Lagrangian and Euler-Lagrange Equation Problem

Yeah Way
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
First off, apologies if this is in the wrong forum, if my notation is terrible, or any other signs of noobishness. I just started university and I'm having a hard time with my first Lagrange problems. Help would be very much appreciated.

1. Homework Statement

A body of mass m is lying on a smooth, frictionless plane. The plane, which is originally horizontal, is lifted up at one end at a constant rate such that the angle of the plane with the horizontal at time t is θ = at.
This problem comes with a diagram which includes an arrow pointing down labled g. I presume this is a constant force g from gravity?

Homework Equations


I need to show that the lagrangian of the body, expressed in terms of the distance q from the base of the plane where it hits the horizontal, is
L = 1/2(mqdot^2) + 1/2(ma^2q^2) - mgqsin(at)

Also, determine the Euler-Lagrange equations for the system


The Attempt at a Solution


I understand that L = T - V and T = 1/2(mqdot^2), V = 1/2(kq^2); but after that, I'm just not sure what to do to make it look like it's presented in the problem. I'm not even sure what k should be for V. ma^2 ? If so, could someone explain why?

Thank you very much for reading.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hint: The ma^2 term does not come from the potential energy.
 
Orodruin said:
Hint: The ma^2 term does not come from the potential energy.
Thank you very much! Thanks to the hint, I was able to get somewhere during my break at work today.
So, I think I've worked out that the 1/2(mqdot^2) is the kinetic energy from the ball moving along the surface and the 1/2(ma^2q^2) is from the ball being moved upwards as the slope rises.

Since I'm working with gravity, V is obviously just mgh! xD So yeah, I've figured that part out too.

All I need to do now is find a nice way to express how I know what the kinetic energy is. Could you please give me an example?
 
Yeah Way said:
Thank you very much! Thanks to the hint, I was able to get somewhere during my break at work today.
So, I think I've worked out that the 1/2(mqdot^2) is the kinetic energy from the ball moving along the surface and the 1/2(ma^2q^2) is from the ball being moved upwards as the slope rises.

Since I'm working with gravity, V is obviously just mgh! xD So yeah, I've figured that part out too.

All I need to do now is find a nice way to express how I know what the kinetic energy is. Could you please give me an example?
If ##\vec{v}_1## and ##\vec{v}_2## are the velocity components along two perpendicular directions ##\vec{d}_1## and ##\vec{d}_2##, then isn't the kinetic energy just equal to
\text{K.E.} = \frac{1}{2} m \left( \vec{v}_1 \cdot \vec{v}_1 + \vec{v}_2 \cdot \vec{v}_2 \right) ?

You can get convenient perpendicular components by looking at the positions of the particle at two nearby times ##t## and ##t + \Delta t##, as shown in the attached figure.
 

Attachments

Ray Vickson said:
You can get convenient perpendicular components by looking at the positions of the particle at two nearby times tt and t+Δtt + \Delta t, as shown in the attached figure.
I think the easiest way is to simply consider polar coordinates in the plane of rotation. The rotation then implies a constraint ##\theta = at## on the angle.
 
Part two of the question asks me to find the Euler-Lagrange Equation of motion of the mass. I'll just put up my answer here and if one of you could please tell me if I'm right or off the mark, I'd be grateful. Once again, thanks for all the help so far.

mqdoubledot + mgSinat - ma^2q = 0
 
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