Dynamics problem using the Lagrangian

Amitayas Banerjee
Messages
31
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


IMG_20180409_202117.jpg


Homework Equations


IMG_20180409_203908.jpg


The Attempt at a Solution


IMG_20180409_203932.jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20180409_202117.jpg
    IMG_20180409_202117.jpg
    41.6 KB · Views: 899
  • IMG_20180409_203908.jpg
    IMG_20180409_203908.jpg
    28 KB · Views: 905
  • IMG_20180409_203932.jpg
    IMG_20180409_203932.jpg
    32.7 KB · Views: 892
Physics news on Phys.org
This answer is not matching with my book's answer...please help me...I have tried to solve the problem and have reached an answer though not correct...please do not close this question
 
Amitayas Banerjee said:
please do not close this question

Sorry, but forum rules do not permit posting equations as images. You need to use the PF LaTeX feature to post your actual equations. Help on that feature can be found here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/help/latexhelp/

Please start a new thread with the homework template filled out correctly using LaTeX. This thread is closed.
 
Last edited:
Note to other participants whose posts have also been deleted: using the PF LaTeX feature is a requirement for everybody. Please see the help page I linked to. Using it also has the nice side effect of removing any ambiguity about what symbols you intended to use.
 
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