Why can all solutions to the simple harmonic motion equation be written in terms of sines and cosines?Which...

What is the smallest molar volume?

When distributing a Linux kernel driver as source code, what's the difference between Proprietary and GPL license?

Found a major flaw in paper from home university – to which I would like to return

Minimum energy path of a potential energy surface

How can guns be countered by melee combat without raw-ability or exceptional explanations?

Short story about a man betting a group he could tell a story, and one of them would disappear and the others would not notice

How Create a list of the first 10,000 digits of Pi and sum it?

Why don't you get burned by the wood benches in a sauna?

How many copper coins fit inside a cubic foot?

A cancellation property for permutations?

Why don't programs completely uninstall (remove all their files) when I remove them?

Why do single electrical receptacles exist?

How to store all ctor parameters in fields

Cryptic cross... with words

Including proofs of known theorems in master's thesis

Is it possible to detect 100% of SQLi with a simple regex?

Is it common to refer to someone as "Prof. Dr. [LastName]"?

How do I add a strong "onion flavor" to the biryani (in restaurant style)?

What is an explicit bijection in combinatorics?

Have the UK Conservatives lost the working majority and if so, what does this mean?

I am a loser when it comes to jobs, what possibilities do I have?

Was Opportunity's last message to Earth "My battery is low and it's getting dark"?

What happens if both players misunderstand the game state until it's too late?

Build ASCII Podiums



Why can all solutions to the simple harmonic motion equation be written in terms of sines and cosines?


Which trigonometric ratio should be used to describe simple harmonic motion as a function of time?Simple harmonic motion equationPhase angle in simple harmonic motionWhich way should I use to compare the phase of a cosine function with a sine function?Correct way of solving the equation for simple harmonic motionBetter understanding natural resonance frequency and simple harmonic motionWhat is the difference between Non-harmonic oscillation, Anharmonic oscillation and Complex harmonic oscillation?Which equation to use for SHM?When to use sine or cosine when computing simple harmonic motionSimple harmonic motion phase difference problem













3












$begingroup$


Defining property of SHM (simple harmonic motion)-force experienced at any value of displacement from mean position is directly proportional to it and is directed towards mean position i.e $F=-k(x)$.



From this,
$$mleft(frac{d^2x}{dt^2}right) +kx=0.$$



Then I read from this site




Let us interpret this equation. The second derivative of a function of x plus the function itself (times a constant) is equal to zero. Thus the second derivative of our function must have the same form as the function itself. What readily comes to mind is the sine and cosine function.




How can we assume so plainly that it should be sin or cosine only , they do satisfy the equation but why are they brought in the picture so directly, what I want to ask is why can SHM displacement, velocity etc. be expressed in sin and cosine, I know the "SHM is projection of uniform circular motion" proof, but an algebraic proof would be appreciated.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    How many solutions $f$ are there to $f''=-lambda f$?
    $endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    2 hours ago
















3












$begingroup$


Defining property of SHM (simple harmonic motion)-force experienced at any value of displacement from mean position is directly proportional to it and is directed towards mean position i.e $F=-k(x)$.



From this,
$$mleft(frac{d^2x}{dt^2}right) +kx=0.$$



Then I read from this site




Let us interpret this equation. The second derivative of a function of x plus the function itself (times a constant) is equal to zero. Thus the second derivative of our function must have the same form as the function itself. What readily comes to mind is the sine and cosine function.




How can we assume so plainly that it should be sin or cosine only , they do satisfy the equation but why are they brought in the picture so directly, what I want to ask is why can SHM displacement, velocity etc. be expressed in sin and cosine, I know the "SHM is projection of uniform circular motion" proof, but an algebraic proof would be appreciated.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    How many solutions $f$ are there to $f''=-lambda f$?
    $endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    2 hours ago














3












3








3


1



$begingroup$


Defining property of SHM (simple harmonic motion)-force experienced at any value of displacement from mean position is directly proportional to it and is directed towards mean position i.e $F=-k(x)$.



From this,
$$mleft(frac{d^2x}{dt^2}right) +kx=0.$$



Then I read from this site




Let us interpret this equation. The second derivative of a function of x plus the function itself (times a constant) is equal to zero. Thus the second derivative of our function must have the same form as the function itself. What readily comes to mind is the sine and cosine function.




How can we assume so plainly that it should be sin or cosine only , they do satisfy the equation but why are they brought in the picture so directly, what I want to ask is why can SHM displacement, velocity etc. be expressed in sin and cosine, I know the "SHM is projection of uniform circular motion" proof, but an algebraic proof would be appreciated.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Defining property of SHM (simple harmonic motion)-force experienced at any value of displacement from mean position is directly proportional to it and is directed towards mean position i.e $F=-k(x)$.



