Lagrangian for a Spherical Pendulum (Goldstein 1.19)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the Lagrangian and equations of motion for a spherical pendulum, leading to the expression L = 0.5*m*l²(ω² + Ω²sin²(θ)) - mgl*cos(θ). A key point of confusion arises when calculating the total time derivative of ∂L/∂Ω, with differing opinions on whether to include the ω factor in the second term. Clarification is provided that the potential energy function in the Lagrangian must be checked for accuracy, particularly regarding the definition of θ. Ultimately, it is confirmed that the conservation of ∂L/∂Ω is valid, as indicated by the equation (d/dt)(∂L/∂Ω) = 0.
Yosty22
Messages
182
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement



Find the Lagrangian and equations of motion for a spherical pendulum

Homework Equations



L=T-U and Lagrange's Equation

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
I found the Lagrangian to be L = 0.5*m*l222sin2(θ)) - mgl*cos(θ) where l is the length of the rod, ω is (theta dot) and Ω is (phi dot). Here, the angle θ is measured vertically down from the z-axis and Φ is measured in the xy-plane.

My question comes when solving the Euler-Lagrange equation for Φ, namely the term: (d/dt)(∂L/∂Ω).
The inner term, ∂L/∂Ω is easy enough: ∂L/∂Ω = ml2Ωsin2(θ). The trick for me is coming when finding the total time derivative of that. I've seen two sources online that give different values, but what I did was:

d/dt(∂L/∂Ω) = d/dt(ml2Ωsin2(θ)) = ∅*ml2*sin2(theta) + 2ml2Ωsin(θ)cos(θ)ω

Here, ∅ = (phi double dot). Is this right? A lot of things I have seen online leave out the ω = (theta dot) factor in the second term. This has to be there for a total time derivative, right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you think about the value of ##\frac{\partial L}{\partial \Phi}##, you should see that there is no need to worry about carrying out the total time derivative ##\frac{d}{dt} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \Omega}##.

Also, I'm not sure how you are defining ##\theta##. Does ##\theta = 0## correspond to the pendulum hanging vertically? That is, does the potential energy increase if ##\theta## increases? If so, I think you should check the sign of your potential energy function in the Lagrangian.
 
TSny said:
If you think about the value of ##\frac{\partial L}{\partial \Phi}##, you should see that there is no need to worry about carrying out the total time derivative ##\frac{d}{dt} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \Omega}##.

Also, I'm not sure how you are defining ##\theta##. Does ##\theta = 0## correspond to the pendulum hanging vertically? That is, does the potential energy increase if ##\theta## increases? If so, I think you should check the sign of your potential energy function in the Lagrangian.

Yeah, I just caught the potential energy problem myself and fixed it. However, I'm not quite sure what you mean about not needing to carry out the total time derivative. In the equation for Φ, ∂L/∂Φ = 0, so this would mean that the physical quantity described by (d/dt)(∂L/∂Ω) is conserved. Am I misunderstanding this? That is, would it just be the value corresponding to ∂L/∂Ω that is conserved rather than (d/dt)(∂L/∂Ω)?
 
Yosty22 said:
That is, would it just be the value corresponding to ∂L/∂Ω that is conserved rather than (d/dt)(∂L/∂Ω)?
Yes. The equation (d/dt)(∂L/∂Ω) = 0 implies that ∂L/∂Ω is conserved.
 
  • Like
Likes Yosty22
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...
Thread 'Conducting Sphere and Dipole Problem'
Hi, I'm stuck at this question, please help. Attempt to the Conducting Sphere and Dipole Problem (a) Electric Field and Potential at O due to Induced Charges $$V_O = 0$$ This potential is the sum of the potentials due to the real charges (##+q, -q##) and the induced charges on the sphere. $$V_O = V_{\text{real}} + V_{\text{induced}} = 0$$ - Electric Field at O, ##\vec{E}_O##: Since point O is inside a conductor in electrostatic equilibrium, the electric field there must be zero...
At first, I derived that: $$\nabla \frac 1{\mu}=-\frac 1{{\mu}^3}\left((1-\beta^2)+\frac{\dot{\vec\beta}\cdot\vec R}c\right)\vec R$$ (dot means differentiation with respect to ##t'##). I assume this result is true because it gives valid result for magnetic field. To find electric field one should also derive partial derivative of ##\vec A## with respect to ##t##. I've used chain rule, substituted ##\vec A## and used derivative of product formula. $$\frac {\partial \vec A}{\partial t}=\frac...
Back
Top