2 Body Radial Equation, Effective Potential derivation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the derivation of the effective potential U_{eff} in a two-body radial equation using Lagrangian mechanics. The correct effective potential is derived as V(r) + \frac{l^2}{2\mu r^2} when substituting angular momentum after applying Lagrange's equation. An incorrect result arises when substituting angular momentum before taking derivatives, leading to V(r) - \frac{l^2}{2\mu r^2}. The confusion stems from the independence of the equations of motion for r and φ, which affects the action principle. Understanding the relationship between r and φ(dot) is crucial for deriving the correct effective potential.
vancouver_water
Messages
76
Reaction score
10
According to my textbook, in the derivation for the effective potential U_{eff}, starting with the Lagrangian L = \frac{1}{2}\mu(\dot r^2 +r^2\dot\phi^2) -V(r), substituting into Lagrange's equation gives \mu\ddot r = -\frac{\partial V}{\partial r} + \frac{l^2}{\mu r^3} = -\frac{\partial}{\partial r}(V(r) + \frac{l^2}{2\mu r^2}), where the substitution \dot\phi = \frac{l}{r^2\mu} is made after substituting into Lagrange's equation and the effective potential is V(r) + \frac{l^2}{2\mu r^2} and l is the angular momentum.

However, when I do the derivation by first substituting the angular momentum, it goes like this: Starting with L = \frac{1}{2}\mu(\dot r^2 +\frac{l^2}{\mu^2 r^2}) -V(r), then substituting into lagranges equation gives \mu\ddot r = -\frac{\partial V}{\partial r} - \frac{l^2}{\mu r^3} = -\frac{\partial}{\partial r}(V(r) - \frac{l^2}{2\mu r^2}), where the effective potential is V(r) - \frac{l^2}{2\mu r^2}.

This is the wrong result, but I can't see why substituting angular momentum before or after taking the derivatives should make any difference.

Thanks for any help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
vancouver_water said:
This is the wrong result, but I can't see why substituting angular momentum before or after taking the derivatives should make any difference.

actually we use r,theta description.
here theta is replaced by phi...
no matter but r, dr/dt, phi, dphi/dt are the generalised coordinates and velocities ;
naturally one has two Lagranges equations - and if the result of second Lagranges equation is put in the definition of L itself to describe r-ewuation ; you have problem - the two are independent equations in r and phi.
so the action principle must be getting affected.
r^2. phi(dot) is a constant -where r and phi(dot) both can vary such that the product is a constant.
the error lies in the r-equation as this condition which implicitly connects r and phi(dot) is no longer an independent equation of motion in r.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top