From this,
$$mleft(frac{d^2x}{dt^2}right) +kx=0.$$



Then I read from this site




Let us interpret this equation. The second derivative of a function of x plus the function itself (times a constant) is equal to zero. Thus the second derivative of our function must have the same form as the function itself. What readily comes to mind is the sine and cosine function.




How can we assume so plainly that it should be sin or cosine only , they do satisfy the equation but why are they brought in the picture so directly, what I want to ask is why can SHM displacement, velocity etc. be expressed in sin and cosine, I know the "SHM is projection of uniform circular motion" proof, but an algebraic proof would be appreciated.







harmonic-oscillator






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 28 mins ago









knzhou

44.3k11121213




44.3k11121213










asked 2 hours ago









ADITYA PRAKASHADITYA PRAKASH

615




615








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    How many solutions $f$ are there to $f''=-lambda f$?
    $endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    2 hours ago














  • 3




    $begingroup$
    How many solutions $f$ are there to $f''=-lambda f$?
    $endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    2 hours ago








3




3




$begingroup$
How many solutions $f$ are there to $f''=-lambda f$?
$endgroup$
– Kyle Kanos
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
How many solutions $f$ are there to $f''=-lambda f$?
$endgroup$
– Kyle Kanos
2 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















6












$begingroup$

This follows from the uniqueness theorem for solutions of ordinary differential equations, which states that for a homogeneous linear ordinary differential equation of order $n$, there are at most $n$ linearly independent solutions.



The upshot of that is that if you have a second-order ODE (like, say, the one for the harmonic oscillator) and you can construct, through whatever means you can come up with, two linearly-independent solutions, then you're guaranteed that any solution of the equation will be a linear combination of your two solutions.



Thus, it doesn't matter at all how it is that you come to the proposal of $sin(omega t)$ and $cos(omega t)$ as prospective solutions: all you need to do is




  1. verify that they are solutions, i.e. just plug them into the derivatives and see if the result is identically zero; and

  2. check that they're linearly independent.


Once you do that, the details of how you built your solutions become completely irrelevant. Because of this, I (and many others) generally refer to this as the Method of Divine Inspiration: I can just tell you that the solution came to me in a dream, handed over by a flying mass of spaghetti, and $-$ no matter how contrived or elaborate the solution looks $-$ if it passes the two criteria above, the fact that it is the solution is bulletproof, and no further explanation of how it was built is required.



If this framework is unclear or unfamiliar, then you should sit down with an introductory textbook on differential equations. There's a substantial bit of background that makes this sort of thing clearer, and which simply doesn't fit within this site's format.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Might be worth mentioning that this is the "Cauchy-Lipshitz theorem", if OP wants to check it out.
    $endgroup$
    – Frotaur
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Frotaur That's an interesting name for the Picard-Lindelöf theorem ;-).
    $endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    I still remember the favourite catch-phrase of the lecturer in my ODE course: "They way to solve this equation is to look at it until you see what the solution is". But actually, the OP's equation is linear with constant coefficients, and the general theory of how to solve them is well known. A better answer would be "because $e^{i omega t} = cos omega t + i sin omega t$."
    $endgroup$
    – alephzero
    1 hour ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @alephzero There are no "better" answers - that's the whole point.
    $endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    14 mins ago










  • $begingroup$
    @alephzero How is it better...?
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    7 mins ago



















2












$begingroup$


How can we assume so plainly that it should be sin or cosine only




It's literally just a guess. Those're obvious solutions which can be verified easily, and when they're such straightforward functions, you'll soon just be able to notice them. It's the like when you have an equation like $f'(x)=Ktimes f(x)$, you just see that the solutions are exponentials. After that, you know that for a differential equation like $f^{(n)}(x)=Kf(x)$ you can have upto $n$ solutions, so you aren't missing anything when you consider the sine and cosine.



It's a nice idea to not waste time/effort/space formally solving such equations when the solutions are canonical.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "151"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f462245%2fwhy-can-all-solutions-to-the-simple-harmonic-motion-equation-be-written-in-terms%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    6












    $begingroup$

    This follows from the uniqueness theorem for solutions of ordinary differential equations, which states that for a homogeneous linear ordinary differential equation of order $n$, there are at most $n$ linearly independent solutions.



