-ish

MIT ESP Splash

11/19/2010

3 of 18

Physics Problem Solving

Ravi Charan, Anu Sinha, David Xiao
and produces linear differential equations. Well take a break and show how to solve the two most
common types of differential equations:
d2
= + 2 (t) = Aet + Bet
dt2

(6)

Produces exponential functions. A and B are constants depending on initial conditions. At t ,

if you expect the function not to go to infinity, then you should have A = 0.
d2
= 2 (t) = A sin(t + )
dt2

(7)

For A and a constant, determined by the initial conditions. We can also write this as (t) =
A sin(t) + B cos(t). Believe it or not, this equation is the same as the one before it, except
becomes imaginary. Solving linear differential equations is important. It requires some knowledge
of calculus. Taylor series will help, and so will linear algebra. It is probably the most intuitive of
all of subjects mentioned so far to pick up.
p
Back to our original problem. We can apply (6) to (5) with = g/l to get
r
r

d
g t g/l
g tg/l
t g/l
t g/l
(t) = Ae
+ Be
so
= (t) = A
e
B
e
(8)
dt
l
l
But we have, at t = 0 that the exponential terms vanish, and that (0) = 0 , (0) = 0
s
l
A + B = 0
and
A B = 0
g
So solving for gives our master equation (isnt it ugly?)
s ! p 
s ! p 
1
1
l
l
(t) =
0 + 0
et g/l +
0 0
et g/l
2
g
2
g

(9)

(10)

We can discuss how the various relations between 0 and 0 lead to different behaviors as t .
The physical correspondence is letting the pencil swing all the way under the table (say its rotation
on a bar) and back up again. If 0 is great enough, then the first term takes over, and the pencil
keeps swinging in circles. If 0 is smaller, then this shouldnt happen. Somehow our equations
dont allow for this... weird.
This is because of the Small Angle Approximation. Once gets large, sin is nowhere near
. whoops. So this only holds for small .
Phew. That is ugly. And totally useless. But being able to do algebra, especially by hand, is
really important.
The skill to do math on a page
Has declined to the point of outrage.
Equations quadratica
Are solved on Mathmatica,
And on birthdays we dont know our age.

MIT ESP Splash

11/19/2010

4 of 18

Physics Problem Solving

Ravi Charan, Anu Sinha, David Xiao
So, now for the really cool result, with all that stuff out of the way:
Problem 4. (3.13b The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) Due to Heisenbergs uncertainly principle, it is impossible to balance a pencil perfectly: intuitively, the pencil is only balanced if
0 = 0 = 0. But then we know the position and momentum of the pencil exactly! Heisenbergs
uncertainty principle reads
xp ~ = 1.05 1034 Js
Interpret this to mean
(l0 )(ml0 ) ~

(11)

Find the minimum time for to become reasonably large, say = 1 (in radians), given the restraint
on 0 and 0 . At this point it should be clear that the pencil has largely fallen (a little of 30 from
horizontal), but sin(1) = .84 1 so our small angle approximation hasnt completely broken down
yet. Hint: read the first couple lines of the solution
Solution
I promise you that I read this from a solution too. Ill explain why its valid now,
and if you pursue physics, you should eventually be able to make similar claims after a little bit of
thinking, and solve ridiculously hard looking problems.
So looking at equation (10), we can see that solving this for when = 1 is going to be... difficult.
However, unlike in math, we dont need a completely exact solution. Since we want to maximize
the falling time, we want to make 0 and 0 as small as possible (we cans
ee this intuitively or
from the equation).Thus the constants A and B will be on the order of ~ aka
really tiny. So
t g/l
t g/l
by the time that e
gets large enough that is not as super tiny as A, e
will be even
super-tinier. In fact, itll make so little of a difference that we can just ignore it completely.
So throwing out the last term we get
s ! p 
1
l
(t)
0 + 0
et g/l
(12)
2
g
Now, we want to find the 0 and 0 that maximize the time needed to fall. Then since the
exponential term will not change, we want to minimize its coefficient. From (11), we get
0

~
ml2 0

If the coefficient of the exponential is c, then we have

r  


~
g 1
1
c
0 +
2
2
ml
l 0

(13)

(14)

Calculus or AM-GM (we use this here so we can show you the calculation. In general be prepared
to use a lot of calculus) gives (equality when the two terms are equal)
r   s
r


1
~
g 1
~
g
c
0 +

(15)
2
2
2
ml
l 0
ml
l
Finally, set = 1
MIT ESP Splash

11/19/2010

5 of 18

Physics Problem Solving

Ravi Charan, Anu Sinha, David Xiao



ln

ml2
~

s
r
2 !1/4
1 l
g
l
m2 l3 g
=t
t=
ln
g
l
4 g
~2

(16)

Put m = .010kg = 10g, l = .1m = 10cm, g = 10m/s2 , h = 1.06 1034 Js gives t 3.5s
So you cant make a pencil balance for more than about 3.5 seconds.
This concludes the really hard problem.
Okay that was pretty ugly... but the next problem is also really cool, and involves very little
math.

