Why Doesn't Constant Center of Mass Velocity Reduce Degrees of Freedom?

deuteron
Messages
64
Reaction score
14
Homework Statement
What are the constraints of the system?
Relevant Equations
.
1695823376364.png


Consider the above system, where both the wedge and the mass can move without friction. We want to get the equations of motion for the both of them using Lagrangian formalism, where the constraints in the solution sheet are given as:

$$y_2=0$$
$$\tan \alpha=\frac {y_1}{x_1-x_2}$$

However, since there is no net force on the system in the ##x-##direction, can't we also say that the center of mass has constant velocity, where we can choose an inertial frame in which ##\dot x_{cm}=0##, and thus

$$\dot x_{cm} =\frac {m_1\dot x_1 +m_2\dot x_2}{m_1+m_2}=0\ \Rightarrow\ m_1\dot x_2 = -m_2\dot x_2$$

which would reduce the number of degrees of freedom to ##1##?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Okay, but you were asked for the equations of motion.
 
deuteron said:
Homework Statement: Find the equations of motion
Relevant Equations: .

View attachment 332662

Consider the above system, where both the wedge and the mass can move without friction. We want to get the equations of motion for the both of them using Lagrangian formalism, where the constraints in the solution sheet are given as:

$$y_2=0$$
$$\tan \alpha=\frac {y_1}{x_1-x_2}$$

However, since there is no net force on the system in the ##x-##direction, can't we also say that the center of mass has constant velocity, where we can choose an inertial frame in which ##\dot x_{cm}=0##, and thus

$$\dot x_{cm} =\frac {m_1\dot x_1 +m_2\dot x_2}{m_1+m_2}=0\ \Rightarrow\ m_1\dot x_2 = -m_2\dot x_2$$

which would reduce the number of degrees of freedom to ##1##?
Not really. The system has two degrees of freedom, but under gravity alone, the motion of the small block down the wedge is related to the motion of the wedge.
 
PeroK said:
Okay, but you were asked for the equations of motion.
The constraints were a sub-question, I changed it now, sorry :')
 
PeroK said:
Not really. The system has two degrees of freedom, but under gravity alone, the motion of the small block down the wedge is related to the motion of the wedge.
Why is the relationship not a constraint that reduces the number of degrees of freedom? Wouldn't we know the position of the wedge if we knew the position of the mass, using ##\dot x_{cm}=0##?
 
deuteron said:
Why is the relationship not a constraint that reduces the number of degrees of freedom? Wouldn't we know the position of the wedge if we knew the position of the mass, using ##\dot x_{cm}=0##?
Suppose you put a small block on a larger rectangular block on a smooth surface. The system, under gravity alone, does not move. That doesn't mean it has zero degrees of freedom. The blocks are still free to move independently.
 
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