Calculating energy from the Lagrangian

  • Thread starter Thread starter mjordan2nd
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Lagrangian
mjordan2nd
Messages
173
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



While doing a problem I have found the Lagrangian to be L=\frac{1}{2}m \dot{r}^2 \left( 1 + 4a^2r^2 \right) + \frac{1}{2}mr^2 \dot{\theta}^2 -mgar^2. I have also shown that the angular momentum l is constant and is equal to l=mr^2 \dot{\theta}. I want to calculate the energy given this. I am getting two different answers based on how I do the problem and I'm not sure I understand why.

Homework Equations



E=\sum_{\alpha} \dot{q}^{\alpha} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}^{\alpha}} - L

The Attempt at a Solution



If I substitute the angular momentum into the Lagrangian first my Lagrangian becomes

L=\frac{1}{2}m \dot{r}^2 \left( 1 + 4a^2r^2 \right) + \frac{l^2}{2mr^2}-mgar^2.

To get the energy I only have to sum the r variable in the energy equation, which gives me an energy equal to

E=\frac{1}{2}m \dot{r}^2 \left( 1 + 4a^2r^2 \right) - \frac{l^2}{2mr^2} + mgar^2.

However, if I take the first Lagrangian, plug it into the energy equation this time summing for both r and theta, and then substitute in the angular momentum I get

E=\frac{1}{2}m \dot{r}^2 \left( 1 + 4a^2r^2 \right) + \frac{l^2}{2mr^2} + mgar^2.

Basically the sign of my second term is different. Intuitively, the second one seems correct but I don't quite understand what is wrong with the first approach. If I look at the solutions manual for the problem the angular momentum is plugged in directly to the Lagrangian, but the solution still comes out with an energy where all terms are positive. Can someone help me out with what's going on here?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your first method is not legal. You cannot eliminate a variable before taking the partial derivative.

See the example: f(x,y)= x+y. Determine the partial derivatives in case when y=x.

With the correct method \partial f/ \partial x =1, \partial f/ \partial y =1

With your method, f(x,y)=2x, \partial f/ \partial x =2. Is it correct? Now you calculated the directional derivative along the line y=x. It is not the partial derivative.

ehild
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top