Unusual Moments of Inertia

We recall two facts about moments of inertia that well need, and a third one that we wont. Please
note that all objects are assumed to be pancake objects in two dimensions, and axes of rotation
are perpendicular to the plane of the object unless otherwise stated (otherwise you need inertia
tensors, as mentioned earlier)
1. The parallel axis theorem: Let an object have mass M and moment of inertia IC M about
some the center of mass. Then if R is the distance from some point z to the center of mass
CM , the moment of inertia about z is
Iz = M R2 + IC M

(17)

2. Scaling of moments of inertia: Suppose we scale an object A by doubling all of its dimensions
by 2 (including its mass) to get B. Then the moment of inertia of B about its center of mass
is 8 times the moment of inertia of A about its center of mass. This holds for other scaling
factors.

We can see this because

I=

r2 dm

(18)

And we are doubling every r as well as m, so a factor of 8 comes out of the integral
3. The perpendicular axis theorem: For a pancake object in two dimensions, lying on the x y
plane, its moment of inertia about the z axis Iz , is the sum of its moment of inertias about
the two horizontal axes: Iz = Ix + Iy . The use of this theorem is very rare. Proof:

2
2
2
2
Ix = (y + z ) dm
Iy = (x + z ) dm
Iz = (x2 + y 2 ) dm
(19)
But z = 0 on the pancake object, so Iz = Ix + Iy .
Problem 5. Find the moment of inertia of a (uniform density) bar about its center, without
using any integrals, and using only the above facts
Solution
Our strategy is to calculate I = I2 for a bar of length 2L in terms of I = I1 for a
bar of length L, and solve for I1 .
MIT ESP Splash

11/19/2010

6 of 18

Physics Problem Solving

Ravi Charan, Anu Sinha, David Xiao
Imagine cutting a bar of length 2L in half. Then the moment of inertia of the bar of length 2L
about its center I2 is just twice the moment of inertia of a bar of length L, about its end, which we
will denote I10 . So
I2 = 2I10
(20)
Now we use the parallel axis theorem to relate the moment of inertia through the end of a rod
of length L, I10 , to the moment of inertia through the center of the rod, I1
!
 2
L
I2 = 2I10 = 2 M
(21)
+ I1
2
But since I2 = 8I1 ,

M L2
1
+ 2I1 I1 M L2
2
12
Which is in fact the same answer obtained through the integral.
8I1 =

(22)

Well thats a neat trick. But it also has some pretty weird applications
Problem 6. (8.8a) Find the moment of inertia about its center of the Cantor set: take a bar of
length L, and remove the middle third, then the middle third of the remaining pieces, and so on,
ad infinitum. Let the resulting object have mass M .
Solution Well, let the moment of inertia of the Cantor set be I. The Cantor set has two halves,
each of which are one third the size of the original cantor set, and have half the mass, but are geI
ometrically identical. Then their moment of inertia about their center should be
. The distance
18
1
of each halves center from the original center is . So we have
3
!
   2
M L2 1
M
L
1
M L2
I=2
+ I =
+ II=
(23)
2
3
18
9
9
8
Note this is larger than for a rod, because the mass is distributed farther away.
Note that this solution was done slightly differently than the first one: originally we had two
objects, one of length 2L, one of length L. Here we took two objects, one of length L, one of length
L/3 (the alternative would have been 3L and L). Feel free to do whichever makes the most sense
to you. You should get the same answer. (There are fewer fractions in the first method, but it
requires slightly more thinking).
Problem 7. (8.8b,c) Find the moment of inertia about the center of mass of a Sierpinski triangle
and a Sierpinski carpet each having mass M and side lengths L
3
1
M L2 and
M L2
9
16
In general any self similar object (a square, and equilateral triangle, but not a circle) can have
its moment of inertia calculated this way. More precisely, you must be able to make the object up
of a bunch of smaller copies of itself.
Well, those are probably the two coolest problems. But the remainder have some interesting
results as well. The next problem has a physically realizable solution which is pretty interesting to
observe. Also, the solution illustrates how useful it can be to keep track of minus signs early on,
when you dont know which direction a force is applied
Solution

