Center of Force, Generalized Potential

Parmenides
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
The problem states that a particle moves in a plane under the influence of the following central force:
<br /> F = \frac{1}{r^2}\Big(1 - \frac{\dot{r}^2 - 2\ddot{r}r}{c^2}\Big)<br />
and I am asked to find the generalized potential that results in such a force. Goldstein gives the following equation involving generalized forces obtained from a potential ##U(q_j , \dot{q}_j)##:
<br /> Q_j = -\frac{\partial{U}}{\partial{q}_j} + \frac{d}{dt}\Big(\frac{\partial{U}}{\partial\dot{q}_j}\Big)<br />
This question is apparently just solved by "guessing" the potential. The answer is:
<br /> U(r, \dot{r}) = \frac{1}{r} + \frac{\dot{r}^2}{c^2r}<br />
And this can be checked by taking the appropriate derivatives and plugging them into the general Lagrange equation above. However, I want to make sure this is the only way to arrive at it; just making a lucky guess seems pretty unsatisfying. Therefore, I tried the following approach:

Suppose that the generalized potential is a sum of two potentials, namely:
<br /> U(r, \dot{r}) = U_1(r, \dot{r}) + U_2(r, \dot{r})<br />
Where we consider the following Lagrange equation:
F = -\frac{\partial{U}}{\partial{r}} + \frac{d}{dt}\Big(\frac{\partial{U}}{\partial{\dot{r}}}\Big)
Which is just the general Lagrange equation specific to the problem. I then equate the following, on a hunch:
-\frac{\partial{U_1}}{\partial{r}} = \frac{1}{r^2}
and
\frac{d}{dt}\Big(\frac{\partial{U_2}}{\partial{\dot{r}}}\Big) = \frac{-\dot{r}^2 + 2\ddot{r}r}{c^2r^2} = \frac{-\dot{r}^2}{c^2r^2} + \frac{2\ddot{r}r}{c^2r^2}
The first equation is easily solved such that:
U_1(r, \dot{r}) = \frac{1}{r}
But the second equation is where I may be using dubious methods. It stands to reason that:
\frac{\partial{U_2}}{\partial{\dot{r}}} = \int\Big[\frac{-\dot{r}^2}{c^2r^2} + \frac{2\ddot{r}r}{c^2r^2}\Big]dt
I now take an uneasy step. Treat ##r## as a constant such that I pull them out, break up the integral, and write the time derivatives in their proper forms:
\frac{\partial{U_2}}{\partial\dot{r}} = -\frac{1}{c^2r^2}\int\Big(\frac{dr}{dt}\Big)^2dt + \frac{2r}{c^2r^2}\int\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}dt = -\frac{1}{c^2r^2}\int\frac{dr}{dt}dr + \frac{2r}{c^2r^2}\int\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}dt
The second integral is easy to interpret; it's just ##\dot{r}##. But for the first, I use integration by parts and reintroduce the dot notation to get:
\frac{\partial{U_2}}{\partial{\dot{r}}} = -\frac{1}{c^2r^2}\Big[\dot{r}r - r\int\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}dr\Big] + \frac{2\dot{r}r}{c^2r^2} = \frac{2\dot{r}}{c^2r}
where I collected terms of ##\frac{\dot{r}r}{c^2r^2}## and then simplified. The potential can now be solved as:
U_2(r, \dot{r}) = \frac{2}{c^2r}\int\dot{r}d\dot{r} = \frac{\dot{r}^2}{c^2r}
By adding ##U_1## and ##U_2##, I have arrived at the correct answer! But this could be problematic. After all, ##r## is dependent upon ##t##, but I treated it as a constant during my integrations. Thus, my question is: is this a happy accident as a result of bad mathematics or does my method have some justification and I've just left out some details?

Assistance would be greatly appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm sorry you are not finding help at the moment. Is there any additional information you can share with us?
 
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