Goldstein Derivation 1.6: Nonholonomic Constraints in Particle Motion

DrHouse
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
1. The problem statement

A particle moves in the ##xy## plane under the constraint that its velocity vector is always directed towards a point on the ##x## axis whose abscissa is some given function of time ##f(t)##. Show that for ##f(t)## differentiable but otherwise arbitrary, the constraint is NONHOLONOMIC.

2. The attempt at a solution
I have got the differential equation relating the generalised coordinates (in this case they are ##x## and ##y## since the system has two degrees of freedom):

## ydx + [f(t)-x]dy = 0 ##

If the constraint equation is nonholonomic, then the previous integral can not be performed but it's true that it can be written as

## \displaystyle \int \frac{dx}{x-f(t)} = \int \frac{dy}{y}##


which, I think is an integrable expression in terms of logarithmic functions for any ##f(t)##. Some people say that the previous integral can not be performed in general due to the arbitrariness of ##f(t)##. Can anyone explain me why?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you forgetting that t must be considered as an implicit function of x and y in your differential expression? That is, f(t) cannot be considered as independent of x and y.
 
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