The solution is left as an exercise; however the answers are

MIT ESP Splash

11/19/2010

7 of 18

Physics Problem Solving

Ravi Charan, Anu Sinha, David Xiao

Pulling on a spool of threat

Problem 8. (8.47) A cylindrical spool of thread of mass m and moment of inertia about its center
I is free to roll on its side on a table, without slipping. It has inner radius r, i.e. the thread forms
a cylinder of radius r, and outer radius R (the plastic part that contacts the table). If you pull
on the string with tension T and at an angle from the horizontal, what is the acceleration of the
spool? Which direction does it move?
Hint: without slipping is defined in the first paragraph of the solution
Solution We begin by clarifying what it means for the spool to roll without slipping. This
means first, that if the spool moves say some distance sideways, all of that movement must be
due to (correlated with) the spool spinning that much, not being dragged without spinning. The
important consequences are that we can relate the horizontal motion (distance, speed, and acceleration) of the spool with the angular motion (, the angular velocity, , the angular acceleration).
Second, while friction does act on the spool, it does no work (this will not be relevant to this
problem, but it is often important)
Moving on, we set up our problem. Lets say that if the spool accelerates to the right, the
acceleration x
is positive. Likewise, if it accelerates to the right, lets say its angular acceleration
is positive. Finally, let the force of friction be F and point to the right.
It seems like we cant say yet which direction F points. If the spool rolls to the right, friction
points left, and vice versa. So we shouldnt be able to say which direction F points until we know the
direction the spool moves, and we wont be able to do those calculations until we know something
about F . We can get around this by saying that, if F is negative, it points to the left. Likewise if
x
is negative, the spool moves to the right, and must be negative as well. The downside is that
well have to keep careful track of our minus signs, because... well now that weve defined positive
and negative directions, we cant just write down scalar quantities and fiddle with their signs later.
This will be true in general of more complicated problems.
Remembering that = I and that should have the same sign as , we know that a torque
causing the spool to roll right is positive, and one causing it to roll left is negative. The torque due
to the pulling on the thread is T r then. The torque due to the rightward pointing friction vector
is F R. (Check: if F is negative, the torque is positive, as it should be). Then we have
= T r F R = I
Newtons law gives, remembering a = x
=

(24)

d2 x
,
dt2

m
x = F + T cos

(25)

Where we ignore the forces in the y direction, and the only two forces acting in the x direction
are shown. Note that both forces are positive. Finally, we use the relation between and x
that
arises because the spool does not slip. The way radians are defined, a spin by an angle causes the
circumference to travel R. (Note: if youre ever unsure about this relation, just check the units
on both sides to make sure). This gives, taking double time derivatives of both sides:
R = x

MIT ESP Splash

11/19/2010

8 of 18

(26)

Physics Problem Solving

Ravi Charan, Anu Sinha, David Xiao
There are only three unknowns at this point: , x
, and F . We solve for F in terms of x
in (25),
then substitute (24) into (26) followed by substituting in F . The resulting equation is


T r + R(m
x T cos )
R
=x

(27)
I
Multiplying through by I then expanding gives
RT (R cos r) = (I + mR2 )
x

(28)

We now turn to the question of the direction in which the spool moves. Note that I + mR2 is
positive, as is RT . Then the sign of x
is just the sign of R cos r, which is positive
 r  for below a
1
certain critical angle, negative for above a critical angle, and 0 for = cos
.
R
Note that the sign does not depend on T ! This means that at the critical angle, no matter
how hard you pull the spool wont move, at least until you overpower the force of friction, which is
bounded. If is the coefficient of static friction, we must have T cos < F < (mg T sin ). The
fact that, depending on the angle you can make the spool go either should not be surprising: at
high angles, you are barely pulling sideways, while the string tries to unwind and push the spool
left. At low angles, your pulling overpowers this force.
Hopefully this is an interesting result and shows that you really benefit from defining a positive
direction for quantities and sticking to it.
Heres a fun puzzle
Problem 9. A Puzzle
Problem 10. (4.21) A mass hangs from a ceiling. A piece of paper is held up between the mass
and the ceiling obscuring three strings and two springs. All you see is two other strings protruding
from the top and bottom of the paper, connecting to the ceiling and mass respectively. How should
the other strings and springs be attached to each other so that, if the system starts at equilibrium
and one of the springs is cut, the mass will rise up. Note that objects can only be attatched at
their endpoints
Solution Ah that would ruin the fun wouldnt it? You can probably think of some silly ways
to do it, like hanging a spring so that when you cut the string, it falls off and there is less weight
pulling down, so the system rises up. Think of something cooler instead.
We conclude with more technical material. If you really want to learn the binomial theorem,
heres some good practice:

