Dynamics Question-Parabolic Coordinates

AI Thread Summary
Parabolic coordinates are defined as ξ = r + x and η = r - x, with r potentially representing the radial distance in a two-dimensional system. The discussion revolves around deriving the kinetic energy expression and finding equations of motion using these coordinates. The user successfully manipulates the equations to express x and y in terms of ξ and η, ultimately deriving the kinetic energy formula. There is uncertainty regarding the form of potential energy, with a suggestion that it may be gravitational, and a consideration of using the action integral formalism. Clarification on these concepts is sought to proceed further in the problem.
QuantumLuck
Messages
19
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I am told that parabolic coordinates in a plane are defined by \xi = r + x and \eta = r - x. after this i am then asked to show that this leads to a given expresion for the kinetic energy (if i knew x and y i could find this without a problem). From this I am then told to find the equations of motion, an expression which i find very vague. I am in fact familiar with the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms (loosely) but I do not know what my expression for potential energy will be in this system (if i am on the right track here). Anyway, the main problem I am having at the moment is that I am very unsure as to what "r" is. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is this a two-dimensional problem (i.e. what system are you looking at)? If so, then my guess is that r=\sqrt{x^2+y^2}. From this, you could invert the equations and then recast your Lagrangian (or Hamiltonian) in these two new coordinates (since you should know what L=T-V looks like in Cartesian coordinates already). Maybe an obvious expansion will present itself when you see it in these new variables.
 
cipher42 said:
Is this a two-dimensional problem (i.e. what system are you looking at)? If so, then my guess is that \sqrt{x^2+y^2}. From this, you could invert the equations and then recast your Lagrangian (or Hamiltonian) in these two new coordinates (since you should know what L=T-V looks like in Cartesian coordinates already). Maybe an obvious expansion will present itself when you see it in these new variables.

so yeah i think this is right. so here is what i did; \xi = \sqrt{x^2+y^2}+x and then i squared both sides to obtain \xi^{2} = 2x^{2} + y^{2} + 2x \sqrt{x^2+y^2} and \eta^{2} = 2x^{2} + y^{2} -2x \sqrt{x^2+y^2} so now that i have these equations i have been playing around with them trying to look for a way to separate out the x and the y terms so i can get x and y in terms of \xi and \eta. the various i have tried to do this is to add and subtract these equations to each other, each resulting in a varying degree of failure. not sure where to go from here, if i have even went about this correctly.
 
QuantumLuck said:
so yeah i think this is right. so here is what i did; \xi = \sqrt{x^2+y^2}+x and then i squared both sides to obtain \xi^{2} = 2x^{2} + y^{2} + 2x \sqrt{x^2+y^2} and \eta^{2} = 2x^{2} + y^{2} -2x \sqrt{x^2+y^2} so now that i have these equations i have been playing around with them trying to look for a way to separate out the x and the y terms so i can get x and y in terms of \xi and \eta. the various i have tried to do this is to add and subtract these equations to each other, each resulting in a varying degree of failure. not sure where to go from here, if i have even went about this correctly.

oops I am dumb. clearly to find x i take \xi - \eta to find that \xi - \eta \ = 2x and as such \ x = (1/2)\xi - \eta so i then plug in x and find that \ y =\sqrt{\xi\eta} at which point i then showed that kinetic energy \ T=(m/8)(\xi+\eta)(\dot{\xi}^2/\xi +\dot{\eta}^2/\eta). the final thing that i now have to do for this problem is to write down the equations of motion. now since this is for a particle am i assuming that the potential energy is varying solely as a gravitational potential? it is not obvious to me at all. or rather should i go through the action integral formalism for this coordinate system?
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top