I Question on analytic mechanics

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the derivation of the kinetic energy expression for a bead moving along a parabolic path defined by y = b*x^2. The key point is that the velocity in the y-direction, y(dot), is derived using the chain rule, leading to y(dot)^2 being expressed as 4*b^2*x^2*x(dot)^2, rather than simply 4*b^2*x^2. This is crucial because it incorporates the time derivative of x, reflecting the bead's motion along the constrained path. The kinetic energy is then formulated as T = 1/2*m*(x(dot)^2*(1 + 4*b^2*x^2)), which accounts for the constraint imposed by the parabola. The discussion concludes that the motion can be analyzed using Lagrange multipliers or by eliminating one degree of freedom due to the constraint.
hagopbul
Messages
397
Reaction score
45
TL;DR Summary
There this example in analytical mechanics which I am not able to understand
Hello :

There is this example ,on analytical mechanics , which I am not able to understand why he solve it in that way

We have a bead moving on a parabola that it's equation is y = b*x^2

Find the equation of motion
Constrain equations :
y=b*x^2
z=0
The bead have only one coordinate call it x ,x(dot)=d(x)/dt, y(dot)=d(y)/dt , z(dot) = d(z)/dt
x(dot)^2 = x(dot)*x(dot)
Kinetic energy:
T = 1/2*m*(x(dot)^2+y(dot)^2+z(dot)^2)
=1/2*mx(dot)^2*(1+4*b^2*x^2)
Here is my question how he reached this above line
Why y(dot)^2 = 4*b^2*x^2*x(dot)^2
Shouldn't y(dot)^2 = 4*b^2*x^2

I am reviewing this class and just not able to find why it is like that

Regards
H
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Because the dot denotes derivative wrt time and not wrt x. It is just the chain rule of derivatives: ##dy/dt = (dy/dx)(dx/dt)##
 
  • Like
Likes Albertus Magnus and Gavran
The kinetic energy is $$ \frac12m|\vec v|^2 $$ where ## \vec v ## is a vector quantity which can be expressed in Cartesian coordinate system as ## v_x\hat i+v_y\hat j+v_z\hat k ##.
## |\vec v|^2 ## is ## v_x^2+v_y^2+v_z^2 ## and the kinetic energy can be expressed as $$ \frac12m(v_x^2+v_y^2+v_z^2) $$ which is the three dimensional generalization of the kinetic energy. ## v_x ##, ## v_y ## and ## v_z ## are one-dimensional velocities along the ## x ##, ## y ## and ## z ## directions and they can be expressed as ## dx/dt=\dot x ##, ## dy/dt=\dot y ## and ## dz/dt=\dot z ##, respectively.
## dy/dx=2bx ## is not a velocity and $$ \frac12m(\frac{dy}{dx})^2=\frac12m4b^2x^2 $$ can not be kinetic energy.
 
  • Like
Likes Albertus Magnus
In the case of the bead constrained on the parabola, the only forces present is the force of constraint. The motion is two dimensional, however, the constraint ##y-bx^2=0## reduces the configuration space to one dimension, thus we should expect one equation of motion. This problem can be handled with the technique of Lagrange multipliers or one can simply eliminate one degree of freedom by incorporating the constraint explicitly.
The kinetic energy is given by:$$T={m\over 2}({\dot x}^2+{\dot y}^2)={m\over 2}{\dot x}^2(1+4b^2x^2),$$ where the constraint has been used to eliminate ##y##. Since there is no potential or other external forces present the Lagrangian is such that ##L=T##. From the Euler-Lagrange equations we have that:
$$m\ddot x=\dot p={\partial L\over\partial x}=4mb^2x{\dot x}^2.$$ Finding the equation of motion is an easy step form this point.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top