Binomial Theorem and Pendula

This section assumes an understanding of Taylor series, though it relies only on knowing the Taylor
series for sin.
Here is the extended binomial theorem: Define, for r a real number and k an integer
 
r
r(r 1) (r k + 1)
=
(29)
k
k!
MIT ESP Splash

11/19/2010

9 of 18

Physics Problem Solving

This makes sense if we regard

Ravi Charan, Anu Sinha, David Xiao

r! = r(r 1)(r 2)

(30)

as an infinite product, which is not well defined when r is not a positive integer. However, if we
return to the normal definition of a binomial coefficient,
 
r
r!
1 r(r 1) (r k + 1)(r k)(r k 1)
r(r 1) (r k + 1)
=
=
=
k
k!(r k)!
k!
(r k)(r k 1)
k!
(31)
The following are the most common uses of binomial theorem in physics:


 
1/2
1
Problem 11. Calculate
and
for k = 0, 1, 2, 3
k
k
Solution Noting 0! is defined to be 1,








1/2
1/2
1 1/2
(1/2)(1/2)
1 1/2
(1/2)(1/2)(3/2)
3
= 1,
= ,
=
= ,
=
=
0
1
2
2
2!
8
3
3!
48
 
 
 
 
1
1
1
(1)(2)
1
(1)(2)(3)
= 1,
= 1,
=
= 1,
=
= 1
0
1
2
2!
3
3!

(32)

(33)

The binomial theorem is as follows:

(1 + x)r =

 
X
r n
x
n

(34)

n=0

Note that in mathematics we usually state this for (x + y)r . In physics, this is almost always
only useful when it is in the form (1 + x)r . In physics the two most important examples are r = 1
and r = 1/2.
Problem 12. Expand the first few terms (1 + x)1 and (1 + x)1/2 using the binomial theorem
Solution
(1 + x)1 = 1 x + x2 x3 +

(35)

Note that if we replace x by x, we get:

(1 x)1 =

1
= 1 + x + x2 + x3 +
1x

(36)

Which you should recognize either as the sum of a geometric sequence, or more generally, as a
Taylor series. In fact, the extended binomial theorem just amounts to computing Taylor series.
(1 + x)1/2 =

1+x=1+

x x2 3x3

+

2
8
48

(37)

So why is this useful in physics? Well in physics, we often deal with situations where quantities
are small. In the past this has largely meant sin . Why is this? Study the Taylor expansion
for sin
x3 x5
sin x = x
+

(38)
3!
5!
MIT ESP Splash

11/19/2010

10 of 18

Physics Problem Solving

Ravi Charan, Anu Sinha, David Xiao
3
If is small, the x /6 term is really negligible compared to x. If x is on the order of 101 (.1
or so), then x3 is .001 which isnt going to make much of a difference to our answer in most cases.
Even if x is one half, x = .5, then x3 /6 = 1/48 .02 which shouldnt have too much of an effect
(often 4% is smaller than other errors involved in measurements etc).
Likewise, in the two expansions above, if x is small, the x2 terms are negligible (note that they
have more effect than the x3 in the sin expansion though, which is why the latter expansion is used
a ton, while expansion for (1 + x)1 is only used in its full form, and the other expansion is not
often used at introductory levels).
From a mathematical perspective, we can make this rigorous by writing sin x = x+O(x3 ) where
O(x3 ) is big O notation, and means that the remainder of the term varies at least as x3 . Note
that if this term later gets multiplied by an x, xO(x3 ) = O(x2 ). Also note the addition properties:
O(x3 ) + O(x3 ) = O(x3 ) and O(x2 ) + O(x3 ) = O(x2 ). Composition gives O(O(x)) = O(x). Finally
multiplication by a scalar has no effect: cO(x4 ) = O(x4 ). Then we can operate with the big O term
algebraicly.
The way this is used in physics: Suppose that at the end of our solution we end up with an
answer like 3 + x + 5x2 + O(x3 ). Then we can say that we have second order approximation for the
answer. In other words, the real answer will only vary from our answer by something that depends
on x3 (or higher degree). If x is small, this variation is very tiny (and since x2 is very small, our
answer is extremely precise). Note that we must be careful because if at some point we get a term
like 1 + x + 3x2 + xO(x3 ) then we have to swallow the x2 term into the new O(x2 ) = xO(x3 ) so
that we can only write 1 + x + O(x2 ). If we we are too eager to make approximations, then the big
O notation will swallow up too many terms, and our answer wont be very useful.
So whenever a physicst says first order approximation, what they mean is that when they
write 3 + 2x, they really mean 3 + 2x + O(x2 ). Often in physics it is more useful to make arguments
that something varies second order in x verbally and not actually write it formally, but this notation
allows to see what physicist really mean when they say to first order in x.
Problem
13. (4.23a) For small oscillations, the period of a pendulum is approximately T
p
2 l/g independent of the amplitude 0 . Use dt = dx/v to show that the exact expression for T
is
s
8l 0
d