    The upshot of that is that if you have a second-order ODE (like, say, the one for the harmonic oscillator) and you can construct, through whatever means you can come up with, two linearly-independent solutions, then you're guaranteed that any solution of the equation will be a linear combination of your two solutions.



    Thus, it doesn't matter at all how it is that you come to the proposal of $sin(omega t)$ and $cos(omega t)$ as prospective solutions: all you need to do is




    1. verify that they are solutions, i.e. just plug them into the derivatives and see if the result is identically zero; and

    2. check that they're linearly independent.


    Once you do that, the details of how you built your solutions become completely irrelevant. Because of this, I (and many others) generally refer to this as the Method of Divine Inspiration: I can just tell you that the solution came to me in a dream, handed over by a flying mass of spaghetti, and $-$ no matter how contrived or elaborate the solution looks $-$ if it passes the two criteria above, the fact that it is the solution is bulletproof, and no further explanation of how it was built is required.



    If this framework is unclear or unfamiliar, then you should sit down with an introductory textbook on differential equations. There's a substantial bit of background that makes this sort of thing clearer, and which simply doesn't fit within this site's format.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Might be worth mentioning that this is the "Cauchy-Lipshitz theorem", if OP wants to check it out.
      $endgroup$
      – Frotaur
      1 hour ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Frotaur That's an interesting name for the Picard-Lindelöf theorem ;-).
      $endgroup$
      – Emilio Pisanty
      1 hour ago










    • $begingroup$
      I still remember the favourite catch-phrase of the lecturer in my ODE course: "They way to solve this equation is to look at it until you see what the solution is". But actually, the OP's equation is linear with constant coefficients, and the general theory of how to solve them is well known. A better answer would be "because $e^{i omega t} = cos omega t + i sin omega t$."
      $endgroup$
      – alephzero
      1 hour ago








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @alephzero There are no "better" answers - that's the whole point.
      $endgroup$
      – Emilio Pisanty
      14 mins ago










    • $begingroup$
      @alephzero How is it better...?
      $endgroup$
      – Aaron Stevens
      7 mins ago
















    6












    $begingroup$

    This follows from the uniqueness theorem for solutions of ordinary differential equations, which states that for a homogeneous linear ordinary differential equation of order $n$, there are at most $n$ linearly independent solutions.



    The upshot of that is that if you have a second-order ODE (like, say, the one for the harmonic oscillator) and you can construct, through whatever means you can come up with, two linearly-independent solutions, then you're guaranteed that any solution of the equation will be a linear combination of your two solutions.



    Thus, it doesn't matter at all how it is that you come to the proposal of $sin(omega t)$ and $cos(omega t)$ as prospective solutions: all you need to do is




    1. verify that they are solutions, i.e. just plug them into the derivatives and see if the result is identically zero; and

    2. check that they're linearly independent.


    Once you do that, the details of how you built your solutions become completely irrelevant. Because of this, I (and many others) generally refer to this as the Method of Divine Inspiration: I can just tell you that the solution came to me in a dream, handed over by a flying mass of spaghetti, and $-$ no matter how contrived or elaborate the solution looks $-$ if it passes the two criteria above, the fact that it is the solution is bulletproof, and no further explanation of how it was built is required.



    If this framework is unclear or unfamiliar, then you should sit down with an introductory textbook on differential equations. There's a substantial bit of background that makes this sort of thing clearer, and which simply doesn't fit within this site's format.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Might be worth mentioning that this is the "Cauchy-Lipshitz theorem", if OP wants to check it out.
      $endgroup$
      – Frotaur
      1 hour ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Frotaur That's an interesting name for the Picard-Lindelöf theorem ;-).
      $endgroup$
      – Emilio Pisanty
      1 hour ago










    • $begingroup$
      I still remember the favourite catch-phrase of the lecturer in my ODE course: "They way to solve this equation is to look at it until you see what the solution is". But actually, the OP's equation is linear with constant coefficients, and the general theory of how to solve them is well known. A better answer would be "because $e^{i omega t} = cos omega t + i sin omega t$."
      $endgroup$
      – alephzero
      1 hour ago








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @alephzero There are no "better" answers - that's the whole point.
      $endgroup$
      – Emilio Pisanty
      14 mins ago










    • $begingroup$
      @alephzero How is it better...?
      $endgroup$
      – Aaron Stevens
      7 mins ago














    6












    6








    6





    $begingroup$

    This follows from the uniqueness theorem for solutions of ordinary differential equations, which states that for a homogeneous linear ordinary differential equation of order $n$, there are at most $n$ linearly independent solutions.



