Varying inclination on plane: Undetermined multipliers

  • Thread starter Thread starter davidbenari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Plane
davidbenari
Messages
466
Reaction score
18

Homework Statement


A particle of mass ##m## rests on a smooth plane. The plane is raised to an inclination ##\theta## at constant rate ##\alpha##. Find the constraint force.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


##L=\frac{1}{2}m(\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2)-mgy## Lagrangian

##f=\frac{y}{x}-\tan\alpha t = 0 ## constraint equation

##\partial_y f = \frac{1}{x}##

##\partial_x f = \frac{-y}{x^2}##

##\partial_q L - d_t \partial_\dot{q} L + \lambda \partial_q f = 0 ## Method of undetermined multipliers formula.

##\to \boxed{m\ddot{x}+\lambda \frac{y}{x^2} = 0} \quad \boxed{mg+m\ddot{y}=\frac{\lambda}{x}}##

Using tedious manipulation I've gotten to the point where I can say

##\ddot{x}x+\ddot{y}y+gy=0##

And haven't found any other useful formula.

I know I could switch to a polar coordinate basis and find ##r(t)## there and solve ##x## and ##y## and indirectly find constraint forces, but I'm not interested in that. Unless I'm clearly using the Lagrange undetermined multipliers.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Here's an idea: Write the Lagrangian in terms of polar coordinates, but keep both ## r ## and ## \phi ## as the generalized coordinates - do not incorporate the constraint into the kinetic or potential energy terms. Rather, incorporate it through the Lagrange multiplier technique.
 
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