T =
(39)
g 0
cos cos 0

Solution It is strongly recommended you attempt to solve this problem without reading the solution
Considering that the problem tells you the desired answer, it shouldnt be too bad.
We focus on the time it takes the pendulum to fall from its initial angle 0 to the bottom of its
arc, and multiply by 4. If the pendulum is at an angle with the vertical, then its height below
the pivot of the arc is l cos and it has fallen l cos l cos 0 . Using conservation of energy, we can
write
p
1
mgh = mgl(cos cos 0 ) = mv 2 v = 2gl(cos cos 0 )
(40)
2
We can see why dt = dx/v: the change in time is equal to the change in distance divided by the
velocity (start by checking units). Since we wish to calculate (4 times) the change in time over a

MIT ESP Splash

11/19/2010

11 of 18

Physics Problem Solving

given distance, we wish to calculate

Ravi Charan, Anu Sinha, David Xiao

dt = 4

4
0

dx
p
2gl(cos cos 0 )

(41)

Since dx = ld this is just the integral desired.

Problem 14. (4.23b) Find an approximation to T up to second order in 0 , by writing cos =
1 2 sin2 (/2) (a trig identity) then make the change of variables sin x = sin(/2)/ sin(0 /2).
Expand the integrand in terms of 0 and integrate to show
s
l
2
T 2
(1 + 0 + O(4 ))
(42)
g
2

Solution
Again, it is strongly recommended you attempt to solve this problem without reading
the solution Considering that the problem not only tells you the desired answer, but also tells you
how to do the solution, it cant be too bad. Just remember your calculus, be careful, and dont
forget the binomial theorem or the idea of making approximations (apply these last two at the end)
Using the given trig identity, we get the integrand to be
d
d
= q
q 2
2 sin (0 /2) sin2 (/2)
2 sin2 (0 /2) (sin x sin(0 /2))2

(43)

Where in the last equality we perform the suggested change of variables (though we havent changed
the variable of integration yet) Since we have changed variables, we differentiate the change of
variables to get
1
(44)
cos x dx = cos(/2)/ sin(0 /2)d
2
(remember 0 is constant). Our variables of integration change to
sinx = sin(0/2)/ sin(0 /2) = 0 x = 0 and sin x = sin(0 /2)/ sin(0 /2) = 1 x = /2

Then, pulling the 1/ 2 out of the integral, changing limits, and substituting for d gives
cos x sin(0 /2)
s
2
dx
/2
l
cos(/2)
q
T =2
=
g 0
2
2
(sin(0 /2)) (1 sin x)
s
s
l /2
dx
l /2
dx
q
4
=4
g 0
cos(/2)
g 0
1 (sin x sin(0 /2))2

(45)

(46)

Where we have rewritten the change of variables as sin(/2) = sin x sin(0 /2) in some locations.
Which brings us to the binomial theorem. The expansion (use r = 1/2, binomial coefficients

MIT ESP Splash

11/19/2010

12 of 18

Physics Problem Solving

Ravi Charan, Anu Sinha, David Xiao
1, 1/2, 3/8, 5/16, . . .) is:
s

1/2
l /2
T =4
dx 1 sin2 (0 /2) sin2 x
=
g 0
s


l /2
1
3
2
2
4
4
4
dx 1 + sin x sin (0 /2) + sin x sin (0 /2) +
(47)
g 0
2
8
1
Note that all the signs are positive, because the second term is x where x is actually that entire
2
term from the top line, which is negative already.
/2

sin2 x dx = . This integral comes up so much in

The first thing we want to note is that
4
0
physics that we strongly suggest you know the trig identity mentioned in the problem statement,
which allows you to evaluate this and similar integrals. So we have:
s
 !
/2 
l 1
3
5
2
4
4
6
6
T =4
+
sin (0 /2) +
sin x sin (/2) +
sin x sin (/2) + dx (48)
g 2 24
8
16
0
Now if you recall from the Taylor expansion of sin from (38), we can make the following arguments.
We justify each step involving big O notation very carefully. You should check each equality and
remember why the simplifications we make hold.
 3 !


