I Writing the Lagrangians for different frames depending on how "the ball is dropped"

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on checking the homogeneity of vertical space using Lagrangians in the context of a dropped ball. Two Lagrangians are presented, illustrating passive transformations based on the relationship between different frames of reference. The first question addresses whether the Lagrangians represent passive transformations, while the second question explores how to write Lagrangians for active transformations involving different drop heights. The original poster expresses a desire to clarify their understanding and requests the closure of a previous thread deemed incorrectly framed. The thread concludes with confirmation of the closure and acknowledgment of the poster's resolution.
gionole
Messages
281
Reaction score
24
I wanna be checking homogeneity of space(only interested in vertical) for simplicity and example we can do is "ball is dropped". To check homogeneity, we use either passive or active transformation and I'm interested in lagrangians.

I heard that we can write lagrangians such as: ##L = \frac{1}{2}m\dot q^2 - mgy## and ##L' = \frac{1}{2} m\dot q'^2 - mg(y'+a)##. This comes from the fact that ##y = y'+a##. (we seem to have y and y' frame).

Question 1: it seems to me that lagrangians that I wrote are an example of passive transformation, because of ##y = y'+a##. It's like the ball is only dropped from single location(one experiment), but we write lagrangians for the ball such as seen from each frame. Is this right ? as in, am I right that this is passive, or can we also call it active ?

Question 2: Active transformation seems such as ball must be dropped from 2 different locations(2 different locations). So we drop a ball from some height, and then we move up and drop it from higher location. How would we go about writing Lagrangians for each experiment ? using the same lagrangians as shown above doesn't seem correct to me, as I think it's passive.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
@berkeman would love to remove that thread as the question there is not asked correctly. but i can't delete it.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
gionole said:
@berkeman would love to remove that thread as the question there is not asked correctly. but i can't delete it.
Okay, I closed off the previous thread with a note pointing to this improved version here.
 
@berkeman can you close this as well ? Don't want people to spend time on it. I've figured it out. Thanks.
 
Sure, thanks for the heads-up. I've closed off this thread now; I'm glad that you figured it out.
 
  • Like
Likes gionole
Thread 'The rocket equation, one more time'
I already posted a similar thread a while ago, but this time I want to focus exclusively on one single point that is still not clear to me. I just came across this problem again in Modern Classical Mechanics by Helliwell and Sahakian. Their setup is exactly identical to the one that Taylor uses in Classical Mechanics: a rocket has mass m and velocity v at time t. At time ##t+\Delta t## it has (according to the textbooks) velocity ##v + \Delta v## and mass ##m+\Delta m##. Why not ##m -...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K