1
$\begingroup$

Let's say I have a system of coupled oscillators which are described by the coordinates $\{x_1,...,x_N\}$ and $\{\dot{x}_1,...,\dot{x}_N\}$. The equation of motion for each oscillator is

$$\ddot{x}_n + \sum_m k_{nm} x_m = 0 .$$

What is the potential energy or alternatively the Hamiltonian of this system? I've only been able to find discussions of the case where all of the oscillators are connected in a straight line. I'm interested in the case of all to all coupling.

Edit: This isn't a hw exercise. Please don't mark it as such.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Shouldn't the equation of motion have $k_{mn} (x_n-x_m)$? Or am I misunderstanding something? $\endgroup$ – Javier Oct 12 '15 at 15:56
  • $\begingroup$ @Javier Isn't that just the case in which they are coupled end to end like this i.imgur.com/8m6wShX.jpg? I'm interested in the case of general connectivity. $\endgroup$ – mdornfe1 Oct 12 '15 at 15:58
  • $\begingroup$ I mean with a sum over $m$. But your equation implies that the force on each oscillator is determined by the absolute positions of all the other oscillators, instead of the relative separations. The sum over $m$ is what makes all the oscillators be connected to each other. $\endgroup$ – Javier Oct 12 '15 at 16:03
  • $\begingroup$ @Javier. That is correct. The force is determined by the absolute positions of the oscillators. Why would that be a problem? $\endgroup$ – mdornfe1 Oct 12 '15 at 16:29
  • $\begingroup$ It's a weird situation. If the oscillators are joined together by springs, I would expect the forces to be proportional to the springs' extensions and thus to the relative separations, not to the absolute position of each oscillator. $\endgroup$ – Javier Oct 12 '15 at 16:37
2
$\begingroup$

Hamilton's equations are given by $$\dot x_n = \frac{\partial H}{\partial p_n}, \quad\text{and}\quad \dot p_n = -\frac{\partial H}{\partial x_n}.$$ Rewriting the second term using $p_n \equiv \dot x_n$ (using convention that the mass $m=1$) and the equation given in the question gives $$-\ddot x_n = \sum_m k_{nm}x_m = \frac{\partial V}{\partial x_n},$$ where we recognize that $\frac{\partial H}{\partial x_n} = \frac{\partial V}{\partial x_n},$ where $V$ is the potential. Solving this gives $$\int\frac{\partial V}{\partial x_n} {\text dx}_n = V_n = \sum_{m \ne n}k_{nm}x_mx_n + \frac{1}{2}k_{nn}x_n^2 = \sum_m k_{nm}x_mx_n - \frac{1}{2}k_{nn}x_n^2,$$ with a total potential energy of $$ V = \sum_n V_n = \sum_{nm}k_{nm}x_m x_n - \frac{1}{2}\sum_n k_{nn}x_n^2.$$

For reference, in units where we include the mass $m$, the potential energy is (changing the labeling of the indexing so we don't use $m$) $$\boxed{V = m\sum_{jk}k_{jk}x_j x_k - \frac{m}{2}\sum_j k_{jj}x_j^2}.$$

$\endgroup$

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.