Is the Constraint Holonomic in This Situation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pushoam
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Constraint
Pushoam
Messages
961
Reaction score
53

Homework Statement


upload_2018-3-16_18-10-29.png


Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



The smallest distance between the bead's surface and the wire's surface is always constant and it can be expressed as an equation of coordinates. So, this is a holonomic constraint.

Is this correct?
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-3-16_18-10-29.png
    upload_2018-3-16_18-10-29.png
    10 KB · Views: 887
Physics news on Phys.org
Pushoam said:

Homework Statement


View attachment 222099

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



The smallest distance between the bead's surface and the wire's surface is always constant and it can be expressed as an equation of coordinates. So, this is a holonomic constraint.

Is this correct?
The wire moves through space in a complicated way. How do you interpret that? Can you ignore the motion of the wire in space? If you assumed a reference frame at rest with respect to the wire, could you ignore the effects of the wire's acceleration on the motion of the bead? Can you express the motion of the wire as a zeroth order differential equation?
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'

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...
View full post »
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Understanding Holonomic Constraints: Common Questions and Answers
Replies
2
Views
1K
I Requirement of Holonomic Constraints for Deriving Lagrange Equations
Replies
1
Views
1K
Bead on a rotating wire - holonomic or not?
Replies
11
Views
7K
Why is Hamilton's Principle assumed to be valid for non-holonomic systems?
Replies
25
Views
3K
Equations of motion of a system with non holonomic constraints
Replies
3
Views
1K
A Virtual work of constraint forces in Hamilton’s principle
Replies
7
Views
1K
Constraint force using Lagrangian Multipliers
Replies
6
Views
3K
Degrees of freedom and holonomic constraints
Replies
15
Views
2K
Lagrangian equations with other kinds of constraints
Replies
2
Views
1K
A Solving this non-holonomic system using Dirac-Bergmann theory
Replies
4
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top