How Do You Derive the Lagrangian for a Circuit with Repeated Cells?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the Lagrangian for a circuit with repeated cells, specifically addressing the equations of motion related to capacitance and inductance. The proposed Lagrangian includes terms for kinetic and potential energy but lacks clarity on how to derive the expected energy and Hamiltonian expressions. Participants express uncertainty about the validity of the suggested Lagrangian while emphasizing the need for a correct formulation to align with the equations of motion. The conversation also touches on the permissibility of discussing and exchanging ideas with peers in the context of academic integrity. Ultimately, the thread seeks guidance on refining the Lagrangian to accurately reflect the system's dynamics.
T-7
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
Hello folks,

I could really do with a few hints with this. (As soon as possible!)

Homework Statement



For a repeated line of cells, two 'equations of motion' can be written:

C_{n}\dot{U_{n+1}} = I_{n}-I_{n+1}
L_{n}\dot{I_{n}} = U_{n} - U_{n+1}

where C_{n} is the capacitance, U_{n+1} the voltage after the nth cell, I_{n}-I_{n+1} the charging current, L_{n} the inductance.

Work out the Lagrangian that generated these equations.

You should find that

E = \sum_{n}\left( (1/2)\L_{n}\dot{Q_{n}}^{2} + (1/2)C_{n}U_{n+1}^{2} \right)

and

H = (1/2)\sum_{n}\left( \frac{P_{n}^{2}}{L_n}} + \frac{(Q_{n+1}-Q_{n})^{2}}{C_{n}} \right)

Homework Equations



Note that
Q_{n} = -\int I_{n} dt => C_{n}U_{n+1} = Q_{n+1} - Q_{n}

The Attempt at a Solution



I have suggested a Lagrangian of

L = (1/2)L_{n}\dot{Q_{n}}^{2} + Q_{n}(U_{n+1}-U_{n}) + (1/2)C_{n}\dot{U_{n+1}^{2}} + U_{n+1}(I_{n}-I_{n+1})

(which can be turned into a sum for all the repeated circuits)

but it doesn't seem convincing, despite the fact that you can recover the original 'equations of motion' using Euler-Lagrange equations (using Q and U).

I'm not sure how the energy is being derived from the Lag. in this case (in mechanics, it was always the case that L = T - U, hence E = T + U), and it seems clear that you aren't going to get either that expression for the energy or that Hamiltonian from my guess-work Lagrangian.

Any suggestions?

Many thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't think Ulf would like this any more than Chris.
 
Anony-mouse said:
I don't think Ulf would like this any more than Chris.

What?
 
malawi_glenn said:
What?

I think Anony. is under the impression that, being part of a set Q, this isn't up for discussion. According to the tutor I asked, we *can* discuss these Qs with other Physicists, exchange ideas, argue, etc. What we're not allowed to do is just copy someone's answer (which PhysicsForums also prohibits).
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top