0
0
0
sin(0 /2) =
+O
=
+ O 03
(49)
2
2
2
Verbally, all we have said is that we have computed a second order approximation for sin. Next, we
sqaure sin. To calculate the big O notation, we just square the right hand side of (49) and compute
with big O notation:



2
3
2



2 2



2

0
0
0
sin2 0 /2 =
+ O 03
= 0+
+ O 03 = 0 + O 04 + O 06 = 0 + O 04 (50)
2
4
2
4
4
Again, we could make this argument verbally by saying that a 03 term will only appear as fourth
order once sin is squared. But its good to see why this is true formally. At this point, hopefully
you will see why this allows us to compute the second term in (48). Well perform that calculation
after seeing how to deal with the third and final term.
Looking at the Taylor expansion for sin, we see that we can also write
sin(0 /2) = O(0 /2) = O(0 )

(51)

Now lets look at the third term in (48):

/2 


3
5
4
4
6
6
sin x sin (/2) +
sin x sin (/2) + dx =
8
16


/2 
/2 
3
5
4
4
6
6
sin (0 /2)
sin x dx + sin (0 /2)
sin x dx + =
8
16
0
0






O 04 + O 06 + = O 04 (52)

MIT ESP Splash

11/19/2010

13 of 18

Physics Problem Solving

Ravi Charan, Anu Sinha, David Xiao
We can get rid of the integrals because the integrals are just constants, they dont vary as 0 /2.
Since we have big O notation multiplied by a constant, we can just absorb the constant into the
big O notation. Hopefully you can see that the big O terms came from the equality in (51).
We emphasize equality because, even though the equalities are approximations, they are precises
statements: sin(/2) is in fact in some sense equal to O(0 ) insofar as we can perform that
substitution. They are not equal in that O(0 ) is not well defined: we lose some information in our
substitution. But thats fine. In order to find an approximation, we wish to throw out information.
Big O notation lets us do this.
Also, note that the 0 are in fact O(08 ) in (52) (though we can only see this in hindsight
after performing the calculations). To be completely rigorous, we have to also say that the omitted
terms are higher order in 0 . To do this, we can make use of this fact:




1
1
sin2 x sin2 0 /2 + O sin4 (0 /2) = 1 + sin2 x sin2 0 /2 + O 04
2
2
(53)
Hopefully you can see for yourself where the last equality comes from. The last argument we would
need to make is that integration by a different variable, with constant limits, will not affect the
order of the result in 0 . This would have saved us some work in dealing with the third term.
So, finally, we can write (48) as
s 
s 








2
l 02
l
4
4
T =4
+
+ O 0 + O 0
= 2
1 + 0 + O(04 )
(54)
g 2
8 4
g
16
1 sin2 (0 /2) sin2 x

1/2

= 1+

We will spare the tedious details of dealing with the two big O terms. It should be pretty clear at
this point that they will migrate outside everything else unscathed and then combine.
So we have in fact, gotten a bonus term: this is third order approximation in 0 .
11 4
In fact, the fourth order term is
. If you want to show this, beware that two terms
3072 0
contribute to this fraction.
q
So what does this say? It says that the period of a pendulum is 2 gl as normal, but that
in addition there is a correction based on 02 /16. If 0 is, say, 90 , the correction to the period is,
2 /64, which is about 15%.
Note that, in fact the fourth order term is very tiny, even though 04 is larger than 02 , because
0 > 1. Now this seems like a problem. There are two ways to realize why this isnt important.
First, the coefficients get vanishingly small. Second, we can change units: define a new unit the
c. elegans. We will define 1 c. elegans to be equal to 2 radians. Then 0 is .25 c. elegans. Since
it is perfectly valid to perform our calculations in any unit system we like (though we should be
careful about derivatives of sin), then 04 is vanishingly small. Of course, we have to change our
coefficients slightly to reflect this, which ultimately forces us to return to an argument about our
coefficients being small, but hopefully this solves the problem of, say, the 060000 term being really,
really large.
And well stick the remainder of the math topics in this last section

MIT ESP Splash

11/19/2010

14 of 18

Physics Problem Solving

Ravi Charan, Anu Sinha, David Xiao

A Brief Mathematical Appendix

6.1

Taylor Series

If you want to really learn about Taylor series, read a textbook on single variable calculus, or do
analysis. In the meantime, well cover what you need to know. The Taylor series for a function f
that is infinitely differentiable at a point a is
p(x) =

X
f (n) (a)
n=0

n!

