Does a Particle Moving on a Curve Separate Under Gravity?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on a particle moving along the curve defined by the equation ##z=a-bx^2## under the influence of gravity. The problem is approached using Lagrangian mechanics, with the Lagrangian expressed as $$\frak{L} = \frac{m}{2}(\dot x^2+\dot z^2)-mgz$$. Participants emphasize the need to apply the Euler-Lagrange equations and the constraint equation $$f(x,z)=a-z-bx^2=0$$ to derive the motion equations. The key takeaway is that to find the separation point of the particle from the curve, one must eliminate the Lagrange multiplier ##\lambda## from the differential equations and solve them accordingly.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lagrangian mechanics
  • Familiarity with Euler-Lagrange equations
  • Knowledge of differential equations
  • Concept of constraints in mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of the Euler-Lagrange equations in constrained systems
  • Learn about the Beltrami identity and its implications in Lagrangian mechanics
  • Explore Noether's theorem and its connection to constants of motion
  • Practice solving differential equations involving Lagrange multipliers
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physics students, particularly those studying classical mechanics, as well as educators and researchers interested in Lagrangian dynamics and constraint analysis.

Argelium
Messages
25
Reaction score
7

Homework Statement


Consider a particle moving over the curve ##z=a-bx^2## under the force of gravity. If the particle starts from rest at point ##(0,0)## (I'm guessing it means point ##(0,a)##), tell if the particle ever separates from the curve; if yes, find the point at which it does.

Homework Equations



$$\frak{L} = T-U$$

$$\frac{\partial\frak{L}}{\partial q_i}-\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial\frak{L}}{\partial \dot q_i}\right)+\sum_{k=1}^n \lambda_k\frac{\partial f_k}{\partial q_i} = 0$$

The Attempt at a Solution



Well, clearly it's a problem suited for Lagrangian mechanics. We have the coordinates to be ##x, z## and the Lagrangian to be

$$\frak{L} = \frac{m}{2}(\dot x^2+\dot z^2)-mgz$$

Then the Lagrange equations are:

$$m\ddot x+2b\lambda x=0$$

$$-mg-m\ddot z-\lambda = 0$$

Then applying the constraint we obtaint the equations:

$$m\ddot x+2b\lambda x=0$$

$$mg+2bm(x\ddot x+\dot x^2) = \lambda$$[/B]

How do I proceed to obtain ##\lambda##? I'm seriously stuck on here, so I'd appreciate if you could tell whether I am on the right track or not, and if yes, how to proceed.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You also need to use the constraint equation, which is the EL equation for ##\lambda##.
 
Yea, I wasn’t very explicit on the original post. But the constraint equation is

$$f(x,z)=a-z-bx^2=0$$

Using that and plugging them on the EL equations (of the first kind) we arrive at the last two equations I typed
 
You have two different differential equations, both involving ##\lambda##. You would typically eliminate ##\lambda## from those and solve the differential equations. Then you can find ##\lambda## by inserting the solution into one of the equations.

However, I suggest that you replace one of your EL equations by a suitable constant of motion.
 
Orodruin said:
You have two different differential equations, both involving ##\lambda##. You would typically eliminate ##\lambda## from those and solve the differential equations. Then you can find ##\lambda## by inserting the solution into one of the equations.

However, I suggest that you replace one of your EL equations by a suitable constant of motion.

However nothing is a constant of motion in this problem, right?
 
Argelium said:
However nothing is a constant of motion in this problem, right?
Why would you think so?
 
If I recall,##\dot q_i## is a constant of motion if ##\frac{\partial L}{\partial q_i}=0## and that is not the case here.
 
Argelium said:
If I recall,##\dot q_i## is a constant of motion if ##\frac{\partial L}{\partial q_i}=0## and that is not the case here.
This is only a sufficient condition for a constant of motion to exist, not a necessary one.

Hint: Does your Lagrangian depend explicitly on time?
 
Orodruin said:
This is only a sufficient condition for a constant of motion to exist, not a necessary one.

Hint: Does your Lagrangian depend explicitly on time?

It doesn't, but forgive me but I do not understand at all what does that mean for my problem?
 
  • #10
Are you saying that you have learned about when the Lagrangian does not depend on one of the coordinates explicitly, but you have not seen the Beltrami identity?

More generally, both are manifestations of Noether's theorem.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K