Defining a Lagrangian in an rotating reference frame frame

AI Thread Summary
Defining a Newtonian Lagrangian in a rotating reference frame requires careful treatment of time derivatives, specifically correcting for rotation using the formula involving angular velocity. The initial formulation led to confusion regarding the emergence of fictitious forces, such as centrifugal, centripetal, and Euler forces. The correct equation of motion was derived by recognizing that the temporal derivative should be the ordinary derivative, as velocity is defined in the rotating frame. Attempts to include a translation term in the Lagrangian resulted in inconsistencies, suggesting that such terms do not transform properly in a rotating frame. The discussion highlights the complexities of formulating Lagrangians in non-inertial reference frames.
mtak0114
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
Hi
I'm trying to define a Newtonian lagrangian in an
rotating reference frame (with no potential)

Something to note is that the time derivative of in a rotating reference frame must be corrected for by:

\frac{d {\bf B}}{dt} \rightarrow \frac{d {\bf B}}{dt} + {\bf \omega} \times {\bf B}

where B is some vector, this can be found in wikipedia

Therefore I get something like

L = \frac{1}{2} m(\dot{{\bf x}}+{\bf \omega} \times {\bf x})^2

where the dot is the time derivative
and I am expecting to get three ficticious forces: Centrifugal, centripetal and euler forces.
but this does not appear what am I doing wrong?

I believe the answer should be

m(\ddot{{\bf x}}+2{\bf \omega} \times \dot{{\bf x}}+\dot{{\bf \omega}} \times {\bf x}+{\bf\omega \times (\omega} \times {\bf x}))=0

I get this by taking the Newtonian lagrangian in a non rotating frame and calculating the euler lagrange equations of motion, and then transforming into the rotating frame. but the two results do not agree?

any help would be greatly appreciated :smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What is the equation of motion that you're getting?
 
This is the equation of motion I'm getting is:

m(\ddot{{\bf x}}+2{\bf \omega} \times \dot{{\bf x}}+\dot{{\bf \omega}} \times {\bf x}+{\bf\omega \times (\omega} \times {\bf x}))+m {\bf \omega} \times(\dot{{\bf x}}+{\bf \omega} \times {\bf x})=0

thanks

M
 
Ive work it out :smile:

the temporal derivative is the ordinary temporal derivative not the corrected one because this is the velocity which is already defined in the rotating frame of reference

thanks again

M
 
I think I've work it out:

the temporal derivative is the ordinary temporal derivative not the corrected one because this is the velocity which is already defined in the rotating frame of reference.
now this gives the correct equations of motion

Now if I choose an arbitrary frame of reference i.e. one that is rotating and translating
this does not work, i.e. if I choose a lagrangian:

L = \frac{1}{2} m(\dot{{\bf x}}+{\bf \omega} \times {\bf x}+\tau)^2

but this does not work.

I think this is because the translation term \tau is an object that does not transform like the coordinates x when in a rotating frame... The correct result should be the original plus

\ddot{\tau}

should there be a lagrangian for such a frame?

cheers

M
 
Last edited:
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