(x a)n

(55)

Where f (n) is the nth derivative of f . Taking nth derivatives and plugging in x = a shows that p
has all of the same derivatives as f at a. This is left as an exercise. Intuitively, it should be clear
that if we track the value of f , how fast f is changing, how fast the rate of change of f changes, and
so on, ad infinitum, then weve essentially recorded everything we need to know about the function
to calculate its value.
Well, this would be ideal. Unfortunately, some functions die at certain places. The most
important examples are x1 , and ln x. First, we cant take a MacLaurin series (which is the term
for a Taylor series evaluated at 0), because it isnt even defined at 0. So we can take its Taylor
1
series at 1. Equivalently, we can take the MacLaurin series for 1+x
, and the MacLaurin series for
ln(x 1). Note that, unfortunately,
The following are the important Taylor series:
1
1+x
ln(1 + x)
ex
sin(x)
cos(x)

1 x + x2 x3 +
x2 x3
+
22
3
x
x3
1+x+
+
+
2! 5 3!
3
x
x
+
+
x
3!2
5!4
x
x
1
+

2!
4!
1+x+

Note that there is no particular reason why we cant put imaginary arguments. So lets calculate
eix :
ix

(ix)2 (ix)3
= 1+ix+

+ =
2!
3!


 

x2 x4
x3 x5
1
+
+i x
+
= cos(x)i sin(x) (56)
2!
4!
3!
5!

Also note that ei = 1, which many people find very interesting for some reason.
Well use these formulas in our brief treatment of ordinary linear homogeneous differential
equations:

6.2

Slightly more treatment of Linear Differential Equations

The first thing to note is that

d kt
e = kekt
dt
MIT ESP Splash

11/19/2010

15 of 18

(57)

Physics Problem Solving

Ravi Charan, Anu Sinha, David Xiao
for k a constant. When solving differential equations, this fact will be very useful. To see why
(intuitively), we realize that ordinary linear homogenous differential equations are something of the
form x = kx or a more complicated sort of expression (well define it fully in a moment). Then in
some sense, the derivative of the exponential function gives a very minimal change which allows us
maximum control over the result. Keep this in mind during the following discussion:
An ordinary, linear, homogeneous, differential equation is of the form:
dn x
dn1 x
d2 x
dx
+

+
a
+ a1
+ a0 x = 0
2
n + an1
n1
2
dt
dt
dt
dt

(58)

Where x is a function of t, x(t), and the ai are real scalar constants. (We can put a constant on the
first term, but equivalently we can leave it off). You wish to find all possible solutions, that is, all
functions that x could be. The equation is ordinary because it does not involve partial derivatives
(in essence, you are only solving for one function of one variable). It is linear because none of the
derivatives of x(t) are raised to a power or multiplied by each other. Nor are any of them multiplied
by any functions of t. It is homogeneous because there is no constant term: that is, the RHS of
the equation is 0, not, say, 6. And it is a differential equation because it is an equation involving
derivatives of an unknown function.
The study of non-homogeneous differential equations depends very highly on the study of homogeneous equations. This is because the derivative operator is linear. If you study linear algebra,
youll see why this is important.
The characteristic polynomial of a differential equation is
xn + an1 xn1 + + a2 x2 + a1 x + a0

(59)

If the roots of a characteristic polynomial of a differential equation (from here on out, we will
assume that it is homogeneous, linear, and ordinary) are r1 , r2 , r3 , , rn , and they are all distinct,
the possible solutions for x are all functions of the form:
A1 er1 t + A2 er2 t + + An ern t

(60)

If there is a double root, say r1 = r2 , then we replace the first two terms with A1 er1 t + A2 ter1 t .
If there is a triple root, the next term is A3 t2 er1 t and so forth. The Ai are arbitrary constants:
choosing any combination of constants yields a valid solution.
The
reason this is true is as follows: consider just one term, say Aert . Its nth derivative is
rn Aert . Then looking at our original differential equation, and computing all the derivatives, we
have on the LHS,


(61)
Aert rn + an1 rn1 + + a 2r2 + a1 r + a0
which is definitely 0, since r is a root of the characteristic equation. Moreover, suppose we have
two terms: Aer1 t and Ber2 t . Since the derivative is linear (it will be hard to stress how important
d
d
d
linearity is), dt
(x1 + x2 ) = dt
x1 + dt
x1 2 (or rather, it is linear because of this property. Thats
what linearity means/is defined to be). Then the LHS of our differential equation will become




Aer1 t r1n + an1 r1n1 + + a 2r12 + a1 r1 + a0 +Ber2 t r2n + an1 r2n1 + + a 2r22 + a1 r2 + a0
(62)
We can see that this is still a solution. Then by induction, we can add any combination of single
terms which satisfy the homogeneous differential equation, and still get 0.
MIT ESP Splash

11/19/2010

16 of 18

Physics Problem Solving

For equations with one main condition
(Those linear), we give you permission
To take you solutions,
With firm resolutions,
And add them in superposition.

