Goldstein Mechanics example motion of one particle in polar coordinates

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the derivation of the theta equation for the motion of a particle in polar coordinates from Goldstein's Classical Mechanics. A participant expresses confusion about the inclusion of the term involving the radial velocity, $$\dot r$$, in the derivative of $$mr² \dot \Theta$$. It is clarified that this term arises from applying the chain rule, as the radius can vary with time. The participant acknowledges the need for correct units in their own derivation and confirms their understanding of the chain rule application. The conversation emphasizes the importance of precise notation and understanding in classical mechanics problems.
Jillds
Messages
22
Reaction score
1
I have a course next semester on Classical Mechanics (mostly Lagrangian problems), for a second time. I'm ok for the theoretical preparation, but I'm trying to work ahead on problems and exercises, which was badly explained and without much of any resources. So, one of the sources to exercise on my own is Goldstein's book, and am just working through the examples of the first chapter.
However, for the second example I stumble across a derivation I'm confused how the author got to that one.

Example: motion of one particle in polar coordinates, page 27 (3rd ed), for the theta equation.

For the derivative of $$(mr² \dot \Theta)$$ he finds: $$mr² \ddot \Theta + 2 mr \dot r \dot \Theta$$.
While I expect it to be: $$mr² \ddot \Theta + 2 mr \dot \Theta$$
Where does Goldstein get the $$\dot r$$ from?

Edited: rewrote the question in LaTex notation
 
Last edited:
Science news on Phys.org
The second term is taking into account that the radius can vary in time. Use the chain rule.

You can also see that your second term doesn't have the right units, and you need a second time derivative somewhere.
 
Thank you: yes you are right, I don't have the same units in my second term as the first one. I'll make a note of it on the chain rule. I assume that would be the following one:

##\sum_{j} \frac{\delta^{2}L}{\delta q_{j}\delta \dot q_{i}} \dot q_{j}+\sum_{j} \frac{\delta^{2}L}{\delta \dot q_{j} \delta \dot q_{i}} \ddot q_{j}+\frac{\delta^{2}L}{\delta \dot q_{i} \delta t}##

Edited: added \dot LaTex notation
 
Last edited:
writing it out in a chain rule that would make for:

##\frac{d}{dt}(mr² \dot \Theta)= \frac{\delta}{\delta \dot \Theta}(mr² \dot \Theta)\frac{d \dot \Theta}{dt}+\frac{\delta}{\delta r}(mr² \dot \Theta)\frac{dr}{dt}=mr²\ddot \Theta+2mr \dot \Theta \dot r##

Is that correct?

Edited: added \dot LaTex notation
 
Last edited:
That looks right to me.

I should note that in LaTex you can write time derivatives using the \dot, e.g., $$\dot r.$$ For higher time derivatives just put as many 'd's as there are time derivatives, e.g., \dddot r is : $$\dddot r.$$
 
Last edited:
Thanks! That'll help with future notations.
 
Thread 'A quartet of epi-illumination methods'
Well, it took almost 20 years (!!!), but I finally obtained a set of epi-phase microscope objectives (Zeiss). The principles of epi-phase contrast is nearly identical to transillumination phase contrast, but the phase ring is a 1/8 wave retarder rather than a 1/4 wave retarder (because with epi-illumination, the light passes through the ring twice). This method was popular only for a very short period of time before epi-DIC (differential interference contrast) became widely available. So...
I am currently undertaking a research internship where I am modelling the heating of silicon wafers with a 515 nm femtosecond laser. In order to increase the absorption of the laser into the oxide layer on top of the wafer it was suggested we use gold nanoparticles. I was tasked with modelling the optical properties of a 5nm gold nanoparticle, in particular the absorption cross section, using COMSOL Multiphysics. My model seems to be getting correct values for the absorption coefficient and...
Back
Top