Verifying Lagrange Equations for Orbit around Massive Body

  • Thread starter Thread starter snoopies622
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Orbit
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on verifying Lagrange equations for a particle in orbit around a massive body, specifically focusing on two equations derived from classical mechanics. The first equation reflects conservation of angular momentum, while the second represents the net radial force acting on the particle. The participant expresses confidence in the correctness of these equations and discusses methods for solving them, including expressing r in terms of theta and utilizing Hamiltonian reformulation. They highlight that the system is analytically solvable and provide a transformation leading to a conic section solution for r. The conversation also touches on techniques for typing equations in the forum.
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:
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top