Ravi Charan, Anu Sinha, David Xiao

Moreover, if we have a non-homogeneous differential equation, then, suppose that xp (read: x

particular) solves the non-homogeneous differential equation, and suppose that xh (read: x homogeneous) solves the equivalent homogeneous equation (where we replace the non-zero constant c by
0). Then since adding xh to xp still yields a solution to the non-homogeneous equation, because
youve just added 0 to the LHS. Anyways, we return to the application to physics.
The degree of a differential equation is the degree of its characteristic polynomial, n. The most
important case well study is second degree. Consider, noting we have reverted to the dot notation:
x
+ a1 x + a2 x = 0

(63)

Suppose the distinct roots are r1 and r2 . Then the solutions are of the form Aer1 t + Ber2 t . If
r1 = r2 , then the solution is Aer1 t + Bter2 t . You can check this by hand. Then, in the case where
r1 and r2 are real, were pretty much done.
On the other hand, we might be a little concerned with the possibility that the roots are not
real. You might also be concerned when you realize that the equation which gives harmonic motion
is
x
= 2 x x
+ 2x = 0
(64)
which is linear, and its solution is, for arbitrary A (amplitude) and (phase shift)
A sin(t + )

(65)

Which looks nothing like what we have claimed is the most general solution to ordinary linear
homogeneous differential equations.
If, at this point, you havent read the section about Taylor polynomials, you should do so.
We rectify this apparent contradiction: ff the roots are not real, then let r1 = a + bi and we
must have r2 = a bi (fundamental theorem of algebra). The solution is
x(t) = Ae(a+bi)t + Be(abi)t = Aeat e(bt)i + Beat e(bt)i =
eat (A(cos(bt) + i sin(bt)) + B(cos(bt) + i sin(bt))) =
eat (A(cos(bt) + i sin(bt)) + B(cos(bt) i sin(bt))) =
eat ((A + B) cos(bt) + i(A B) sin(bt)) (66)
Now pick some arbitrary (probably real) constants A0 and B 0 . Try to solve
A0 = A + B

and B 0 = i(A B) iB 0 = (A B)

(67)

Clearly, if we allow A and B to be complext, we can find A and B for any A0 and B 0 . There is no
reason why A and B cant be complex: we never specified that x must be a real valued function.
And if we did, we can temporarily relax that restriction and show that the function ends up being
real anyways. If A0 and B 0 are real, the x is going to end up being real anyways. So we can make A
and B be whatever we want. Conclusion: 1) dont be afraid of complex numbers. They work like
MIT ESP Splash

11/19/2010

17 of 18

Physics Problem Solving

Ravi Charan, Anu Sinha, David Xiao
other numbers too, just sometimes better. 2) We can replace (A + B) and i(A B) by arbitrary
constants, A0 and B 0 . In fact, for convenience of notation, we can drop the primes too, and just
write
x(t) = (A sin(bt) + B cos(bt)) eat
(68)
We cheated slightly and switched A and B and switched the order of terms. But anyways, this is
a common and more general form for harmonic motion. Note that a controls the decay or growth
of the amplitude. If a = 0, the differential equation was of the form x
= 2 x with characteristic
2
2
equation x + = 0, and we get simply harmonic motion because the amplitude doesnt change.
If a is negative, then eat decays, which is called damped motion. Frankly, this involves a lot of
ugly mathematics, so its not worth going into here. Youll probably learn about it eventually. In
the meantime, well show why our form in (68) is equivalent to the originally proposed solution for
harmonic motion in (65). Apply the sin addition formula:
A sin(t + ) = A sin(t) cos() + A cos(t) sin()

(69)

If A0 and B 0 are the arbitrary constants in (68) then if we can solve

A0 = A cos()

and B 0 = A sin()

(70)

for A and , we can write anything of the form (68) in the form (65) simply by finding a suitable A
and . All we have to do is note B 0 /A0 = tan() which can be solved (uniquely for /2 < < /2)
for for all ratios, and then we can easily calculate the necessary A. So the two forms are equivalent.
Phew.
So it actually turns out, as mentioned much earlier, that harmonic motion is just exponential
with imaginary exponent... go figure.
Finally, because we mentioned it briefly, we will state, but not prove AM-GM.

6.3

AM-GM

AM-GM stands for Arithmetic Mean-Geometric Mean. What is states is that for positive quantities
a1 , a2 , , an , the arithmetic mean is greater than or equal to the geometric mean:

a1 + a2 + an
n a1 a2 an
n

(71)

Moreover it states that there is equality (AM = GM) if and only if all the terms are equal. Its
statement is easiest to use and see for n = 2, and it can be proved very quickly by hand as well:
a1 + a2
a1 a2
2

and

LHS = RHS iff a1 = a2

(72)

Overall, we apologize for not including more material (we assume that if you made it to this
point, youd be interested in more). There are plenty more good problems we would have liked to
include. But deadlines have a bad habit of sneaking up on you.

MIT ESP Splash

11/19/2010

18 of 18