Double Pendulum Generalized Coordinates

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the choice of generalized coordinates for a double pendulum, specifically the use of the second angle measured from the vertical y-axis. It is noted that this second angle is dependent on the first, raising the question of why it isn't measured relative to the first mass instead. Both methods of measurement are valid and yield equivalent dynamics, but using the vertical axis simplifies the Lagrangian due to symmetries. In practical applications, measuring the second angle relative to the first mass may be more intuitive. Ultimately, the choice of coordinate system does not affect the resulting equations of motion.
phys_1
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
The picture for the double pendulum I am referring to is pretty standard, wikipedia for example uses it and so does any other textbook.
I do not completely understand why one uses the second angle measured from the vertical y-axis for the second generalized coordinate. The second angle is not independent of the first, that is if the first angle moves, so does the second. Why not use the angle measured relative from the first mass to measure the second mass, that is use the angle that is calculated from being in the first masses reference frame for the second mass. This way, the second angle is independent of the first angle. Thanks for any help, I really appreciate it!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Both formulations are completely fine. In terms of an implementation for measurement in a practical setting, it would make more sense to develop the equations of motion with the second angle being measured relative to the first, but both procedures are equivalent and produce identical dynamics
 
Lagrangian is slightly simpler if you measure second angle relative to a fixed axis, vertical being the easiest due to symmetries. By the time you get to actual equations of motion, though, it won't matter.
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces not real just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Similar threads

A Modeling the damping of a physical rigid pendulum
Replies
1
Views
2K
I Solving for the Motion of a Spring Pendulum
2
Replies
76
Views
6K
Lagrangian function of a double undamped pendulum
Replies
6
Views
2K
Deriving Kinetic Energy in a Double Pendulum System
Replies
4
Views
2K
Kinetic Energy of Double Compound Pendulum and Parallel Axis
Replies
2
Views
2K
B Extending the Lagrangian of a double pendulum to more complex systems
Replies
3
Views
1K
Pendulum velocity at any given angle
Replies
4
Views
13K
Pendulum attached to a rotating vertical disk
Replies
2
Views
1K
I Lagrangian for pendulum
Replies
11
Views
2K
Lagrangian for released double pendulum
Replies
7
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top