Solving Problem 1.8: Angular Momentum Conservation?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around Problem 1.8 from Goldstein's mechanics, which involves a system of three particles with specific forces and potentials. The Lagrangian derived for the system is presented, incorporating both the potential and kinetic energy terms. There is uncertainty regarding the conservation of angular momentum, with the initial thought being that it should be conserved due to the absence of external torque. The conversation suggests using Noether's theorem to analyze the Lagrangian's behavior under rotations, although the theorem has not yet been covered in the text. The participants are seeking guidance on how to approach the calculations necessary to confirm or refute angular momentum conservation.
Peeter
Messages
303
Reaction score
3
Problem 1.8 from a Goldstein's mechanics text, is (verbatim since it's hard to describe otherwise) :

"A system is composed of three particles of equal mass m.
Between any two of them there are forces derivable from a potential

<br /> V = -g e^{-\mu r}<br />

where r is the disance between the two particles. In addition, two of the
particles each exert a force on the third which can be
obtained from a generalized potential of the form

<br /> U = -f \mathbf{v} \cdot \mathbf{r}<br />

\mathbf{v} being the relative velocity of the interacting particles
and f a constant. Set up the Lagragian for the system, using as coordinates the
radius vector \mathbf{R} of the center of mass and the two vectors

<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> \boldsymbol{\rho}_1 &amp;= \mathbf{r}_1 - \mathbf{r}_3 \\<br /> \boldsymbol{\rho}_2 &amp;= \mathbf{r}_2 - \mathbf{r}_3<br /> \end{align*}<br />

Is the total angular momentum of the system conserved?"

For the Lagrangian I get:

<br /> \mathcal{L} =<br /> g \left( <br /> e^{-\mu \left\vert{\boldsymbol{\rho}_1}\right\rvert} <br /> + e^{-\mu \left\vert{\boldsymbol{\rho}_2}\right\rvert} <br /> + e^{-\mu \left\vert{ \boldsymbol{\rho}_1 - \boldsymbol{\rho}_2 }\right\rvert} \right)<br /> + f \left(\mathbf{R} - \frac{1}{3}(\boldsymbol{\rho}_1 + \boldsymbol{\rho}_2) \right) \cdot \left( \dot{\boldsymbol{\rho}_1} + \dot{\boldsymbol{\rho}_2} \right)<br />

For the part about the angular momentum conservation I'm not as sure. Since there is no external torque on the system I think that the angular momentum is conserved.

However, perhaps the idea of the problem is to show this explicitly given the Lagrangian. It's not clear to me an effective approach to do so though, as this looks like a messy calculation, and I haven't actually tried doing so.

Does anybody have any hint (which could be "suck it up, and do the calculations") for me if there is a way to show or disprove the momentum part of the question if the answer isn't just "there is no external torque".
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Use Noether's theorem: How does the lagrangian transform under rotations?
 
Thanks for the tip Count. Noether's theorem hasn't been covered yet in the text, but I'll take a look forward (and/or in David Tong's online dynamics pdf).
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Let there be a person in a not yet optimally designed sled at h meters in height. Let this sled free fall but user can steer by tilting their body weight in the sled or by optimal sled shape design point it in some horizontal direction where it is wanted to go - in any horizontal direction but once picked fixed. How to calculate horizontal distance d achievable as function of height h. Thus what is f(h) = d. Put another way, imagine a helicopter rises to a height h, but then shuts off all...
Back
Top