    The upshot of that is that if you have a second-order ODE (like, say, the one for the harmonic oscillator) and you can construct, through whatever means you can come up with, two linearly-independent solutions, then you're guaranteed that any solution of the equation will be a linear combination of your two solutions.



    Thus, it doesn't matter at all how it is that you come to the proposal of $sin(omega t)$ and $cos(omega t)$ as prospective solutions: all you need to do is




    1. verify that they are solutions, i.e. just plug them into the derivatives and see if the result is identically zero; and

    2. check that they're linearly independent.


    Once you do that, the details of how you built your solutions become completely irrelevant. Because of this, I (and many others) generally refer to this as the Method of Divine Inspiration: I can just tell you that the solution came to me in a dream, handed over by a flying mass of spaghetti, and $-$ no matter how contrived or elaborate the solution looks $-$ if it passes the two criteria above, the fact that it is the solution is bulletproof, and no further explanation of how it was built is required.



    If this framework is unclear or unfamiliar, then you should sit down with an introductory textbook on differential equations. There's a substantial bit of background that makes this sort of thing clearer, and which simply doesn't fit within this site's format.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    This follows from the uniqueness theorem for solutions of ordinary differential equations, which states that for a homogeneous linear ordinary differential equation of order $n$, there are at most $n$ linearly independent solutions.



    The upshot of that is that if you have a second-order ODE (like, say, the one for the harmonic oscillator) and you can construct, through whatever means you can come up with, two linearly-independent solutions, then you're guaranteed that any solution of the equation will be a linear combination of your two solutions.



    Thus, it doesn't matter at all how it is that you come to the proposal of $sin(omega t)$ and $cos(omega t)$ as prospective solutions: all you need to do is




    1. verify that they are solutions, i.e. just plug them into the derivatives and see if the result is identically zero; and

    2. check that they're linearly independent.


    Once you do that, the details of how you built your solutions become completely irrelevant. Because of this, I (and many others) generally refer to this as the Method of Divine Inspiration: I can just tell you that the solution came to me in a dream, handed over by a flying mass of spaghetti, and $-$ no matter how contrived or elaborate the solution looks $-$ if it passes the two criteria above, the fact that it is the solution is bulletproof, and no further explanation of how it was built is required.



    If this framework is unclear or unfamiliar, then you should sit down with an introductory textbook on differential equations. There's a substantial bit of background that makes this sort of thing clearer, and which simply doesn't fit within this site's format.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited 1 hour ago

























    answered 2 hours ago









    Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty

    83.4k22204419




    83.4k22204419








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Might be worth mentioning that this is the "Cauchy-Lipshitz theorem", if OP wants to check it out.
      $endgroup$
      – Frotaur
      1 hour ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Frotaur That's an interesting name for the Picard-Lindelöf theorem ;-).
      $endgroup$
      – Emilio Pisanty
      1 hour ago










    • $begingroup$
      I still remember the favourite catch-phrase of the lecturer in my ODE course: "They way to solve this equation is to look at it until you see what the solution is". But actually, the OP's equation is linear with constant coefficients, and the general theory of how to solve them is well known. A better answer would be "because $e^{i omega t} = cos omega t + i sin omega t$."
      $endgroup$
      – alephzero
      1 hour ago








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @alephzero There are no "better" answers - that's the whole point.
      $endgroup$
      – Emilio Pisanty
      14 mins ago










    • $begingroup$
      @alephzero How is it better...?
      $endgroup$
      – Aaron Stevens
      7 mins ago














    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Might be worth mentioning that this is the "Cauchy-Lipshitz theorem", if OP wants to check it out.
      $endgroup$
      – Frotaur
      1 hour ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Frotaur That's an interesting name for the Picard-Lindelöf theorem ;-).
      $endgroup$
      – Emilio Pisanty
      1 hour ago










    • $begingroup$
      I still remember the favourite catch-phrase of the lecturer in my ODE course: "They way to solve this equation is to look at it until you see what the solution is". But actually, the OP's equation is linear with constant coefficients, and the general theory of how to solve them is well known. A better answer would be "because $e^{i omega t} = cos omega t + i sin omega t$."
      $endgroup$
      – alephzero
      1 hour ago








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @alephzero There are no "better" answers - that's the whole point.
      $endgroup$
      – Emilio Pisanty
      14 mins ago










    • $begingroup$
      @alephzero How is it better...?
      $endgroup$
      – Aaron Stevens
      7 mins ago








    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Might be worth mentioning that this is the "Cauchy-Lipshitz theorem", if OP wants to check it out.
    $endgroup$
    – Frotaur
    1 hour ago




