Understanding the Dissipative Lagrangian for Coupled Oscillators

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter muzialis
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lagrangian
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of a specific Lagrangian for two coupled oscillators, particularly focusing on the implications of negative and positive friction in their equations of motion. Participants explore the physical meaning of the Lagrangian, energy conservation, and the behavior of the oscillators over time.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a Lagrangian that leads to equations of motion for two oscillators, questioning how it can correspond to oscillators with opposing friction characteristics.
  • Another participant notes that the energy defined from the Lagrangian remains constant over time, suggesting a verification method involving the solutions for velocities.
  • There is a concern about the artificial nature of the system and a request for practical applications of the Lagrangian.
  • One participant expresses confusion about the expected form of the Lagrangian for two harmonic oscillators, proposing an alternative expression that includes time dependence.
  • Another participant clarifies that the Lagrangian should not be a function of time but rather of coordinates and velocities, challenging the validity of the proposed expression.
  • Participants discuss the energy dynamics, questioning how energy dissipated in one oscillator can equal the energy input in the other, given their opposing behaviors.
  • It is suggested that the Lagrangian describes the system as a whole, complicating the attribution of energy to individual oscillators.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of the Lagrangian and the energy dynamics of the oscillators. There is no consensus on how to reconcile the behavior of the oscillators with the energy conservation claims made in the article.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the physical implications of the Lagrangian, particularly regarding the separation of energy contributions from each oscillator and the time dependence of the proposed Lagrangian forms.

muzialis
Messages
156
Reaction score
1
Hello,

I run across the following Lagrangian, $$\mathcal{L} = m \dot{x}\dot{y} + \frac{1}{2} \gamma (x \dot{y} - \dot{x} y) $$

I can see how a variation with respect to $$ x, y $$ yields the (viscous) equations of motions

$$ \ddot{x} + \dot{x} = 0 \quad, \quad \ddot{y} - \dot{y} = 0 $$.

In the paper I attach this Lagrangian is described as being the physical Lagrangian for two coupled oscillators, one with negative and the other with positive friction (hence one is exponentially stable, while the other is not, as the equation of motion stress).

I do not understand how the lagrangian $$ \mathcal{L}$$ can correspond to two such oscillators.
Moreover, the whole idea of the formalism seems to conserve energy, in the sense that the (non-dampening) oscillator will absorb all the energy dissipated by the viscous oscillator.
But then the two speeds should be in magnitude equal, and not like $$ e^{t}$$ and $$e^{-t}$$.

I struggle to understand the physical picture, I wounder if anybody could help.

Thanks you very much
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
I do not understand how the lagrangian
L
can correspond to two such oscillators.
You wrote two equations above, one is the equation of h.o. with friction, the other one has friction term with opposite sign, which leads to run-away.

The energy here is defined as
<br /> E = p_x \dot x + p_y \dot y - L = m \dot x\dot y.<br />
and since the Lagrangian does not depend on time, it should be constant in time.

You can verify this by multiplying the solutions for \dot x, \dot y - the exponentials will cancel out and the result does not depend on time.

However, all this seems very artificial - I would like to see some useful application of it.
 
Jano,

many thanks for your response.
I am still confused though.
1) Should not the Lagrangian for two harmonic oscillators (with equal mass m) be something like (I have the lingering feeling I am not seeing something obvious)
$$ \frac{1}{2}m (e^{-2t}+e^{2t}) $$
2) As you underline, oner h.o. will dampen exponentially, the other one will run away.
How is it possible then the energy dissipated in one equals the energy input in the other, as the article states?

Thank you ever so much
 
No problem muzialis.

1) Should not the Lagrangian for two harmonic oscillators (with equal mass m) be something like (I have the lingering feeling I am not seeing something obvious)
<br /> 1/2m(e^{−2t}+e^{2t})<br />

No, the Lagrangian is usually not a function of time, but a function of coordinates and velocities (their derivatives). The first formula for L you wrote is mathematically valid Lagrangian, but the function in the quote is not, because there are no coordinates/velocities.

2) As you underline, oner h.o. will dampen exponentially, the other one will run away.
How is it possible then the energy dissipated in one equals the energy input in the other, as the article states?

This seems like very imprecise way to say much simpler thing, that the total energy m\dot x\dot y is conserved. I do not see any simple way to define separate energy of the first and second oscillator; the Lagrangian describes the system as whole and the energy derived from it corresponds to the whole system as well.

If the energy came out as a sum of independent terms, then we could ascribe the terms to subsystems, but in this case, there is just one term, so it makes no sense to speak about the energy of one oscillator.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K