What is the Lagrangian for a Particle in a Paraboloidal Bowl?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a particle of mass m moving on the surface of a paraboloidal bowl, with its position defined in a three-dimensional coordinate system. The particle is influenced by gravitational force and the task is to derive a suitable Lagrangian for the system, identify constants of motion, and analyze the height variation of the particle above the xy-plane.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to derive the Lagrangian and identify constants of motion, expressing confusion over integrating a complicated function. They question whether their approach is valid and if the form of the height solution relates to the quadratic equation.
  • Some participants suggest considering the behavior of \dot{r} at maximum and minimum heights, indicating a potential simplification in the analysis.
  • Others reflect on the parameterization of the radial vector and its implications for understanding the problem.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants exploring various aspects of the problem. Guidance has been offered regarding the behavior of \dot{r} at critical points, which may help clarify the original poster's approach. There is acknowledgment of confusion around the parameterization, but no explicit consensus has been reached.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the complexities of the Lagrangian mechanics framework, with specific attention to the gravitational effects and the mathematical relationships involved. The original poster expresses uncertainty about the integration process and the interpretation of variables within the context of the problem.

alliegator
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A particle of mass m moves on the surface of a paraboloidal bowl with position given by r=rcosθi+rsinθj+\frac{r^{2}}{a}k
with a>0 constant. The particle is subject to a gravitational force F=-mgk but no other external forces.
Show that a suitable Lagrangian for the system is
L=\frac{1}{2}m(\dot{r^{2}}(1+4\frac{r^{2}}{a^{2}})+r^{2}\dot{θ^{2}})-\frac{mgr^{2}}{a}

Find two constants of the motion

If J^{2}>2gp^{2}/a where J and p are the initial values of the Jacobi function and the momentum conjugate to θ, show that in the subsequent motion the height of the particle above to xy-plane varies between
h_{\pm}=\frac{J\pm\sqrt{J^{2}-2gp^{2}/a}}{2mg}

Homework Equations


Lagrangian= kinetic energy-potential energy
Kinetic energy=\frac{1}{2}m||\dot{r}||^{2}
Jacobi=\sump_{j}u_{j}-L

The Attempt at a Solution


I found the Lagrangian and I found p_{θ} to be a constant of the motion. I also found the Jacobi to be a constant of the motion because the Lagrangian has no explicit time dependence. Using the definition of the Jacobi (and also because in this case it is equal to the total energy) I found it to be \frac{1}{2}m(\dot{r^{2}}(1+4\frac{r^{2}}{a^{2}})+r^{2}\dot{θ^{2}})+\frac{mgr^{2}}{a}

I found p_{θ} to be mr^{2}\dot{θ}

I tried substituting \dot{θ}=\frac{p_{θ}}{mr^{2}} into the expression for the Jacobi and rearranging for \dot{r} and then integrating to find r but I ended up with a complicated function which I couldn't integrate. I also noticed that the solution of h is in the form of the quadratic equation so I don't know if that's anything to do with it. Am I completely on the wrong track or have I done something stupid that complicates everything? Any help will be greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You don't have to do an integral. What can you say about \dot{r} at the maximum and minimum heights?
 
Thank you so much. I can't believe I missed that, I can console myself with the fact that so has everyone else I have spoken to. So I used \dot{r}=0 and ended up with
\frac{r^{2}}{a}=\frac{J\pm\sqrt{J^{2}-2gp^{2}/a}}{2mg}
I'm guessing \frac{r^{2}}{a}=h
Is this because in the original r the \frac{r^{2}}{a} is with k which is the vector in the z direction. Does that even make sense outside my head? Sorry if it doesn't
 
Yes, I believe that's correct. I didn't pay much attention to the parameterization of the radial vector at first and was confused for a bit too.
 
Thank you, you have saved me several hours of unnecessary work and frustration :D
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K