Typo in Landau mechanics pendulum problem?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on a potential typo in the Lagrangian calculation for a pendulum problem from Landau's mechanics (3rd edition). The user identifies discrepancies between their derived Lagrangian and the textbook's version, specifically regarding the terms involving \(\gamma\) and \(\dot{\phi}\). Consensus among participants confirms the presence of typos in the textbook, particularly in the kinetic energy expression. The resolution involves recognizing that dropping the total time derivative leads to the correct result as stated in the text.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lagrangian mechanics
  • Familiarity with the concepts of kinetic and potential energy
  • Proficiency in calculus, particularly derivatives
  • Knowledge of complex numbers and their applications in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of Lagrangians for non-conservative systems
  • Explore the implications of total derivatives in Lagrangian mechanics
  • Review common errors in Lagrangian formulations
  • Investigate errata for classical mechanics textbooks, particularly Landau's works
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators teaching classical mechanics, and researchers working on Lagrangian formulations in dynamic systems will benefit from this discussion.

Peeter
Messages
303
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement



Attempting a mechanics problem from Landau's mechanics (3rd edition) I get a different answer, as shown below. Error by me, or typo in the textbook? I can't find any errata page for the text, but since it's an older book, perhaps no such page is maintained.

Chapter 1 problem 3a is to calculate the Lagrangian of a pendulum where the point of support is moving in a circle (figure in this google books url).

Homework Equations



See below.

The Attempt at a Solution

The coordinates of the mass are

p = a e^{i \gamma t} + i l e^{i\phi},

or in coordinates

p = (a \cos\gamma t + l \sin\phi, -a \sin\gamma t + l \cos\phi).

The velocity is

\dot{p} = (-a \gamma \sin\gamma t + l \dot{\phi} \cos\phi, -a \gamma \cos\gamma t - l \dot{\phi} \sin\phi),

and in the square
\dot{p}^2 = a^2 \gamma^2 + l^2 \dot{\phi}^2 - 2 a \gamma \dot{\phi} \sin\gamma t \cos\phi + 2 a \gamma l \dot{\phi} \cos \gamma t \sin\phi=a^2 \gamma^2 + l^2 \dot{\phi}^2 + 2 a \gamma l \dot{\phi} \sin (\gamma t - \phi).

For the potential our height above the minimum is

h = 2a + l - a (1 -\cos\gamma t) - l \cos\phi = a ( 1 + \cos\gamma t) + l (1 - \cos\phi).

In the potential the total derivative \cos\gamma t can be dropped, as can all the constant terms, leaving

U = - m g l \cos\phi,

so by the above the Lagrangian should be (after also dropping the constant term m a^2 \gamma^2/2
\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{{2}} m \left( l^2 \dot{\phi}^2 + 2 a \gamma l \dot{\phi} \sin (\gamma t - \phi) \right) + m g l \cos\phi.

This is almost the stated value in the text
\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{{2}} m \left( l^2 \dot{\phi}^2 + 2 a \gamma^2 l \sin (\gamma t - \phi) \right) + m g l \cos\phi.

It looks like an innocent enough typo (text putting in a \gamma instead of a \dot{\phi}). Also oddly, there's a second reference after that point that also doesn't make sense where they refer to the omission of the total derivative m l a \gamma \cos( \phi - \gamma t) ... a term that I didn't have when multiplying out my velocity?

Is there consensus that there are a pair of typos here, and if not, can somebody spot the error in my calculation?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Your calculation looks correct.

However, notice that the second term in the kinetic energy is:
<br /> \begin{align}<br /> &amp; m a l \, \gamma \, \dot{\phi} \, \sin(\gamma t - \phi) \\<br /> = &amp; -m a l \, \gamma \, (\gamma - \dot{\phi}) \, \sin(\gamma t - \phi) + m a l \, \gamma^2 \, \sin(\gamma t - \phi) \\<br /> <br /> = &amp; \frac{d}{dt} \,\left(m a l \, \gamma \, \cos(\gamma t - \phi) \right) + m a l \, \gamma^2 \, \sin(\gamma t - \phi)<br /> \end{align}<br />
After dropping the total time derivative, you get the master's result.
 
Dickfore said:
After dropping the total time derivative, you get the master's result.

Very clever (of both you and the master;). Thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
10K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K