Verifying Lagrange Equations for Orbit around Massive Body

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter snoopies622
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Orbit
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Lagrange equations to analyze the motion of a particle in orbit around a massive body, focusing on the derivation and verification of the equations of motion using classical mechanics. Participants explore methods for solving these equations, including the treatment of variables and potential reformulations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the Lagrange equations for a particle in orbit, expressing them as \(2 \dot r \dot \theta + r \ddot \theta = 0\) and \(\ddot r - r \dot \theta^2 + \frac{GM}{r^2} = 0\).
  • Another participant agrees with the correctness of the equations, interpreting the first as a representation of angular momentum conservation and the second as the balance of forces acting on the particle.
  • A participant inquires about the method for solving the second-order differential equations, suggesting a potential approach of treating one variable as a constant.
  • Another participant suggests that solving the equations requires expressing \(r\) in terms of \(\theta\) and integrating, mentioning that reformulating the problem in terms of the Hamiltonian might be beneficial.
  • One participant provides a detailed substitution method to express the equations in terms of \(u = 1/r\) and derives a form that resembles a standard second-order differential equation.
  • A later reply presents a derived equation for \(u\) and suggests that it leads to a conic section solution for \(r\), while also indicating a desire to express \(\theta\) in terms of time.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of confidence in the correctness of the equations and methods proposed, but there is no consensus on a definitive solution or approach to solving the equations. Multiple perspectives on the methods and interpretations remain present.

Contextual Notes

Some participants mention the need for further integration and substitutions, indicating that the problem may involve complexities that depend on specific assumptions or definitions. The discussion includes various methods for approaching the equations without resolving which is the most effective.

snoopies622
Messages
852
Reaction score
29
I am trying out the Lagrange equations for the first time, in this case for a particle in orbit around a massive body using classical mechanics. I come up with

<br /> 2 \dot r \dot \theta + r \ddot \theta = 0

<br /> \ddot r - r \dot \theta ^2 + \frac {GM}{r^2}=0<br /> <br />

These seem credible to me but are unfamiliar. Are they correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
OK, I just gave them a second look and now think they are correct. The first one represents conservation of angular momentum (just take the first derivative of mr^2 \dot \theta with respect to time, set it equal to zero then divide both sides by mr), and multiplying the second one by m represents the net radial force on the particle as the difference between the centrifugal force acting on it and the gravitational force.

Just in case anyone was interested...
 
Last edited:
By the way, how does one go about solving equations like these? I (vaguely) remember learning how to solve 2nd-order differential equations back in college but those were of only one variable. Do I just treat the other one as if it's a constant?
 
unfortunately, to solve these you have to express r in terms of theta, probably integrate at least once, and do another substitution. Sometimes reformulating the problem in terms of the hamiltonian helps. It definitely is an analytically solvable system though. Off the top of my head the first equation looks right, second one is at least close. If i have time i'll do this tomorrow but I need to find someone to help me with some questions on fluid mechanics first!

also, i should be more clear. there are many more powerful ways to solve 2nd order PDE's, but i think the method I described will work.
 
sorry,i don't know how to type an equation here,generally AlexGreen was right,in details,as you said,r^2*(dA/dt)=Constant(A is theta),you get dA/dt=C/r^2,you can substitute this to the second equation first,but the essential step is to express dotdot r as:r''=dr'/dA*dA/dt=C/r^2*dr'/dA,similarly, r'=dr/dA*dA/dt=dr/dA*C/r^2=-C*d(1/r)/dA,so r''=-C^2/r^2*(d^2)(1/r)/dA^2,and let u=1/r,put everything in the second equation,you get something like u''+ku=H (k,H are constants,and u'' is the second order derivative with respect to A),then you can solve it by standard method.
 
Thanks, kof9595995. I get

<br /> <br /> \frac {d^2 u}{d \theta ^2} + u = \frac {GM}{C^2}

where

<br /> <br /> C=r^2 \dot \theta.

which yields - I think -

<br /> <br /> r = \frac {1}{k sin \theta + \frac {GM}{C^2}}<br /> <br />

- a conic section, as one would expect. Now, to get \theta in terms of t..

If you want to know how to type an equation, just left-click on it and the details will appear! :smile:
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
511
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K