    $begingroup$
    Might be worth mentioning that this is the "Cauchy-Lipshitz theorem", if OP wants to check it out.
    $endgroup$
    – Frotaur
    1 hour ago












    $begingroup$
    @Frotaur That's an interesting name for the Picard-Lindelöf theorem ;-).
    $endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    1 hour ago




    $begingroup$
    @Frotaur That's an interesting name for the Picard-Lindelöf theorem ;-).
    $endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    1 hour ago












    $begingroup$
    I still remember the favourite catch-phrase of the lecturer in my ODE course: "They way to solve this equation is to look at it until you see what the solution is". But actually, the OP's equation is linear with constant coefficients, and the general theory of how to solve them is well known. A better answer would be "because $e^{i omega t} = cos omega t + i sin omega t$."
    $endgroup$
    – alephzero
    1 hour ago






    $begingroup$
    I still remember the favourite catch-phrase of the lecturer in my ODE course: "They way to solve this equation is to look at it until you see what the solution is". But actually, the OP's equation is linear with constant coefficients, and the general theory of how to solve them is well known. A better answer would be "because $e^{i omega t} = cos omega t + i sin omega t$."
    $endgroup$
    – alephzero
    1 hour ago






    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @alephzero There are no "better" answers - that's the whole point.
    $endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    14 mins ago




    $begingroup$
    @alephzero There are no "better" answers - that's the whole point.
    $endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    14 mins ago












    $begingroup$
    @alephzero How is it better...?
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    7 mins ago




    $begingroup$
    @alephzero How is it better...?
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    7 mins ago











    2












    $begingroup$


    How can we assume so plainly that it should be sin or cosine only




    It's literally just a guess. Those're obvious solutions which can be verified easily, and when they're such straightforward functions, you'll soon just be able to notice them. It's the like when you have an equation like $f'(x)=Ktimes f(x)$, you just see that the solutions are exponentials. After that, you know that for a differential equation like $f^{(n)}(x)=Kf(x)$ you can have upto $n$ solutions, so you aren't missing anything when you consider the sine and cosine.



    It's a nice idea to not waste time/effort/space formally solving such equations when the solutions are canonical.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      2












      $begingroup$


      How can we assume so plainly that it should be sin or cosine only




      It's literally just a guess. Those're obvious solutions which can be verified easily, and when they're such straightforward functions, you'll soon just be able to notice them. It's the like when you have an equation like $f'(x)=Ktimes f(x)$, you just see that the solutions are exponentials. After that, you know that for a differential equation like $f^{(n)}(x)=Kf(x)$ you can have upto $n$ solutions, so you aren't missing anything when you consider the sine and cosine.



      It's a nice idea to not waste time/effort/space formally solving such equations when the solutions are canonical.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        2












        2








        2





        $begingroup$


        How can we assume so plainly that it should be sin or cosine only




        It's literally just a guess. Those're obvious solutions which can be verified easily, and when they're such straightforward functions, you'll soon just be able to notice them. It's the like when you have an equation like $f'(x)=Ktimes f(x)$, you just see that the solutions are exponentials. After that, you know that for a differential equation like $f^{(n)}(x)=Kf(x)$ you can have upto $n$ solutions, so you aren't missing anything when you consider the sine and cosine.



        It's a nice idea to not waste time/effort/space formally solving such equations when the solutions are canonical.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$




        How can we assume so plainly that it should be sin or cosine only




        It's literally just a guess. Those're obvious solutions which can be verified easily, and when they're such straightforward functions, you'll soon just be able to notice them. It's the like when you have an equation like $f'(x)=Ktimes f(x)$, you just see that the solutions are exponentials. After that, you know that for a differential equation like $f^{(n)}(x)=Kf(x)$ you can have upto $n$ solutions, so you aren't missing anything when you consider the sine and cosine.



        It's a nice idea to not waste time/effort/space formally solving such equations when the solutions are canonical.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited 1 hour ago

























        answered 1 hour ago









        ChairChair

        4,26672137




        4,26672137






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f462245%2fwhy-can-all-solutions-to-the-simple-harmonic-motion-equation-be-written-in-terms%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Szabolcs (Ungheria) Altri progetti | Menu di navigazione48°10′14.56″N 21°29′33.14″E /...

            Discografia di Klaus Schulze Indice Album in studio | Album dal vivo | Singoli | Antologie | Colonne...

            How to make inet_server_addr() return localhost in spite of ::1/128RETURN NEXT in Postgres FunctionConnect to...